DOCSLIB.ORG

2015 WGW Photo-ID Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2015 WGW Photo-ID Report WESTERN GRAY WHALE ADVISORY PANEL WGWAP-17/8-EN 17th meeting 11-13 November 2016 PUBLIC GRAY WHALE (ESCHRICHTIUS ROBUSTUS) PHOTO IDENTIFICATION OFF NORTH-EAST COAST OF SAKHALIN IN 2015 Photo by Yu. M. Yakovlev Yu. M. Yakovlev, O.M. Tyurneva, V.V. Vertyankin, Peter van der Wolf Prepared for: Exxon Neftegas Limited and Sakhalin Energy Investment Company VLADIVOSTOK March 2016 WESTERN GRAY WHALE ADVISORY PANEL WGWAP-17/8-EN 17th meeting 11-13 November 2016 PUBLIC TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 7 1. STUDY OBJECTIVES .................................................................................................................. 7 2. MATERIALS AND METHODS ................................................................................................... 8 2.1. Methods for Field Studies ..................................................................................................... 8 2.2. Laboratory Methods ............................................................................................................ 11 3. SURVEY RESULTS ................................................................................................................... 12 3.1. Field work results ................................................................................................................ 12 3.2. Identification of whales and the number of animals ........................................................... 13 3.3. Frequency of Sightings and Migration of Identified Whales Between Known Feeding Areas on the shelf of Sakhalin Island ......................................................................................... 15 3.3.1. The Offshore Area ................................................................................................. 17 3.3.2. Piltun Area ............................................................................................................. 17 3.4. Cow-Calf Pairs .................................................................................................................... 19 3.5. Physical condition ............................................................................................................... 21 3.5.1. Condition factor ..................................................................................................... 21 3.5.2. Skin Condition ....................................................................................................... 25 3.6. Additional studies and data obtained in 2015. .................................................................... 26 3.6.1. Photo identification in the Piltun area in November and December ..................... 26 3.6.2. Photo identification in the Vostochny Wildlife Refuge (Sakhalin Island) in No- vember ................................................................................................................. 26 3.6.3. Photo identification in Olga Bay (Kamchatka Peninsula) in August .................... 26 4. DISCUSSION .............................................................................................................................. 27 4.1. Migration of Whales Between Sakhalin Feeding Areas ..................................................... 27 4.2. Whale Migration between Southeast Kamchatka and Sakhalin Island ............................... 28 4.3. Whale Migration between Other Areas and Sakhalin ......................................................... 28 4.4. Cow-Calf Pairs .................................................................................................................... 30 4.5. Physical condition ............................................................................................................... 30 5. CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................................................... 31 6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................................................................... 34 7. REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 35 8. STUDY PARTICIPANTS ........................................................................................................... 43 APPENDIX ...................................................................................................................................... 45 2 WESTERN GRAY WHALE ADVISORY PANEL WGWAP-17/8-EN 17th meeting 11-13 November 2016 PUBLIC ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 1: The number of gray whales recorded in the catalog and identified in 2002-2015 off the NE coast of Sakhalin Island. ........................................................................................................ 14 Figure 2. The percentage of whales sighted in the Piltun and Offshore feeding areas vs. the total number of known whales in 2015. (n=168). No whales younger than 4 years were seen in the Offshore area. ..................................................................................................................................... 17 Figure 3. The number of whales sighted in the main feeding areas NE off Sakhalin from 2002 through 2015. ..................................................................................................................................... 18 Figure 4. The ratio of gray whales sighted in the Offshore and Piltun Areas over all years of research (2002-2015, n=257) ............................................................................................................. 18 Figure 5. Percentage of Photoidentified Gray Whales within Each Physical condition Class Relative to the Total Number of Whales Recorded during the 2015 Field Season in the Offshore ar- ea. ....................................................................................................................................................... 23 Figure 6. Percentage of the gray whales identified for each Physical condition class to the to- tal number of whales observed in the Piltun area during the 2015 field season. ............................... 24 Figure 7. Percentage of the gray whales identified for each Physical condition class to the to- tal number of whales recorded on Sakhalin Island shelf during the 2015 field survey season.......... 25 Figure А1: Locations of Photo identified gray whale encounters north-east off the coast of Sakhalin Island in 2015. ..................................................................................................................... 46 Figure А2: Locations of Photo identified gray whale encounters off the north-east coast of Sakhalin Island in September for all years of 2002-2015 research. ................................................... 47 Figure А3: Conventional borders of gray whales research off the north-east coast of Sakhalin Island. ................................................................................................................................................. 48 3 WESTERN GRAY WHALE ADVISORY PANEL WGWAP-17/8-EN 17th meeting 11-13 November 2016 PUBLIC TABLES Table 1. Scopes of work completed by vessel-based and shore-based boat teams off Sakhalin Island during the 2015 expedition ........................................................................................................ 12 Table 2. Scope of Photo ID Operations performed off Sakhalin Island in 2015 by three vehi- cle-based teams .................................................................................................................................... 12 Table 3. 2015 gray whale identification off Northeast Sakhalin Island by survey teams ........ 15 Table 4. Frequency of Repeat Sightings of Photo Identified Gray Whales (IDW) photo- graphed by five teams off Sakhalin Island in 2015. ............................................................................. 16 Table 5. Frequency of Repeat Sightings of Identified Gray Whales (IDW) Off Sakhalin Island in 2002-2015. ....................................................................................................................................... 16 Table 6. Sighting Frequency of Cow-Calf Pairs and Calves Encountered without Cows Off- shore Sakhalin Island in 2015, with the Assigned Confidence Indices ............................................... 19 Table 7. Number of whales in subnormal physical condition sighted offshore Sakhalin Island in 2003–2015. ....................................................................................................................................... 21 Table 8. Physical condition of Sakhalin Island Gray Whales in 2015 ..................................... 22 Table 9. Year to Year Comparison of the Physical condition of 2014 Cows and Calves Rec- orded off Northeast Sakhalin Island in 2015........................................................................................ 25 Table А1. Scope of Photo identification work and average sea depth during each mission off Sakhalin Island in 2015 (data from vessel-based and shore-based boat teams) .................................. 49 Table А2. Number of gray whales identified off the north-east coast of Sakhalin Island in 2002 – 2015 .......................................................................................................................................... 50 Table А3. History of encounters with temporary whales .......................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Dangling Slab, Amplified Arc Volcanism, Mantle Flow and Seismic Anisotropy in the Kamchatka Plate Corner
    AGU Geodynamics Series Volume 30, PLATE BOUNDARY ZONES Edited by Seth Stein and Jeffrey T. Freymueller, p. 295-324 1 A Dangling Slab, Amplified Arc Volcanism, Mantle Flow and Seismic Anisotropy in the Kamchatka Plate Corner Jeffrey Park,1 Yadim Levin,1 Mark Brandon,1 Jonathan Lees,2 Valerie Peyton,3 Evgenii Gordeev ) 4 Alexei Ozerov ,4 Book chapter in press with "Plate Boundary Zones," edited by Seth Stein and Jeffrey Freymuller Abstract The Kamchatka peninsula in Russian East Asia lies at the junction of a transcurrent plate boundary, aligned with the western Aleutian Islands, and a steeply-dipping subduction zone with near-normal convergence. Seismicity patterns and P-wave tomography argue that subducting Pacific lithosphere terminates at the Aleutian junction, and that the downdip extension (>150km depth) of the slab edge is missing. Seismic observables of elastic anisotropy (SKS splitting and Love-Rayleigh scattering) are consistent \Vith asthenospheric strain that rotates from trench-parallel beneath the descending slab to trench-normal beyond its edge. Present-day arc volcanism is concentrated near the slab edge, in the Klyuchevskoy and Sheveluch eruptive centers. Loss of the downdip slab edge, whether from thermo-convective or ductile instability, and subsequent "slab-window" mantle return flow is indicated by widespread Quaternary volcanism in the Sredinny Range inland of Klyuchevskoy and Sheveluch, as well as the inferred Quaternary uplift of the central Kamchatka depression. The slab beneath Klyuchevskoy has shallower dip (35°) than the subduction zone farther south (55°) suggesting a transient lofting of the slab edge, either from asthenospheric flow or the loss of downdip load.
    [Show full text]
  • Western Bering Sea Pacific Cod and Pacific Halibut Longline
    MSC Sustainable Fisheries Certification Western Bering Sea Pacific cod and Pacific halibut longline Public Consultation Draft Report – August 2019 Longline Fishery Association Assessment Team: Dmitry Lajus, Daria Safronova, Aleksei Orlov, Rob Blyth-Skyrme Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 1 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014 Contents Table of Tables ..................................................................................................................... 5 Table of Figures .................................................................................................................... 7 Glossary.............................................................................................................................. 10 1 Executive Summary ..................................................................................................... 12 2 Authorship and Peer Reviewers ................................................................................... 14 2.1 Use of the Risk-Based Framework (RBF): ............................................................ 15 2.2 Peer Reviewers .................................................................................................... 15 3 Description of the Fishery ............................................................................................ 16 3.1 Unit(s) of Assessment (UoA) and Scope of Certification Sought ........................... 16 3.1.1 UoA and Proposed Unit of Certification (UoC) ..............................................
    [Show full text]
  • Ecoregion-Based Conservation in the Bering Sea
    Ecoregion-Based Conservation in the Bering Sea Identifying Important Areas for Biodiversity Conservation Contents Page# PART ONE: INTRODUCTION 3 1.2 Why conduct…. 3 1.3 Description… 4 1.4 Biolog Signif… 4 1.5 Changes…. 4 1.6 Conservation opps.. 5 PART TWO: WORKSHOP REPORT 8 2.1 Methodology: Assessing Biodiversity 8 2.2 Experts Workshop 10 2.3 Selecting Conservation Priorities:The Approach 10 Subregions: Bering Strait Bering Sea Shelf Kamchatka Shelf and Coast Aleutian Islands Aleutian Basin Taxa Birds Mammals Fish Invertebrates 2.4 Threat Assessment Summary 13 2.5 Additional Issues of Concern 16 PART THREE: BEYOND MAPS, TOWARD CONSERVATION 19 3.1 Lessons from Girdwood Workshop 19 3.2 Next Steps 21 Edited by: David Banks, Margaret 3.3 The Nature Conservancy and the Bering Sea 22 Williams John Pearce, Alan Springer, 3.4 WWF and the Bering Sea 22 Randy Hagenstein, and David Olson APPENDIX A: MAPS 2-9 A1 Publication design by Eric Cline 2 Subregions of the Bering Sea A2 3 Priority Bird Areas A3 Maps and GIS Data by: Emma BIRD TABLE A4 Underwood, Jennifer D’Amico, 4 Priority Mammal Areas A5 Carrie Wolfe, and Julie Maier MAMMAL TABLE A6 5 Priority Fish Areas A7 A collaborative effort by the FISH TABLE A8 World Wildlife Fund, 6 Priority Invertebrate Areas A9 The Nature Conservancy of Alaska, INVERT TABLE A10 and Participants in the 7 Overlapping Priority Areas for all Taxa A11 Girdwood Bering Sea Experts 8 Priority Areas for Bering Sea Biodiversity A12 Workshop March 20-23, 1999 9 Existing Protected Areas of the Bering Sea A13 Cover photo of walruses by Kevin APPENDIX B: PRIORITY AREA DESCRIPTIONS B1 Schafer, provided courtesy of the photographer APPENDIX C: LITERATURE CITED IN APP.
    [Show full text]
  • De Grave & Fransen. Carideorum Catalogus
    De Grave & Fransen. Carideorum catalogus (Crustacea: Decapoda). Zool. Med. Leiden 85 (2011) 407 Fig. 48. Synalpheus hemphilli Coutière, 1909. Photo by Arthur Anker. Synalpheus iphinoe De Man, 1909a = Synalpheus Iphinoë De Man, 1909a: 116. [8°23'.5S 119°4'.6E, Sapeh-strait, 70 m; Madura-bay and other localities in the southern part of Molo-strait, 54-90 m; Banda-anchorage, 9-36 m; Rumah-ku- da-bay, Roma-island, 36 m] Synalpheus iocasta De Man, 1909a = Synalpheus Iocasta De Man, 1909a: 119. [Makassar and surroundings, up to 32 m; 0°58'.5N 122°42'.5E, west of Kwadang-bay-entrance, 72 m; Anchorage north of Salomakiëe (Damar) is- land, 45 m; 1°42'.5S 130°47'.5E, 32 m; 4°20'S 122°58'E, between islands of Wowoni and Buton, northern entrance of Buton-strait, 75-94 m; Banda-anchorage, 9-36 m; Anchorage off Pulu Jedan, east coast of Aru-islands (Pearl-banks), 13 m; 5°28'.2S 134°53'.9E, 57 m; 8°25'.2S 127°18'.4E, an- chorage between Nusa Besi and the N.E. point of Timor, 27-54 m; 8°39'.1 127°4'.4E, anchorage south coast of Timor, 34 m; Mid-channel in Solor-strait off Kampong Menanga, 113 m; 8°30'S 119°7'.5E, 73 m] Synalpheus irie MacDonald, Hultgren & Duffy, 2009: 25; Figs 11-16; Plate 3C-D. [fore-reef (near M1 chan- nel marker), 18°28.083'N 77°23.289'W, from canals of Auletta cf. sycinularia] Synalpheus jedanensis De Man, 1909a: 117. [Anchorage off Pulu Jedan, east coast of Aru-islands (Pearl- banks), 13 m] Synalpheus kensleyi (Ríos & Duffy, 2007) = Zuzalpheus kensleyi Ríos & Duffy, 2007: 41; Figs 18-22; Plate 3.
    [Show full text]
  • GLOBAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM World Wildlife Fund
    GLOBAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM 1st Semi-Annual Progress Report October 1, 1999 – May 31, 2000 for World Wildlife Fund TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Summary of Activity Status and Progress Page # Introduction-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Highlights---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Table of Activity Status Project Management------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Bering Sea Ecoregion------------------------------------------------------------ 2 Southwestern Amazon Ecoregion---------------------------------------------- 3 Atlantic Forest Ecoregion------------------------------------------------------- 3-4 Forests of the Lower Mekong Ecoregion------------------------------------- 4-5 Sulu-Sulawesi Marine Ecoregion---------------------------------------------- 5 II. Detailed description of site progress Project Management---------------------------------------------------------------------- 6-9 Summary-------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6 Activity Description------------------------------------------------------------- 6-9 Table of Progress----------------------------------------------------------------- 9 Bering Sea Ecoregion--------------------------------------------------------------------- 10-19 Objectives------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10 Collaborators/Partners----------------------------------------------------------- 10 Summary--------------------------------------------------------------------------
    [Show full text]
  • Chronology of the Key Historical Events on the Eastern Seas of the Russian Arctic (The Laptev Sea, the East Siberian Sea, the Chukchi Sea)
    Chronology of the Key Historical Events on the Eastern Seas of the Russian Arctic (the Laptev Sea, the East Siberian Sea, the Chukchi Sea) Seventeenth century 1629 At the Yenisei Voivodes’ House “The Inventory of the Lena, the Great River” was compiled and it reads that “the Lena River flows into the sea with its mouth.” 1633 The armed forces of Yenisei Cossacks, headed by Postnik, Ivanov, Gubar, and M. Stadukhin, arrived at the lower reaches of the Lena River. The Tobolsk Cossack, Ivan Rebrov, was the first to reach the mouth of Lena, departing from Yakutsk. He discovered the Olenekskiy Zaliv. 1638 The first Russian march toward the Pacific Ocean from the upper reaches of the Aldan River with the departure from the Butalskiy stockade fort was headed by Ivan Yuriev Moskvitin, a Cossack from Tomsk. Ivan Rebrov discovered the Yana Bay. He Departed from the Yana River, reached the Indigirka River by sea, and built two stockade forts there. 1641 The Cossack foreman, Mikhail Stadukhin, was sent to the Kolyma River. 1642 The Krasnoyarsk Cossack, Ivan Erastov, went down the Indigirka River up to its mouth and by sea reached the mouth of the Alazeya River, being the first one at this river and the first one to deliver the information about the Chukchi. 1643 Cossacks F. Chukichev, T. Alekseev, I. Erastov, and others accomplished the sea crossing from the mouth of the Alazeya River to the Lena. M. Stadukhin and D. Yarila (Zyryan) arrived at the Kolyma River and founded the Nizhnekolymskiy stockade fort on its bank.
    [Show full text]
  • Information to Users
    Extent, timing, and paleogeographic significance of multiple Pleistocene glaciations in the Bering Strait region Item Type Thesis Authors Heiser, Patricia Anne Download date 06/10/2021 11:16:47 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/11122/9480 INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type o f computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely afreet reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back o f the book. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9” black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. UMI A Bell & Howell Information Company 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor MI 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600 I..i Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.
    [Show full text]
  • Reconstruction of Subduction and Back-Arc Spreading in the NW
    RESEARCH ARTICLE Reconstruction of Subduction and Back‐Arc Spreading 10.1029/2018TC005164 in the NW Pacific and Aleutian Basin: Clues to Causes Key Points: • At 85‐80 Ma, a plate reorganization of Cretaceous and Eocene Plate Reorganizations fi occurred in the northern Paci c that Bram Vaes1 , Douwe J. J. van Hinsbergen1 , and Lydian M. Boschman1 included the formation of two subduction zones and the Kula plate 1Department of Earth Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands • Our reconstruction predicts that the Aleutian Basin crust formed between 85 and 60 Ma in a back‐arc basin behind the Olyutorsky arc Abstract The Eocene (~50–45 Ma) major absolute plate motion change of the Pacific plate forming • Subduction polarity reversal from the Hawaii‐Emperor bend is thought to result from inception of Pacific plate subduction along one of its Kamchatka to Sakhalin at ~50 Ma is modern western trenches. Subduction is suggested to have started either spontaneously, or result from not a straightforward driver of the Eocene Pacific plate motion change subduction of the Izanagi‐Pacific mid‐ocean ridge, or from subduction polarity reversal after collision of the Olyutorsky arc that was built on the Pacific plate with NE Asia. Here we provide a detailed plate‐kinematic Supporting Information: reconstruction of back‐arc basins and accreted terranes in the northwest Pacific region, from Japan to • Supporting Information S1 the Bering Sea, since the Late Cretaceous. We present a new tectonic reconstruction of the intraoceanic • Table S1 • Data Set S1 Olyutorsky and Kronotsky arcs, which formed above two adjacent, oppositely dipping subduction zones at • Data Set S2 ~85 Ma within the north Pacific region, during another Pacific‐wide plate reorganization.
    [Show full text]
  • Summer Transport Estimates of the Kamchatka Current Derived As a Variational Inverse of Hydrophysical and Surface Drifter Data G.G
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Aquila Digital Community The University of Southern Mississippi The Aquila Digital Community Faculty Publications 5-12-2006 Summer Transport Estimates of the Kamchatka Current Derived As a Variational Inverse of Hydrophysical and Surface Drifter Data G.G. Panteleev University of Alaska Fairbanks, [email protected] P. Stabeno Pacific aM rine Environmental Laboratory V.A. Luchin Russian Academy of Sciences Dmitri A. Nechaev University of Southern Mississippi, [email protected] M. Ikeda Hokkaido University Follow this and additional works at: http://aquila.usm.edu/fac_pubs Part of the Marine Biology Commons Recommended Citation Panteleev, G., Stabeno, P., Luchin, V., Nechaev, D. A., Ikeda, M. (2006). Summer Transport Estimates of the Kamchatka Current Derived As a Variational Inverse of Hydrophysical and Surface Drifter Data. Geophysical Research Letters, 33(9). Available at: http://aquila.usm.edu/fac_pubs/2368 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by The Aquila Digital Community. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of The Aquila Digital Community. For more information, please contact [email protected]. GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 33, L09609, doi:10.1029/2005GL024974, 2006 Summer transport estimates of the Kamchatka Current derived as a variational inverse of hydrophysical and surface drifter data G. G. Panteleev,1,2 P. Stabeno,3 V. A. Luchin,4 D. A. Nechaev,5 and M. Ikeda6 Received 23 October 2005; revised 21 December 2005; accepted 30 December 2005; published 12 May 2006.
    [Show full text]
  • Paleomagnetic Determination of Paleolatitude and Rotation of Bering
    Stephan Mueller Spec. Publ. Ser., 4, 329–348, 2009 www.stephan-mueller-spec-publ-ser.net/4/329/2009/ Special © Author(s) 2009. This work is distributed under Publication the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. Series Paleomagnetic determination of paleolatitude and rotation of Bering Island (Komandorsky Islands) Russia: comparison with rotations in the Aleutian Islands and Kamchatka P. S. Minyuk1 and D. B. Stone2 1Northeast Interdisciplinary Scientific Research Institute, FEB, RAS, 16 Portavaya St., Magadan, 685010, Russia 2Geophysical Institute, 903 Koyukuk Drive, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska, 99775, USA Abstract. A paleomagnetic study was carried out on Pale- 1 Introduction ogene sedimentary rocks from Bering Island, Komandorsky islands, located at the far western end of the Aleutian Island Bering Island and Medny Islands are located in the Koman- Arc. The age of these sediments has been debated at length, dorski Islands on the western end of the Aleutian Arc (Figs. 1 but the combination of magnetostratigraphy with the fossil and 2). Tectonically they are located on the subduction- record indicates that the base of the section is of early Eocene zone boundary between the northwest Pacific and the Bering (approximately 55 Ma) and the top latest Eocene age. Pale- Sea. Present-day motion of the Pacific plate relative to omagnetic data were obtained from 260 samples from 60 in- the North American plate changes along the length of the dividual bedding units. The combined data show a clock- Aleutian Arc from normal convergence in the east to trans- wise rotation R=26.3◦±8.5◦, F =8.1◦±2.5◦ with respect to form motion in the west.
    [Show full text]
  • Alaska Sea Otter Research Workshop : Addressing the Decline of the Southwestern Alaska Sea Otter Population / Edited by Daniela Maldini … [Et
    Elmer E. Rasmuson Library Cataloging in Publication Data Alaska sea otter research workshop : addressing the decline of the Southwestern Alaska sea otter population / edited by Daniela Maldini … [et. al]. – Fairbanks : Alaska. Alaska Sea Grant College Program, University of Alaska Fairbanks 2004. p. : ill. ; cm. – (Alaska Sea Grant College Program, University of Alaska Fair- banks ; AK-SG-04-03) Includes bibliographical references and index. Notes: Held “5-7 April 2004, Alaska SeaLife Center, Seward, Alaska, USA.” 1. Sea otter—Population viability analysis—Alaska—Congresses. 2. Sea otter—Conservation—Alaska—Congresses. 3. Sea otter—Effect of predation on—Alaska—Congresses. 4. Sea otter—Geographical distribution—Congresses. 5. Sea otter—Alaska—Mortality—Congresses. 6. Sea otter—Alaska—Reproduction. 7. Sea otter—Effect of pollution on—Alaska—Congresses. 8. Sea otter—Diseas- es—Alaska—Congresses. 9. Sea otter—Predators of—Alaska—Congresses. 10. Sea otter—Research—Congresses. I. Title. II. Maldini, Daniela, 1963–. Series: Alaska Sea Grant College Program report ; AK-SG-04-03. QL737.C25 A43 2004 ISBN 1-56612-088-8 doi:10.4027/asorw.2004 Credits The Alaska SeaLife Center helped fund the publishing of this book through a grant received from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Publisher is the Alaska Sea Grant College Program, supported by the U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA National Sea Grant Office, grant NA16RG2321, project A/161-01; and by the University of Alaska Fairbanks with state funds. The University of Alaska is an affirmative action/equal opportunity employer and educational institution. Sea Grant is a unique partnership with public and private sectors combining research, education, and technology transfer for public service.
    [Show full text]
  • Isole Aleutine Hanno Fatto Una Resistenza Superiore Alle Aspettative, Nonostante Gli Aiuti Ricevuti Dal Mare E Dall’Aria
    Taccuini filaTelici di viaggio di Fabio Vaccarezza «Campo 726, 28 maggio 1943. Carissimi, come state? Io sto bene anche se, dopo diversi giorni di combatti- mento, siamo frastornati e stanchi perché i musi gialli isole aleuTine hanno fatto una resistenza superiore alle aspettative, nonostante gli aiuti ricevuti dal mare e dall’aria. Adesso un arco di fronTiera Tra esplorazioni e guerra siamo in una valle nell’interno dell’isola, non posso dirvene il nome. Domani ci muoveremo tutti insieme Le buste inviate dall’arcipelago intessono il raccontano di questo estremo e, se Dio vorrà, questo lembo di terra sarà liberato angolo del Pacifico, arena di sanguinosi scontri tra giapponesi e americani dalla presenza del nemico. Spero anche che finalmen- te si alzi questa nebbia caliginosa che da giorni rende durante la Seconda guerra mondiale tutto spettrale e che fa vedere i giapponesi dietro ogni anfratto. Adesso spero di dormire. Un bacio grosso 1. Busta spedita in franchigia militare il 19 giugno 1943 specialmente alla mia cara sorella che penso sempre da un soldato di stanza ad Attu, identificata con l’annullo e che non vedo l’ora di riabbracciare. Il vostro Jimmy.» «Apo 726» Forse abbozza un sorriso amaro, ripensando all’ultima volta che aveva visto la famiglia sul molo, poco prima di Chicago Harbor e la valle sottostante. Due giorni che la nave salpasse in direzione nord. E poi, mentre dopo tutti i giapponesi erano morti, compresi quelli chiude con cura il lembo gommato e allunga la mano che si suicidarono usando le bombe a mano. Tra gli verso il fucile, come per assicurarsi un sonno tranquil- americani si contarono più di cinquecento morti e lo, il pugnale del soldato giapponese affonda nella sua oltre mille feriti.
    [Show full text]