DOCSLIB.ORG

Status Review of Hawaiian Insular False Killer Whales (Pseudorca Crassidens) Under the Endangered Species Act

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-PIFSC-22 August 2010 Status Review of Hawaiian Insular False Killer Whales (Pseudorca crassidens) under the Endangered Species Act Erin M. Oleson, Christofer H. Boggs, Karin A. Forney, M. Bradley Hanson, Donald R. Kobayashi, Barbara L. Taylor, Paul R. Wade, and Gina M. Ylitalo Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center National Marine Fisheries Service National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration U.S. Department of Commerce About this document The mission of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is to understand and predict changes in the Earth=s environment and to conserve and manage coastal and oceanic marine resources and habitats to help meet our Nation=s economic, social, and environmental needs. As a branch of NOAA, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) conducts or sponsors research and monitoring programs to improve the scientific basis for conservation and management decisions. NMFS strives to make information about the purpose, methods, and results of its scientific studies widely available. NMFS= Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center (PIFSC) uses the NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS series to achieve timely dissemination of scientific and technical information that is of high quality but inappropriate for publication in the formal peer- reviewed literature. The contents are of broad scope, including technical workshop proceedings, large data compilations, status reports and reviews, lengthy scientific or statistical monographs, and more. NOAA Technical Memoranda published by the PIFSC, although informal, are subjected to extensive review and editing and reflect sound professional work. Accordingly, they may be referenced in the formal scientific and technical literature. A NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS issued by the PIFSC may be cited using the following format: Oleson, E. M., C. H. Boggs, K. A. Forney, M. B. Hanson, D. R. Kobayashi, B. L. Taylor, P. R. Wade, and G. M. Ylitalo. 2010. Status review of Hawaiian insular false killer whales (Pseudorca crassidens) under the Endangered Species Act. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo., NOAA-TM-NMFS-PIFSC-22, 140 p. + Appendices. __________________________ For further information direct inquiries to Chief, Scientific Information Services Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center National Marine Fisheries Service National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration U.S. Department of Commerce 2570 Dole Street Honolulu, Hawaii 96822-2396 Phone: 808-983-5386 Fax: 808-983-2902 ___________________________________________________________ Cover: Photograph taken by Aliza Milett, PIFSC. Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center National Marine Fisheries Service National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration U.S. Department of Commerce Status Review of Hawaiian Insular False Killer Whales (Pseudorca crassidens) under the Endangered Species Act Erin M. Oleson1, Christofer H. Boggs1, Karin A. Forney2, M. Bradley Hanson3, Donald R. Kobayashi1, Barbara L. Taylor2, Paul R. Wade4, and Gina M. Ylitalo3 1Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center National Marine Fisheries Service 2570 Dole Street, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822-2396 2Southwest Fisheries Science Center 3333 North Torrey Pines Court La Jolla, California 92037 3Northwest Fisheries Science Center 2725 Montlake Boulevard East Seattle, Washington 98112 4Alaska Fisheries Science Center 7600 Sand Point Way Northeast Seattle, Washington 98115 NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-PIFSC-22 August 2010 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background On October 1, 2009, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) received a petition from the Natural Resources Defense Council requesting that Hawaiian insular false killer whales (Pseudorca crassidens) be listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and that NMFS designate a critical habitat for these whales. NMFS reviewed the petition, decided that the petition presented substantial scientific information indicating that an ESA listing may be warranted as evidenced by the small population size and recent population decline, and committed to conducting an ESA status review of Hawaiian insular false killer whales. NMFS formed a Biological Review Team (BRT) made up of scientists with diverse backgrounds to conduct the status review. The BRT considered a variety of scientific and technical information. This document reports the results of its comprehensive ESA status review of the Hawaiian insular false killer whale. Approach of the BRT The BRT acknowledged that there is considerable uncertainty surrounding all aspects of the Hawaiian insular false killer whale’s biology, abundance, trends in abundance and threats. Such uncertainties are expected for a naturally uncommon species that is primarily found in the open ocean where research is expensive and knowledge is consequently poor. The team decided to treat the uncertainty explicitly by defining where it exists and using a point system to weigh various plausible scenarios, taking into account all available data on false killer whales but also considering information on other similar toothed whales. The team’s objectives in taking this approach were to make the process of arriving at conclusions as transparent as possible and to provide assurance that the team was basing its decisions on a common understanding of the evidence. Details are given in Appendix A. DPS Designation and Risk Assessment Scores. Status of Hawaiian Insular False Killer Whales Hawaiian insular false killer whales are genetically distinguishable from pelagic false killer whales based on significant differences in both mitochondrial (mt) and nuclear DNA (Chivers et al., 2007, 2010). The mtDNA and nuclear DNA data show a strong differentiation of Hawaiian insular false killer whales at other spatial scales, including when they are compared at a broad scale with whales in the central North Pacific and eastern North Pacific, and at a finer scale with pelagic whales in Hawaiian waters and with whales in Mexico, Panama, and American Samoa (all comparisons to Hawaiian insular false killer whales have p-values < 0.001). The presence of two unique, closely related haplotypes in the Hawaiian insular population is consistent with little to no immigration from other areas. The pattern of primarily closely related haplotypes shown in Hawaiian insular false killer whales is consistent with a social system that excludes immigrants or a habitat specialization that makes survival of immigrants unlikely (or iii both). The magnitude of differentiation for nDNA is somewhat less than for mtDNA, which could suggest small amounts of male mediated gene flow, but there are alternate reasons for the difference that are also possible. The range of Hawaiian insular false killer whales may be assessed from a number of data sources, including ship and aerial survey sightings, and satellite tag telemetry. The location data from satellite telemetry indicate that individual insular false killer whales move widely and quickly among the main Hawaiian Islands and use waters up to 112 km from shore (Baird et al., 2010; Forney et al., 2010). Wide movement among the main Hawaiian Islands is also shown by re-sightings of photographically identified individuals over several years (Baird et al., 2005; Baird et al., 2008a; Baird, 2009). Tagged individuals were tracked over a broad range of depths, from shallow (< 50 m) to very deep (> 4000 m), with similar water depths and types of habitat used on both the windward and leeward sides of all islands (Baird et al., 2010). Hawaiian insular false killer whales share a portion of their range with the genetically distinct pelagic population of false killer whales (Forney et al., 2010). Satellite telemetry locations of a single tagged individual from the pelagic population, as well as sightings from ship and small boat surveys suggest that the distribution of the insular and pelagic populations overlap in the area between about 42 km and 112 km from shore. The 2009 Stock Assessment Report for Hawaiian insular false killer whales (Carretta et al., 2010) gives the current best-estimate of population size as 123 individuals (CV = 0.72), citing Baird et al. (2005). Recent reanalysis of photographic data has yielded two new estimates of population size for the 2006–2009 period. Two estimates are presented because two groups photographed near Kauai have not (perhaps yet) been observed to associate into the social network of false killer whales seen at the other islands. These animals may come from the pelagic population, may come from another undocumented population in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, or may represent a portion of the insular population that has not been previously documented photographically. The current best estimates of population size are 151 individuals (CV = 0.20) without the animals photographed at Kauai or 170 individuals (CV = 0.21) with them. Genetic data were used to estimate effective population size, which reflects the size of an idealized population that would experience genetic drift in the same way as the actual (census) population. Effective population size relates to inbreeding coefficients and an effective size of 50 is used as a rule of thumb below which inbreeding depression becomes likely. The estimate for the effective population size of Hawaiian insular false killer whales is 45.8 individuals (95% CI 32.4–69.4) (Chivers et al., 2010). Aerial survey sightings noted since 1989 suggest that the insular population of Hawaiian false killer whales has declined over the last two decades. A survey
Recommended publications
  • E D I T O R I a L

    E D I T O R I a L

    E D I T O R I A L A MECHANISM FOR RAPID CHANGE? In a highly recommended book1 Del Ratzsch notes that creationists and evolutionists often criticize each other for positions that are more imagined than real. One of the most common misconceptions is the alleged creationist belief in fixity of species.2 One may read dogmatic statements that creation theory cannot be true because Noah’s ark could not hold all the species of beetles, etc. Such arguments seem misguided to many creationists. I doubt any creationist believes that the ark needed to hold 250,000 or more species of beetles. One reason this criticism seems misguided is that creation theory includes the expectation of change in species. Whether every species of beetle depended on the ark for survival is an interesting question that will not be pursued here. The Bible includes several statements that indicate that change in species is to be expected. Genesis 3 records the story of the sin of Adam and Eve, followed by the curses pronounced on nature. As a result of those curses, the serpent was to crawl on its belly, and thorns and thistles would be produced. If these conditions already existed, they could not be attributed to the curses resulting from sin. Thus, these species would change. Another suggestion that plants would change is found in Genesis 2:5, which states that certain types of plants had not yet appeared.3 The text seems to be referring to the spiny xerophytic plants now common in Israel, but the changes that produced this type of plant had not yet occurred at the time Adam was created.
  • Spike Protein Mutational Landscape in India: Could Muller’S Ratchet Be a Future Game

    Spike Protein Mutational Landscape in India: Could Muller’S Ratchet Be a Future Game

    bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.18.255570; this version posted August 18, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. Spike protein mutational landscape in India: Could Muller’s ratchet be a future game- changer for COVID-19? Rachana Banerjeea, Kausik Basaka, Anamika Ghoshb, Vyshakh Rajachandranc, Kamakshi Surekaa, Debabani Gangulya,1, Sujay Chattopadhyaya,1 aCentre for Health Science and Technology, JIS Institute of Advanced Studies and Research Kolkata, JIS University, 700091, West Bengal, India. bDepartment of Chemistry, Indian Institute of Engineering Science and Technology, Shibpur, 711103, West Bengal, India. cSchool of Biotechnology, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Kollam, 690525, Kerala, India. 1To whom correspondence may be addressed. Email: [email protected] or [email protected] Classification Major: Biological Sciences, Minor: Evolution Keywords: SARS-CoV-2, Muller's ratchet, mutational meltdown, molecular docking, viral evolutionary dynamics 1 bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.18.255570; this version posted August 18, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. Abstract The dire need of effective preventive measures and treatment approaches against SARS-CoV-2 virus, causing COVID-19 pandemic, calls for an in-depth understanding of its evolutionary dynamics with attention to specific geographic locations, since lockdown and social distancing to prevent the virus spread could lead to distinct localized dynamics of virus evolution within and between countries owing to different environmental and host-specific selection pressures.
  • Evaluation of the Status of the Recreational Fishery for Ulua in Hawai‘I, and Recommendations for Future Management

    Evaluation of the Status of the Recreational Fishery for Ulua in Hawai‘I, and Recommendations for Future Management

    Department of Land and Natural Resources Division of Aquatic Resources Technical Report 20-02 Evaluation of the status of the recreational fishery for ulua in Hawai‘i, and recommendations for future management October 2000 Benjamin J. Cayetano Governor DIVISION OF AQUATIC RESOURCES Department of Land and Natural Resources 1151 Punchbowl Street, Room 330 Honolulu, HI 96813 November 2000 Cover photo by Kit Hinhumpetch Evaluation of the status of the recreational fishery for ulua in Hawai‘i, and recommendations for future management DAR Technical Report 20-02 “Ka ulua kapapa o ke kai loa” The ulua fish is a strong warrior. Hawaiian proverb “Kayden, once you get da taste fo’ ulua fishing’, you no can tink of anyting else!” From Ulua: The Musical, by Lee Cataluna Rick Gaffney and Associates, Inc. 73-1062 Ahikawa Street Kailua-Kona, Hawaii 96740 Phone: (808) 325-5000 Fax: (808) 325-7023 Email: [email protected] 3 4 Contents Introduction . 1 Background . 2 The ulua in Hawaiian culture . 2 Coastal fishery history since 1900 . 5 Ulua landings . 6 The ulua sportfishery in Hawai‘i . 6 Biology . 8 White ulua . 9 Other ulua . 9 Bluefin trevally movement study . 12 Economics . 12 Management options . 14 Overview . 14 Harvest refugia . 15 Essential fish habitat approach . 27 Community based management . 28 Recommendations . 29 Appendix . .32 Bibliography . .33 5 5 6 Introduction Unique marine resources, like Hawai‘i’s ulua/papio, have cultural, scientific, ecological, aes- thetic and functional values that are not generally expressed in commercial catch statistics and/or the market place. Where their populations have not been depleted, the various ulua pop- ular in Hawai‘i’s fisheries are often quite abundant and are thought to play the role of a signifi- cant predator in the ecology of nearshore marine ecosystems.
  • Genetic and Demographic Dynamics of Small Populations of Silene Latifolia

    Genetic and Demographic Dynamics of Small Populations of Silene Latifolia

    Heredity (2003) 90, 181–186 & 2003 Nature Publishing Group All rights reserved 0018-067X/03 $25.00 www.nature.com/hdy Genetic and demographic dynamics of small populations of Silene latifolia CM Richards, SN Emery and DE McCauley Department of Biological Sciences, Vanderbilt University, PO Box 1812, Station B, Nashville, TN 37235, USA Small local populations of Silene alba, a short-lived herbac- populations doubled in size between samples, while others eous plant, were sampled in 1994 and again in 1999. shrank by more than 75%. Similarly, expected heterozygosity Sampling included estimates of population size and genetic and allele number increased by more than two-fold in diversity, as measured at six polymorphic allozyme loci. individual populations and decreased by more than three- When averaged across populations, there was very little fold in others. When population-specific change in number change between samples (about three generations) in and change in measures of genetic diversity were considered population size, measures of within-population genetic together, significant positive correlations were found be- diversity such as number of alleles or expected hetero- tween the demographic and genetic variables. It is specu- zygosity, or in the apportionment of genetic diversity within lated that some populations were released from the and among populations as measured by Fst. However, demographic consequences of inbreeding depression by individual populations changed considerably, both in terms gene flow. of numbers of individuals and genetic composition. Some Heredity (2003) 90, 181–186. doi:10.1038/sj.hdy.6800214 Keywords: genetic diversity; demography; inbreeding depression; gene flow Introduction 1986; Lynch et al, 1995), the interaction of genetics and demography could also influence population persistence How genetics and demography interact to influence in common species, because it is generally accepted that population viability has been a long-standing question in even many abundant species are not uniformly distrib- conservation biology.
  • Effects of Parasites on Marine Maniacs

    Effects of Parasites on Marine Maniacs

    EFFECTS OF PARASITES ON MARINE MANIACS JOSEPH R. GERACI and DAVID J. ST.AUBIN Department of Pathology Ontario Veterinary College University of Guefph Guelph, Ontario Canada INTRODUCTION Parasites of marine mammals have been the focus of numerous reports dealing with taxonomy, distribution and ecology (Defyamure, 1955). Descriptions of associated tissue damage are also available, with attempts to link severity of disease with morbidity and mortality of individuals and populations. This paper is not intended to duplicate that Iiterature. Instead we focus on those organisms which we perceive to be pathogenic, while tempering some of the more exaggerated int~~retations. We deal with life cycles by emphasizing unusual adap~t~ons of selected organisms, and have neces- sarily limited our selection of the literature to highlight that theme. For this discussion we address the parasites of cetaceans---baleen whales (mysticetes), and toothed whales, dolphins and porpoises (odon- tocetes): pinnipeds-true seals (phocidsf, fur seals and sea Iions (otariidsf and walruses (adobenids); sirenians~anatees and dugongs, and the djminutive sea otter. ECTOPARASITES We use the term “ectoparasite’” loosely, when referring to organisms ranging from algae to fish which somehow cling to the surface of a marine mammal, and whose mode of attachment, feeding behavior, and relationship with the host or transport animal are sufficiently obscure that the term parasite cannot be excluded. What is clear is that these organisms damage the integument in some way. For example: a whale entering the coid waters of the Antarctic can acquire a yelIow film over its body. Blue whales so discoiored are known as “sulfur bottoms”.
  • THE CASE AGAINST Marine Mammals in Captivity Authors: Naomi A

    THE CASE AGAINST Marine Mammals in Captivity Authors: Naomi A

    s l a m m a y t T i M S N v I i A e G t A n i p E S r a A C a C E H n T M i THE CASE AGAINST Marine Mammals in Captivity The Humane Society of the United State s/ World Society for the Protection of Animals 2009 1 1 1 2 0 A M , n o t s o g B r o . 1 a 0 s 2 u - e a t i p s u S w , t e e r t S h t u o S 9 8 THE CASE AGAINST Marine Mammals in Captivity Authors: Naomi A. Rose, E.C.M. Parsons, and Richard Farinato, 4th edition Editors: Naomi A. Rose and Debra Firmani, 4th edition ©2009 The Humane Society of the United States and the World Society for the Protection of Animals. All rights reserved. ©2008 The HSUS. All rights reserved. Printed on recycled paper, acid free and elemental chlorine free, with soy-based ink. Cover: ©iStockphoto.com/Ying Ying Wong Overview n the debate over marine mammals in captivity, the of the natural environment. The truth is that marine mammals have evolved physically and behaviorally to survive these rigors. public display industry maintains that marine mammal For example, nearly every kind of marine mammal, from sea lion Iexhibits serve a valuable conservation function, people to dolphin, travels large distances daily in a search for food. In learn important information from seeing live animals, and captivity, natural feeding and foraging patterns are completely lost.
  • Proceedings of the Helminthological Society of Washington 51(2) 1984

    Proceedings of the Helminthological Society of Washington 51(2) 1984

    Volume 51 July 1984 PROCEEDINGS ^ of of Washington '- f, V-i -: ;fx A semiannual journal of research devoted to Helminthohgy and all branches of Parasitology Supported in part by the -•>"""- v, H. Ransom Memorial 'Tryst Fund : CONTENTS -j<:'.:,! •</••• VV V,:'I,,--.. Y~v MEASURES, LENA N., AND Roy C. ANDERSON. Hybridization of Obeliscoides cuniculi r\ XGraybill, 1923) Graybill, ,1924 jand Obeliscoides,cuniculi multistriatus Measures and Anderson, 1983 .........:....... .., :....„......!"......... _ x. iXJ-v- 179 YATES, JON A., AND ROBERT C. LOWRIE, JR. Development of Yatesia hydrochoerus "•! (Nematoda: Filarioidea) to the Infective Stage in-Ixqdid Ticks r... 187 HUIZINGA, HARRY W., AND WILLARD O. GRANATH, JR. -Seasonal ^prevalence of. Chandlerellaquiscali (Onehocercidae: Filarioidea) in Braih, of the Common Grackle " '~. (Quiscdlus quisculd versicolor) '.'.. ;:,„..;.......„.;....• :..: „'.:„.'.J_^.4-~-~-~-<-.ii -, **-. 191 ^PLATT, THOMAS R. Evolution of the Elaphostrongylinae (Nematoda: Metastrongy- X. lojdfea: Protostrongylidae) Parasites of Cervids,(Mammalia) ...,., v.. 196 PLATT, THOMAS R., AND W. JM. SAMUEL. Modex of Entry of First-Stage Larvae ofr _^ ^ Parelaphostrongylus odocoilei^Nematoda: vMefastrongyloidea) into Four Species of Terrestrial Gastropods .....:;.. ....^:...... ./:... .; _.... ..,.....;. .-: 205 THRELFALL, WILLIAM, AND JUAN CARVAJAL. Heliconema pjammobatidus sp. n. (Nematoda: Physalbpteridae) from a Skate,> Psammobatis lima (Chondrichthyes: ; ''•• \^ Rajidae), Taken in Chile _... .„ ;,.....„.......„..,.......;. ,...^.J::...^..,....:.....~L.:.....,
  • 213 Subpart I—Taking and Importing Marine Mammals

    213 Subpart I—Taking and Importing Marine Mammals

    National Marine Fisheries Service/NOAA, Commerce Pt. 218 regulations or that result in no more PART 218—REGULATIONS GOV- than a minor change in the total esti- ERNING THE TAKING AND IM- mated number of takes (or distribution PORTING OF MARINE MAM- by species or years), NMFS may pub- lish a notice of proposed LOA in the MALS FEDERAL REGISTER, including the asso- ciated analysis of the change, and so- Subparts A–B [Reserved] licit public comment before issuing the Subpart C—Taking Marine Mammals Inci- LOA. dental to U.S. Navy Marine Structure (c) A LOA issued under § 216.106 of Maintenance and Pile Replacement in this chapter and § 217.256 for the activ- Washington ity identified in § 217.250 may be modi- fied by NMFS under the following cir- 218.20 Specified activity and specified geo- cumstances: graphical region. (1) Adaptive Management—NMFS 218.21 Effective dates. may modify (including augment) the 218.22 Permissible methods of taking. existing mitigation, monitoring, or re- 218.23 Prohibitions. porting measures (after consulting 218.24 Mitigation requirements. with Navy regarding the practicability 218.25 Requirements for monitoring and re- porting. of the modifications) if doing so cre- 218.26 Letters of Authorization. ates a reasonable likelihood of more ef- 218.27 Renewals and modifications of Let- fectively accomplishing the goals of ters of Authorization. the mitigation and monitoring set 218.28–218.29 [Reserved] forth in the preamble for these regula- tions. Subpart D—Taking Marine Mammals Inci- (i) Possible sources of data that could dental to U.S. Navy Construction Ac- contribute to the decision to modify tivities at Naval Weapons Station Seal the mitigation, monitoring, or report- Beach, California ing measures in a LOA: (A) Results from Navy’s monitoring 218.30 Specified activity and specified geo- graphical region.
  • ﻣﺎﻫﻲ ﮔﻴﺶ ﭘﻮزه دراز ( Carangoides Chrysophrys) در آﺑﻬﺎي اﺳﺘﺎن ﻫﺮﻣﺰﮔﺎن

    ﻣﺎﻫﻲ ﮔﻴﺶ ﭘﻮزه دراز ( Carangoides Chrysophrys) در آﺑﻬﺎي اﺳﺘﺎن ﻫﺮﻣﺰﮔﺎن

    A study on some biological aspects of longnose trevally (Carangoides chrysophrys) in Hormozgan waters Item Type monograph Authors Kamali, Easa; Valinasab, T.; Dehghani, R.; Behzadi, S.; Darvishi, M.; Foroughfard, H. Publisher Iranian Fisheries Science Research Institute Download date 10/10/2021 04:51:55 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/1834/40061 وزارت ﺟﻬﺎد ﻛﺸﺎورزي ﺳﺎزﻣﺎن ﺗﺤﻘﻴﻘﺎت، آﻣﻮزش و ﺗﺮوﻳﺞﻛﺸﺎورزي ﻣﻮﺳﺴﻪ ﺗﺤﻘﻴﻘﺎت ﻋﻠﻮم ﺷﻴﻼﺗﻲ ﻛﺸﻮر – ﭘﮋوﻫﺸﻜﺪه اﻛﻮﻟﻮژي ﺧﻠﻴﺞ ﻓﺎرس و درﻳﺎي ﻋﻤﺎن ﻋﻨﻮان: ﺑﺮرﺳﻲ ﺑﺮﺧﻲ از وﻳﮋﮔﻲ ﻫﺎي زﻳﺴﺖ ﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ ﻣﺎﻫﻲ ﮔﻴﺶ ﭘﻮزه دراز ( Carangoides chrysophrys) در آﺑﻬﺎي اﺳﺘﺎن ﻫﺮﻣﺰﮔﺎن ﻣﺠﺮي: ﻋﻴﺴﻲ ﻛﻤﺎﻟﻲ ﺷﻤﺎره ﺛﺒﺖ 49023 وزارت ﺟﻬﺎد ﻛﺸﺎورزي ﺳﺎزﻣﺎن ﺗﺤﻘﻴﻘﺎت، آﻣﻮزش و ﺗﺮوﻳﭻ ﻛﺸﺎورزي ﻣﻮﺳﺴﻪ ﺗﺤﻘﻴﻘﺎت ﻋﻠﻮم ﺷﻴﻼﺗﻲ ﻛﺸﻮر- ﭘﮋوﻫﺸﻜﺪه اﻛﻮﻟﻮژي ﺧﻠﻴﺞ ﻓﺎرس و درﻳﺎي ﻋﻤﺎن ﻋﻨﻮان ﭘﺮوژه : ﺑﺮرﺳﻲ ﺑﺮﺧﻲ از وﻳﮋﮔﻲ ﻫﺎي زﻳﺴﺖ ﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ ﻣﺎﻫﻲ ﮔﻴﺶ ﭘﻮزه دراز (Carangoides chrysophrys) در آﺑﻬﺎي اﺳﺘﺎن ﻫﺮﻣﺰﮔﺎن ﺷﻤﺎره ﻣﺼﻮب ﭘﺮوژه : 2-75-12-92155 ﻧﺎم و ﻧﺎم ﺧﺎﻧﻮادﮔﻲ ﻧﮕﺎرﻧﺪه/ ﻧﮕﺎرﻧﺪﮔﺎن : ﻋﻴﺴﻲ ﻛﻤﺎﻟﻲ ﻧﺎم و ﻧﺎم ﺧﺎﻧﻮادﮔﻲ ﻣﺠﺮي ﻣﺴﺌﻮل ( اﺧﺘﺼﺎص ﺑﻪ ﭘﺮوژه ﻫﺎ و ﻃﺮﺣﻬﺎي ﻣﻠﻲ و ﻣﺸﺘﺮك دارد ) : ﻧﺎم و ﻧﺎم ﺧﺎﻧﻮادﮔﻲ ﻣﺠﺮي / ﻣﺠﺮﻳﺎن : ﻋﻴﺴﻲ ﻛﻤﺎﻟﻲ ﻧﺎم و ﻧﺎم ﺧﺎﻧﻮادﮔﻲ ﻫﻤﻜﺎر(ان) : ﺳﻴﺎﻣﻚ ﺑﻬﺰادي ،ﻣﺤﻤﺪ دروﻳﺸﻲ، ﺣﺠﺖ اﷲ ﻓﺮوﻏﻲ ﻓﺮد، ﺗﻮرج وﻟﻲﻧﺴﺐ، رﺿﺎ دﻫﻘﺎﻧﻲ ﻧﺎم و ﻧﺎم ﺧﺎﻧﻮادﮔﻲ ﻣﺸﺎور(ان) : - ﻧﺎم و ﻧﺎم ﺧﺎﻧﻮادﮔﻲ ﻧﺎﻇﺮ(ان) : - ﻣﺤﻞ اﺟﺮا : اﺳﺘﺎن ﻫﺮﻣﺰﮔﺎن ﺗﺎرﻳﺦ ﺷﺮوع : 92/10/1 ﻣﺪت اﺟﺮا : 1 ﺳﺎل و 6 ﻣﺎه ﻧﺎﺷﺮ : ﻣﻮﺳﺴﻪ ﺗﺤﻘﻴﻘﺎت ﻋﻠﻮم ﺷﻴﻼﺗﻲ ﻛﺸﻮر ﺗﺎرﻳﺦ اﻧﺘﺸﺎر : ﺳﺎل 1395 ﺣﻖ ﭼﺎپ ﺑﺮاي ﻣﺆﻟﻒ ﻣﺤﻔﻮظ اﺳﺖ . ﻧﻘﻞ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﺐ ، ﺗﺼﺎوﻳﺮ ، ﺟﺪاول ، ﻣﻨﺤﻨﻲ ﻫﺎ و ﻧﻤﻮدارﻫﺎ ﺑﺎ ذﻛﺮ ﻣﺄﺧﺬ ﺑﻼﻣﺎﻧﻊ اﺳﺖ . «ﺳﻮاﺑﻖ ﻃﺮح ﻳﺎ ﭘﺮوژه و ﻣﺠﺮي ﻣﺴﺌﻮل / ﻣﺠﺮي» ﭘﺮوژه : ﺑﺮرﺳﻲ ﺑﺮﺧﻲ از وﻳﮋﮔﻲ ﻫﺎي زﻳﺴﺖ ﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ ﻣﺎﻫﻲ ﮔﻴﺶ ﭘﻮزه دراز ( Carangoides chrysophrys) در آﺑﻬﺎي اﺳﺘﺎن ﻫﺮﻣﺰﮔﺎن ﻛﺪ ﻣﺼﻮب : 2-75-12-92155 ﺷﻤﺎره ﺛﺒﺖ (ﻓﺮوﺳﺖ) : 49023 ﺗﺎرﻳﺦ : 94/12/28 ﺑﺎ ﻣﺴﺌﻮﻟﻴﺖ اﺟﺮاﻳﻲ ﺟﻨﺎب آﻗﺎي ﻋﻴﺴﻲ ﻛﻤﺎﻟﻲ داراي ﻣﺪرك ﺗﺤﺼﻴﻠﻲ ﻛﺎرﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ ارﺷﺪ در رﺷﺘﻪ ﺑﻴﻮﻟﻮژي ﻣﺎﻫﻴﺎن درﻳﺎ ﻣﻲﺑﺎﺷﺪ.
  • Killer Whale) Orcinus Orca

    Killer Whale) Orcinus Orca

    AMERICAN CETACEAN SOCIETY FACT SHEET P.O. Box 1391 - San Pedro, CA 90733-1391 - (310) 548-6279 ORCA (Killer Whale) Orcinus orca CLASS: Mammalia ORDER: Cetacea SUBORDER: Odontoceti FAMILY: Delphinidae GENUS: Orcinus SPECIES: orca The orca, or killer whale, with its striking black and white coloring, is one of the best known of all the cetaceans. It has been extensively studied in the wild and is often the main attraction at many sea parks and aquaria. An odontocete, or toothed whale, the orca is known for being a carnivorous, fast and skillful hunter, with a complex social structure and a cosmopolitan distribution (orcas are found in all the oceans of the world). Sometimes called "the wolf of the sea", the orca can be a fierce hunter with well-organized hunting techniques, although there are no documented cases of killer whales attacking a human in the wild. PHYSICAL SHAPE The orca is a stout, streamlined animal. It has a round head that is tapered, with an indistinct beak and straight mouthline. COLOR The orca has a striking color pattern made up of well-defined areas of shiny black and cream or white. The dorsal (top) part of its body is black, with a pale white to gray "saddle" behind the dorsal fin. It has an oval, white eyepatch behind and above each eye. The chin, throat, central length of the ventral (underside) area, and undersides of the tail flukes are white. Each whale can be individually identified by its markings and by the shape of its saddle patch and dorsal fin.
  • False Killer Whale Fact Sheet

    False Killer Whale Fact Sheet

    False Killer whale (pseudorca crassidens) Adult length: Up to 6m (male)/5m (female) Distribution: coastal and primarily offshore waters in tropical and temperate regions (see map below and Adult weight: up to 2,000kg (m) full list of countries in the detailed species account online at: https://wwhandbook.iwc.int/en/species/false- Newborn: 1.6-1.9m /Unknown killer-whale Dark grey/black body Prominent dorsal fin is Threats: entanglement, contaminants colour with only a faintly usually curved and slightly Habitat: offshore Long, slender head tapers darker cape (variable) rounded at the tip to rounded snout with no Diet: squid, fish pronounced beak Body may be scarred IUCN Conservation status: Data deficient Flukes are small in relation to body size False killer whales can eat Head hangs over large prey species like this mouth Ono/Wahoo. photo courtesy of Daniel Webster, Cascadia Reserach Lighter grey anchor or Long strongly curved flipper Long, slender body “W” shaped patch on with a pronounced corner or chest between the flippers bend giving the flipper an ‘S’ (variable) shape – unique to this species This photo illustrates the Fun Facts bullet-shaped head and typically ‘S’ shaped flip- pers that help observers False killer whales are so named because the to distinguish false killer shape of their skulls, not their external appear- ance, is similar to that of killer whales. whales from pilot whales. Photo courtesy of Paula Like killer whales and sperm whales, false killer Olson/SEFSC/NOAA. whales form stable family groups, and females who no longer produce calves themselves probably help to look after the young of other females False killer whales participate in prey-sharing; a behaviour thought to reinforce social bonds False Killer whale distribution.
  • Benthic Foraging on Stingrays by Killer Whales (Orcinus Orca) in New Zealand Waters

    Benthic Foraging on Stingrays by Killer Whales (Orcinus Orca) in New Zealand Waters

    220 MARINE MAMMAL SCIENCE, VOL. 15, NO. 1, 1999 demii Nauk SSSR, Moskow (translated by the Israel Program for scientific Trans- lations, Jerusalem, 1967). 717 pp. VON ZIEGESAR,0. 1992. A catalogue of Prince William Sound humpback whales identified by fluke photographs between the years 1977 and 1991. Report to the National Marine Mammal Laboratory, NMFS, NOAA, by the North Gulf Oceanic Society, P. 0. Box 15244, Homer, AK 99603. VON ZIEGESAR,O., E. MILLERAND M. E. DAHLHEIM.1994. Impacts on humpback whales in Prince William Sound. Pages 173-191 in T. R. Loughlin, ed. Marine mammals and the Exxon Vuldez. Academic Press. JANICEM. WAITE,MARILYN E. DAHLHEIM,RODERICK C. HOBBS,SALLY A. MIZROCH,NOAA, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Mammal Laboratory, 7600 Sand Point Way N. E., Seattle, Washington 98115-0070, U.S.A.; e-mail: [email protected]; OLGAVON ZIEGESAR-MATKIN,North Gulf Oceanic Society, P.O. Box 15244, Homer, Alaska 99603, U.S.A.;JANICE M. STRALEY,P.O. Box 273, Sitka, Alaska 99835, U.S.A.; LOUISM. HERMAN, Kewalo Basin Marine Mammal Laboratory, University of Hawaii, 1129 Ala Moana Boulevard, Honolulu, Hawaii 968 14, U.S.A.; JEFFJACOBSEN, P.O. Box 4492, Arcata, CA 95521, U.S.A. Received 15 July 1994. Accepted 20 Feb- ruary 1998. MARINE MAMMAL SCIENCE, 15(1):220-227 (January 1999) 0 1999 by the Society for Marine Mammalogy BENTHIC FORAGING ON STINGRAYS BY KILLER WHALES (ORCINUS ORCA) IN NEW ZEALAND WATERS One method of foraging not previously reported for the killer whale is benthic foraging. This paper describes frequent feeding by killer whales on rays in shallow water off the North Island of New Zealand.