DOCSLIB.ORG

Status Review of the Ribbon Seal (Histriophoca Fasciata)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Status Review of the Ribbon Seal (Histriophoca Fasciata) NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-255 Status Review of the Ribbon Seal (Histriophoca fasciata) by P. L. Boveng, J. L. Bengtson, M. F. Cameron, S. P. Dahle, E. A. Logerwell, J. M. London, J. E. Overland, J. T. Sterling, D. E. Stevenson, B. L. Taylor, and H. L. Ziel U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service Alaska Fisheries Science Center June 2013 NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS The National Marine Fisheries Service's Alaska Fisheries Science Center uses the NOAA Technical Memorandum series to issue informal scientific and technical publications when complete formal review and editorial processing are not appropriate or feasible. Documents within this series reflect sound professional work and may be referenced in the formal scientific and technical literature. The NMFS-AFSC Technical Memorandum series of the Alaska Fisheries Science Center continues the NMFS-F/NWC series established in 1970 by the Northwest Fisheries Center. The NMFS-NWFSC series is currently used by the Northwest Fisheries Science Center. This document should be cited as follows: Boveng, P. L., J. L. Bengtson, M. F. Cameron, S. P. Dahle, E. A. Logerwell, J. M. London, J. E. Overland, J. T. Sterling, D. E. Stevenson, B. L. Taylor, and H. L. Ziel. 2013. Status review of the ribbon seal. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS­ AFSC-255, 174 p. Reference in this document to trade names does not imply endorsement by the National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-255 Status Review of the Ribbon Seal (Histriophoca fasciata) by P. L. Boveng1, J. L. Bengtson1, M. F. Cameron1, S. P. Dahle1, E. A. Logerwell1, J. M. London1, J. E. Overland2, J. T. Sterling1, D. E. Stevenson1, B. L. Taylor3, and H. L. Ziel1 1 Alaska Fisheries Science Center 7600 Sand Point Way N.E. Seattle, WA 98115 2 Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research 7600 Sand Point Way NE Seattle, WA 98115 3 Southwest Fisheries Science Center 3333 North Torrey Pines Court La Jolla, CA 92037 www.afsc.noaa.gov U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Cameron F. Kerry, Acting Secretary National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Kathryn D. Sullivan, Acting Under Secretary and Administrator National Marine Fisheries Service Samuel D. Rauch III, Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries June 2013 This document is available to the public through: National Technical Information Service U.S. Department of Commerce 5285 Port Royal Road Springfield, VA 22161 www.ntis.gov STATUS REVIEW OF THE RIBBON SEAL (Histriophoca fasciata) Prepared and Edited by: The 2013 Ribbon Seal Biological Review Team Peter L. Boveng1 (Chair), John L. Bengtson1, Michael F. Cameron1, Shawn P. Dahle1, Elizabeth A. Logerwell1, Josh M. London1, James E. Overland2, Jeremy T. Sterling1, Duane E. Stevenson1, Barbara L. Taylor3, and Heather L. Ziel1 With Contributions by: Tamara L. Olson4, Adrienne J. Sutton2, and Muyin Wang2 1 Alaska Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 98115 2 Pacific Marine Environmental Lab., Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 98115 3 Southwest Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, 3333 North Torrey Pines Court, La Jolla, CA 92037 4 Alaska Regional Office, National Marine Fisheries Service, 222 West 7th Avenue, Anchorage, AK 99513 June 2013 CONTENTS Contents ...................................................................................................................................................... vii Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... ix 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1 2 Species Background .............................................................................................................................. 3 2.1 Taxonomy and Phylogeny ................................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Species Description ............................................................................................................................. 3 2.3 Ecological Adaptations ........................................................................................................................ 6 2.4 Behavior .............................................................................................................................................. 7 2.5 Distribution, Habitat Use, and Movements ........................................................................................ 7 2.5.1 Extralimital and Out-of-Habitat Occurrences ............................................................................ 13 2.6 Life History ........................................................................................................................................ 14 2.7 Vital Parameters ................................................................................................................................ 18 2.8 Feeding Habits................................................................................................................................... 19 2.9 Historic and Current Abundance and Trends .................................................................................... 24 3 Species Delineation ............................................................................................................................. 29 3.1 Consideration of Distinct Population Segments ............................................................................... 29 3.2 Evaluation of Discreteness ................................................................................................................ 30 3.3 Evaluation of Significance ................................................................................................................. 33 3.3.1 Persistence in an Unusual or Unique Ecological Setting? .......................................................... 33 3.3.2 Would Loss of a Segment Result in a Significant Gap in the Range? ......................................... 33 3.3.3 Population Segment is the Only Surviving Natural Occurrence? ............................................... 33 3.3.4 Segment Differs Markedly in Genetic Composition? ................................................................. 33 3.4 Determination of Distinct Population Segments .............................................................................. 34 4 Extinction Risk Assessment ................................................................................................................. 35 4.1 Time Frame: The Foreseeable Future ............................................................................................... 35 4.1.1 Factors in the Foreseeability of Threats to Ribbon Seals ........................................................... 35 4.1.2 Factors in the Foreseeability of Ribbon Seal Responses to Threats .......................................... 39 4.1.3 Lack of a Single Time Frame for the Foreseeable Future ........................................................... 39 4.2 Analysis of Factors Under Section 4(a)(1) of the Endangered Species Act ....................................... 40 vii 4.2.1 Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of the Species’ Habitat or Range .................................................................................................................................................. 40 4.2.2 Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes .................. 79 4.2.3 Diseases, Parasites, and Predation ............................................................................................ 83 4.2.4 Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms ........................................................................ 92 4.2.5 Other Natural or Human Factors Affecting the Species’ Continued Existence ........................ 100 4.2.6 Threats Assessment ................................................................................................................. 117 4.3 Analysis of Demographic Risks ........................................................................................................ 125 4.3.1 Abundance ............................................................................................................................... 125 4.3.2 Productivity .............................................................................................................................. 126 4.3.3 Spatial Structure ....................................................................................................................... 127 4.3.4 Diversity ................................................................................................................................... 129 4.3.5 Relevant Modifying or Mitigating Factors ............................................................................... 129 4.3.6 Demographic Risks Assessment ............................................................................................... 130 4.4 Conclusions of the Extinction Risk Assessment .............................................................................. 132 5 Acknowledgments ............................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Classification of Living and Fossil Genera of Decapod Crustaceans
    RAFFLES BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGY 2009 Supplement No. 21: 1–109 Date of Publication: 15 Sep.2009 © National University of Singapore A CLASSIFICATION OF LIVING AND FOSSIL GENERA OF DECAPOD CRUSTACEANS Sammy De Grave1, N. Dean Pentcheff 2, Shane T. Ahyong3, Tin-Yam Chan4, Keith A. Crandall5, Peter C. Dworschak6, Darryl L. Felder7, Rodney M. Feldmann8, Charles H. J. M. Fransen9, Laura Y. D. Goulding1, Rafael Lemaitre10, Martyn E. Y. Low11, Joel W. Martin2, Peter K. L. Ng11, Carrie E. Schweitzer12, S. H. Tan11, Dale Tshudy13, Regina Wetzer2 1Oxford University Museum of Natural History, Parks Road, Oxford, OX1 3PW, United Kingdom [email protected] [email protected] 2Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, 900 Exposition Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90007 United States of America [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] 3Marine Biodiversity and Biosecurity, NIWA, Private Bag 14901, Kilbirnie Wellington, New Zealand [email protected] 4Institute of Marine Biology, National Taiwan Ocean University, Keelung 20224, Taiwan, Republic of China [email protected] 5Department of Biology and Monte L. Bean Life Science Museum, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602 United States of America [email protected] 6Dritte Zoologische Abteilung, Naturhistorisches Museum, Wien, Austria [email protected] 7Department of Biology, University of Louisiana, Lafayette, LA 70504 United States of America [email protected] 8Department of Geology, Kent State University, Kent, OH 44242 United States of America [email protected] 9Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum, P. O. Box 9517, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands [email protected] 10Invertebrate Zoology, Smithsonian Institution, National Museum of Natural History, 10th and Constitution Avenue, Washington, DC 20560 United States of America [email protected] 11Department of Biological Sciences, National University of Singapore, Science Drive 4, Singapore 117543 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] 12Department of Geology, Kent State University Stark Campus, 6000 Frank Ave.
    [Show full text]
  • Alaska Sea Lions and Seals
    Alaska Sea Lions and Seals Blaire, Kate, Donovan, & Alex Biodiversity of Alaska 18 June 2017 https://www.stlzoo.org/files/3913/6260/5731/Sea-lion_RogerBrandt.jpg Similarities & Differences of Sea Lions and Seals Phocidae Family Otariidae Family cannot rotate back can rotate back flippers flippers; move like a marine under themselves to walk caterpillar on land mammals and run on land no external earflaps pinniped, “fin external earflaps footed” in use back flippers for Latin use front flippers for power when swimming power when swimming preyed upon by polar use front flippers for use back flippers for bears, orcas, steering when swimming steering when swimming and sharks food: krill, fish, lobster, food: squid, octopus, birds birds, and fish claws and fur on front no claws or hair on front flippers flippers Seals ("What’s the Difference “ 2017) Sea Lions Evolution • Both seals and sea lions are Pinnipeds • Descended from one ancestral line • Belong to order carnivora • Closest living relatives are bears and musteloids (diverged 50 million years ago) http://what-when-how.com/marine-mammals/pinniped-evolution- (Churchill 2015) marine-mammals/ http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2009-04/24/content_7710231.htm Phylogenetics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinniped Steller: Eumetopias jubatus http://www.arkive.org/stellers-sea-lion/eumetopias-jubatus/image-G62602.html Steller: Eumetopias jubatus • Classification (”Steller Sea Lion” 2017) Kingdom: Animalia Phylum: Chordata Class: Mamalia Order: Carnivora Family: Otarridae Genus: Eumetopias Species:
    [Show full text]
  • Life Cycle and Early Development of the Thecosomatous Pteropod Limacina Retroversa in the Gulf of Maine, Including the Effect of Elevated CO2 Levels
    Life cycle and early development of the thecosomatous pteropod Limacina retroversa in the Gulf of Maine, including the effect of elevated CO2 levels Ali A. Thabetab, Amy E. Maasac*, Gareth L. Lawsona and Ann M. Tarranta a. Biology Department, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, MA 02543 b. Zoology Dept., Faculty of Science, Al-Azhar University in Assiut, Assiut, Egypt. c. Bermuda Institute of Ocean Sciences, St. George’s GE01, Bermuda *Corresponding Author, equal contribution with lead author Email: [email protected] Phone: 441-297-1880 x131 Keywords: mollusc, ocean acidification, calcification, mortality, developmental delay Abstract Thecosome pteropods are pelagic molluscs with aragonitic shells. They are considered to be especially vulnerable among plankton to ocean acidification (OA), but to recognize changes due to anthropogenic forcing a baseline understanding of their life history is needed. In the present study, adult Limacina retroversa were collected on five cruises from multiple sites in the Gulf of Maine (between 42° 22.1’–42° 0.0’ N and 69° 42.6’–70° 15.4’ W; water depths of ca. 45–260 m) from October 2013−November 2014. They were maintained in the laboratory under continuous light at 8° C. There was evidence of year-round reproduction and an individual life span in the laboratory of 6 months. Eggs laid in captivity were observed throughout development. Hatching occurred after 3 days, the veliger stage was reached after 6−7 days, and metamorphosis to the juvenile stage was after ~ 1 month. Reproductive individuals were first observed after 3 months. Calcein staining of embryos revealed calcium storage beginning in the late gastrula stage.
    [Show full text]
  • 56. Otariidae and Phocidae
    FAUNA of AUSTRALIA 56. OTARIIDAE AND PHOCIDAE JUDITH E. KING 1 Australian Sea-lion–Neophoca cinerea [G. Ross] Southern Elephant Seal–Mirounga leonina [G. Ross] Ross Seal, with pup–Ommatophoca rossii [J. Libke] Australian Sea-lion–Neophoca cinerea [G. Ross] Weddell Seal–Leptonychotes weddellii [P. Shaughnessy] New Zealand Fur-seal–Arctocephalus forsteri [G. Ross] Crab-eater Seal–Lobodon carcinophagus [P. Shaughnessy] 56. OTARIIDAE AND PHOCIDAE DEFINITION AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION Pinnipeds are aquatic carnivores. They differ from other mammals in their streamlined shape, reduction of pinnae and adaptation of both fore and hind feet to form flippers. In the skull, the orbits are enlarged, the lacrimal bones are absent or indistinct and there are never more than three upper and two lower incisors. The cheek teeth are nearly homodont and some conditions of the ear that are very distinctive (Repenning 1972). Both superfamilies of pinnipeds, Phocoidea and Otarioidea, are represented in Australian waters by a number of species (Table 56.1). The various superfamilies and families may be distinguished by important and/or easily observed characters (Table 56.2). King (1983b) provided more detailed lists and references. These and other differences between the above two groups are not regarded as being of great significance, especially as an undoubted fur seal (Australian Fur-seal Arctocephalus pusillus) is as big as some of the sea lions and has some characters of the skull, teeth and behaviour which are rather more like sea lions (Repenning, Peterson & Hubbs 1971; Warneke & Shaughnessy 1985). The Phocoidea includes the single Family Phocidae – the ‘true seals’, distinguished from the Otariidae by the absence of a pinna and by the position of the hind flippers (Fig.
    [Show full text]
  • The Grey Seal
    Factsheet: The grey seal Happy Horsey Seal by Mary Groombridge Where can grey seals be found? The grey seal is the larger and more common of the two British seal species, the other being the common seal (aka harbour seal). There are 3 distinct populations of grey seals in the world, but it is the eastern Atlantic population that is mainly found in the UK. One hundred years ago there were only around 500 grey seals in this country. Now however, half of the world’s population, approximately 80,000 individuals, are found on and around British coasts. They are usually found mainly around exposed rocky northern and western coasts, however the wide, sandy beaches in Norfolk provide an important breeding area for them. What do grey seals look like? Grey seals are classed as ‘true seals’, meaning that they have no external ears and have shorter front flippers. Unlike ‘eared seals’ such as sea lions, grey seals are less mobile on land and tend to move along the ground on their belly. The grey seal can be distinguished from the common seal by its long, straight ‘Roman’ nose and wide nostrils earning its scientific name Halichoerus grypus, meaning "hooked-nosed sea pig". Common seals have smaller, rounder heads with shorter noses. Adult grey seals can grow up to 2.5 metres long; males are much larger than females, averaging 233kg in weight, while females average around 155kg. Males are generally darker in colour and often scarred from territorial battles with other males. For this reason males rarely live longer than 25 years, while females can live for up to 35 years.
    [Show full text]
  • Review and Meta-Analysis of the Environmental Biology and Potential Invasiveness of a Poorly-Studied Cyprinid, the Ide Leuciscus Idus
    REVIEWS IN FISHERIES SCIENCE & AQUACULTURE https://doi.org/10.1080/23308249.2020.1822280 REVIEW Review and Meta-Analysis of the Environmental Biology and Potential Invasiveness of a Poorly-Studied Cyprinid, the Ide Leuciscus idus Mehis Rohtlaa,b, Lorenzo Vilizzic, Vladimır Kovacd, David Almeidae, Bernice Brewsterf, J. Robert Brittong, Łukasz Głowackic, Michael J. Godardh,i, Ruth Kirkf, Sarah Nienhuisj, Karin H. Olssonh,k, Jan Simonsenl, Michał E. Skora m, Saulius Stakenas_ n, Ali Serhan Tarkanc,o, Nildeniz Topo, Hugo Verreyckenp, Grzegorz ZieRbac, and Gordon H. Coppc,h,q aEstonian Marine Institute, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia; bInstitute of Marine Research, Austevoll Research Station, Storebø, Norway; cDepartment of Ecology and Vertebrate Zoology, Faculty of Biology and Environmental Protection, University of Lodz, Łod z, Poland; dDepartment of Ecology, Faculty of Natural Sciences, Comenius University, Bratislava, Slovakia; eDepartment of Basic Medical Sciences, USP-CEU University, Madrid, Spain; fMolecular Parasitology Laboratory, School of Life Sciences, Pharmacy and Chemistry, Kingston University, Kingston-upon-Thames, Surrey, UK; gDepartment of Life and Environmental Sciences, Bournemouth University, Dorset, UK; hCentre for Environment, Fisheries & Aquaculture Science, Lowestoft, Suffolk, UK; iAECOM, Kitchener, Ontario, Canada; jOntario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, Peterborough, Ontario, Canada; kDepartment of Zoology, Tel Aviv University and Inter-University Institute for Marine Sciences in Eilat, Tel Aviv,
    [Show full text]
  • December 20, 2007
    BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE PETITION TO LIST THE RIBBON SEAL (HISTRIOPHOCA FASCIATA) AS A THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES UNDER THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT © G. CARLETON RAY CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY DECEMBER 20, 2007 Notice of Petition____________________________________________________ Carlos M. Gutierrez Secretary of Commerce U.S. Department of Commerce 1401 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Room 5516 Washington, D.C. 20230 Dr. William Hogarth Assistant Administrator for Fisheries National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration 1315 East-West Highway Silver Springs, MD 20910 PETITIONER The Center for Biological Diversity 1095 Market Street, Suite 511 San Francisco, CA 94103 ph: (415) 436-9682 ext 301 fax: (415) 436-9683 __________________________ Date: this 20th day of December, 2007 Shaye Wolf, Ph.D. Martha Palomino Tovar, Ph.D. Candidate Brendan Cummings Center for Biological Diversity Pursuant to Section 4(b) of the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”), 16 U.S.C. §1533(b), Section 553(3) of the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. § 553(e), and 50 C.F.R. §424.14(a), the Center for Biological Diversity (“Petitioner”) hereby petitions the Secretary of Commerce, through the National Marine Fisheries Service (“NMFS”), to list the ribbon seal (Histriophoca fasciata) as a threatened or endangered species and to designate critical habitat to ensure its survival and recovery. The Center for Biological Diversity (“Center”) is a non-profit, public interest environmental organization dedicated to the protection of native species and their habitats through science, policy, and environmental law. The Center has over 40,000 members in Alaska and throughout the United States. The Center and its members are concerned with the conservation of endangered species, including the ribbon seal, and the effective implementation of the ESA.
    [Show full text]
  • Contributions to the 12Th Conference of the European Wildlife Disease Association (EWDA) August 27Th – 31St, 2016, Berlin
    12th Conference of the European Wildlife Disease Association (EWDA), Berlin 2016 Contributions to the 12th Conference of the European Wildlife Disease Association (EWDA) August 27th – 31st, 2016, Berlin, Germany Edited by Anke Schumann, Gudrun Wibbelt, Alex D. Greenwood, Heribert Hofer Organised by Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research (IZW) Alfred-Kowalke-Straße 17 10315 Berlin Germany www.izw-berlin.de and the European Wildlife Disease Association (EWDA) https://sites.google.com/site/ewdawebsite/ & ISBN 978-3-9815637-3-3 12th Conference of the European Wildlife Disease Association (EWDA), Berlin 2016 Published by Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research (IZW) Alfred-Kowalke-Str. 17, 10315 Berlin (Friedrichsfelde) PO Box 700430, 10324 Berlin, Germany Supported by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) [German Research Foundation] Kennedyallee 40, 53175 Bonn, Germany Printed on Forest Stewardship Council certified paper All rights reserved, particularly those for translation into other languages. It is not permitted to reproduce any part of this book by photocopy, microfilm, internet or any other means without written permission of the IZW. The use of product names, trade names or other registered entities in this book does not justify the assumption that these can be freely used by everyone. They may represent registered trademarks or other legal entities even if they are not marked as such. Processing of abstracts: Anke Schumann, Gudrun Wibbelt Setting and layout: Anke Schumann, Gudrun Wibbelt Cover: Diego Romero, Steven Seet, Gudrun Wibbelt Word cloud: ©Tagul.com Printing: Spree Druck Berlin GmbH www.spreedruck.de Order: Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research (IZW) Forschungsverbund Berlin e.V. PO Box 700430, 10324 Berlin, Germany [email protected] www.izw-berlin.de 12th Conference of the European Wildlife Disease Association (EWDA), Berlin 2016 CONTENTS Foreword .................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Behaviors of Grey Seals (<I>Halichoerus Grypus</I>)
    Tourism in Marine Environments, Vol. 15, No. 3–4, pp. 159-171 1544-273X/20 $60.00 + .00 Printed in the USA. All rights reserved. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3727/154427320X15945013137030 Copyright © 2020 Cognizant, LLC. E-ISSN 2169-0197 www.cognizantcommunication.com BEHAVIORS OF GREY SEALS (HALICHOERUS GRYPUS) ADDRESSED TOWARDS HUMAN SWIMMERS DURING EXPERIMENTAL OPEN WATER ENCOUNTERS OFF HELIGOLAND (GERMAN BIGHT, NORTH SEA) MICHAEL SCHEER Independent Scholar, Bremen, Germany Risks arising for humans during swim encounters with seals are poorly understood. This study was initiated to examine behaviors of unhabituated grey seals addressed towards humans during experi- mental, noncommercial seal-swim activities off Heligoland. In total, 26 in-water encounters were conducted. Behavioral classes and the number of seals simultaneously approaching swimmers were time sampled. A set of risky and nonrisky interactive behaviors was continuously sampled. Seals spent approximately the same amount of time interacting with swimmers (53%) as they did ignoring them (47%). Seals displayed higher rates of nonrisky behaviors than risky ones, but risky behaviors occurred during 73% of all seal-swims. Seals remained ≤20 m near swimmers for 51% and ≤1 m for 13% of the time. A mean number of 0.65 and 0.18 seals approached swimmers per minute within a range of ≤20 m and ≤1 m, respectively. Behavioral classes, interactive behaviors, and the number of seals approaching ≤20 m did not vary significantly throughout seal-swims but the number of seals approaching ≤1 m moderately decreased. Due to high rates of risky behaviors, it is recommended to promote public awareness on site and to regulate seal-swims before commercial operations emerge.
    [Show full text]
  • RÉPUBLIQUE FRANÇAISE Ministère De L'environnement, De L'énergie Et
    RÉPUBLIQUE FRANÇAISE II. - L’introduction dans le milieu naturel de spécimens vivants des espèces mentionnées au I. peut être autorisée par l’autorité administrative dans les conditions prévues au II. de l’article L. 411-5 du code de l’environnement. Ministère de l’environnement, de l’énergie et de la mer, en charge des Article 3 relations internationales sur le climat Le directeur de l’eau et de la biodiversité, la directrice générale de la performance économique et environnementale des entreprises et le directeur général de l’alimentation sont chargés, chacun en ce qui le concerne, de l’exécution du présent arrêté, qui sera publié au Journal officiel de la République française. Arrêté du Fait le relatif à la prévention de l’introduction et de la propagation des espèces animales exotiques envahissantes sur le territoire de la Martinique La ministre de l’environnement, de NOR : DEVL1704152A l’énergie et de la mer, chargée des relations internationales sur le climat, La ministre de l’environnement, de l’énergie et de la mer, chargée des relations internationales sur le climat, et le ministre de l’agriculture, de l’agroalimentaire et de la forêt, porte-parole du Gouvernement, Le ministre de l’agriculture, de Vu le règlement (UE) n° 1143/2014 du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 22 octobre l’agroalimentaire et de la forêt, porte-parole 2014 relatif à la prévention et à la gestion de l’introduction et de la propagation des espèces du Gouvernement, exotiques envahissantes, notamment son article 6 ; Vu le code de l’environnement, notamment ses articles L.
    [Show full text]
  • Broad Tapeworms (Diphyllobothriidae)
    IJP: Parasites and Wildlife 9 (2019) 359–369 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect IJP: Parasites and Wildlife journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijppaw Broad tapeworms (Diphyllobothriidae), parasites of wildlife and humans: T Recent progress and future challenges ∗ Tomáš Scholza, ,1, Roman Kuchtaa,1, Jan Brabeca,b a Institute of Parasitology, Biology Centre of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Branišovská 31, 370 05, České Budějovice, Czech Republic b Natural History Museum of Geneva, PO Box 6434, CH-1211, Geneva 6, Switzerland ABSTRACT Tapeworms of the family Diphyllobothriidae, commonly known as broad tapeworms, are predominantly large-bodied parasites of wildlife capable of infecting humans as their natural or accidental host. Diphyllobothriosis caused by adults of the genera Dibothriocephalus, Adenocephalus and Diphyllobothrium is usually not a life-threatening disease. Sparganosis, in contrast, is caused by larvae (plerocercoids) of species of Spirometra and can have serious health consequences, exceptionally leading to host's death in the case of generalised sparganosis caused by ‘Sparganum proliferum’. While most of the definitive wildlife hosts of broad tapeworms are recruited from marine and terrestrial mammal taxa (mainly carnivores and cetaceans), only a few diphyllobothriideans mature in fish-eating birds. In this review, we provide an overview the recent progress in our understanding of the diversity, phylogenetic relationships and distribution of broad tapeworms achieved over the last decade and outline the prospects of future research. The multigene family-wide phylogeny of the order published in 2017 allowed to propose an updated classi- fication of the group, including new generic assignment of the most important causative agents of human diphyllobothriosis, i.e., Dibothriocephalus latus and D.
    [Show full text]
  • Non-Invasive Sampling in Itatiaia National Park, Brazil: Wild Mammal Parasite Detection
    Dib et al. BMC Veterinary Research (2020) 16:295 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-020-02490-5 RESEARCH ARTICLE Open Access Non-invasive sampling in Itatiaia National Park, Brazil: wild mammal parasite detection Laís Verdan Dib1, João Pedro Siqueira Palmer1, Camila de Souza Carvalho Class1, Jessica Lima Pinheiro1, Raissa Cristina Ferreira Ramos1, Claudijane Ramos dos Santos1, Ana Beatriz Monteiro Fonseca2, Karen Gisele Rodríguez-Castro3, Camila Francisco Gonçalves3, Pedro Manoel Galetti Jr.3, Otilio Machado Pereira Bastos1, Claudia Maria Antunes Uchôa1, Laís Lisboa Corrêa1, Augusto Cezar Machado Pereira Bastos1, Maria Regina Reis Amendoeira4 and Alynne da Silva Barbosa1,4* Abstract Background: Non-invasive sampling through faecal collection is one of the most cost-effective alternatives for monitoring of free-living wild mammals, as it provides information on animal taxonomy as well as the dynamics of the gastrointestinal parasites that potentially infect these animals. In this context, this study aimed to perform an epidemiological survey of gastrointestinal parasites using non-invasive faecal samples from carnivores and artiodactyls identified by stool macroscopy, guard hair morphology and DNA sequencing in Itatiaia National Park. Between 2017 and 2018, faeces from carnivores and artiodactyls were collected along trails in the park. The host species were identified through macroscopic and trichological examinations and molecular biology. To investigate the parasites, the Faust, Lutz and modified Ritchie and Sheather techniques and enzyme immunoassays to detect Cryptosporidium sp. antigens were used. Results: A total of 244 stool samples were collected. The species identified were Chrysocyon brachyurus, Leopardus guttulus, Canis familiaris, Cerdocyon thous, Puma yagouaroundi, Leopardus pardalis, Puma concolor and Sus scrofa.Therewere81.1% samples that were positive for parasites distributed mainly in the high part of the park.
    [Show full text]