Informe Mamíferos Marinos

Home , Fishing in Chile, Isla de los Estados, La Plata dolphin, Punta Ninfas, Sagmatias, Southern river otter

Primer Taller Regional de Evaluación del Estado de Conservación de Especies para el Mar Patagónico según criterios de la Lista Roja de UICN: MAMÍFEROS MARINOS. Buenos Aires, ARGENTINA – 2016

Fecha del informe: Enero 2019

Results of the 2016 IUCN Regional Red List Workshop for Species of the Patagonian Sea: MARINE MAMMALS. Last version of the repor: January 2019

Con el apoyo de:

EXPERTOS:

Pablo Bordino Aquamarina - Argentina Claudio Campagna Wildlife Conservation Society, Marine Program Enrique Crespo Centro Nacional Patagónico (CONICET) - Argentina Marta Hevia Fundación Cethus - Argentina Mariano Sironi Instituto de Conservación de Ballenas - Argentina José Truda Palazzo Núcleo de Educación y Monitoreo Ambiental (NEMA) - Brasil Juan Capella Fundación Yubarta - Chile Maritza Sepúlveda Martínez CIGREN, Universidad de Valparaíso - Chile Valentina Franco-Trecu Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad de la República - Uruguay Diana Szteren Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad de la República - Uruguay

COLABORADOR: M. Iñiguez. EXPERTOS IUCN: Beth Polidoro y Gina Ralph. REVISION Y EDICIÓN: M. Shope y V. Falabella

CITA:

Foro para la Conservación del Mar Patagónico y áreas de influencia, 2019. Informe del Primer Taller Regional de Evaluación del Estado de Conservación de Especies para el Mar Patagónico según criterios de la Lista Roja de UICN - 2016: Mamíferos Marinos. V. Falabella & C. Campagna (Eds).

Citation: Forum for the Conservation of the Patagonian Sea, 2019. Report of the IUCN Regional Red List First Workshop for Species of the Patagonian Sea - 2016: Marine Mammals. V. Falabella & C. Campagna (Eds).

DISEÑO Y ARTE: Victoria Zavattieri Wildlife Conservation Society

INDICE:

Pontoporia blainvillei

Cephalorhynchus commersonii

Cephalorhynchus eutropia 24

Delphinus delphis

Globicephala melas

Grampus griseus 46

Lagenorhynchus australis

Lagenorhynchus cruciger 58

Lagenorhynchus obscurus

Lissodelphis peronii 68

Orcinus orca

Tursiops truncatus 82

Phocoena dioptrica

Phocoena spinipinnis 96

Eubalaena australis

Lontra

Lontra provocax 122

Arctocephalus australis

Otaria flavescens

Mirounga leonina 164

EN - Endangered, A3bcd (IUCN version 3.1)

Assessment Rationale:

Franciscanas are found only along the coast of South America, specifically in the Atlantic Ocean side (Brazil, Uruguay, and Argentina), inhabiting shallow coastal waters of tropical and temperate regions (Crespo 2002), and being known for entering the estuary of the La Plata River. This species is primarily threatened by entanglement in coastal and gill-net fisheries, and based on few observations, the bycatch catch rates are not thought to be sustainable. It is estimated that about 3.5 - 5.6% of this species population is caught annually in by-catch, primarily juveniles, pregnant and nursing females. The observed catch rate is more than 2% than what is recommended for all cetaceans by the IWC. Other threats include plastic ingestion and decline of habitat quality.

Using a conservative estimate of 3.5% decline per year (to account for unknown birth rates) and a generation time of 9.3 years, if current by-catch rates continue (especially of juveniles and pregnant and nursing females) this species population is projected to decline by at least 60% over the next 27-30 years. For this reason, the species qualifies as Endangered under criterion A3bcd in the Patagonia Sea.

Assessor(s): Bordino, P., Crespo, E., Franco-Trecu, V. & Hevia, M. Reviewer(s): Shope, M., Falabella, V. Contributor(s): Secchi, E., Rojas- -Crowe, G., Smith, B.D., Wang, J.Y. , Zhou, K., Zerbini, A.N., Slooten, E., Laidre, K., Karkzmarski, L., Dalebout, M. & Reeves, R. Facilitators/Compilers: Polidoro, B.

Taxonomic information

ANIMALIA - CHORDATA - MAMMALIA - CETARTIODACTYLA - PONTOPORIIDAE - Pontoporia blainvillei (Gervais & d'Orbigny, 1844)

Common Names: Franciscana (Spanish), Dauphin de La Plata (French), Delfín de La Plata (Spanish), La Plata River Dolphin (English), Tonina (Spanish; Castilian), Toninha (Portuguese).

Note: This species was listed in the 1996-2002 IUCN Red Lists under the family Platanistidae. It is now most commonly assigned to the family Pontoporiidae, and at least sometimes in the superfamily Inioidea (Muizon et al. 2017).

Geographic Range

Franciscanas inhabit shallow coastal waters (and they sporadically enter the estuary of the La Plata River) of tropical and temperate regions of the western South Atlantic Ocean (Crespo 2002). They are found only along the east coast of South America (Brazil, Uruguay, and Argentina), from the northern Golfo San Matias, central Argentina (ca. 42°10'S), to Espirito Santo, southeastern Brazil (18°25'S) (Siciliano 1994; Crespo et al. 1998). The species is not distributed continuously throughout its range. Surveys (including beach surveys, museum specimens, and interviews with local people) indicate that franciscanas are extremely rare or absent in two areas, located in the northern parts of their distribution range; one between Macaé (southern Rio de Janeiro State) and Ubatuba (northern São Paulo State) and the other in Espírito Santo State (Azevedo et al. 2002; Siciliano et al. 2002; Secchi et al. 2003a). The reasons for these gaps are unclear, but because the species prefers shallow, turbid waters (Brownell 1989; Pinedo et al. 1989), water transparency and depth may be among the factors responsible (Siciliano et al. 2002).

Population

In the Patagonia Sea, there is genetic evidence of at least 4 subpopulations: 1) southern Brazil, Rio Grande do Sul and Uruguayan waters, 2) Bahia Samborombon, 3) Cabo San Antonio and to the south, and 4) Monte Hermoso. There is also evidence that these subpopulations are present in distinct genetic, ecological and behavioral units that do not interact (Gariboldi et al. 2015, Costa-Urrutia et al. 2012, Negri et al. 2015, Mendez et al. 2008, 2010). There is a recommendation to review the existance of these subpopulations (Bordino pers comm. 2016). Althougth 4 subpopulations are described using genetic evidence, morphological and molecular data strongly support the existence of two main subpopulations of Franciscanas. Multivariate analysis of morphometric data revealed an smaller subpopulation form in the northern part of the species' range (north of 27°S) (those in the far north are of intermediate size) and a larger subpopulation in the coastal waters of southern Brazil, Uruguay and Argentina (south of 27°S) (Pinedo 1991). Analyses of a highly variable region of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) also supported these two geographic forms (Secchi et al. 1998). Ott (2002) and Lázaro et al. (2004) compared the mtDNA of Franciscanas from Uruguay and Argentina with those published by Secchi et al. (1998). These studies found support for the existence of a large southern population (composed of animals from Rio Grande do Sul, Uruguay and northern Argentina) that is clearly differentiated from animals in the waters off Rio de Janeiro. In addition, they revealed fixed genetic differences between the populations that suggest essentially no effective genetic exchange (see Secchi et al. 1998, Ott 2002, Lázaro et al. waters belong to a genetically distinct subpopulation. This is consistent with morphological data showing that size is not clinal, with animals from Paraná and São Paulo being smaller than those in adjacent populations to the south and north of those States (e.g.. Kasuya and Brownell 1979, Di Beneditto and Ramos 2001, Barreto and Rosas 2006, Barbato et al. 2007) A pairwise analysis of haplotype distances between different geographic locations showed increasing differentiation in the haplotype frequencies with increasing distance, following an isolation-by- distance pattern (Lázaro et al. 2004). Furthermore, recent analysis indicated that haplotype frequencies of samples from Claromecó (in Argentina) were significantly different from those of the rest of the southern population (Ott 2002, Lázaro et al. 2004). Secchi et al. (2003a) proposed four provisional management units (Franciscana Management Areas, or FMAs) with the following ranges: FMA I - coastal waters of Espírito Santo and Rio de Janeiro states, Brazil (note: confirmation of the hiatus in the Espírito Santo State with increased survey effort will require further division of this FMA); FMA II - São Paulo, Paraná and Santa Catarina states, Brazil; FMA III - coastal waters of Rio Grande do Sul State, southern Brazil and Uruguay; and FMA IV - coastal waters of Argentina, including the provinces of Buenos Aires, Rio Negro and Chubut. There is no current abundance estimate for the species as a whole, but there is an estimate for the management stock inhabiting FMA III (hereafter referred as the RS/URU management unit). During aerial surveys of coastal waters of Rio Grande do Sul State in 1996 (Secchi et al. 2001), 53,542). This extrapolated result must be used very cautiously, however, because it is based on a density estimate for only a small fraction of the coastline, representing approximately 0.7% of the possible range of the subpopulation (ca. 64,045 sq. km), and there is limited information on the distribution pattern of Franciscanas within their total range. This and other estimates of Franciscana density and abundance need to be interpreted cautiously as they could be either positively or negatively biased. The IWC Scientific Committee concluded, after reviewing the methods and limitations of Franciscana surveys through 2003 2004, that it was not appropriate to consider them as providing minimum estimates of abundance (IWC 2005a). While the overall abundance of the species would seem relatively high, in most areas the gillnet mortality alone is not thought to be sustainable. Secchi (2006) projected the four management units 25 years into the future based on a stage-structured matrix model using a variety of scenarios of fishing effort. Because there were estimates of Franciscana density and abundance only for FMA III and IV (Secchi et al. 2001, Crespo et al. 2004), Secchi (2006) used the density estimated for FMA III and applied a correction factor based on the ratio of capture

6 per unit of effort (CPUE) between the other areas and FMA III. This was assumed to represent a valid index of abundance because the unit of fishing effort is the same and the fishing gears are similar among management units. The corrected densities were multiplied by the entire area of both FMA I and II to obtain the estimate of total abundance. Uncertainty in the parameter estimates was incorporated through appropriate probability distributions. The scenarios considered most realistic (i.e. those that aimed to compensate for underestimation of the bycatch and that modelled environmental stochasticity) resulted in relatively high probabilities that each management unit would decline by at least 30% below its initial size with the exception of FMA I. However, it should be noted that estimates of bycatch in FMA I come from only one fishing village and it is known that bycatch occurs in other parts of this FMA (e.g. Freitas-Neto and Barbosa 2003). The modelling exercise described above is considered to underestimate the risk of decline of Franciscanas. The most recent data on bycatch (e.g. Rosas et al. 2002, Bordino and Albareda 2005, A. Zerbini as summarized in IWC 2005b) indicate that the numbers caught annually in FMAs II and IV are roughly twice as high as the values used by Secchi (2006) in his projections. In addition, other sources of potential threat (risk factors, as described in the

In the area of Samborombom, the majority of the by-catch are females, of which at least 20% are pregnant or nursing (Bordini pers comm. 2016). This indicates that females are giving birth every year, as opposed to every other year. The pregnancy rate is 66% in Rio Grande do Sul (Danilewicz 2003) and 36% in southern Buenos Aires (Panebianco et al. 2015).

Habitats and Ecology freshwater species. Individuals are found mainly in marine waters and occasionally in estuaries, mostly in the Uruguayan part of the La Plata River estuary (Praderi 1986). They are primarily coastal, generally found in turbid waters < 30 m deep (Pinedo et al. 1989, Secchi and Ott 2000). However, some sightings have been register in the 50 m isobaths range, and also at 55 km offshore.

Franciscanas apparently do not migrate, although seasonal inshore/offshore movements have been documented in some areas (Bordino et al. 1999, Bordino 2002). Individuals feed on several species of shallow-water fish (e.g., sciaenids, engraulids, gadids, and carangids), cephalopods, and crustaceans (Brownell 1989, Di Beneditto and Ramos 2001, Rodriguez et al. 2002, Danilewicz et al. 2002). In respect with its predators, large sharks and killer whales has been documented (Praderi 1985, Ott and Danilewicz 1996, Santos and Netto 2005). Additionally, according to Taylor et al. 2007 the generation length is 9.3 years so decline is measure over 27-30 years.

Generation Length: 9.3 years (Taylor et al. 2007)

Threats

The main threat facing the species is incidental mortality in gillnet fisheries (there is no indication of direct exploitation of Franciscanas), which has been observed since at least the early 1940s (Van Erp 1969). It is estimated that about 3.5 - 5.6% its population is caught annually in by-catch (Crespo et al. 2010, Crespo pers comm. 2016). In the area of Samborombom, the majority of the by-catch are females, of which at least 20% are pregnant and nursing (Bordini pers comm. 2016). In the 1960s, the bycatch in Uruguay alone was as high as 1,500 2,000 animals per year (Brownell and Ness 1969, Pilleri 1971). Currently, estimations for the four management stocks total at least 2,900 animals per year (e.g., Ott et al. 2002, Secchi et al. 2003b), but the numbers used to get that total are thought to be underestimated to an unknown extent, primarily due to: (1) captures in other non-monitored

7 types of fisheries (e.g., active gillneting, Secchi et al. 1997; shrimp trawling, Cappozzo et al. 2000); (2) under-reporting of bycatch by fishermen; and (3) dolphins captured sometimes falling from the net before or during haul-out (Secchi et al. 2003b). Bycatch is higher in FMA III with estimates being above 1,300 animals incidentally caught annually (Ott et al. 2002; Secchi et al. 2003b, 2004), followed by FMA IV: approximately 800 individuals (Bordino and Albareda 2005), FMA II: > 700 dolphins (Rosas et al. 2002, IWC 2004), and FMA I: > 110 Franciscanas (Di Beneditto 2003). The observed catch rate is more than 2% than what is recommended for all cetaceans by the IWC. The CPUE for this species is increasing in areas where densities are lower, especially in Argentine populations (Crespo et al. 2010). It is not clear how CPUE can be sustained with a corresponding decline in populations, but it may be related to increased catch-ability.

Other potential threats include plastic ingestion and various forms of habitat degradation (e.g. overfishing; destruction of benthic community and bycatch of small sciaenid fish main Franciscana prey by trawling) (e.g. Bassoi and Secchi 2000, Danilewicz et al. 2002, Rodríguez et al. 2002). Stomach contents of Franciscanas from Rio Grande do Sul have included many kinds of debris: discarded fishing gear such as pieces of nylon net (17% of 36 stomachs), cellophane, and plastic fragments (6%) (Bassoi 1997). This problem has also been reported in northern Argentina, where cellophane, fishing debris, and plastic were found in 45%, 32% and 16% of the stomachs (Bastida et al. 2000; Danilewicz et al. 2002). The effects of such debris ingestion on health status of individual Franciscanas have not been determined, and the subpopulation- level implications are uncertain. However, debris could have a negative effect in at least some areas.

Conservation

The species is listed in Appendix II of CITES. Measures are needed to reduce the level of bycatch of this species, and research is needed to monitor bycatch levels more accurately.

Bibliography

Azevedo, A.F., Fragoso, A.B.L., Lailson-Brito, J. and Cunha, H.A. 2002. Records of the franciscana (Pontoporia blainvillei) in the southwestern Rio de Janiero and northernmost Sao Paulo State coasts - Brazil. Latin American Journal of Aquatic Mammals 1(1): 191-192.

Barbato, B. H. A., Secchi, E. R., Kinas, P. G., Dibeneditto, A. P. M., Ramos, R. M. A., Bertozzi, C. and Marigo, J. 2007. Identification of franciscana dolphin stocks through external morphology. XVII Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals, Nov.-Dec.. Cape Town, South Africa.

Barreto, A. S. and Rosas, F. C. W. 2006. Comparative growth analysis of two populations of Pontoporia blainvillei on the Brazilian coast. Marine Mammal Science 22(3): 644-653.

Bassoi, M. 1997. Avaliação da dieta alimentar de toninha, Pontoporia blainvillei (Gervais and D' Orbigny, 1844), capturadas acidentalmente na pesca costeira de emalhe no sul do Rio Grande do Sul. Fundação Universidade do Rio Grande.

Bassoi, M. and Secchi, E. 2000. Temporal variation in the diet of franciscana Pontoporia blainvillei (Cetacea, Pontoporiidae) as a consequence of fish stocks depeletion off southern Brazil. Technical Paper WP9 presented to IV Workshop para a Coordenação da Pesquisa e Conservação da Franciscana, Pontoporia blainvillei, no Atlântico Sul Ocidental, 5-9 November 2000, Porto Alegre.

Bastida, R., Rivero, L. and Rodríguez, D. 2000. Presencia inusual de elementos de origen antrópico en los contenidos estomacales de la Franciscana (Pontoporia blainvillei). IV Workshop para a Coordenação da Pesquisa e Conservação da Franciscana, Pontoporia blainvillei, no Atlântico Sul Ocidental, Technical Paper No. 26.

Bordino, P. 2002. Movement patterns of franciscana dolphins (Pontoporia blainvillei) in Bahia Anegada, Buenos Aires, Argentina. Latin American Journal of Aquatic Mammals 1(1): 71-76.

Bordino, P. and Albareda, D. 2005. Incidental mortality of Franciscana dolphin, Pontoporia blainvillei, in coastal gillnet fisheries in Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Bordino, P., Kraus, S., Albareda, D., Fazio, A., Palmiero, A., Mendez, M. and Botta, S. 2002. Reducing incidental mortality of Franciscana dolphin Pontoporia blainvillei with acoustic warning devices attached to fishing nets. Marine Mammal Science 18(4): 833-842.

Bordino, P., Thompson, G. and Iniguez, M. 1999. Ecology and behaviour of the franciscana (Pontoporia blainvillei) in Bahia Anegada, Argentina. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 1(2): 213-222.

Brownell Jr., R. L. and Ness, R. 1969. Preliminary notes on the biology of the franciscana, Pontoporia blainvillei (Cetacea: Platanistidae). Proceedings of the Annual Conference on Biological Sonar and Diving Mammals 6: 23-26.

Brownell Jr., R.L. 1989. Franciscana Pontoporia blainvillei (Gervais and d'Orbigny, 1844). In: S.H. Ridgway and R. Harrison (eds), Handbook of marine mammals, Vol. 4: River dolphins and the larger toothed whales, pp. 45-68. Academic Press.

Cappozzo, H.L., Monzón, F., Perez, J.E., Albareda, D. and Corcuera, J. 2000. Mortalidad del delfín franciscana (Pontoporia blainvillei) en la Provincia de Buenos Aires. IV Encontro para a Coordenação da Pesquisa e Conservação da Franciscana, Pontoporia blainvillei, no Atlântico Sul Ocidental, Working Paper No. 24..

Costa-Urrutia, P., Abud, C., Secchi, E.R. and Lessa, E.P. 2012. Population genetic structure and social kin associations of franciscana dolphin, Pontoporia blainvillei. Journal of Heredity 103(1): 92-102.

Crespo, E. A. 2002. Franciscana Pontoporia blainvillei. In: W. F. Perrin, B. Wursig and J. G. M. Thewissen (eds), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals, pp. 482-485. Academic Press.

Crespo, E. A., Pedraza, S. N., Grandi, M. F., Dans, S. L. and Garaffo, G. 2004. Abundance of franciscana dolphins, Pontoporia blainvillei, in the Argentine coast , from aerial surveys. International Whaling Commission Meeting.

Crespo, E.A., Harris, G. and Gonzalez, R. 1998. Group size and distributional range of the franciscana, Pontoporia blainvillei. Marine Mammal Science 14(4): 845-848.

Crespo, E.A., Pedraza, S.N., Grandi, M.F., Dans, S.L. and Graffo, G.V. 2010. Abundance and distribution of endangered Franciscana dolphins (Pontoporia blainvillei) in Argentine waters and conservation implications. Marine Mammal Science 26: 17-35.

Danilewicz, D. 2003. Reproduction of female franciscana (Pontoporia blainvillei) in Rio Grande Do Sul, Southern Brazil. LAJAM 2(2): 67-78.

Danilewicz, D., Rosas, F., Bastida, R., Marigo, J., Muelbert, M., Rodriguez, D., Lailson-Brito Jr., J., Ruoppolo, V., Ramos, R., Bassoi, M., Ott, P. H., Caon, G., Rocha, A. M., Catão-Dias, J. L.

9 and Secchi, E. R. 2002. Report of the Working Group on Biology and Ecology. Latin American Journal of Aquatic Mammals 1: 25-42.

Di Beneditto, A.P.M. 2003. Interactions between gillnet fisheries and small cetaceans in northern Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: 2001-2002. Latin American Journal of Aquatic Mammals 2(2): 79-86.

Di Beneditto, A.P.M. and Ramos, R.M.A. 2001. Biology and conservation of the franciscana (Pontoporia blainvillei) in the north of Rio de Janiero State, Brazil. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 3(2): 185-192.

Freitas Netto, R. and Barbosa, L. A. 2003. Cetaceans and fishery interactions along the Espririto Santo State, southeastern Brazil during 1994-2001. Latin American Journal of Aquatic Mammals 2(1): 57-60.

Gariboldi, M.C., Túnez, J.I., Dejean, C.B., Failla, M., Vitullo, A.D., Negri, M.F. and Cappozzo, H.L. 2015. Population genetics of Franciscana dolphins (Pontoporia blainvillei): Introducing a new population from the southern edge of their distribution. PLoS ONE: 10(7): e0132854. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0132854.

IWC (International Whaling Commission). 2005. Annex L. Report of the Sub-Committee on Small Cetaceans. Journal of Cetcaean Research and Management 7: 307-326.

International Whaling Commission. 2004. Report of the Sub-Committee on Small Cetaceans. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 6: 315-334.

International Whaling Commission. 2005. Report of the Scientific Committee. Journal of Cetcaean Research and Management 7: 1-62.

Kasuya, T., and Brownell, R.L. 1979. Age determination, reproduction, and growth of the Franciscana dolphin, Pontoporia blainvillei. The Scientific Reports of the Whales Research institute 31: 45-67.

Lazaro, M., Lessa E.P. and Hamilton, H. 2004. Geographic genetic structure in the franciscana dolphin (Pontoporia blainvillei). Marine Mammal Science 20(2): 201-214.

Mendez, M., Rosenbaum, H.C. and Bordino, P. 2008. Conservation genetics of the franciscana dolphin in Northern Argentina: population structure, by-catch impacts, and management implications. Conservation Genetics 9: 419-435.

Mendez, M., Rosenbaum, H.C., Subramaniam, A., Yackulic, C. and Bordino, P. 2010. Isolation by environmental distance in mobile marine species: molecular ecology of franciscana dolphins at their southern range. Molecular Ecology 19: 2212-2228.

Negri, M.F., Túnez, J.I. and Cappozzo, H.L. 2015. Caracterización genética del delfín franciscana Pontoporia blainvillei del sur de Buenos Aires, Argentina. In: Ott, P.H., Domit, C., Siciliano, S. and Flores, P.A.C. (eds), Memórias do VII Workshop para a coordenação de -24 de outubro de 2010, pp. 100-103. Florianópolis. Porto Alegre, Brasil.

Ott, P. H. 2002. Diversidade genética e estrutura populacional de duas espécies de cetáceos do Atlântico Sul Ocidental: Pontoporia blainvillei e Eubalaena australis. Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul.

Ott, P. H. and Danilewicz, D. 1996. Presence of franciscana dolphins (Pontoporia blainvillei) in the stomach of a killer whale (Orcinus orca) stranded in southern Brazil. Mammalia 62: 605- 609.

Ott, P. H., Secchi, E. R., Moreno, I. B., Danilewicz, D., Crespo, E. A., Bordino, P., Ramos, R., Di Beneditto, A. P., Bertozzi, C., Bastida, R., Zanelatto, R., Perez, J. E. and Kinas, P. G. 2002. Report of the Working Group on Fishery Interactions. The Latin American Journal of Aquatic Mammals. (Special Issue on the Biology and Conservation of Franciscana) 1: 55-64.

Panebianco, M. V., Del Castillo, D. L., Denuncio, P. E., Negri, M. F., Bastida, R., Failla, M., Vitullo, A. D. and Cappozzo, H. L. 2015. Reproductive biology of female franciscana dolphins (Pontoporia blainvillei) from Argentina. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 96(4): 821-840.

Pilleri, G. 1971. On the La Plata dolphin, Pontoporia blainvillei off the Uruguayan coasts. Investigations on Cetacea 3(1): 59-68.

Pinedo, M. C. 1991. Development and variation of the franciscana, Pontoporia blainvillei. University of California, Santa Cruz.

Pinedo, M.C., Praderi, R. and Brownell Jr., R.L. 1989. Review of the biology and status of the franciscana Pontoporia blainvillei. In: W.F. Perrin, R.L. Brownell, Jr., K. Zhou and J. Liu (eds), Biology and conservation of the river dolphins, pp. 46-51. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.

Praderi, R. 1985. Relaciones entre Pontoporia blainvillei (Mammalia: Cetacea) y tiburones (Selachii) de aguas Uruguayas. Communicaciones Zoologicas del Museo de Historia Natural de Montevideo 11: 1-19.

Praderi, R. 1986. Comentarios sobre la distribución de Pontoporia blainvillei en aguas del Rio de La Plata. In: H. P. Castello (ed.), Actas I Reunión de Trabajo de Especialistas en Mamíferos Acuáticos de América del Sur, pp. 206-214. Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Rodriguez, D., Rivero, L. and Bastida, R. 2002. Feeding ecology of the franciscana (Pontoporia blainvillei) from Buenos Aires Province, Argentina. Latin American Journal of Aquatic Mammals 1(Special Issue 1): 77-94.

Rosas, F.C.W., Montiero-Filho, E.L.A. and Oliveira, M.R. 2002. Incidental catches of franciscana (Pontoporia blainvillei) on the southern coast of Sao Paulo Stateand the coast of Parana State, Brazil. Latin American Journal of Aquatic Mammals 1(1): 161-168.

Santos, M.C. De O. and Netto, D.F. 2005. Killer whale (Orcinus orca) predation on a franciscana dolphin (Pontoporia blainvillei) in Brazilian waters. Latin American Journal of Aquatic Mammals 4(1): 69-72.

Secchi, E. R. 1999. Taxa de crescimento potencial intrínseco de um estoque de Franciscanas, Pontoporia blainvillei (Gervais & D'Orbigny, 1844) (Cetacea, Pontoporiidae) sob o impacto da pesca costeira de emalhe. Thesis, Fundação Universidade Federal do Rio Grande.

Secchi, E. R. and Ott, P. H. 2000. A profundidade como um fator determinante da distribuição de toninhas, Pontoporia blainvillei, conforme indicado pelos índices de CPUE. In: UNEP/CMS (ed.), Report of the Third Workshop for Coordinated Research and Conservation of the Franciscana Dolphin (Pontoporia blainvillei) in the Southwestern Atlantic. UNEP/CMS, Bonn, Germany.

Secchi, E. R. and Wang, J. Y. 2002. Assessment of the conservation status of a franciscana (Pontoporia blainvillei) stock in the Franciscana Management Area III following the IUCN Red List process. Latin American Journal of Aquatic Mammals 1(1): 183-190.

Secchi, E. R., Ott, P. H. and Danilewicz, D. 2002. Report of the fourth workshop for the coordinated research and conservation of the Franciscana dolphin (Pontoporia blainvillei) in the western South Atlantic. Latin American Journal of Aquatic Mammals 1: 11-20.

Secchi, E. R., Wang, J. Y., Murray, B. W., Rocha-Campos, C. C. and White, B. N. 1998. Populational differences between Franciscanas, Pontoporia blainvillei, from two geographical locations as indicated by sequences of mtDNA control region. Canadian Journal of Zoology 76: 1622-1627.

Secchi, E.R. 2006. Modelling the Population Dynamics and Viability Analysis of Franciscana (Pontoporia blainvillei Cephalorhynchus hectori) under the Effects of Bycatch in Fisheries, Parameter Uncertainty and Stochasticity. Thesis, University of Otago.

Secchi, E.R., Danilewicz, D. and Ott, P.H. 2003a. Applying the phylogeographic concept to identify franciscana dolphin stocks: implications to meet management objectives. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 5(1): 61-68.

Secchi, E.R., Kinas, P.G. and Muelbert, M. 2004. Incidental catches of franciscana in coast gillnet fisheries in the Franciscana Management Area III: Period 1999-2000. Latin American Journal of Aquatic Mammals 3(1): 61-68.

Secchi, E.R., Ott, P.H. and Danilewicz, D. 2003b. Effects of fishing bycatch and the conservation status of the franciscana dolphin, Pontoporia blainvillei. In: N. Gales, M. Hindell and R. Kirkwood (eds), Marine Mammals: Fisheries, Tourism and Management Issues, pp. 174-191. CSIRO Publishing.

Secchi, E.R., Ott, P.H., Crespo, E.A., Kinas, P.G., Pedraza, S.N. and Bordino, P. 2001. A first estimate of franciscana (Pontoporia blainvillei) abundance off southern Brazil. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 3(1): 95-100.

Secchi, E.R., Zerbini, A.N., Bassoi, M., Dalla Rosa, L., Moller, L.M. and Rocha-Campos, C.C. 1997. Mortality of fransiscanas, Pontoporia blainvillei, in coastal gillnets in southern Brazil: 1994-1995. Reports of the International Whaling Commission 47: 653-658.

Siciliano, S. 1994. Review of small cetaceans and fishery interactions in coastal waters of Brazil. Reports of the International Whaling Commission Special Issue 15: 241-250.

Siciliano, S., Di Beneditto, A. P. M. and Ramos, R. M. A. 2002. A toninha, Pontoporia blainvillei (Gervais & d'Orbigny, 1844) (Mammalia, Cetacea, Pontoporiidae), nos estados do Rio de Janiero e Esprito Santo, costa sudeste do Brasil: Caracterizacao dos habitats e fatores de isolamento das populacoes. Boletim do Museu Nacional 476: 16 pp.

Taylor, B.L., Chivers, S.J., Larese, J. and Perrin, W.F. 2007. Generation length and percent mature estimates for IUCN assessments of cetaceans. NOAA, Southwest Fisheries Science Center Administrative Report LJ-07-01. La Jolla, California.

Van Erp, I. 1969. In quest of the La Plata dolphin. Pacific Discovery 22: 18-24.

LC - Least Concern, (IUCN version 3.1)

Assessment Rationale:

is endemic to the Patagonia Sea, where it is considered abundant along the Argentine coast, with total population estimates of between 25,000-40,000 (or 15,000- 24,000 mature individuals), but there are no estimates of population trends. Threats to this species in the Patagonia Sea include by-catch and ship noise that masks communication, vulnerability to pollution and potential impact to whale-watching activities if not properly undertaken, however, there is no current indication of widespread decline. Therefore, this species is listed as Least Concern. However, there have been some declines in the Straits of Magellan with unknown causes, and due to observed fragmented population structure, this species may be vulnerable to localized extirpation. As such, further research is needed, especially to address the question of population structure within Argentina.

Assessor(s): Crespo, E., Hevia, M. & Capella, J. Reviewer(s): Shope, M., Falabella, V. Contributor(s): Reeves, R.R., Crespo, E.A., Dans, S., Jefferson, T.A., Karczmarski, L., Laidre, -Crowe, G., Pedraza, S., Rojas-Bracho, L., Secchi, E.R., Slooten, E., Smith, B.D., Wang, J.Y. & Zhou, K. Facilitators/Compilers: Polidoro, B.

Taxonomic information

ANIMALIA - CHORDATA - MAMMALIA - CETARTIODACTYLA - DELPHINIDAE - Cephalorhynchus commersonii - (Lacépède, 1804)

Common Names: Commerson's Dolphin (English), Commerson-Delfin (German), Dauphin de Commerson (French), Delfín de Commerson (Spanish; Castilian), Jacobita (Spanish; Castilian), Tonina Overa (Spanish; Castilian) Synonyms: No Synonyms

Note: Two subspecies are recognized: C. c. commersonii in southern South America and C. c. kerguelenensis in the Kerguelen Islands (Robineau et al. 2007). The Kerguelen subspecies was apparently founded by a few individuals as recently as 10,000 years ago.

Geographic Range

This species, endemic to the Patagonia Sea, extends from south central Argentina and the Malvinas to southern Chile (Pedraza 2008). On the Atlantic coast the northern limit is at approximately River Negro mouth (40°S) (Bastida and Rodríguez 2003), with the range extending south near Cape Horn (56ºS) including the central and eastern Strait of Magellan and the Malvinas. In Chile the species is found in: the Strait of Magellan (Aguayo-Lobo 1975, Goodall 1978, Venegas and Sielfeld 1978, Sielfeld 1983, Venegas and Atalah 1987, Thielke 1984, Goodall et al. 1988, Leatherwood et al. 1988, Hucke-Gaete and Vallejos 1997, Aguayo- Lobo et al. 1998, Gibbons et al. 2000), Seno Skyring, Fitz Roy channel, seno Otway and seno Almirantazgo (Sielfeld and Venegas 1978, Gibbons et al. 2000).

Two stranding records, in Necochea, Buenos Aires province, Argentina (Iñiguez et al. 2010) and in Laguna Los Patos, Brazil (Pinedo et al. 2002), have been described far north of the Atlantic northern limit for the species. In Falkland/Malvinas the species is highly coastal and it has been suggested that it is resident in the islands (White et al. 2002).

Single dolphins and groups of up to hundreds individuals were sighted in the late 1980s and early 1990s along the northern coast of Tierra del Fuego (Goodall 1994). Although sightings in the northern parts of the range often are of small groups or solitary individuals, overall numbers and group sizes increase to the south.

Genetic population structure revealed significant differentiation among different studied areas (within Tierra del Fuego and Santa Cruz provinces) over small geographic scales, supporting the consideration of these as distinct subpopulations (Pimper et al. 2010, Cipriano et al. 2011). and patterns of prey consumption (Berón-Vera et al. 2001).

Population

This species is considered abundant in the Patagonia Sea, with total population estimates of between 25,000-40,000 (or 15,000-24,000 mature individuals). The total is gathered from a compilation of approximations involving different regional figures. These figures, as shown by Pedraza (2008) are around: 1,200-2,753 individuals in Chubut (Northern Chubut and Golfo San Jorge), 2,185-6,190 individuals in Northern Santa Cruz, and 14,700-25,5000 individuals in Southern Patagonia. The extrapolation of data to the whole coastal Patagonian waters led to an estimare of 40,000 individuals for the area comprised by the coast and the 100m-isobath. As such, in the Patagonian Sea overall abundance in the early to mid-2000s was estimated at about 40,000, with at least half of that number in Tierra del Fuego and southern Patagonia, while the species population size along the Argentine coast is estimated to be 25,000 individuals with density increasing with latitude (more abundant in the south) (Pedraza 2008).

There are no estimates of population trends, but Commerson's dolphin seems to be the most abundant species of the genus Cephalorhynchus (Dawson 2002) although much of its range has not been surveyed and there are only a few estimates of abundance. In southern Chile, there have been recent declines observed over the past 10 years in the Straits of Magellan, for unknown reasons (Capella pers comm. 2016). Leatherwood et al. (1988) conducted aerial surveys in the northern Strait of Magellan and estimated a minimum of 3,221 dolphins for that area. However, they did not observe Commerson's dolphins in some areas where the species had been recorded previously. Venegas (1996) estimated the density of Commerson's dolphins during early summer (1989-1990) in the eastern sector of the Strait of Magellan, flying 79 transects corresponding to 1,320 km. The estimated total number within the study area was 718 ± 196 individuals. Venegas attributed the substantial difference between his figures and those of Leatherwood et al. (1988) to methodological factors and time of year.

It has been suggested that the reduced abundance of these dolphins in some areas of southern Chile was due to either depletion of the population or displacement of the animals eastward of the Strait of Magellan. In either case, potential causes include mortality in fishing gear and extensive hunting in the past. The practice of using dolphins and other marine mammals as bait is reported to have declined in recent years, due in part to the fact that legal bait has been more readily available and in part to measures taken by Chilean government agencies (Lescrauwaet and Gibbons, 1994; Reeves et al., 2003).

Furthermore, this species is distributed in subgroups in restricted areas, with little to no connectivity, which makes them vulnerable to localized extinctions. Based on mitochondrial DNA, this species exhibits a fragmented population structure (Pimper et al. 2010, Cipriano et al. 2011), which can increase the vulnerability of matrilineal groups. At the microsatellite level, there is indication that males are less fragmented (Crespo unpublished data). Additionally there may be behavioral differences among female groups.

Habitats and Ecology

Commerson's dolphins have a low reproductive rates (Collet & Robineau 1988, Lockyer et al. 1988, Slooten 1991), and are found in cold inshore waters along open coasts, in sheltered fjords, bays, harbours and river mouths, and occasionally the lower reaches of rivers. Their offshore limit is not very clear, but Commerson's dolphins sometimes move very close to shore, even inside the breakers. However, they are also observed offshore in waters deeper than 50 offshore and in water deeper than 1000 m (Pedraza 2008).

Within the Strait of Magellan, they prefer the areas with strongest currents, such as the Primera and Segunda Angostura (First and Second Narrows), where the current can reach or exceed 15 km/hr (Goodall 1994). Off South America, Commerson's dolphins appear to prefer areas where the continental shelf is wide and flat, the tidal range is great, and temperatures are influenced by the cool Malvinas Current. In coastal Patagonia, they are found principally in areas with continental runoff such as at the mouths of the Chubut and Santa Cruz Rivers and at Puerto Deseado. Around the Malvinas and Kerguelen Islands, as well as off mainland Argentina, they are often seen swimming in or at the edge of kelp beds.

South American Commerson's dolphins appear to be opportunistic, feeding near the bottom on various species of fish, cephalopods, crustaceans, and benthic invertebrates in kelp beds but also on pelagic schooling fish in more open areas. In the Kerguelen Islands, they seem to have a more restricted diet, consisting mostly of fish. This species may have a generation length of 12-13 years (Crespo pers comm. 2016, Taylor et al. 2007).

Generation Length: 12-13 years (Crespo pers. comm. 2016, Taylor et al. 2007)

General Use and Trade Information

Hunting of this species as bait in in the southern king crab fishery (Goodall & Cameron 1980) has decreased as a result of and management by a bait supply program conducted by the Fish and Wildlife Service of the US and the University of Magallanes (Crespo et al. 2007, Crespo et al. 2008, Lescrauwaet & Gibbons 1994; Lescrauwaet & Gibbons 2008, Reeves et al. 2008).

Threats

Until recently, various species of small cetaceans, mainly Commerson's dolphins and Peale's dolphins, were harpooned and used as bait in the southern king crab ("centolla") fishery in both Argentina and Chile (Lescrauwaet and Gibbons 1994). Because the centolla is overfished in the Magellan region, fishing effort has shifted to the false king crab, which is exploited principally farther west in the channels. Commerson's dolphins are not found there, but they are relatively abundant in the eastern part of the Strait. In Argentina, the crab fishery operates in the Beagle Channel, where there are relatively few Commerson's dolphins. Some animals have been killed for sport (Reyes 1991) and others have been live -captured for dolphinaria (Goodall 1994).

This is the odontocete species most frequently taken in fishing nets off southern South America, perhaps due to its coastal distribution which overlaps with trammel and artisanal gillnet fisheries (e.g. Iñiguez et al. 2003). It is taken most often in fairly large-mesh nets. Although the scale of the bycatch is unknown, at least 5-30 died each year in nets set perpendicular to the shore in eastern Tierra del Fuego alone during the 1980s and early 1990s (Goodall 1994). They are also taken in this type of fishery in the Argentinean provinces north of dolphins are also killed at least occasionally in midwater trawl nets on the Argentine shelf (Crespo et al. 1997, 2000). Recent aerial surveys off Patagonia provided an estimate of 1,200 tch there in hake and shrimp fisheries (25 to 170 individuals per year, mostly females; Dans et al. 2003) could represent anywhere from 0.9 to 6.3% of the estimated abundance. Incidental mortality in gillnets was calculated as almost 180 animals for the fishing season 1999-2000 in a small area of the Santa Cruz Province, southern Argentina (Iñiguez et al. 2003).

The salmon farming industry in southern Chile plans to expand into the Southwestern Atlantic, increasing the demand for salmon food, based on anchovy, mackerel and other pelagic species of fish (Skewgar et al. 2007). Pelagic fish are captured by large vessels operating with trawls or purse seines, and those fish are then converted into meal to feed salmon. Global aquaculture, which uses feeds manufactured from fish meal, increased by 50% between 1998 and 2004, and will likely continue to grow (Skewgar et al. 2007). Uruguay recently approved a Chile-financed factory to process 200,000 tons of anchovy into fishmeal (Skewgar et al. 2007). The rising global demand for fish meal could lead to unsustainable anchovy fishery expansion on the Patagonian coast. In addition to uncontrolled fishing that will reduce populations of key prey species like the southern anchovy, substantial bycatches of several species of dolphins,

(Dans et al. 2003; Crespo et al. 1997, 2000). Enforcement of fishery regulations in Argentina and other countries in southern South America is reportedly inadequate (E. Crespo pers. comm.).

There is also evidence that ship-noises that mask communication could pose a threat to the species (Reyes Reyes, et al. 2016). Other potential impacts are pollution (Cáceres-Saez et al. 2013a, b) and whale-watching activities if not properly and responsibly undertaken (Coscarella et al. 2003).

Conservation

The species is listed in Appendix II of CITES.

may have been seriously affected by the illegal deliberate take for bait in the Chilean crab fishery, the pressure on them in the southern part of their range

18 apparently was reduced beginning in the late 1980s. However, in various parts of their range, incidental mortality in gillnets and other fishing gear continues and represents an ongoing threat (Dans et al. 2003, Iniguez et al. 2003; Reeves et al. 2008). Such mortality should be investigated in more detail.

Bibliography

Aguayo-L., A. 1975. Progress report on small cetacean research in Chile. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 32: 1123-1143.

Aguayo-L., A., Torres N.D., and Acevedo R.J. 1998. Los Mamíferos Marinos de Chile: I Cetacea. Serie Científica INACH 48: 19-159.

Bastida, R., Rodríguez, D. 2003. Mamíferos Marinos de Patagonia y Antártida. Vázquez Maziini Editores, Buenos Aires.

Beron-Vera, B., Pedraza, S. N., Raga, J. A., De Pertierra, A. G., Crespo, E. A., Alonso, M. A. and Goodall, R. N. P. 2001. Gastrointestinal helminths of Commerson's dolphins Cephalorhynchus commersonii from central Patagonia and Tierra del Fuego. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 47: 201-208.

Cipriano, F., Hevia, M. and Iñíguez, M. 2011. Genetic divergence over small geographic scales and conservation implications for Commerson's dolphins (Cephalorhynchus commersonii) in southern Argentina. Marine Mammal Science 27: 701 718.

Collet, A. and Robineau, D. 1988. Data on the genital tract and reproduction in Commerson's dolphin, Cephalorhynchus commersonii (Lacépède, 1804), from the Kerguelen Islands. Rep. Int. Whaling Comm. Spec. Issue 9: 119-141.

Coscarella, M.A., Dans, S.L., Crespo, E.A. and Pedraza, S.N. 2003. Potential impact of unregulated dolphin watching activities in Patagonia. Journal of Cetacean Research Management 5: 77-84.

Crespo, E. A., Alonso, M. K., Dans, S. L., Garcia, N. A., Pedraza, S. N., Coscarella, M. and Gonzalez, R. 2000. Incidental catches of dolphins in mid-water trawls for Argentine anchovy (Engraulis anchoita) off the Argentine shelf. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 2(1): 11-16.

Crespo, E. A., Dans, S. L., Koen Alonso, M. and Pedraza, S. N. 2007. Interacciones entre mamíferos marinos y pesquerias en la costa argentina. El Mar Argentino y sus recursos pesqueros, pp. 151-169. Tomo 5, El ecosistema marino.

Crespo, E. A., Pedraza, S. N., Dans, S. L., Alsonso, M. K., Reyes, M. K., Garcia, N. A., Coscarella, M. and Schiavini, A. C. M. 1997. Direct and indirect effects of the high seas fisheries on the marine mammal populations in the northern and cental Patagonian coast. Journal of Northwest Atlantic Fishery Science 22: 189-208.

Crespo, E.A., Dans, S.L., Koen Alonso, M. y Pedraza, S.N. 2008. Interacciones entre mamiferos marinos y pesquerias en la costa Argentina. Estado de Conservación del Mar Patagónico 2008 (Versión electrónica). Available at: http://www.marpatagonico.org/libro/articulo.php?id=crespo-dans-alonso-pedraza- interacciones-mamiferos-pesquerias.

Cáceres-Saez, I., Ribeiro Guevara, A., Dellabianca, N., Goodall, R.N.P .and Cappozzo, H.L. 2013. Heavy metals and essential elements in Comme commersonii) from the southwestern South Atlantic Ocean. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 185(5375-5386).

Dans, S. L., Koen-Alonso, M., Pedraza, S. N. and Crespo, E. A. 2003. Incidental catch of dolphins in trawling fisheries off Patagonia, Argentina: Can populations persist? Ecological Applications 13(3): 754-762.

Dawson, S. M. 2002. Cephalorhynchus dolphins Cephalorhynchus spp. In: W. F. Perrin, B. Wursig and J. G. M. Thewissen (eds), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals, pp. 200-204. Academic Press.

Gibbons, J., Gazitúa, F., and Venegas, C. 2000. Cetáceos en el Estrecho de Magallanes y Senos Otway Skyring y Almirantazgo. Anales Instituto Patagonia, Seria Cs. Nat. (Chile) 28: 107- 118.

Goodall RNP. 1978. Report on the small cetaceans stranded on the coasts of Tierra del Fuego. Scientific Reports of the Whales Research Institute 30: 197-230.

Goodall, R. N. P. 1994. Commerson's dolphin Cephalorhynchus commersonii (Lacepede, 1804). In: S. H. Ridgway and R. Harrison (eds), Handbook of marine mammals, pp. 241-267. Academic Press, London, UK.

Goodall, R.N.P. and Cameron I.S. 1980. Exploitation of small cetaceans off Southern South America. Report of the International Whaling Commission 30: 445-450.

Goodall, R.N.P., Galeazzi, A.R., Leatherwood, S., Miller, K.W., Cameron, I.S., Kastelein, R.K., Cephalorhynchus commersonii, off Tierra del Fuego, 1976 1984, with a review of information on the species in the South Atlantic. Reports of the International Whaling Commission. Special Issue 9:3-70.

Hucke-Gaete, R., and Vallejos, V. 1997. Estudios ecol gicos sobre el lobo fino ant rtico, Arctocephalus gazella, en cabo Shirreff, Ant rtica. Informe Cient fico ECA XXXIII, Proyecto INACH 018. Santiago. 32 p gs + 4 anexos (9 p gs).

Iñíguez, M. A., Hevia, M., Gasparrou, C., Tomsin, A. L. and Secchi, E. R. 2003. Preliminary estimate of incidental mortality of Commerson's dolphins (Cephalorhynchus commersonii) in an artisanal fishery in La Angelina Beach and Ria Gallegos, Santa Cruz, Argentina. Latin American Journal of Aquatic Mammals 2(2): 87-9.

Iñíguez, M., Hevia, M., Cipriano, F., Sarradell, J., Doumecq Milieu, R. 2010. Stranding of a Commerson's dolphin, Cephalorhynchus commersonii, in Buenos Aires Province, Argentina. Marine Biodiversity Records 3.

Leatherwood, S., Kastelein, R. A. and Hammond, P. S. 1988. Estimate of number of Commerson's dolphins in a portion of the northeastern Strait of Magellan, January-February 1984. Reports of the International Whaling Commission 9: 93-102.

Lescrauwaet, A. C. and Gibbons, J. 1994. Mortality of small cetaceans and the crab bait fishery in the Magellanes area of Chile since 1980. Reports of the International Whaling Commission Special Issue 15: 485-494.

Lescrauwaet, A. C. and Gibbons, J. 2008. A review of the crab bait related exploitation of small cetaceans in Magallanes and Tierra del Fuego with an update on the current situation. International Whaling Commission Scientific Committee SC-60-SM5.

Lockyer, C., Goodall, R.N.P., Galeazzi, A.R. 1988. Age and body length characteristics of Cephalorhynchus commersonii from incidentally-caught specimens off Tierra del Fuego. Report of the International Whaling Commission Special Issue 9: 103-118.

Pedraza, S. N. 2008. Ecología poblacional de la tonina overa Cephalorhynchus commersonii (Lacépède, 1804) en el litoral Patagónico. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Buenos Aires.

Pimper, L.E., Baker, C.S., Goodall, R.N.P., Olavarría, C. and Remis, M.I. 2010. Mitochondrial Cephalorhynchus commersonii) in their southernmost distribution. Conservation Genetics 11: 2157 2168.

Pinedo, M.C., A.S. Barreto, M.P. Lammardo, A.L.V. Andrade and Geracitano, L. 2002. Northernmost records of the spectacled porpoise, Layard's beaked whale, Commerson's dolphin, and Peale's dolphin in the southwestern Atlantic Ocean. Aquatic Mammals 28: 32 37.

Reeves, R.R., Crespo, E.A., Dans, Jefferson, T.A., Karczmarski, L., Laidre, K., O -Crowe, G., Pedraza, S., Rojas-Bracho, L., Secchi, E.R., Slooten, E., Smith, B.D., Wang, JY. & Zhou, K. 2008. Cephalorhynchus commersonii. In: IUCN 2008. 2008 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.

Reeves, R.R., Smith, B.D., Crespo, E.A. and Notarbartolo di Sciara, G. 2003. Dolphins, Whales and Porpoises: 2002-2010 Conservation Action Plan for the World's Cetaceans. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.

Reyes Reyes, M.V., Hevia, M., Hildebrand, J., Iñíguez, M.A., Tossenberger, V. and Melcón, M. 20 from ship noise in shallow waters of the Argentine Patagonian coast. Workshop on Acoustic Masking and Whale Population Dynamics. Bled, Slovenia.

Reyes, J. C. 1991. The conservation of small cetaceans: a review report prepared for the Secretariat of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS). United Nations Environmental Program/CMS Secretariat.

Robineau, D., Goodall, R.N.P., Pichler, F. and Baker, C.S. 2007. Description of a new Cephalorhynchus commersonii (Lacépède, 1804), inhabiting the coastal waters of the Kerguelen Islands. Mammalia 71: 172-180.

Sielfeld, W. K. 1983. Mamiferos marinos de Chile. Ediciones de la Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile.

Sielfeld, W. and Venegas, C. 1978. Observacion de delfines en los canales australes de Chile. Anales del Instituto de la Patagonia (Chile) 9: 145-151.

Skewgar, E., Dee Boersma, P., Harris, G. and Caille, G. 2007. Anchovy fishery threat to Patagonian ecosystem. Science 315.

Canadian Journal of Zoology 69: 1689-1700.

Thielke, W. 1984. Rettung mit Gewalt. Bunte 11: 16-21.

Venegas, C., and Atalah, A.G. 1987. Prospección aérea otoñal de toninas overas (Cephalorhynchus commersonii) en el Estrecho de Magallanes. Anales del Instituto de la Patagonia Serie Ciencias Naturales, Punta Arenas (Chile) 17: 69-75.

Venegas, C., and Sielfeld, W. 1978. Registros de Mesoplodon layardii y otros cet ceos en Magallanes. Anales del Instituto de la Patagonia Serie Ciencias Naturales, Punta Arenas (Chile) 9: 171-177.

Venegas, C.C. 1996. Estimacion de la densidad poblacional, mediante transectos aéreos en linea de la tunina overa Cephalorhynchus commersonii en el Estrecho de Magallanes, Chile. Anales del Instituto de la Patagonia Serie Ciencias Naturales 24: 41-48.

White, R.W., Gillon, K.W., Black, A.D. and Reid, J.B. 2002. The distribution of seabirds and marine mammals in Falkland Island waters. Joint Nature Conservation Committee. Monkstone House, City Road, Peterborough, PE1 1JY, UK. 107 pp.

VU - Vulnerable, D1 (IUCN version 3.1)

Assessment Rationale:

Chilean dolphin is endemic to Chile, where it is found in two subpopulations, one north of Chiloe and the other from Chiloe to the south. There is a record of this species (likely vagrant) off the coast of Puerto Deseado. Southern Chilean subpopulation is impacted by habitat loss from salmon farms and mariculture. This subpopulation has high site fidelity, and low numbers, likely less than 1000 mature individuals. This species is listed as Vulnerable under D1. However, as all the individuals of the species in the Patagonian Sea belong to the southern subpopulation, and there is decline in habitat quality, the species in the Patagonian Sea Region may qualify for Endangered under C2aii if more information becomes available on this species subpopulation trends. The northern subpopulation (north of Chiloe) may be more threatened, as it may be present in lower numbers.

Assessor(s): Sepúlveda, M. & Capella, J. Reviewer(s): Shope, M. Contributor(s): Reeves, R.R., Crespo, E.A., Dans, S., Jefferson, T.A., Karczmarski, L., Laidre, -Crowe, G., Pedraza, S., Rojas-Bracho, L., Secchi, E.R., Slooten, E., Smith, B.D., Wang, J.Y.. & Zhou, K. Facilitators/Compilers: Polidoro, B.

Taxonomic information

ANIMALIA - CHORDATA - MAMMALIA - CETARTIODACTYLA - DELPHINIDAE - Cephalorhynchus - eutropia - Gray, 1846

Common Names: Chilean Dolphin (English), Chile-Delfin (German), Dauphin du Chili (French), Delfín Chileno (Spanish; Castilian).

Geographic Range

This dolphin is found only along the Chilean coast (and possibly in southern Argentina), from about 30°S to Cape Horn, at the southern tip of South America. Like other members of the genus, it is found in shallow coastal waters, and sometimes enters estuaries and rivers. It occurs in the channels and fjords of southern Chile, and to a lesser extent along the west coast of Tierra del Fuego, such as in the Strait of Magellan. There is a record of this species (likely vagrant) off the coast of Puerto Deseado (Morgenthaler et al. 2014). This species' distribution appears to be continuous, although there may be areas of local abundance, such as Golfo de Arauco, the coast off Valdivia and the eastern side of Isla de Grande Chiloé (Goodall et al. 1988).

Population

This species is endemic to Chile, where it is found in two subpopulations, one north of Chiloe and the other from Chiloe to the south (Perez Alvarez et al. 2015). The only reliable abundance estimate is of 60 dolphins in an area of approx. 270 km² off southern Isla Chiloé, Chile (Heinrich 2006). The total population appears to be very small (less than thousands individuals) although the perceived rarity of these dolphins may be due, to some extent, to the lack of boat traffic and fewness of trai behaviour. Based on information from 20 years ago, it has been suggested that Chilean dolphins are locally abundant in areas such as Bahia Corral off Valdivia, Golfo de Arauco near Concepción and around Isla Grande de Chiloé, but there is a record of this species (likely vagrant) off the coast of Puerto Deseado (Morgenthaler et al. 2014). Groups of 20-50 have all 1994).

In the southern Chilean subpopulation, this species is impacted by habitat loss from salmon farms and mariculture. The subpopulation has high site fidelity (Gibbons et al. 2001; Auger 2012). Chilean dolphins near Chiloé reside in the same inshore waters year-round (Goodall 1994; Heinrich 2006).

Recent studies showed low population numbers (few thousand individuals) with effective population sizes lower of 100 animals for both the southern and northern subpopulations (Perez-Alvarez et al. 2015, Perez-Alvarez et al. 2016).

Habitats and Ecology

The Chilean dolphin is restricted to cold shallow coastal waters. According to Goodall (1994) it inhabits two distinct areas: (1) the channels from Cape Horn to Isla Grande de Chiloé and (2) open coasts, bays and river mouths north of Isla Chiloé, such as waters near Valdivia and Concepción. It seems to prefer areas with rapid tidal flow, tide rips, and shallow waters over banks at the entrance to fjords. The dolphins readily enter estuaries and rivers.

Most sightings have been near shore and therefore the Chilean dolphin is considered a coastal species, although there has been little survey effort in adjacent offshore waters. Movements appear quite limited, with most dolphins resident in a small area. Individuals identified from natural markings on their dorsal fins have been shown to concentrate their activities in specific bays and channels (Heinrich, 2006; F. Viddi pers. comm., April 2007). Groups tend to be small (between 2 and 15), but relatively large aggregations (20-50) also have been reported a clear pattern of spatial and temporal partitioning of coastal habitat by the two species was documented during a six-year study at Isla Grande de Chiloé (Heinrich 2006). This pattern might not apply in other areas, such as farther south in the Guaitecas Archipelago, where mixed groups are often observed foraging and socializing (F. Viddi pers. comm., April 2007).

Chilean dolphins feed on shallow-water fishes (e.g., sardines, anchovies, rock cod), cephalopods, and crustaceans (Goodall 1994).

This species has a generation length of 14 years according to Taylor et al. 2007.

General Use and Trade Information

This species was hunted mainly as bait for use in fisheries. There is some evidence that this harvest has declined in recent years as a consequence of management of a bait supply program conducted by the Fish and Wildlife Service of the US and the University of Magallanes (Lescrauwaet and Gibbons 2008, Reeves et al. 2008).

Threats

Chilean dolphins have been hunted for many years for food and crab bait. The crab bait fishery in southern Chile (Lescrauwaet and Gibbons 1994) and a variety of other fisheries (particularly coastal gillnet fisheries) are potentially serious threats. Fishermen in coastal areas north of Isla Chiloé harpoon dolphins or use those taken incidentally in their nets as bait for longlines targeting róbalo (Eleginops maclovinus), individual hooks targeting swordfish (Xiphias gladius) and ring nets for crabs (Cancer sp.) (Goodall et al. 1988). From Isla Grande de Chiloé south, dolphins have been used along with sheep, seals, sea lions, penguins, other marine birds, and fish for bait for the lucrative "centolla" (southern king crab) and "centollon" (false king crab) fishery. It was estimated in the early 1980s that two Chilean dolphins could be taken per week per boat at one cannery in Magellan Strait (Goodall et al. 1988), and in 1992 up to 600 dolphin per year in the area near the western Strait of Magellan (Lescrauwaet and Gibbons 1994). Fishing areas since then have moved farther north and south, and alternative sources of bait (such as offal from the fishing and fish farming industries) have become more readily available. The killing of dolphins for bait presumably continues to some extent but unfortunately there is no reliable recent information on this issue. Although hunting is now illegal, fishermen in the area are poor and enforcement of the law in remote areas is difficult.

Incidental mortality occurs throughout the range. No estimate exists of total incidental mortality in Chile. A past survey at Queule, south of Valdivia, revealed that Chilean dolphins accounted for nearly half of the dolphins taken in gill nets set from some 30 boats (Reyes and Oporto 1994). This would imply a catch of some 65-70 Chilean dolphins per year at this one port (Goodall 1994). An unknown number of Chilean dolphins are caught in shore-based gillnets set by local people from Isla Chiloé to capture small native fish and introduced farmed salmon that have escaped from their cages (Heinrich 2006).

Aquaculture farms for salmon and shellfish also may have negative effects on Chilean dolphins, e.g. by restricting their movements and eliminating important habitat along the east coast of Isla Grande de Chiloé. Exclusion of Chilean dolphins from bays and fjords is due mainly to large-scale shellfish farming operations but also to salmon farms, although these latter are usually located farther from shore and in deeper water than that preferred by the dolphins (Kemper et al. 2003; Heinrich 2006; Ribeiro et al. 2007). It has been shown that boat traffic, mainly related to aquaculture, affects the behaviour of Chilean dolphins (Ribeiro et al. 2005). Finally, there is evidence that Chilean dolphins are sometimes caught incidentally in anti-sea lion nets set up around salmon farms in the fjords and channels (Francisco Viddi pers. comm., April 2007).

Conservation

The species is listed in Appendix II of CITES.

Better information on the status of Chilean dolphins is needed. The species may be declining because of bycatch and the consequences of extensive modification of its limited habitat in Chile. Specifically, it is important to obtain abundance estimates, quantitative information on direct and incidental mortality, and better information on habitat use in relation to aquaculture and other human activities t expansion of salmon (and shellfish) farming in southern Chile is a particular concern. It is also important to evaluate possible gaps in the distribution of Chilean dolphins.

Bibliography

Auger, A. 2012. Distribución espacial de tres especies de delfínidos (Cephalorhynchus commersonii, Cephalorhynchus eutropia y Lagenorhynchus australis) en el cono sur de Sudamérica y su interacción con la acuicultura: una aproximación al modelamiento de nicho. Tesis de Magister en Ciencias del Mar, Universidad Católica del Norte.

Gibbons, J., Venegas, C., Guzmán, L., Pizarro, G. and Boree, D. 2001. Programa de monitoreo de pequeños cetáceos en la XII región. Informe Final FIP Nº 99-28.

Goodall, R. N. P. 1994. Chilean dolphin Cephalorhynchus eutropia (Gray, 1846). In: S. H. Ridgway and R. Harrison (eds), Handbook of marine mammals, pp. 269-287. Academic Press, London, UK.

Goodall, R. N. P., Norris, K. S., Galeazzi, A. R., Oporto, J. A. and Cameron, I. S. 1988. On the Chilean dolphin, Cephalorhynchus eutropia (Gray 1846). Reports of the International Whaling Commission Special Issue 9: 197-257.

Heinrich, S. 2006. Ecology of Chilean dolphins and Peale's dolphins at Isla Chiloé, southern Chile. Ph.D. Thesis, University of St Andrews.

Kemper, C. M., Pemberton, D., Cawthorn, M. H., Heinrich, S., Mann, J., Würsig, B., Shaugnessy, P. and Gales, R. 2003. Aquaculture and marine mammals - co-existence or conflict? In: N. Gales, M. Hindell, and R. Kirkwood (eds), Marine Mammals: Fisheries, Tourism and Management Issues, pp. 209 225. CSRIO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia.

Morgenthaler, A., Fernández, J., Moraga, R. and Olavarría, C. 2014. Chilean dolphins on the Argentine Atlantic coast. Marine Mammal Science 30(2): 782-787.

Pérez-Alvarez, M.J., Olavarría, C. Moraga, R., Baker, C.S., Hammer, R.M. and Poulin, W. 2016. Historical dimensions of population structure in a continuously distributed marine species: The case of the endemic Chilean dolphin. Sci. Rep. 6, 35507.

Pérez-Alvarez, M.J., Olavarría, C., Moraga, R., Baker, C.S., Hammer, R.M. and Poulin, E. 2015. Microsatellite Markers Reveal Strong Genetic Structure in the Endemic Chilean Dolphin. PLoSONE 10(4): e0123956.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0123956.

Reeves, R.R., Cr -Crowe, G., Pedraza, S., Rojas-Bracho, L., Secchi, E.R., Slooten, E., Smith, B.D., Wang, JY. & Zhou, K. 2008. Cephalorhynchus commersonii. In: IUCN 2008. 2008 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.

Reyes, J. C. and Oporto, J. A. 1994. Gillnet fisheries and cetaceans in the southeast Pacific. Reports of the International Whaling Commission Special Issue 15: 467-474.

Ribeiro, S., Viddi, F. A., Cordeiro, J. L. and Freitas, T. R. O. 2007. Fine-scale habitat selection of Chilean dolphins (Cephalorhynchus eutropia): interactions with aquaculture activities in

28 southern Chiloé Island, Chile. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 87(1): 119-128.

Ribiero, S., Viddi, F. A. and Freitas, T. R. O. 2005. Behavioural responses of Chilean dolphins (Cephalorhynchus eutropia) to boats in Yaldad Bay, southern Chile. Aquatic Mammals 31(2): 234-242.

LC - Least Concern, (IUCN version 3.1)

Assessment Rationale:

Short-beaked Common Dolphin is present in the Patagonia Sea from the Caribbean south to Golfo Nuevo in Peninsula Valdes, Argentina. However, it has different color patterns and other characteristics compared to what is seen in other regions, such as off the coast of California. For these reasons, it is difficult to distinguish this species from Delphinus capensis, which likely occurs farther to the north outside of the Patagonia Sea. Delphinus delphis is commonly observed in large, mixed groups of 500 or more individuals with Lagenorhynchus obscurus. There is no current indication of population decline, however, due to confusion with Delphinus capensis, combined with unique coloration and morphology, more research is needed to determine if Delphinus delphis is the species that occurs here. The main threat to this species is capture as by-catch in pelagic trawls for anchovy/fishes and in purse seines. Despite ongoing threats to local populations, the species is widespread and very abundant (with a total population in excess of four million), and none of these threats is believed to be resulting in a major global population decline. Therefore, it is listed as Least Concern.

Assessor(s): Crespo, E. & Sironi, M. Reviewer(s): Shope, M.; Falabella, V. Contributor(s): Bearzi, G., Bjørge, A., Forney, K.A., Hammond, P.S., Karczmarski, L., Kasuya, T., Perrin, W., Scott, M.D., Wang, J.Y. , Wilson, B. & Wells, R.S. Facilitators/Compilers: Polidoro, B.

Taxonomic information

ANIMALIA - CHORDATA - MAMMALIA - CETARTIODACTYLA - DELPHINIDAE - Delphinus delphis - Linnaeus, 1758

Common Names: Short-beaked Common Dolphin (English), Atlantic Dolphin (English), Dauphin commun (French), Delfín Común (Spanish; Castilian), Pacific Dolphin (English), Saddle-backed Dolphin (English), Short-beaked Saddleback Dolphin (English) Synonyms: No Synonyms

Note: Until 1994, all common dolphins around the world were classified as a single species: D. delphis. However, it is now known that at least two species exist within the genus: the Short- beaked (D. delphis) and Long-beaked (D. capensis) Common Dolphins (Heyning and Perrin 1994). There is also a distinct short-beaked form in the Black Sea, the taxonomic status of which has not been adequately clarified (however, it is currently thought to be a subspecies: D. delphis ponticus Amaha, 1994).

This is the old taxonomic concept for Delphinus delphis. The revised concept now (at least provisionally) includes D. capensis, following the advice of Committee on Taxonomy (2017) and the Cetacean Specialist Group. The formerly recognised D. capensis is now split into three groups: (1) individuals from the Eastern North Pacific are provisionally considered as the subspecies D. delphis bairdii; (2) individuals from the Indian Ocean are provisionally considered as the subspecies D. delphis tropicalis; and (3) individuals from South Africa are considered to be Delphinus delphis. When the revised concept is assessed and ready for publication, the Red List Unit will merge D. capensis into that species as a synonym and will discard this old concept of D. delphis and move the subspecies ponticus and the Mediterranean subpopulation across to the new concept.

Geographic Range

The Short-beaked Common Dolphin is an oceanic species that is widely distributed in tropical to cool temperate waters of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans (Perrin 2002), from nearshore waters to thousands of kilometers offshore. They regularly occur in some enclosed seas.

In the Patagonia Sea, the species is present throughout southern Brazil, Uruguay and Golfo Nuevo in Peninsula Valdes, Argentina; and in Chile from Arica to Los Lagos Region (Aguayo 1998). Individuals have different color patterns and other characteristics compared to those seen in other regions, such as off the coast of California. For these reasons, it is difficult to distinguish this species from Delphinus capensis, which likely occurs farther to the north outside of the Patagonia Sea (Tavares et al. 2010).

Population

There is no estimation of abundance or population size for the Patagonian Sea. The species is very common in Argentina, mostly in coastal areas of Buenos Aires and northern Patagonia. Last abundance estimation was 9000 individuals for northern Patagonia and 5000 individuals for coastal Buenos Aires (Crespo et al. 2007).

Globally, this is a very abundant species, with many available estimates for the various areas where it occurs. In the Pacific, 2,963,000 individuals were estimated for the eastern tropical Pacific (Gerrodette and Forcada 2002), and an average of 352.000 were estimated for the US west coast based on surveys between 1991 and 2005 (Barlow and Forney 2007). In the Atlantic, abundance in European continental shelf waters was estimated at 63,400 individuals in 2005 (SCANS-II project; P. Hammond pers. comm.). In the western North Atlantic, 121,000 animals were estimated to occur (Waring et al. 2006). In the western Mediterranean, abundance has been estimated at 19,400 individuals in the northern Alborán Sea between 2000 and 2004 (Cañadas 2006). Even that is one of the most common species in the Mediterranean Sea, the Short-beaked Common dolphin has experienced a generalized and major decline during the last 30-40 years (Bearzi et al. 2003). The population size in the Black Sea was estimated at several 10,000s, and possibly 100,000 or more (Birkun 2006), after a 70% reduction inferred from long-running overexplotation. Hunting ceased in 1983 but the population has not recovered (Birkun 2006).

Habitats and Ecology

Short-beaked Common Dolphins appear to have a preference for upwelling-modified waters, areas with steep sea floor relief, and extensive shelf areas, but they are widespread in warm temperate and tropical waters (Evans 1994). In the eastern tropical Pacific, they prefer equatorial and subtropical waters with a shallow thermocline, relatively large seasonal changes in surface temperature, and seasonal upwelling (Reilly 1990; Fiedler and Reilly 1994).

Associations with other marine mammal species are common. In the Patagonian Sea, Delphinus delphis is commonly observed in large, mixed groups of 500 or more individuals with Lagenorhynchus obscurus (Crespo et al. 2007, Crespo et al. 2008). Schools in the Eastern Tropical Pacific (ETP) are sometimes associated with yellowfin tuna, and have thus been involved in tuna purse-seine fishing operations (Gerrodette 2002). Mixed-species groups of Com Grampus griseus) have been observed frequently in the pelagic waters of the Gulf of Corinth, Greece (Frantzis and Herzing 2002). The prey of Common Dolphins consists largely of small schooling fishes and squids (Perrin 2002).

Threats

For the Patagonia Sea, the Common Dolphin is one of the most prominent by-catches of pelagic purse-seine, driftnet and trawl fisheries. An important trawling fishery operates in Argentina for Common Hake (Merluccius hubbsi) and Argentine Red Shrimp (Pleoticus muelleri),where several small cetaceans, like Common Dolphins, die as bycatch in this trawling gear (Crespo et al. 2008, Dans et al. 2003). Incidental mortality of Common Dolphins has also been recorded on mid-water trawls for anchovy (Eugraulis anchoita), off Argentine shelf (Crespo et al. 2000).

Globally, incidental capture is an important threat for common dolphins through all its range. In the ETP annual incidental mortality of these dolphins in the tuna purse-seine fishery has been as high as 24,307 individuals (in 1986) (IATTC, 2006). Since the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) imposed per-vessel stock limits on the international fleet, the mortality declined to 325 individuals in 2005 (IATTC 2006). Catches have been recorded in other purse- seine fisheries in the Indian Ocean and off the west coast of Africa (Simmons 1968). Also, this dolphins are the most commonly killed cetacean in the U.S. drift gillnet fishery for sharks and swordfish (Julian and Beeson 1998; Carretta et al. 2005). Mitigation measures have been in place to reduce cetacean takes since 1996, and bycatch levels are not a population level concern (Carretta et al. 2006). In the European Atlantic a recent EU legislation has imposed on-board observer programs that help to reduce by-catch. Even so, Northridge (2006) showed that bycatches in pelagic trawl fisheries used to take around 800 of these animals per year in UK and France, being around 170 animals per year ultimately. Other bycatches in the same area are known to occur in gill nets, tangle nets and possibly other fisheries (ICES 2005; Northridge 2006).

Others factors that contribute to the decline of its population include the reduce in the availability of prey caused by overfishing and habitat degradation, the introduction of exotic species (as ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi in the Black Sea), the contamination by xenobiotic chemicals resulting in immunosuppression and reproductive impairment, the environmental changes such as increased water temperatures affecting ecosystem dynamics (Bearzi et al. 2003, 2006) and the illegal hunt of individuals (Birkun 2006).

Conservation

The species is listed in Appendix II of CITES. Common dolphins, as with other species impacted by the ETP tuna purse-seine fishery, are managed both nationally by the coastal countries and internationally by the IATTC. The IATTC has imposed annual stock mortality limits on each purse seiner and has promulgated regulations regarding the safe release of dolphins (Bayliff 2001). In the eastern North Pacific, the U.S. drift gillnet fishery has been required to use acoustic warning devices since 1996 to reduce cetacean bycatch; however, some bycatch of Delphinus delphis has continued (Carretta et al. 2005).

Bibliography

Barlow, J. and Forney, K. A. 2007. Abundance and density of cetaceans in the California Current ecosystem. Fishery Bulletin 105(4): 509-526.

Bayliff, W. H. 2001. Organization, functions, and achievements of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission. Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission.

Bearzi, G., Holcer, D. and Notarbartolo Di Sciara, G. 2004. The role of historical dolphin takes and habitat degradation in shaping the present status of northern Adriatic cetaceans. Aquatic Conservation of Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 14: 363-379.

Bearzi, G., Politi, E., Agazzi, S. and Azzellino, A. 2006. Prey depletion caused by overfishing and the decline of marine megafauna in eastern Ionian Sea coastal waters (central Mediterranean). Biological Conservation 127(4): 373-382.

Bearzi, G., Reeves, R. R., Notarbartolo Di Sciara, G., Politi., E, Canadas, A. and Mussi, B. 2003. Ecology, status and conservation of short-beaked common dolphins Delphinus delphis in the Mediterranean Sea. Mammal Review 33: 224-252.

Birkun, A. 2006. Short-beaked common dolphin (Delphinus delphis ponticus): Black Sea subspecies. In: R. R. Reeves and G. Notarbartolo di Sciara (eds), The status and distribution of cetaceans in the Black Sea and Mediterranean Sea, pp. 16-22. IUCN Centre for Mediterranean Cooperation, Malaga, Spain.

Bushuyev, S. G. 2000. Depletion of forage reserve as a factor limiting population size of Black Sea dolphins. Ecological Safety of Coastal and Shelf Areas and a Composite Utilization of Shelf Resources, pp. 437-452. Proc. Marine Hydrophysical Institute, Sevastopol.

Carretta, J. V., Forney, K. A., Muto, M. M., Barlow, J., Baker, J., Hanson, J. and Lowry, M. S. 2006. U.S. Pacific marine mammal stock assessments: 2005. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SWFSC-388.

Carretta, J. V., Price, T., Petersen, D. and Read, R. 2005. Estimates of marine mammal, sea turtle, and seabird mortality in the California drift gillnet fishery for swordfish and thresher shark, 1996-2002. Marine Fisheries Review 66(2): 21-30.

Cañadas, A. 2006. Habitat utilisation of common dolphins in the western Mediterranean. Unpublished PhD thesis, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid..

Cañadas, A., Donovan, G., Desportes, G. and Borchers, D. L. 2007. Distribution of short- beaked common dolphins (Delphinus delphis) in the central and eastern North Atlantic with an abundance estimate for part of this area. NAMMCO Scientific Publications 7.

Evans, W. E. 1994. Common dolphin, white-bellied porpoise Delphinus delphis Linneaus, 1758. In: S. H. Ridgway and R. Harrison (eds), Handbook of marine mammals, Volume 5: The first book of dolphins, pp. 191-224. Academic Press.

Fiedler, P. C. and Reilly, S. B. 1994. Interannual variability of dolphin habitats in the eastern tropical Pacific. I: Research vessel surveys, 1986-1990. Fishery Bulletin 92: 434-450.

Forney, K. A. and Barlow, J. 1998. Seasonal patterns in the abundance and distribution of California cetaceans, 1991-1992. Marine Mammal Science 14(3): 460-489.

Frantzis, A. and Herzing, D. L. 2002. Mixed-species associations of striped dolphins (Stenella coeruleoalba), short-beaked common dolphins (Delphinus delphis), and Risso's dolphins (Grampus griseus) in the Gulf of Corinth (Greece, Mediterranean Sea). Aquatic Mammals 28(2): 188-197.

Gerrodette, T. 2002. Tuna-dolphin issue. In: W. F. Perrin, B. Wursig and J. G. M. Thewissen (eds), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals, pp. 1269-1273. Academic Press, San Diego, California, USA.

Gerrodette, T. and Forcada, J. 2002. Estimates of abundance of striped and common dolphins, and pilot, sperm and Bryde's whales in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean. Southwest Fisheries Science Center Administrative Report LJ-02-20.

Goujon, M. 1996. Captures accidentelles du filet maillant derivant et dynamique des populations de dauphins au large du Golfe de Gascogne. L'ecole Nationale Superieure Agronomique de Rennes.

Heyning, J.E. and Perrin, W.F. 1994. Evidence for two species of common dolphins (genus Delphinus) from the eastern North Pacific. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, Contributions in Science 442: 35.

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission. 2006. 2004 Annual Report. Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC).

International Council for Exploration of the Sea. 2005. Report of the Working Group on Marine Mammal Ecology (WGMME). Savolinna, Finland.

Jefferson, T. A. and Van Waerebeek, K. 2002. The taxonomic status of the nominal dolphin species Delphinus tropicalis van Bree, 1971. Marine Mammal Science 18(4): 787-818.

Julian, F. and Beeson, M. 1998. Estimates of marine mammal, turtle, and seabird mortality for two California gillnet fisheries: 1990-95. Fishery Bulletin 96: 271-284.

Krivokhizhin, S. V. and Birkun Jr., A. A. 1999. Strandings of cetaceans along the coasts of Crimean Peninsula in 1989-1996. In: P. G. H. Evans and E. C. M. Parsons (eds), European Research on Cetaceans, Proceedings of the 12th Annual Conference of the European cetacean Society, Monaco 20-24 Jan 1998, pp. 59-62.

Natoli, A. 2004. Molecular ecology of bottlenose (Tursiops sp.) and common (Delphinus sp.) dolphins. Thesis, University of Durham.

Northridge, S. 2006. Dolphin Bycatch: Observations And Mitigation Work In The UK Bass Pair Trawl Fishery 2005-2006 Season. Occasional Report to DEFRA October 2006.

Perrin, W. F. 2002. Common dolphins Delphinus delphis, D. capensis, and D. tropicalis. In: W. F. Perrin, B. Wursig and J. G. M. Thewissen (eds), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals, pp. 245- 248. Academic Press.

Reilly, S. B. 1990. Seasonal changes in distribution and habitat differences among dolphins in the eastern tropical Pacific. Marine Ecology Progress Series 66: 1-11.

Simmons, D. C. 1968. Purse seining off Africa's west coast. Commercial Fisheries Review 30(3): 21-22.

Tudela, S., Kai Kai, A., Maynou, F., El Andalossi, F. and Guglielmi, P. 2004. Driftnet fishing and biodiversity: the case of the large-scale Moroccan driftnet fleet operating in the Alboran Sea (SW Mediterranean). Biological Conservation 121: 65-78.

Waring, G.T., Josephson, E., Fairfield, C.P. and Maze-Foley, K. 2006. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico marine mammal stock assessments - 2005. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE- 201. 346 p.

LC - Least Concern, (IUCN version 3.1)

Assessment Rationale:

Long-finned Pilot Whale is found throughout the Patagonia Sea, where strandings have been recorded throughout the region, including the Malvinas, Chile, and Argentina. For example, in northern central Patagonia in 1991 there was a stranding of at least 430 individuals. Additionally, there have been 71 strandings in the Malvinas, and 872 individuals sighted in 27 occasions, with 2-200 individuals per group. There is no information that explains why this species is stranding. Threats that could cause widespread declines include high levels of anthropogenic sound, especially military sonar and seismic surveys, and bycatch. However, even though there is little information on this species population, it is considered common. This species listed as Least Concern.

Assessor(s): Crespo, E., Sepúlveda, M., Capella, J., Sironi, M. & Hevia, M. Reviewer(s): Shope, M., Falabella, V. Contributor(s): Baird, R.W., Barlow, J., Dawson, J.S., Ford, S., Mead, J.G., Notarbartolo di Sciara, G., Pitman, R.L., Taylor, B.L. & Wade, P. Facilitators/Compilers: Polidoro, B.

Taxonomic information

ANIMALIA - CHORDATA - MAMMALIA - CETARTIODACTYLA - DELPHINIDAE - Globicephala melas (Traill, 1809)

Common Names: Long-finned Pilot Whale (English), Baliena sewda (Maltese), Ballena Piloto (Spanish; Castilian), Bjelogrli dupin (Croatian), Cachalote-anão (Portuguese), Calderón Común (Spanish; Castilian), Calderón Negro (Spanish; Castilian), Caldrón Negro (Spanish; Castilian), Globicéfalo (Italian), Globicéphale commun (French), Globicéphale noir (French), Siyah yunus kouraoui arras] الشائع الرأس كروي ,((αυροδέλφινο [mavrodélfino] (Greek, Modern (1453- achaii] (Arabic)

Note: Three subspecies of the Long-finned Pilot Whale are currently recognized: Globicephala melas melas in the North Atlantic, G. m. edwardii in the Southern Hemisphere, and an un-named subspecies in Japanese waters (extinct since the 8th-12th century A.D.) (Rice 1998, Oremus et al. 2009, Committee on Taxonomy 2017).

Geographic Range

Long-finned pilot whales occur in temperate and subpolar zones (Olson and Reilly 2002). They are found in oceanic waters and some coastal waters of the North Atlantic Ocean, including the Mediterranean Sea, North Sea and Gulf of St. Lawrence (Abend and Smith 1999). Long- finned pilot whales were previously found in the western North Pacific as well but appear to be absent there today. The circum-Antarctic subpopulation(s) in the Southern Hemisphere occur as far south as the Antarctic Convergence, sometimes to 68°S. They are apparently isolated from those of the Northern Hemisphere (Bernard and Reilly 1999). This species is found throughout the Patagonia Sea. Strandings have been recorded throughout the region, including the Malvinas (Otley 2012 Revista Biologia Marina), Chile (Mansilla et al. 2012), and Argentina (Reyes 2010).

Population

There is no information of this species population in the Patagonian Sea, but it is considered common. In northern central Patagonia, in 1991, there was a stranding of at least 430 individuals (Crespo pers comm. 2016). There has been 71 strandings in the Malvinas (Otley 2012), and 872 individuals sighted in 27 occasions, with 2-200 individuals per group (White et al. 2002).

There is no information on global trends in abundance. There is little information on subpopulations within the species (Donovan et al. 1993). Abundance estimation of more than 750,000 have been described for central and norh-eastern North Atlantic (Buckland et al. 1993), 31,000 for the western North Atlantic and 200,000 south of the Antarctic Convergence in the Southern Hemisphere (Waring et al. 2006).

Habitats and Ecology

Primarily squid eaters, long-finned pilot whales will also take small medium-sized fish, such as mackerel, when available (Gannon et al. 1997). Other fish species taken include cod, turbot, herring hake, and dogfish.

Long-finned pilot whales tend to follow their prey (squid and mackerel) inshore and into continental shelf waters during the summer and autumn (Reeves et al. 2003). In the western

North Atlantic, they occur in high densities over the continental slope in winter and spring months. In summer and autumn months, they move off the shelf.

They will sometimes also ingest shrimp.Off the coast of Chile, Aguayo et al. (1998) mainly sighted G. melas near the edge of the continental shelf. Goodall and Macnie (1998) reported on sightings in the south-eastern South Pacific, which were clustered from 30-35°S, 72- 78°W, at a maximum of about 160 nm from shore. In the southwestern South Atlantic, sightings were clustered in two areas, 34- 46°S and off Tierra del Fuego, 52-56°S, where schools were found up to 1,000 n. mi. from shore. There were fifteen sightings of this species from waters south of the Antarctic Convergence, from December to March. Conversely, only one sighting was made south of 44°S in winter, probably due to lack of effort in southern seas during the colder months.

The typical temperature range for the species is 0 - 25°C (Martin 1994). The Alboran Sea is one of the most important areas for this species in the Mediterranean (Cañadas and Sagarminaga 2000); in this area, the average depth of encounters was about 850 m (ranging from 300 to 1,800 m), reflecting the distribution of their preferred diet, pelagic cephalopods. Around the Faroe Islands, tracking studies show a preference for waters over the border of the continental shelf (Bloch et al. 2003).

For this species three generations is equivalent to 72 years (Taylor et al. 2007).

Threats

Several incidents of strandings have been recorded in the Patagonia Sea, however there is no information that explains why this species is stranding. Threats that could cause widespread declines include high levels of anthropogenic sound, especially military sonar and seismic surveys, and bycatch (Cox et al. 2006). Predicted impacts of global climate change on the marine environment may affect long-finned pilot whales, and may induce changes in the et al. 2006).

Zerbini and Kotas (1998) reported on cetacean-fishery interactions off southern Brazil. The pelagic driftnet fishery is focused on sharks (families Sphyrnidae and Carcharinidae) and incidentally caught at least 15 Globicephala melas in 1995 and 1997. The authors conclude that the driftnet fishery may be an important cause of cetacean mortality in that region.

Conservation

The species is listed on CITES Appendix II.

Bibliography

Abend, A. G. and Smith, T. D. 1999. Review of Distribution of the Long-Finned Pilot Whales (Globicephala melas) in the North Atlantic and Mediterranean. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-117. U.S. Department of Commerce.

Aguayo, A., Bernal, R., Olavarria, C., Vallejos, V. and Hucke, R. 1998. Observaciones de cetáceos realizadas entre Valparaíso e Isla de Pascua, Chile, durante los inviernos de 1993, 1994 y 1995. Revista de Biologia Marina y Oceanografia 33(1): 101-123.

Balcomb, K.C. and Claridge, D.E. 2001. A mass stranding of cetaceans caused by naval sonar in the Bahamas. Bahamas Journal of Science 8(2): 2-12.

Baum, J. K., Myers, R. A., Kehler, D. G., Word, B., Harley, S. J. and Doherty, P. A. 2003. Collapse and conservation of shark populations in the Northwest Atlantic. Science 299: 389- 392.

Baum, J.K., Kehler, D. and Myers, R.A. 2005. Robust estimates of decline for pelagic shark populations in the northwest Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. Fisheries 30: 27 30.

Bernard, H. J. and Reilly, S. B. 1999. Pilot whales Globicephala Lesson, 1828. In: S. H. Ridgway and R. Harrison (eds), Handbook of marine mammals, Vol. 6: The second book of dolphins and the porpoises, pp. 245-279. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, USA.

Bloch, D. and Larstein, L. 1995. Modeling the school structure of pilot whales in the Faroe Islands, 1832-1994. In: Blix, A. S., Walløe, L. and Ulltang, Ø. (eds), Developments in Marine Biology, pp. 499-508. Elsevier, Amsterdam.

Bloch, D., Heide-Jorgensen, M. P., Steffansson, E., Mikkelsen, B., Ofstad, L. H., Dietz, R. and Andersen, L. W. 2003. Short-term movements of long-finned pilot whales Globicephala melas around the Faroe Islands. Wildlife Biology 9: 47-58.

Buckland, S., Bloch, D., Cattanach, K., Gunnlaugsson, T., Hoydall, K., Lens, S. and Sigurjónsson, J. 1993. Distribution and abundance of long-finned pilot whales in the North Atlantic, estimated from NASS-87 and NASS-89 data. Reports of the International Whaling Commission Special Issue 14: 33-49.

Cañadas, A. and Sagarminaga, R. 2000. The northeastern Alboran Sea, an important breeding and feeding ground for the long-finned pilot whale (Globicephala melas) in the Mediterranean Sea. Marine Mammal Science 16(3): 513-529.

Cox, T. M., Ragen, T. J., Read, A. J., Vos, E., Baird, R. W., Balcomb, K., Barlow, J., Caldwell, J., Cranford, T., Crum, L., D'Amico, A., D'Spain, A., Fernández, J., Finneran, J., Gentry, R., Gerth, W., Gulland, F., Hildebrand, J., Houser, D., Hullar, T., Jepson, P. D., Ketten, D., Macleod, C. D., Miller, P., Moore, S., Mountain, D., Palka, D., Ponganis, P., Rommel, S., Rowles, T., Taylor, B., Tyack, P., Wartzok, D., Gisiner, R., Mead, J. and Benner, L. 2006. Understanding the impacts of anthropogenic sound on beaked whales. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 7(3): 177-187.

Donovan, G. P., Lockyer, C.H. and Martin, A. R. 1993. Biology of Northern Hemisphere pilot whales. Reports of the International Whaling Commission 14: 479 pp.

Fernández, A., Edwards, J. F., Rodriguez, F., Espinosa, A., De Los Monteros, Herraez, P., Castro, P., Jaber, J. R., Martin, V. and Arebelo, M. 2005. "Gas and fat embolic syndrome" involving a mass stranding of beaked whales (family Ziphiidae) exposed to anthropogenic sonar signals. Veterinary Pathology 42: 446-457.

Frantzis, A. 1998. Does acoustic testing strand whales? Nature 392(5): 29.

Gannon, D. P., Read, A. J., Craddock, J. E., Fristrup, K. M. and Nicolas, J. R. 1997. Feeding ecology of long-finned pilot whales Globicephala melas in the western North Atlantic. Marine Ecology Progress Series 148: 1-10.

Goodall, R. N. P. and Macnie, S. V. 1998. Sightings of pilot whales off South America south of 30°S: a review of data to 1988. Reports of the International Whaling Commission 48: 565-579.

Hohn, A. A., Rotstein, D. S., Harms, C. A. and Southall, B. L. 2006. Multispecies mass stranding of pilot whales (Globicephala macrorhynchus), minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata), and dwarf sperm whales (Kogia sima) in North Carolina on 15-16 January 2005. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-57.

Jackson, J. B. C., Kirby, M. X., Berger, W. H., Bjorndal, K. A., Botsford, L. W., Bourque, B. J., Bradbury, R. H., Cooke, R., Erlandson, J., Estes, J. A., Hughes, T. P., Kidwell, S., Lange, C. B., Lenihan, H. S., Pandolfi, J. M., Peterson, C. H., Steneck, R. S., Tegner, M. J. and Warner, R. R. 2001. Historical overfishing and the recent collapse of coastal ecosystems. Science 293: 629- 637.

Jepson, P.D., Arebelo, M., Deaville, R., Patterson, I.A.P., Castro, P., Baker, J.R., Degollada, E., Ross, H.M., Herraez, P., Pocknell, A.M., Rodriguez, F., Howie, F.E., Espinosa, A., Reid, R.J., Jaber, J.R., Martin, V., Cunningham, A.A. and Fernandez, A. 2003. Gas-bubble lesions in stranded cetaceans. Nature 425: 575-576.

Learmonth, J.A., Macleod, C.D., Santos, M.B., Pierce, G.J., Crick, H.Q.P. and Robinson, R.A. 2006. Potential effects of climate change on marine mammals. Oceanography and Marine Biology: An Annual Review 44: 431-464.

Mansilla, L., Olavarría, C., Vega, M.A. 2012. Stomach contents of long-finned pilot whales (Globicephala melas) from southern Chile. Polar BIology 35(12): 1929-1933.

Martin, A. R. 1994. Globicephala melas - langflossen-Grindwal. In: J. Niethammer and F. Krapp (eds), Handbuch de S├ñugetiere Europas, pp. 407-421. Aula-Verlag, Weibaden, Germany.

North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission. 1997. Report of the scientific committee working group on abundance estimation. Annual Report of the North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission. North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission, Tromsø, Norway.

North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission. 2000. Report of the management committee. Annual Report of the North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission. North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission, Tromsø, Norway.

Olson, P. A. and Reilly, S. B. 2002. Pilot whales Globicephala melas and G. macrorhynchus. In: W. F. Perrin, B. Wursig and J. G. M. Thewissen (eds), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals, pp. 898-903. Academic Press.

Oremus, M., Gales, R., Dalebout, M. L., Funahashi, N., Endo, T., Kage, T., Steel, D., and Baker, C. S. 2009. Worldwide mitochondrial DNA diversity and phylogeography of pilot whales (Globicephala spp.). Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 98: 729-744.

Otley, H., Smith, J., and Dalebout, M. L. 2012. Beaked whale strandings on the Falkland Islands and South Georgia, South Atlantic, between 1866 and 2008. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 92: 1851-1864.

Polacheck, T. 2006. Tuna longline catch rates in the Indian Ocean: did industrial fishing result in a 90% rapid decline in the abundance of large predatory species? Marine Policy 30: 470- 482.

Reyes, L. 2010. Cetaceans of centra Patagonia, Argentina. Aquatic Mammals 32: 20-30.

Rice, D.W. 1998. Marine Mammals of the World: Systematics and Distribution. Society for Marine Mammalogy, Special Publication Number 4, Lawrence, Kansas.

Sibert, J., Hampton, J., Kleiber, P. and Maunder, M. 2006. Biomass, size, and trophic status of top predators in the Pacific Ocean. Science 314: 1773-1776.

Simmonds, M. P. and Lopez-Jurado, L. F. 1991. Whales and the military. Nature 351: 448.

Southall, B. L., Braun, R., Gulland, F. M. D., Heard, A. D., Baird, R. W., Wilkin, S. and Rowles, T. K. 2006. Hawaiian melon-headed whale (Peponocephala electra) mass stranding event of July 3-4, 2004. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-OPR 31: 73 pp.

US Department of Commerce and US Navy. 2001. Joint interim report Bahamas marine mammal stranding event of 14-16 March 2000. US Department of Commerce and US Navy.

Waring, G.T., Josephson, E., Fairfield, C.P. and Maze-Foley, K. 2006. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico marine mammal stock assessments - 2005. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE- 201. 346 p.

White, R.W., Gillon, K.W., Black, A.D., and Reid, J.B. 2002. The distribution of seabirds and marine mammals in Falkland Islands waters. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough, UK. 107p.

Zerbini, A. N. and Kotas, J. E. 1998. A note on cetacean bycatch in pelagic driftnetting off southern Brazil. Reports of the International Whaling Commission 48: 519-524.

LC - Least Concern, (IUCN version 3.1)

Assessment Rationale:

Risso's Dolphin is found throughout the Patagonia Sea, where it may be common. In 2012, sightings of up to 100 individuals have been reported in Golfo Nuevo in the Peninsula Valdes, and there is data that average group size is about 25-30 individuals, with some groups up to 100 individuals. It is primarily associated with slopes and shelfs. Little is known on this species connectivity with populations outside of the Patagonia Sea, but there are no known threats to this species in the region. As such, it is listed as Least Concern.

Assessor(s): Crespo, E. Reviewer(s): Shope, M., Falabella, V. Contributor(s): Taylor, B.L., Baird, R., Barlow, J., Dawson, S.M., Ford, J.K.B., Mead, J.G., Notarbartolo di Sciara, G., Wade, P. & Pitman, R.L. Facilitators/Compilers: Polidoro, B.

Taxonomic information

ANIMALIA - CHORDATA - MAMMALIA - CETARTIODACTYLA - DELPHINIDAE - Grampus – griseus – (G. Cuvier, 1812)

Common Names: Risso's Dolphin (English), Dauphin de Risso (French), Delfín de Risso (Spanish; Castilian), Fabo Calderón (Spanish; Castilian), Grampus (French), Grey Dolphin (English), calderón gris (Spanish; Castilian), delfin griú (Maltese), glavati dupin (Croatian), grampo (Portuguese), grampus غرامبوس ,(grampus) (Hebrew) גרמפוס ,((Turkish), σταχτοδέλφινο (stachtodélfino) (Greek, Modern (1453-) (ghrambous) (Arabic)

Geographic Range

Risso's dolphin is found throughout the Patagonia Sea (Jefferson et al. 2014), where it may be common (Crespo pers comm. 2016). This is a circumglobal species, which migrates between summering and wintering grounds. It inhabits primarily deep waters of the continental slope and outer shelf (especially with steep bottom topography), from the tropics through the temperate regions in both hemispheres (Kruse et al. 1999). It also occurs in some oceanic areas, beyond the continental slope and also in coastal semi-enclosed bodies of water.

Population

There are no estimates of abundance in the Patagonian Sea but it is considered a common species (Crespo pers comm. 2016). In 2012, sightings of up to 100 individuals have been reported in Golfo Nuevo in the Peninsula Valdes (Sironi pers comm. 2016). There is data that average group size is about 25-30 individuals, with some groups up to 100 individuals (Sironi pers comm. 2016). Little is known on this species connectivity with populations outside of the Patagonia Sea.

There are no estimates of global abundance and trends, but there are some estimates for specific areas, like the subpopulation of Oregon, California, estimated at 16,066 individuals (Barlow 2003), Hawaiian waters population of 2,351 individuals (Barlow 2006) and abundance estimates off Sri Lanka, ranging from 5,500 to 13,000 animals (Kruse et al. 1999). In the eastern Sulu Sea, Dolar et al. (2006) estimated the abundance at 1,514 (CV=55%) individuals. There et al. 2006), 2,169 (CV=32%) in the northern Gulf of Mexico (Mullin and Fulling 2004), 83,300 (CV=17%) in three areas of concentrated occurrence off Japan (Miyashita 1993), and 175,000 in the eastern tropical Pacific (Wade and Gerrodette 1993).

Habitats and Ecology

-1,000 m deep (Baird 2002, Jefferson et al. 1993), mostly occurring seaward of the continental slope. They frequent subsurface seamounts and escarpments, where they are thought to feed on vertically migrant and mesopelagic cephalopods. Currents and upwelling causing local increases in marine productivity may enhance feeding opportunities, resulting in the patchy distribution and local abundance of this species worldwide (Kruse et al. 1999). Davis et al. (1998) and Baumgartner (1997) reported that in the Gulf of Mexico, Risso's dolphins were mostly found over deeper bottom depths, concentrating along the upper continental slope, which may reflect squid distribution. In Monterey Bay, California, Risso's dolphins are concentrated over areas with steep bottom topography (Kruse 1989). Most records of Grampus griseus in Britain and Ireland are within 11 km of the coast. In certain areas, such as in the southwest English Channel, Ri coastal waters to feed on cuttlefishes Sepia officinalis (Kiszka et al. 2004).

Long- Island and in central California) have been linked to oceanographic conditions and movements of spawning squid (Kruse et al. 1999). Risso's Dolphins feed on crustaceans and cephalopods, but seem to prefer squid. Squid bites may be the cause of at least some of the scars found on the bodies of these animals. In the few areas where feeding habits have been studied, they appear to feed mainly at night.

Threats

There are no known threats to this species in the Patagonia Sea.

Predicted impacts of global climate change on the marine environment may affect this species , although the nature of impacts is unclear (Learmonth et al. 2006). This species, like Beaked Whales that are also deep-divers that feed on squid, is likely to be vulnerable to loud anthropogenic sounds, such as those generated by navy sonar and seismic exploration (Cox

48 et al. 2006).

a result of the dolphins removing fish from longlines, or in multi-species small cetacean fisheries, such as those that occur in Sri Lanka, the Caribbean, and Indonesia. One regular hunt occurs in Japan, where about 250 Dolphins have been captured for live display in oceanaria, although there are not many of them in oceanaria. In Sri Lanka, Risso's Dolphins are apparently the second most commonly taken cetacean in fisheries, providing fish and meat for human consumption and fish bait; subpopulations there may be adversely affected (see Jefferson et al. 1993, Kruse et al. 1991). An estimated 1,300 Risso's Dolphins may be landed annually as a result of this fishery, and abundance estimates in these waters range only from 5,500 to 13,000 animals (Kruse et al. 1999). In Japan, Risso's Dolphins are taken periodically for food and fertilizer in set nets and as a limited catch in the small-type whaling industry (Kruse et al. 1999), with reported catches in recent years ranging from about 250 500. They are also a major target of artisanal hunting, and are taken often in gillnets and other fishing gear in the Philippines (Dolar 1994, Dolar et al. oceanic large-mesh driftnets for large pelagic fish appear to take considerable numbers incidentally (Wang pers. comm.).

There are reports of bycatches from the North Atlantic, the Mediterranean Sea, the southern Caribbean, the Azores, Peru, and the Solomon Islands. They are also a rare bycatch in the US tuna purse seine industry, and are taken occasionally in coastal gill net and squid seining industries off the US coast, or shot by aggravated fishermen (Kruse et al. 1999).

Conservation

The species is listed in Appendix II of CITES.

Data on abundance, bycatch, and behaviour needed in order to develop conservation measures that will enable protection of the natural habitat of the species

Bibliography

Baird, R. W. 2002. Risso's dolphin Grampus griseus. In: W. F. Perrin, B. Wursig and J. G. M. Thewissen (eds), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals, pp. 1037-1039. Academic Press.

Barlow, J. 2003. Preliminary estimates of the abundance of cetaceans along the U.S. west coast: 1991-2001. Southwest Fisheries Center Administrative Report LJ-03-03: 31 pp.

Barlow, J. 2006. Cetacean abundance in Hawaiian waters estimated from a summer/fall survey in 2002. Marine Mammal Science 22(2): 446-464.

Baumgartner, M. F. 1997. The distribution of Risso's dolphin (Grampus griseus) with respect to the physiography of the northern Gulf of Mexico. Marine Mammal Science 13(4): 614-638.

Understanding the impacts of anthropogenic sound on beaked whales. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 7(3): 177-187.

Davis, R. W., Fargion, G. S., May, N., Leming, T. D., Baumgartner, M., Evans, W. E., Hansen, L. J. and Mullin, K. 1998. Physical habitat of cetaceans along the continental slope in the north- central and western Gulf of Mexico. Marine Mammal Science 14(3): 490-507.

Dolar, M. L. L. 1994. Incidental takes of small cetaceans in fisheries in Palawan, Central Visayas and northern Mindanao in the Philippines. Reports of the International Whaling Commission Special Issue 15: 355-363.

Dolar, M. L. L., Leatherwood, S., Wood, C. J., Alava, M. N. R., Hill, C. L. and Arangones, L. V. 1994. Directed fisheries for cetaceans in the Philippines. Reports of the International Whaling Commission 44: 439-449.

Dolar, M. L. L., Perrin, W. F., Taylor, B. L., Kooyman, G. L. and Alava, M. N. R. 2006. Abundance and distributional ecology of cetaceans in the central Philippines. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 8(1): 93-112.

Forney, K. A. and Barlow, J. 1998. Seasonal patterns in the abundance and distribution of California cetaceans, 1991-1992. Marine Mammal Science 14(3): 460-489.

Jefferson, T. A., Leatherwood, S. and Webber, M. A. 1993. Marine Mammals of the World: FAO Species Identification Guide. United Nation Environment Programme and Food and Agricultural Organization of the UN.

Jefferson, T.A., Weir, C.R., Anderson, R.C., Ballance, L.T., Kenney, R.D., Kiszka, J.J. 2014. Global distribution of Risso's dolphin Grampus griseus: a review and critical evaluation. Mammal Review 44(1): 56-68.

Kiszka, J., Hassani, S. and Pezeril, S. 2004. Status and distribution of small cetaceans along the French Channel coast: using opportunistic records for a preliminary assessment. Lutra 47: 33-46.

Kruse, S. L. 1989. Aspects of the biology, ecology, and behavior of Risso's dolphins (Grampus griseus) off the California coast. MSc Thesis, University of California Santa Cruz.

Kruse, S., Caldwell, D. K. and Caldwell, M. C. 1999. Risso's dolphin Grampus griseus (G. Cuvier, 1812). In: S. H. Ridgway and R. Harrison (eds), Handbook of marine mammals, pp. 183-212. Academic Press, San Diego, California, USA.

Kruse, S., Leatherwood, S., Prematunga, W. P., Mendes, C. and Gamage, A. 1991. Records of Risso's dolphins, Grampus griseus, in the Indian Ocean, 1891-1986. UNEP Marine Mammal Technical Report 3: 67-78.

Miyashita, T. 1993. Abundance of dolphin stocks in the western North Pacific taken by the Japanese drive fishery. Reports of the International Whaling Commission 43: 417-437.

Mullin, K. D. and Fulling, G. L. 2004. Abundance of cetaceans in the oceanic northern Gulf of Mexico, 1996-2001. Marine Mammal Science 20(4): 787-807.

Shane, S. H. 1995. Behavior patterns of pilot whales and Risso's dolphins off Santa Catalina Island, California. Aquatic Mammals 21: 195-198.

Shane, S. H. 1995. Relationship between pilot whales and Risso's dolphins at Santa Catalina Island, California, USA. Marine Ecology Progress Series 123: 5-11.

Wade, P.R. and Gerrodette, T. 1993. Estimates of cetacean abundance and distribution in the eastern tropical Pacific. Reports of the International Whaling Commission 43: 477-493.

Waring, G.T., Josephson, E., Fairfield, C.P. and Maze-Foley, K. 2006. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico marine mammal stock assessments - 2005. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE- 201. 346 p.

LC - Least Concern, (IUCN version 3.1)

Assessment Rationale:

Peale's Dolphin occurs throughout the Patagonia Sea, south of 44°S in the Atlantic and 38°S in the Pacific side of its distribution, with the most northern observation of this species occurring in southern Buenos Aires province, Argentina, on the Atlantic, and in northwest Chiloe, Chile, on the Pacific. In Malvinas / Falkland Islands, it is the most frequently recorded species in cetacean surveys. It's habitat is disturbed by salmon farming and mariculture in the south of Chile and, in the past, this species was used as crab-bait. Other potential threats include pollution, vessel traffic, tourism and bycatch in shore-set gillnets off Tierra del Fuego, and in offshore fishing operations in southern Golfo San Jorge, Argentina. In 2002 there were approximately 2,400 individuals recorded in the southern fjords of Chile (Golfo de Penas to Cabo de Orcas), and it is considered common to the Patagonian Sea. There are no other population estimates, but there is no current indication of region decline. As such, Peale's dolphin is listed as Least Concern.

Assessor(s): Crespo, E., Capella, J., Sepúlveda, M. & Sironi, M. Reviewer(s): Shope, M. Contributor(s): Hammond, P.S., Bearzi, G., Bjørge, A., Forney, K., Karczmarski, L., Kasuya, T., Perrin, W.F., Scott, M.D., Wang, J.Y., Wells, R.S. & Wilson, B. Facilitators/Compilers: Polidoro, B.

Taxonomic information

ANIMALIA - CHORDATA - MAMMALIA - CETARTIODACTYLA - DELPHINIDAE - Lagenorhynchus australis (Peale, 1848)

Common Names: Peale's Dolphin (English), Blackchin Dolphin (English), Dauphin De Peale (French), Delfín Austral (Spanish; Castilian), Lagénorhynque De Peale (French)

Note: The genus Lagenorhynchus is likely an artificial genus (LeDuc et al. 1999), and this species may eventually be included in the genus Sagmatias.

Geographic Range

Peale's dolphins are apparently confined to South America, from the southern tip to about the latitudes of Santiago, Chile (33°S), and northern Argentina (38°S) (Goodall et al. 1997a; Brownell et al. 1999; Goodall 2002). The distribution may extend south well into Drake Passage.

This species occurs throughout the Patagonia Sea (Galletti Vernazzani et al. 2013, Aguayo et al 1998, Brownell et al. 1999), with the most northern observation occurring in southern Buenos Aires province, Argentina, approximately 210 nm from the Atlantic coast (Hevia 2016, per obs), and in northwest Chiloe, Chile, on the Pacific (Galletti Vernazzani et al. 2013). There is a specimen deposited in the Museum of Natural Sciences Bernardino Rivadavia, whose origin is from the shores of Miramar (Crespo et al. 2008). In Malvinas / Falkland Islands, it is the most frequently recorded species in cetacean surveys (White et al. 2002, Goodall et al. 1997).

Population

No information is available about the abundance of L. australis. However, this species is reportedly the most common cetacean found around the coast of the Malvinas and some parts of Chile (Goodall et al. 1997a; Brownell et al. 1999). In 2002, there were approximately 2400 individuals of this species recorded in the southern fjords of Chile (Golfo de Penas to Cabo de Orcas) (Gibbons et al. 2002). There are no other population estimates, but there is no current indication of region decline. As such, it is considered common in the Patagonian Sea.

Habitats and Ecology

-washed coasts over shallow continental shelves to the north; and deep, protected bays and channels to the south and west. In the channels, Peale's dolphin is an 'entrance animal', associated with the rocky coasts and riptides at the openings to fjords, where the highest water temperature recorded was 14.7°C. Throughout the northern part of their range, they inhabit the waters of the wide continental shelf off Argentina and the narrower shelf off Chile. Although Peale's dolphins have been observed in waters at least 300 m deep, they appear to prefer shallower coastal waters (Brownell et al. 1999). Peale's dolphins show a high degree of association with kelp beds (Macrocystis pyrifera), especially in the channel regions (Viddi and Lescrauwaet 2005). Additionally, they swim and feed within kelp forests, using natural channels for movement. Over much of its range Peale's dolphin is sympatric with the dusky dolphin although their usages of habitats are slightly different. These two species are often difficult to differentiate at sea (Goodall et al. 1997b; de Haro and Iniguez 1997).

phins associate with other through autumn. The few stomachs that have been examined contained mostly demersal fish, octopus, and squid species that occur in shallow waters and in kelp beds. Additionally, some of the examined stomachs contained shrimp.

Threats

In the past, Peale's Dolphins were hunted with harpoons in the Strait of Magellan and around Tierra del Fuego, where the meat was used as bait in crab traps (Lescrauwaet and Gibbons 1994). Although direct hunting of dolphins has been prohibited in Chile since 1977, crab traps for "centolla" (southern king crab) Lithodes antarctica and centollon (false king crab) Paralomis granubosa, are still set with dolphin meat. Sielfeld et al. (1977) estimated some 2,350 dolphins, including both L. australis and Cephalorhynchus commersonii, were killed during the 1976/1977 crab-fishing season to bait crab traps used in the Strait of Magellan and the Chilean part of the Beagle Channel. The scale of this killing in Beagle Channel, the Magallanes, and southern Tierra del Fuego for crab bait, that began around the 1970s, was great enough to cause reduced abundance by the late 1980s (Lescrauwaet and Gibbons 1994). While this practice seems to no longer take place, the species has not returned to most populated areas of the Beagle Channel (Goodall, 2008). Dolphin takes in the Argentinean sector stopped after the early 1980s (Goodall 2002).

Peale's dolphins are also, incidentally entangled and drowned in nets (Jefferson et al. 1993). There are reports from Queule and Mehuin (Chile), southern Patagonia, northeastern Tierra del Fuego and southern Santa Cruz (Argentina) that local fishermen may incidentally catch Peale's dolphins (Reyes 1991; Brownell et al. 1999). In the northern part of their Pacific range,

54 however, Peale's dolphins seem to be rarely taken (Goodall 2002). Other potential threats include bycatch in anti-pinniped nets in salmon farming in Chiloé Island, Chile, also in shore- set gillnets off Tierra del Fuego, Argentina, and in offshore fishing operations in southern Golfo San Jorge, Argentina (Goodall, 2008) as well as pollution, vessel traffic and tourism (Viddi et al. 2011, Heinrich, S. 2006).

Furthermore, their close dependence on kelp forests may render them vulnerable to habitat loss (Viddi and Lescrauwaet 2005).

Conservation

The species is on Appendix II of CITES.

Bibliography

Brownell Jr., R. L., Crespo, J. E. A. and Donahue, M. A. 1999. Peale's dolphin Lagenorhynchus australis (Peale, 1848). In: S. H. Ridgway and R. Harrison (eds), Handbook of marine mammals, Vol. 6: The second book of dolphins and the porpoises, pp. 105-120. Academic Press.

Crespo, E. A., Pedraza, S. N., Coscarella, M., Garcia, N. A., Dans, S. L., Iniguez, M., Reyes, L. M., Alonso, M. K., Schiavini, A. C. M. and Gonzalez, R. 1997. Distribution and school size of dusky dolphins, Lagenorhynchus obscurus (Gray, 1828), in the southwestern South Atlantic Ocean. Reports of the International Whaling Commission 47: 693-698.

Crespo, E.A., N.A. García, S.L. Dans & S.N. Pedraza. 2008. Mamíferos marinos. . Atlas de Sensibilidad Ambiental de la Costa y el Mar Argentino" (D. Boltovskoy, ed.) *Secretaría de

De Haro, J. C. and Iniguez, M. A. 1997. Ecology and behaviour of the Peale's dolphin, Lagenorhynchus australis (Peale, 1848), at Cabo Virgenes (52 degree 30'S, 68 degree 28'W), in Patagonia, Argentina. Reports of the International Whaling Commission 47: 723-728.

Galletti Vernazzani , B., Cabrera, E., Sironi, M., Carlson, C. and Brownell, R. L. Jr. 2013. Sighting records of blue whales from 2013 aerial and boat-based surveys in Chilean waters. International Whaling Commision Paper SC/64/SH.

Gibbons, J., Venegas, C., Guzmán, L., Pizarro, G., Boré, D., Galvéz, P. et al. 2002. Programa de monitoreo de pequeños cetáceos en áreas selectas de la XII región. Final Report FIP-IT/99- 28.

Goodall, R. N. P. 2002. Peale's dolphin Lagenorhynchus australis. In: W. F. Perrin, B. Wursig and J. G. M. Thewissen (eds), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals, pp. 890-894. Academic Press, San Diego, California, USA.

Goodall, R. N. P., De Haro,J. C., Iniguez, M. A. and Norris, K. S. 1997. Sightings and behavior of Peale's dolphins, Lagenorhynchus australis, with notes on dusky dolphins, L. obscurus, off southernmost South America. Reports of the International Whaling Commission 47: 757-776.

Goodall, R. N. P., Norris, K. S., Schevill, W. E., Fraga, F., Praderi, R., Iniguez, M. A. and De Haro, J. C. 1997. Review and update on the biology of Peale's dolphins, Lagenorhynchus australis. Reports of the International Whaling Commission 47: 777-796.

Lagenorhynchus australis. In: Perrin,W.F.,Würsig, B., Thewissen, J. G. M. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals, pp. 844-847. Academic Press, San Diego.

Harlin-Cognato, A. D. and Honeycutt, R. L. 2006. Multi-locus phylogeny of dolphins in the subfamily Lissodelphininae: Character synergy improves phylogenetic resolution. BMC Evolutionary Biology 6(1): 87.

Chile. University of St Andrews.

LeDuc, R.G., Perrin, W.F. and Dizon, A.E. 1999. Phylogenetic relationships among the delphinid cetaceans based on full cytochrome b sequences. Marine Mammal Science 15: 619- 648.

Sielfield, K. W., Venegas, C. and Atalah, A. 1977. Consideraciones acerca del estado de los mammiferos marinos en Chile. Anales del Instituto de la Patagonia (Chile) 9: 145-151.

Viddi, F. A. and Lescrauwaet, A. K. 2005. Insights on habitat selection and behavioral patterns of Peale's dolphins (Lagenorhynchus australis) in the Strait of Magellan, southern Chile. Aquatic Mammals 31(2): 176-183.

Viddi, F.A., Harcourt, R.G., Hucke-Gaete, R. and Field, I.C. 2011. Fine-scale movement patterns of the sympatric C Marine Ecology Progress Series 436: 245-256.

Vollmer, N.L., Ashe, E., Brownell, R.L., Cipriano, F., Mead, J.G., Reeves, R.R., Soldevilla, M.S., and Williams, R. 2018. Taxonomic revision of the genus Lagenorhynchus. Marine Mammal Science.

White, R.W., Gillon, K.W., Black, A.D., and Reid, J.B. 2002. The distribution of seabirds and marine mammals in Falkland Islands waters. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough, UK. 107p.

LC - Least Concern, (IUCN version 3.1)

Assessment Rationale:

Hourglass Dolphin is present in the Patagonia Sea (including the Malvinas), where it is considered common and abundant. There are no known relevant threats to this species. As such, the Hourglass dolphin is listed as Least Concern.

Assessor(s): Crespo, E. Reviewer(s): Shope, M. & Falabella, V. Contributor(s): Hammond, P.S., Bearzi, G., Bjørge, A., Forney, K., Karczmarski, L., Kasuya, T., Perrin, W.F., Scott, M.D., Wang, J.Y., Wells, R.S. & Wilson, B. Facilitators/Compilers: Polidoro, B.

Taxonomic information

ANIMALIA - CHORDATA - MAMMALIA - CETARTIODACTYLA - DELPHINIDAE - Lagenorhynchus cruciger - (Quoy & Gaimard, 1824)

Common Names: Hourglass Dolphin (English), Dauphin Crucigère (French), Delfín Cruzado (Spanish; Castilian), Lagénorhynque Crucigère (French)

Note: The genus Lagenorhynchus is in need of revision (LeDuc et al. 1999) and this species may end up being reassigned to the resurrected genus Sagmatias.

Geographic Range

Hourglass dolphins are distributed in a circumpolar pattern in the higher latitudes of the southern oceans (Goodall 1997; Goodall et al. 1997; Brownell and Donahue 1999). They range to the ice-edges in the south, but the northern limits are not well-known (they are found to at least 45°S, although some occasionally reach 33°S). The most southerly sightings are from near 68°S, in the South Pacific (Goodall 1997; Brownell and Donahue 1999). This is the only small delphinid species regularly found south of the Antarctic Convergence.

This species is present and considered common and abundant in the Patagonia Sea, including the Malvinas (White et al. 2002). It is found much less frequently (considered rare) over the continental shelf (Dellabianca et al. 2012, Goodall et al. 1997, Goodall, 1997, Goodall, 2009, Riccialdelli et al. 2010). Its northern distribution limits is 45° S, with exceptional northern sightings at 36°14 S in the South Atlantic and 33°40 S in the South Pacific off Valparaiso, Chile (Dellavianca et al. 2012, Goodall 2008). The first sighting of hourglass dolphin in inland waters of sourthen Chile, specifically on Parry fjord, was recently described (Acevedo et al. 2016).

Population

In the only abundance estimate for this species, Kasamatsu and Joyce (1995) combined data gathered in sighting surveys conducted from 1976/77 to 1987/88 to produce an abundance estimate of 144,300 (CV =17%) for waters south of the Antarctic convergence.

There are no estimates of abundance for the Patagonia Sea, althougth is considered a commons and abundant species, including in Malvinas Islands (White et al. 2002).

Habitats and Ecology

Normally seen far offshore, L. cruciger has also been observed in fairly shallow water near the Antarctic Peninsula and off southern South America. It occurs within 160 km of the ice edge in some areas of the southern part of the range (Jefferson et al. 1993). Most sightings of these dolphins are in an area around the Antarctic Convergence, between South America and Macquarie Island. The species seems to prefer surface water temperatures between 0.6° - 13°C (mean 4.8 °C; Goodall 1997) or even down to -0.3°C (Goodall 2002).

The stomach contents of the five specimens of hourglass dolphins that have been examined contained small fish (including myctophids), squids, and crustaceans. They often feed in aggregations of seabirds and in plankton swarms.

Threats

There are no known major threats to this species.

Conservation

The species is listed in Appendix II of CITES.

Bibliography

Acevedo, J., Garthe, S. and González, A. First. 2016. First sighting of a live hourglass dolphin (Lagenorhynchus cruciger) in inland waters of southern Chile. Polar Biology 40(2): 483 486.

Brownell Jr., R. L. and Donahue, M. A. 1999. Hourglass dolphin Lagenorhynchus cruciger (Quoy and Gaimard, 1824). In: S. H. Ridgway and R. Harrison (eds), Handbook of marine mammals, Vol. 6: The second book of dolphins and the porpoises, pp. 121-135. Academic Press.

Dellabianca, N., Scioscia, G., Schiavini, A. and Raya Rey, A. 2012. Ocurrence of hourglass dolphin (Lagenorhynchus cruciger) and habitat characteristics along the Patagonian Shelf and the Atlantic Ocean sector of the Southern Ocean. Polar Biology 35: 1921-1927.

Goodall, R. N. P. 1997. Review of sightings of the hourglass dolphin, Lagenorhynchus cruciger, in the South American sector of the Antarctic and the sub-Antarctic. Reports of the International Whaling Commission 47: 1001-1014.

Goodall, R. N. P. 2002. Hourglass dolphin Lagenorhynchus cruciger. In: W. F. Perrin, B. Wursig and J. G. M. Thewissen (eds), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals, pp. 583-585. Academic Press, San Diego, California, USA.

Goodall, R. N. P. 2008. Hourglass Dolphin Lagenodelphis cruciger. In: S. Van Dyck and R. Strahan (eds), The mammals of Australia, pp. 848-850. Reed New Holland, Chatswood.

Goodall, R. N. P. 2009. Hourglass dolphin Lagenorhychus cruciger. In: Perrin, W. F., Würsig, B., and Thewissen, J. G. M. (eds), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals, pp. 573-576. Academic Press, Amsterdam.

Goodall, R. N. P., Baker, A. N., Best, P. B., Meyer, M. and Miyazaki, N. 1997. On the biology of the hourglass dolphin, Lagenorhynchus cruciger (Quoy and Gaimard, 1824). Reports of the International Whaling Commission 47: 985-999.

Kasamatsu, F. and Joyce, G. G. 1995. Current status of odontocetes in the Antarctic. Antarctic Science 7: 365-379.

LeDuc, R.G., Perrin, W.F. and Dizon, A.E. 1999. Phylogenetic relationships among the delphinid cetaceans based on full cytochrome b sequences. Marine Mammal Science 15: 619- 648.

Riccialdelli, L., Newsome, S. D., Fogel, M. L., and Goodall, R. N. P. 2010. Isotopic assessment of prey and habitat preferences of a cetacean community in the southwestern South Atlantic Ocean. Marine Ecology Progress Series 418: 235-248.

White, R.W., Gillon, K.W., Black, A.D., and Reid, J.B. 2002. The distribution of seabirds and marine mammals in Falkland Islands waters. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough, UK. 107p.

LC - Least Concern, (IUCN version 3.1)

Assessment Rationale:

Dusky Dolphin is present in the Patagonia Sea from Uruguay to central Chile. There is also a population outside of the Patagonia Sea to the north off of Peru, which has probably been overexploited but present data do not allow estimation of current decline. Lagenorhynchus obscurus is commonly observed in large, mixed groups up to 500 or more individuals with Delphinus delphis. The main threat to this species on the Atlantic side is capture as bycatch in pelagic trawls for anchovy/fishes and in purse seines. There is no indication of decline in the Patagonia Sea. As such, this species is listed as Least Concern.

Assessor(s): Crespo, E. & Sironi, M. Reviewer(s): Shope, M. & Falabella, V. Contributor(s): Hammond, P.S., Bearzi, G., Bjørge, A., Forney, K., Karczmarski, L., Kasuya, T., Perrin, W.F., Scott, M.D., Wang, J.Y., Wells, R.S. & Wilson, B. Facilitators/Compilers: Polidoro, B.

Taxonomic information

ANIMALIA - CHORDATA - MAMMALIA - CETARTIODACTYLA - DELPHINIDAE - Lagenorhynchus obscurus (Gray, 1828)

Common Names: Dusky Dolphin (English), Delfín Listado (Spanish; Castilian), Delfín Obscuro (Spanish; Castilian), Lagénorhynque Sombre (French)

Note: The genus Lagenorhynchus is polyphyletic and likely an artificial genus (LeDuc et al. 1999, Harlin-Cognato 2010), and this species is likely to be included eventually in the genus Sagmatias along with L. obliquidens (Pacific White-sided Dolphin) (Vollmer et al. 2018).

Four subspecies of Dusky Dolphin (Lagenorhynchus obscurus) are currently recognized by the L. o. obscurus L. o. fitzroyi off eastern South America, Peruvian/Chilean Dusky Dolphin L. o. posidonia off western South America, and the New Zealand Dusky Dolphin (un-named) off New Zealand (Perrin 2002). The populations centered in New Zealand, the west coast of South America, and southwestern Africa are genetically and morphologically distinct (Harlin-Cognato et al. 2007, Cassens et al. 2003, Würsig et al. 1997, Van Waerebeek 1993a,b). There is a hiatus in distribution spanning about 1,000 km along the Chilean coast (Van Waerebeek, 1994), and the animals off Patagonia in Argentina are smaller than those off northern Chile and Peru (Van Waerebeek, 1993b), suggesting that there may be separate subspecies in western and eastern South America (Van Waerebeek, 1993a,b). Dusky Dolphins also occur around some oceanic island groups (e.g., Tristan da Cunha, Prince Edward, Amsterdam, and St. Paul Islands). The subspecies affinities of these groups are uncertain.

Geographic Range

Dusky dolphins are widespread in the southern Hemisphere (Brownell and Cipriano 1999). They occur in apparently disjunct subpopulations in the waters off Tasmania, southern Australia, New Zealand, central and southern South America (including the Malvinas), and southwestern Africa. They also occur around some oceanic island groups.

In the Patagonian Sea the species is observed from Uruguay to central Chile. There is also a population outside of the Patagonia Sea to the north off of Peru, which has probably been overexploited but present data do not allow estimation of current decline (Van Waerebeek et al. 1997).

Population

There are few abundance estimates available for this species (Brownell and Cipriano, 1999). The total number of dusky dolphins in an area off the Patagonian cost, between Punta Ninfas and Cabo Blanco, Argentina, was estimated to be close to 6,628 individuals (Schiavini et al. 1999) Some subpopulations are thought to have been seriously depleted by human activities (e.g., those off Peru, Van Waerebeek 1994).

There is a hiatus in distribution spanning about 1,000 km along the Chilean coast, and the animals off Patagonia are smaller than those off northern Chile and Peru, suggesting that the subpopulations in western and eastern South America are separate. It remains uncertain whether the groups around oceanic islands in the western South Pacific (Campbell, Auckland, and Chatham), South Atlantic (Gough and the Malvinas), and Indian Ocean (Amsterdam, Prince Edward, and St. Paul) are discrete or regularly mix with animals in other areas (Brownell and Cipriano 1999).

Habitats and Ecology

This coastal species is usually found over the continental shelf and slope (Jefferson et al. 1993; Aguayo et al. 1998). The distribution of dusky dolphins along the west coast of South Africa and both coasts of South America is associated with the continental shelves and cool waters of the Benguela, Humboldt and Falkland Currents. Off Argentina, dusky dolphins have been sighted from the coast to almost 200 nautical miles offshore, but the present information does not allow us to conclude whether this species' distribution tends to be more coastal than offshore or vice versa due to the bias in coastal effort (Crespo et al. 1997). They seem to prefer 64 waters with sea surface temperatures between 10°C and 18°C (Brownell and Cipriano 1999). Inshore/offshore shifts in abundance have been noted for Argentina and New Zealand. They do move over deep waters in some areas (e.g., New Zealand), but always along continental slopes. Around New Zealand, these dolphins are associated mainly with various cold water currents (Brownell and Cipriano 1999). Van Waerebeek et al. (1995) suggested that dusky dolphins may be limited to water shallower than 200 m.

Cipriano (1992) estimated that males and females become reproductively mature at 7 8 years and 160 165 cm total length. Gestation period is estimated to last 11.4 months (Cipriano 1992).

Lagenorhynchus obscurus is commonly observed in large, mixed groups up to 500 or more individuals with Delphinus delphis (Dans et al. 2009, Markowits et al. 2009).

Dusky dolphins take a wide variety of prey, including southern anchovy near the surface in shallower waters, as well as midwater and benthic prey, such as squid, hake, and lanternfishes. They may also engage in nocturnal feeding, in association with the deep scattering layer. New Zealand dolphins appear to engage in feeding deeper in the water column than do those from Argentine waters (Cipriano 1992; Würsig et al. 1997).

General Use and Trade Information

This species is the subject of a targeted fishery in Chile and Peru (Aguayo-Lobo 1999).

Threats

Incidental mortality in mid-water trawls off Patagonia in the mid-1980s was estimated at 400 600 dolphins per year, primarily females, declining to 70 215 in the mid-1990s (Dans et al. 1997). Several hundred continue to die each year in various types of fishing gear off Argentina (Crespo et al. 2000). The highest rates of incidental catches off the Patagonian coast mostly occur in mid-water trawling for shrimp. In 1984, the number of dolphins caught was estimated at between 442-560, decreasing during the following years. Mortality estimates for 1994 reached a minimum value of 36 dolphins per year, mostly females and young adults. Thus, incidental mortality during 1984-86, would have led to a maximum annual mortality close to 8% of the present estimated regional population size. The effect was severe, considering that the catches affected mostly females of the highest reproductive value (Dans et al. 1997).

Incidental mortality of dusky dolphins was also recorded on mid-water trawls in the coasts of the Argentine shelf during the 1990´s. Argentine anchovy is an under-exploited resource among the Argentine fisheries which is usually taken in purse-seine fisheries. However in few occasions in which it was the target species of large mid-water trawlers, anchovy-eating dolphins were incidentally caught (Crespo et al., 2000).

Dusky dolphins are known to be taken directly in the multi-species small cetacean fisheries of Chile.

Global threats:

An expanded directed fishery for dolphins and porpoises may have started in Peru after the demise of the anchoveta fishery in 1972. Although most dusky dolphins are taken in the directed net fishery they are also taken by a harpoon fishery (Brownell and Cipriano, 1999). It has been calculated that the fishing industry from just one port kills more than 700 dusky dolphins each year. Large catches (approximately 10,000) of small cetaceans were reported from the coastal waters of central Peru in 1985 (Read et al., 1988). In the 1991-1993 period, an estimated 7,000 dusky dolphins were captured per year, a level thought to be unsustainable. Of 722 cetaceans captured mostly in multi-filament gillnets and landed at Cerro Azul, central

Peru, in 87 days during January- August 1994, 82.7% were dusky dolphins. The total kill estimate for a seven- month period, stratified by month, was 1,567 cetaceans. Data collected at 16 other ports showed that high levels of dolphin and porpoise mortality persisted in coastal Peru at least until August 1994. It is believed, but not confirmed, that this level of exploitation has diminished since dolphin hunting was banned by law in 1996, due in part to depletion of the regional population (Van Waerebeek and Würsig 2002). The current level of takes is unknown. The absence of abundance data precludes any assessment of impact on subpopulations (Van Waerebeek et al. 1997).

The estimated annual incidental kill of dusky dolphins in fishing gear around New Zealand was within the range of 50 150 during the mid-1980s (Würsig et al. 1997). Incidental mortality at one fishing port was estimated to be 100 to 200 animals per year (Jefferson et al. 1993).

Conservation

The species is listed in Appendix II of CITES.

Bibliography

Aguayo-Lobo, A. 1999. Los cetáceos y sus perspectivas de conservación. Estudios Oceanológicos 18: 35-43.

Brownell Jr., R. L. and Cipriano, F. 1999. Dusky dolphin Lagenorhynchus obscurus (Gray, 1828). In: S. H. Ridgway and R. Harrison (eds), Handbook of marine mammals, Vol. 6: The second book of dolphins and the porpoises, pp. 85-104. Academic Press, San Diego, USA.

Cipriano, F. W. 1992. Behavior and occurrence patterns, feeding ecology, and life history of dusky dolphins (Lagenorhynchus obscurus) off Kaikoura, New Zealand. Thesis, University of Arizona.

Dans, S. L., Crespo, E. A., Garcia, N. A., Reyes, L. M., Pedraza, S. N. and Alonso, M. K. 1997. Incidental mortality of Patagonian dusky dolphins in mid-water trawling: retrospective effects from the early 1980s. Reports of the International Whaling Commission 47: 699-703.

Dans, S.L., Crespo, E.A., Koen Alonso, M., Markowitz, T., Berón Vera, B., Dahood, A. 2009. Trophic Ecology. Role Of Dusky Dolphins In The Food Web Through Predation, Competition And Parasitism. In: Würsig, B., and Würsig, M. (eds), The Dusky Dolphin: Master Acrobats off Different Shores, pp. 211-244. Academic/Elsevier Press.

LeDuc, R.G., Perrin, W.F. and Dizon, A.E. 1999. Phylogenetic relationships among the delphinid cetaceans based on full cytochrome b sequences. Marine Mammal Science 15: 619- 648.

Markowitz, T.M., Dans, S.L., Crespo, E.A., Lundquist, D.J., Duprey, N.M.T. 2009. Human interactions with dusky dolphins: harvest, fisheries, habitat alteration, and tourism. In: Würsig, B., and Würsig, M. (eds), The Dusky Dolphin: Master Acrobats off Different Shores, pp. 49-74. Academic/Elsevier Press.

Perrin, W. F. 2002. Geographic variation. In: W. F. Perrin, B. Wursig and J. G. M. Thewissen (eds), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals, pp. 510-516. Academic Press.

Read, A. J., Van Waerebeek, K., Reyes, J. C., Mckinnon, J. S. and Lehman, L. C. 1988. The exploitation of small cetaceans in coastal Peru. Biological Conservation 46: 53-70.

Schiavini, A., Pedraza, S. N., Crespo, E. A., Gonzalez, R. and Dans, S. L. 1999. Abundance of dusky dolphins (Lagenorhynchus obscurus) off north and central Patagonia, Argentina, in spring and a comparison with incidental catch in fisheries. Marine Mammal Science 15: 828- 840.

Van Waerebeek, K. 1993. External features of the dusky dolphin Lagenorhynchus obscurus (Gray, 1828) from Peruvian waters. Estudios Oceanologicos 12: 37-53.

Van Waerebeek, K. 1993. Geographic variation and sexual dimorphism in the skull of the dusky dolphin, Lagenorhynchus obscurus (Gray, 1828). Fishery Bulletin 91: 754-774.

Van Waerebeek, K. 1994. A note on the status of the dusky dolphins (Lagenorhynchus obscurus) off Peru. Reports of the International Whaling Commission 15: 525-527.

Van Waerebeek, K. and Wursig, B. 2002. Pacific white-sided dolphin and dusky dolphin Lagenorhynchus obliquidens and L. obscurus. In: W. F. Perrin, B. Wursig and J. G. M. Thewissen (eds), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals, pp. 859-861. Academic Press.

Van Waerebeek, K., Alfaro-Shigueto, J., Montes, D., Onton, K., Santillan, L., Van Bressem, M. F. and Vega, D. 2002. Fisheries related mortality of small cetaceans in neritic waters of Peru in 1999-2001. International Whaling Commission, Cambridge, UK.

Van Waerebeek, K., Van Bressem, M. F., Felix, F., Alfaro-Shigueto, J., Garcia-Godos, A., Chavez-Lisambart, L., Onton, K., Montes, D. and Bello, R. 1997. Mortality of Dolphins and Porpoises in Coastal Fisheries off Peru and Southern Ecuador in 1994. Biological Conservation 81: 43-49.

Van Waerebeek, K., van Bree, P. J. H. and Best, P. B. 1995. On the identity of Predelphinus petersii Lutken, 1889 and records of dusky dolphin Lagenorhynchus obscurus (Gray, 1828) from the southern Indian and Atlantic oceans. South African Journal of Marine Science 16: 25- 35.

Würsig, B., Cipriano, F., Slooten, E., Constantine, R., Barr, K. and Yin, S. 1997. Dusky Dolphins (Lagenorhynchus obscurus) off New Zealand: status of present knowledge. Report of the International Whaling Commission 47: 715-722.

LC - Least Concern, (IUCN version 3.1)

Assessment Rationale:

Southern Right Whale Dolphin is found in the Patagonian Sea, but there are more records off the Pacific coast in Chile and Peru. In Chile more than 2095 individuals were observed in 21 sightings. This abundance of the southern population in Chile is higher than in the north. There are no known threats to this species in the Patagonia Sea. As such, the Southern Right Whale Dolphin is listed as Least Concern.

Assessor(s): Sepúlveda, M. & Crespo, E. Reviewer(s): Shope, M. & Falabella, V. Contributor(s): Hammond, P.S., Bjørge, A., Bearzi, G., Kasuya, T., Wells, R.S., Wilson, B., Wang, J.Y., Perrin, W.F., Karkzmarski, L., Forney, K.A. & Scott, M.D. Facilitators/Compilers: Polidoro, B.

Taxonomic information

ANIMALIA - CHORDATA - MAMMALIA - CETARTIODACTYLA - DELPHINIDAE - Lissodelphis peronei - (Lacépède, 1804)

Common Names: Southern Right Whale Dolphin (English), Dauphin Aptère Austral (French), Delfín Liso Austral (Spanish; Castilian), Tunina Sinaleta (Spanish; Castilian)

Geographic Range

Southern right whale dolphin is found in the Patagonian Sea, with more records off the Pacific coast in Chile and Peru. (Aguayo et al. 1998). Global distribution of the species is poorly known, though it appears to be circumpolar and fairly common throughout its range (Jefferson et al. 1994, Lipsky 2002). The species is found only in cool temperate to subantarctic waters of the Southern Hemisphere, mostly between about 30°S and 65°S. The southern limit appears generally to be bounded by the Antarctic Convergence. The range extends furthest north along the west coast of continents, due to the cold counter clockwise currents of the Southern Hemisphere. The northernmost record is at 12°S, off northern Peru.

Population

There are no estimates of abundance for the Southern Right Whale Dolphin, and virtually nothing is known of the subpopulation structure or status of the species. The records of Southern Right Whale Dolphin in the Patagonia Sea are primarily from Chile. In Chile more than 2,095 individuals were observed in 21 sightings. This abundance of the southern population in Chile is higher than in the north (Aguayo et al. 1998). Preliminary boat surveys and the rapid accumulation of stranding and fishery interaction records in northern Chile suggest that the Southern Right Whale Dolphin may be one of the most common cetaceans in that region (Jefferson et al. 1994, Van Waerebeek et al. 1991). Aguayo et al. (1998) reported that L. peronii is very common between Valparaiso and 76°W, i.e. just off the Chilean coast.

Habitats and Ecology

Southern Right Whale Dolphins are observed most often in cool, deep, offshore waters with temperatures of 1 20°C. They are only occasionally seen nearshore, and this is generally where deep water approaches the coast (Jefferson et al. 1994; Rose and Payne 1991). The Southern Right Whale Dolphin feeds primarily on squid and fish (Jefferson et al. 1994).

General Use and Trade Information

This species has been harvested in Chile and Peru for human food, and as bait in crab fisheries (Van Waerebeek, et al. 1991, Aguayo-Lobo 1999).

Threats

There are no known threats to this species in the Patagonia Sea.

Southern Right Whale Dolphins have been directly taken in the past in Peru and Chile for crab bait and for human consumption (Jefferson et al. 1994), but there are no estimates of the mortality levels. The only incidental catch of any magnitude that is known is in the swordfish gillnet fishery off Chile. There is concern that large numbers are being killed in the driftnet fishery for Swordfish (Xiphias gladius) that began in northern Chile in the early 1980s (Reyes and Oporto 1994). Additionally, the Southern Right Whale Dolphin is known to be taken incidentally in driftnets along the coasts of Peru (Jefferson et al. 1993).

Conservation

It is listed on Appendix II of CITES. Because no population estimates are available, mortality rates and their effect on the population(s) are unknown. More research is clearly needed.

Bibliography

Aguayo-Lobo, A. 1999. Los cetáceos y sus perspectivas de conservación. Estudios Oceanológicos 18: 35-43.

Jefferson, T. A., Newcomer, M. W., Leatherwood, S. and Van Waerebeek, K. 1994. Right whale dolphins Lissodelphis borealis (Peale, 1848) and Lissodelphis peronii (Lacepede, 1804). In: S. H. Ridgway and R. Harrison (eds), Handbook of marine mammals, pp. 335-362. Academic Press.

Lipsky, J. D. 2002. Right whale dolphins Lissodelphis borealis and L. peronii. In: W. F. Perrin, B. Wursig and J. G. M. Thewissen (eds), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals, pp. 1030-1033. Academic Press.

Reyes, J. C. and Oporto, J. A. 1994. Gillnet fisheries and cetaceans in the southeast Pacific. Reports of the International Whaling Commission Special Issue 15: 467-474.

Rose, B. and Payne, A. I. L. 1991. Occurrence and behavior of the southern right whale dolphin Lissodelphis peronii off Namibia. Marine Mammal Science 7: 25-34.

Van Waerebeek, K., Canto, J., Gonzales, J., Oporto, J. and Brito, J. L. 1991. Southern right whale dolphins, Lissodelphis peronii off the Pacific coast of South America. Zeitschrift für Säugetierkunde 56: 284-295.

LC - Least Concern, (IUCN version 3.1)

Assessment Rationale:

Orca is widespread in the Patagonia Sea, where small groups move hundreds of kilometers. Population estimates are not available, but there has been an observed strandings increase of dead killer whales in beaches, along with an increment in attacks on dusky dolphins and South American sea lions, and also in interactions with fisheries. This species is occasionally caught as by-catch in longline fisheries, but there are no known major threats to the species in the Patagonia Sea. Accordingly, the Killer Whale is listed as Least Concern. However, more information is needed to better estimate this species population size in the region.

Assessor(s): Capella, J., Bordino, P., Campagna, C., Crespo, E., Franco-Trecu, V., Hevia, M., Sepúlveda, M., Sironi, M., Szteren, D. & Truda Palazzo, J. Reviewer(s): Shope, M., Falabella, V., Iñiguez, M. Contributor(s): Taylor, B.L., Baird, R., Barlow, J., Dawson, S.M., Ford, J., Mead, J.G., Notarbartolo di Sciara, G., Wade, P. & Pitman, R.L. Facilitators/Compilers: Polidoro, B.

Taxonomic information

ANIMALIA - CHORDATA - MAMMALIA - CETARTIODACTYLA - DELPHINIDAE - Orcinus orca (Linnaeus, 1758)

Common Names: Killer Whale (English), Epaulard (French), Espadarte (Spanish; Castilian), Orca (English), Orque (French)

Note: This taxonomic unit is treated as a single species even though there is extensive and growing evidence that it is, in fact, a complex of multiple forms with morphological, genetic, ecological, and behavioural differences that merit subspecies if not also species designations. At the time of writing (June 2017), the Committee on Taxonomy of the Society for Marine Mammalogy (www.marinemammalscience.org/species-information/list-marine-mammal- species-subspecies), which is generally regarded as the authority for marine mammal taxonomy, recognized a single killer whale species, Orcinus orca (Linnaeus, 1758), and two unnamed subspecies in the eastern North Pacific, the ENP resident killer whale (O. o. un- named subsp.) and the ENP transient killer whale (O. o. un-named subsp.) also known as

Pacific, North Atlantic and Antarctic [Southern] Ocean may warrant recognition as separate subspecies or even species, but the taxonomy has not yet been fully clarified or agreed (Morin et al. 2010; Foote et al. the Canadian Species at Risk Act in 2003 and the U.S. Endangered Species Act in 2005.

Geographic Range

The killer whale is the most cosmopolitan of all cetaceans and may be the second-most widely- ranging mammal species on the planet, after humans (Rice 1998). Killer whales can be seen in virtually any marine region, from the equator to polar waters. Although they are generally more common in nearshore areas and in higher-productivity areas and/or higher latitudes, there appear to be no hard and fast restrictions of water temperature or depth on their range. The distribution extends to many enclosed or partially-enclosed seas.

The species is widespread in the Patagonia Sea, where small groups move hundreds or thousands of kilometers within the region (Iñíguez 2001; Reyes and García Borboroglu 2004, Durban and Pitman 2012). Individuals may distribute in coastal and open waters of Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina and Chile, with coastward movements associated with the presence of cold water (Iñíguez et al. 1994, Passadore et al. 2007, Passadore et al. 2012, Passadore et al. 2015, Capella et al. 1999, Aguayo-Lobo et al. 2006, Moreno et al. 2008, Viddi et al. 2010, Häussermann et al 2013). In Argentina the species is observed in coastal areas, notably at Peninsula Valdés, Chubut province, but also in other coastal locations of southern Patagonia and Tierra del Fuego (Lopez and Lopez 1985, Beade et al. 1988, Hoelzel 1991, Iñíguez 1991, Iñíguez 2001, Reyes and García Borboroglu 2004, Coscarella et al. 2015, Hevia, pers comm 2016). In the Malvinas/ Falkland Islands, this species has been sighted in small groups particularly around Sea Lion Island (Yates et al. 2007). In Uruguay they are mostly observed in the open ocean (Passadore et al. 2007, Passadore et al. 2012, Passadore et al. 2015), while in Brazil, killer whales are reported inshore and offshore (Dalla Rosa 1995, Secchi and Vaske 1998, Dalla Rosa and Secchi 2007).

Population

Population estimates in the Patagonia Sea are not available. There is no scientific evidence of a population increase for this species (Iñiguez pers comm. 2018), however it has been observed an increase in strandings of dead killer whales in beaches, reported attacks on southern right whales (Sironi et al. 2008), increased attacks on dusky dolphins (Coscarella et al. 2015) and South American sea lions (Grandi et al. 2012), and also increased interactions with fisheries (Cáceres et al. 2016), all of which may indicate that this species population is increasing in the region (Crespo pers comm. 2015). There have been 4 strandings in the Islas Malvinas/Falkland Islands (Otley 2012) and despite a regular (perhaps seasonal) presence in some coastal areas, the presence of killer whales in Malvinas is scarce (White et al. 2002, Otley 2012). About 35 individuals have been photoidentified in Aysen region, Chile, (Häussermann et al. 2013), 55 in the Magellan Strait (Capella et al. 2014) and about 30 in Peninsula Valdés (Iñíguez 2001, Crespo and García Dacko 2016). Additionally, nine killer whales have been photoidentified in Isla de los leones marinos/Sea Lion Island, while 18 animals have been sighted in 7 different opportunities mainly in coastal and Patagonian shelf waters near Malvinas/ Falkland Islands (Yates et al. 2007, White et al. 2002). These identifications are based on localized, repeated surveys, and based on density studies, the population in the Patagonia Sea is likely much larger than 1,000 mature individuals (Forney and Wade 2006).

Satellite tag data, which provides more information of the species movements in the region, indicates a connectivity with Antarctic populations (Durban and Pitman 2012).Further research is required in order to bring light to all these uncertainties regarding the distribution pattern of the species in the western South Atlantic.

Minimum worldwide abundance has been estimated of about 50,000 killer whales. It is likely that the total abundance is higher, because estimates are not available for many high-latitude areas of the northern hemisphere and for large areas of the South Pacific, South Atlantic, and Indian Ocean. However, this population abundance refers to several forms of killer whales that may be recognized as different species or subspecies in the future (Reeves et al. 2004).

Although killer whales occur worldwide, densities increase by 1-2 orders of magnitude between the tropics and the highest-sampled latitudes in the Arctic and Antarctic (Forney and Wade 2006). Killer whales tend to be more common along continental margins; however, there is some variation in this general pattern that appears linked to ocean productivity. Killer whales appear to be less common in western boundary currents, such as the Gulf Stream or the Kuroshio than in more productive eastern boundary currents, such as the California Current. Known areas of locally higher density often coincide with greater oceanographic productivity (e.g. off Argentina).

Habitats and Ecology

Killer whales may occur in almost any marine or estuarine habitat, being more common in areas of high marine productivity, particularly at higher latitudes and near shore (Dahlheim and Heyning 1999; Forney and Wade 2006). Sightings range from the surf zone to the open sea. Movements can be extensive. For instance, 6 type B killer whales have been documented to have moved between the Antarctic Peninsula to subtropical waters (30-37°S) off Uruguay and Brazil, with one whale returning to the Antarctic after completing a 9,400 km trip in just 42 days (Durban and Pitman 2012). Killer whales in some areas congregate seasonally in coastal channels to forage and occasionally enter river mouths.

Killer whales are known to feed on a wide array of prey, including most marine mammal species (except river dolphins and manatees), seabirds, sea turtles, many species of fish (including sharks and rays) and cephalopods (Dahlheim and Heyning 1999; Ford and Ellis 1999; Ford 2002). They have diverse foraging tactics, including intentional beaching to gain access to seals onshore. They are known to use cooperative techniques to herd fish and to attack large prey (Dahlheim and Heyning 1999; Baird 2000).

At the Patagonia sea, a variety of prey have been registered for killer whales, including South American sea lions (Otaria flavescens), southern fur seals (Arctocephalus australis), southern elephant seals (Mirounga leonina), Southern right whale (Eubalaena australis), Antarctic minke whale (Balaenoptera bonaerensis), dusky dolphins (Lagenorhynchus obscurus), common dolphins (Delphinus delphis), bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus (Cephalorhynchus commersonii), Franciscana (Pontoporia blainvillei), Magellan penguins (Spheniscus magellanicus), Imperial shag (Phalacrocorax atriceps), sevengill shark (Notorhynchus cepedianus), Argentinean or Brazilian sandperch Pseudopercis semifasciata, (López and López 1985, Beade et al. 1988, Iñíguez 1990, Hoelzel 1991, Iñíguez 2001, Reyes and García-Borboroglu 2004, Yates et al. 2007, Sironi et al. 2008, Vila et al. 2008, Coscarella et al. 2015, Cáceres et al. 2016, J. C. López, pers. comm. 2015). A group of females and juveniles killer whales were registered during what seemed an attempt of predation on a calf of sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus) in Brazilian waters (Andriolo et al., 2015). Several preys species (South American sea lions, southern elephant seals, southern right whales, dusky dolphins, common dolphins, Magellan penguin and Imperial shag) were involved in hunting training activities involving adults, juveniles and calves of killer whales (López and López 1985, Iñíguez 1990, Hoelzel 1991, Iñíguez 2001, Sironi et al. 2008, Coscarella et al. 2015) and it was also observed one intent of intentional stranding to catch a sheep (Ovis aries)at Península Valdés (Iñíguez, pers. comm. 2018). At Punta Norte, accidental death of Southern giant petrel (Macronectes giganteus), great grebe (Podiceps major) and southern silvery grebe (Podiceps occipitalis) caused by killer whales during patrolling activities in hunting areas were registered (Iñíguez 1990). In southern Chile, killer whales have been reported preying on marine mammals: South American sea lions, southern fur seals, sei whales

(Balaenoptera borealis), gull species and Magellan penguins and also swallowing an imperial shag (Häussermann et al. 2013).

In addition, interactions between killer whales and industrial fisheries have been documented. For example, in pelagic longline fishery for swordfish (Xiphias gladius), bigeye (Thunnus obesus) and albacore (Thunnus alalunga) tuna in Brazil,and Uruguay (Secchi and Vaske 1998, Brum and Marín 2000, Dalla Rosa and Secchi 2007).

Five ecotypes and forms (types A, B with a large form and small form, C and D) are distinguished according to their morphological traits and foraging ecology in the Southern Hemispheres (Pitman 2011), however recent genetic studies suggests that at least three of these types (A, large B and C) could be considered separate species (Morin et al. 2010). Nowadays, two killer whale ecotype (A and B) were identified in the Patagonia sea.

General Use and Trade Information

This species is not utilized.

Threats

In the Patagonia Sea, this species is occasionally by-caught in longline fisheries or retaliated against by fishermen with harpoons and guns in Brazilian, Uruguayan and adjacent and Secchi 2007; Passadore et al. 2015) . There are currently no other known threats to the species in the region. In the past, three individuals found stranded on the shore of Buenos Aires were captured and kept captive in an oceanarium (Iñiguez pers comm. 2018).

Killer whales have been exploited at low levels in several regions world-wide (Jefferson et al. 1993), like the eastern North Atlantic, Japan, and the Antarctic ocean (Dahlheim and Heyning 1999; Reyes 1991). Killer whales are still taken in small numbers in coastal fisheries in Japan, Greenland, Indonesia, and the Caribbean islands (Reeves et al. 2003). Fishermen in many areas see killer whales as competitors, and intentional shooting of whales is known to occur. This problem is especially serious in Alaska, where depredation of longline fisheries is extensive (Jefferson et al. 1993; Yano and Dahlheim 1995; Donohue et al. 2003). Bycatch in trawl and driftnet fishing operations occur, but are considered rare (Dahlheim and Heyning 1999). Live-captures of several killer whales have also taken place in Iceland and Japanese waters (Reyes 1991).

Persistent bio-accumulating contaminants have recently been found to present a serious potential risk to some killer whale subpopulations. The southern resident and transient killer whales of British Columbia and Washington can be considered among the most contaminated cetaceans in the world (Ross et al. 2000).

Habitat disturbance may be a matter for concern in areas inhabited by killer whales and supporting whale-watching industries (Reyes 1991). Moving boats can disrupt activities such as foraging and resting, and underwater boat noise could affect social and echolocation signals of the whales or otherwise interfere with foraging (Erbe 2002; Williams et al. 2002). Fast-moving boats in the proximity of killer whales also present a risk of collision or injury from propellers. Visser (1999) reports on propeller scars observed on killer whales in New Zealand and their possible causes of mortality.

There have been large-scale reductions in predatory fish populations (Myers and Worm 2003; Baum et al. 2003) and over- - wide (Jackson et al. 2001). There have also been dramatic declines in marine mammal 76 populations throughout the world. The effects of such reductions in prey populations (both fish and marine mammal) and subsequent ecosystem changes on world-wide populations of killer whales are unknown but could result in population declines.

Predicted impacts of global climate change on the marine environment may negatively affect certain killer whale subpopulations more than others through changes in prey availability (see e.g. Learmonth et al. 2006).

Conservation

The species is listed in Appendix II of CITES and Appendices I and II of CMS. Additionally, the species is protected against commercial whaling by the IWC. In Argentina, the law N° 25052 prohibits hunting or capture through nets or by the forced stranding system of orca specimens. The Application Authority is the MAyDS.razil forbids whaling and declared its jurisdictional waters sanctuary of whales and dolphins. Chile protects all cetaceans against whaling within jurisdictional waters. It additionally forbids the capture, possession, transportation, landing, processing or any other transformation process, as well as the trade of any cetacean species. Uruguay forbids the hunting, whaling, appropriation and any kind of transformation process of cetaceans within jurisdictional islands, coasts and waters. The transportation and landing of live cetaceans is also forbidden (unless for scientific or sanitary need), and the retention, aggression or intentional aggression leading to death are also forbidden.

Bibliography

Aguayo-Lobo, A., Acevedo-Ramirez, J. Vargas-Morales, R. 2006. Diversidad de mamíferos marinos en las aguas del Archipiélago de los Chonos (43º 39' S-45º 50' S), XI Región de Chile [Marine mammals diversity off Los Chonos archipelago (43º 39' S-45º 50' S), XI Region of Chile]. Revista Ciencia y Tecnología del Mar 29(2): 129-145.

Andriolo, A., Reis, S.S., Amorim, T.O.S., Sucunza, F., de Castro, F.R., Geyer Maia, Y., Zerbini, A.N., Bortolotto, G.A. and Dalla Rosa, L. 2015. Killer whale (Orcinus orca) whistles from the western South Atlantic Ocean include high frequency signals. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 138(3): 1696-1701.

Baird, R.W. 2000. The killer whale: foraging specializations and group hunting. In: J. Mann, R. C. Connor, P. L. Tyack and H. Whitehead (eds), Cetacean societies: field studies of dolphins and whales, pp. 127-153. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, USA.

Barrett-Lennard, L.G. 2000. Population structure and mating patterns of killer whales (Orcinus orca) as revealed by DNA analysis. University of British Columbia.

Baum, J. K., Myers, R. A., Kehler, D. G., Word, B., Harley, S. J. and Doherty, P. A. 2003. Collapse and conservation of shark populations in the Northwest Atlantic. Science 299: 389- 392.

Beade, M., Loureiro, J.D. and Mendez de Cabrera, G. A. 1988. Avistaje de Orcinus orca en Bahía Samborombón - Argentina y un caso de ataque sobre Tursiops gephyreus. III Reunión de trabajo de especialistas en mamíferos acuáticos de América del Sur. 25-30 de Julio. Montevideo, Uruguay. P.12..

Berzin, A.A. and Vladimirov, V.L. 1983. A new species of killer whale (Cetacea, Delphinidae) from Antarctic waters. Zoologicheskii Zhurnal 62: 287-295.

Bigg, M. A., Olesiuk, P. F., Ellis, G. M., Ford, J. K. B. and Balcomb, K. C. 1990. Social organization and genealogy of resident killer whales (Orcinus orca) in coastal waters of British

Columbia and Washington State. Reports of the International Whaling Commission Special Issue 12: 383-405.

Brum, F.L. and Marín, Y.H. 2000. Interacciones entre mamíferos marinos y la pesquería de pez espada, Xiphias gladius, con palangre pelágico en el Atlántico Sudoccidental. Captura de grandes peces pelágicos en el Atlántico Sudoccidental y su interacción con otras poblaciones. INAPE, Proyecto URU/92/003, PNUD, 96 pp.

Capella, J., Abramson, J.Z., Vilina, Y.A. and Gibbons, J. 2. 2014. Observations of Killer whales (Orcinus orca) in the Patagonian fjords. Polar Biology 37: 1533-1539.

Capella, J., Gibbons, J. and Vilina, Y. 1999. The killer whale, Orcinus orca (DELPHINIDAE) in Chilean waters between Arica and Cabo de Hornos. Anales del Instituto de la Patagonia 27: 63-72.

Cañadas, A. and de Stephanis, R. 2006. Orcinus orca. In: R. Reeves and G. Notarbartolo di Sciara (eds), The Status and Distribution of Cetaceans in the Black Sea and Mediterranean Sea, pp. 34-38. IUCN Centre for Mediterranean Cooperation, Malaga, Spain.

Coscarella, M. A., Bellazzi, G., Gaffet, M. L., Berzano, M., and Degrati, M. 2015. Technique Used by Killer Whales (Orcinus orca) When Hunting for Dolphins in Patagonia, Argentina. Aquatic Mammals DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1578/AM.41.2.2015.192.

Crespo, E.A. and García Dacko, N.A. 2016. Síntesis del estado actual de los mamÍferos marinos del Mar Argentino: tasas de incremento y factores denso-dependientes. XI Congreso De La Sociedad Latinoamericana De Especialistas En Mamíferos Acuáticos. Valparaíso, Chile, 28/11 a 1/12/2016.

Cáceres, B., Aguayo-Lobo, A. and Acevedo, J. 2016. Interaction between the patagonian toothfish fishery, Dissostichus eleginoides (Nototheniidae), with the sperm whale and killer whale off southern Chile: review of the knowledge status. Anales Instituto Patagonia 44(3): 21- 38.

Dahlheim, M. E. and Heyning, J. E. 1999. Killer whale Orcinus orca (Linneaus, 1758). In: S. H. Ridgway and R. Harrison (eds), Handbook of marine mammals, Vol. 6: The second book of dolphins and the porpoises, pp. 281-322. Academic Press.

Dahlheim, M. E. and Matkin, C. O. 1994. Assessment of injuries to Prince William Sound killer whales. In: T. R. Loughlin (ed.), Marine mammals and the Exxon Valdez, pp. 163-172. Academic Press.

Dalla Rosa, L. 1995. Interações com a pesca de espinhel e informações sobre a dieta alimentar de orca, Orcinus orca Linnaeus 1758 (Cetacea, Delphinidae), no sul e sudeste do Brasil. Universidade do Rio Grande, Brasil.

Dalla Rosa, L. and Secchi, E. 2007. Killer whale (Orcinus orca) interactions with the tuna and swordfish longline fishery off southern and south-eastern Brazil: a comparison with shark interaction. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 87: 135-140.

Donoghue, M., Reeves, R. R. and Stone, G. S. 2003. Report of the Workshop on Interactions Between Cetaceans and Longline Fisheries. New England Aquarium Aquatic Forum Series Report 03-1. New England Aquarium Press, Boston, MA, USA in cooperation with the South Pacific Regional Environmental Programme, Apia, Samoa.

Durban, J. W., and Pitman, R. L. 2012. Antarctic killer whales make rapid, round-trip movements to subtropical waters: evidence for physiological maintenance migrations? Biology Letters 8: 274-277. 78

Erbe, C. 2002. Underwater noise of whale-watching boats and potential effects on killer whales (Orcinus orca), based on an acoustic impact model. Marine Mammal Science 18(2): 394-418.

Ford, J. K. B. and Ellis, G. M. 1999. Transients: Mammal-hunting killer whales of British Columbia, Washington, and southeastern Alaska. Univ. British Columbia Press.

Ford, J. K. B., Ellis, G. E. and Olesiuk, P. F. 2005. Linking prey and population dynamics: did food limitati Orcinus orca) in British Columbia? Research Document 2005/042. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Ottawa, ON, Canada.

Ford, J.K.B. 2002. Killer whale Orcinus orca. In: W. F. Perrin, B. Wursigand J.G.M. Thewissen (ed.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals, pp. 669-676. Academic Press.

Forney, K. A. and Wade, P. 2006. Worldwide distribution and abundance of killer whales. In: J. A. Estes, R. L. Brownell, Jr., D. P. DeMaster, D. F. Doak and T. M. Williams (eds), Whales, Whaling and Ocean Ecosystems, pp. 145-162. University of California Press.

Grandi, M.F., Loizaga de Castro, R. and Crespo, E.A. 2012b. Killer whale attacking on South American sea lion associated to a fishing vessel: predator and prey tactics. Latin American Journal of Aquatic Research 40(4): 1072-1076.

Hoelzel, A.R. 1991. Killer whale predation on marine mammals at Punta Norte, Argentina: Food sharing, provisioning and foraging strategy. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 29(3): 197- 204.

Häussermann, V., Acevedo, J., Försterra, G., Bailey, M. and Aguayo-Lobo, A. 2013. Killer whales in Chilean Patagonia: additional sightings, behavioural observations, and individual identifications. Revista de Biología Marina y Oceanografía 48(1): 73-85.

Iriarte, V. 2006. Killer whale (Orcinus orca) ocurrence at Isla de Lobos, Uruguay. LAJAM 5(1): 73-76.

Iñíguez, M. A. 1990. Interacción entre orcas (Orcinus orca) y otras especies en el Atlántico Sudoccidental. 4ª Reunión de trabajo de especialistas en mamíferos Acuáticos de América del Sur, 12-15 Nov, Valdivia, Chile. p.31.

Iñíguez, M. A. 2001. Seasonal distribution of killer whales (Orcinus orca) in Northern Patagonia, Argentina. Aquatic Mammals 27(2): 154-161.

Iñíguez, M., Secchi, E., Tossenberger, V. y Dalla Rosa, L. 1994. Orca, Orcinus orca, en la Argentina y Brasil. Sexta Reunión de Trabajo de Especialistas en Mamíferos Marinos, Florianópolis, Brasil. p. 103.

López, J. C. and López, D. 1985. Killer whales (Orcinus orca) of Patagonia, and their behavior of intentional stranding while hunting nearshore. Journal of Mammalogy 66: 181-183.

Mikhalev, Y.A., Ivashin, M.V., Sausin, V.P. and Zelemaya, F.E. 1981. The distribution and biology of killer whales in the Southern Hemisphere. Reports of the International Whaling Commission 31: 551-566.

Moreno, C., Castro, R., Mujica, L, and Reyes, P. 2008. Significant conservation benefits obtained from the use of a new fishing gear in the Chilean Patagonian toothfish fishery. Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources Science 15: 79-91.

Morin, P.A., Archer, F.I., Foote, A.D., Vilstrup, J., Allen, E.E., Wade, P., Durvban, J., Parsons, K., Pitman, R., Li, L., Bouffard, P., Nielsen, S.C.A., Rasmussen, M., Willerslev, E., Gilbert, M.T.P., and Harkins, T. 2010. Complete mitochondrial genome phylogeographic analysis of killer whales (Orcinus orca) indicates multiple species. Genome Research 20: 908-916.

Myers, R. A. and Worm, B. 2003. Rapid worldwide depletion of predatory fish communities. Nature 423: 280-283.

Otley, H. 2012. The composition of the cetacean community in the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands, southwest South Atlantic Ocean. Revista de Biología Marina y Oceanografía 47(3): 537-551.

Passadore, C., Domingo, A. and Secchi, E. R. 2015. Depredation by killer whale (Orcinus orca) and false killer whale (Pseudorca crassidens) on the catch of the Uruguayan pelagic longline fishery in Southwestern Atlantic Ocean. ICES Journal of Marine Science 72: 1653-1666.

Passadore, C., Domingo, A. and Secchi, E.R. 2015. Analysis fo marine mammal bycatch in the Uruguayan pelagic longline fishery operating in the Southwestern Atlantic Ocean. ICES Journal of Marine Science 72(5): 1637-1652.

Passadore, C., Domingo, A., Szephegyi, M. and Secchi, E.R. 2012. Influence of environmental and longline fishing operational variables on the presence of killer whales (Orcinus orca) in south-western Atlantic. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 94(6): 1267-1276.

Passadore, C., Szephegyi, M., Domingo, A. and Mora, O. 2007. . La flota de palangre como fuente de información sobre la distribución de la orca (Orcinus orca) en el Océano Atlántico Sudoccidental (2002-2006). Col. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT 60(6): 2118-2129.

Pitman, R.L. 2011. Killer whale: the top, top predator. Whale watcher Journal of the American Cetacean Society 40(1): 72 pp.

Pitman, R.L. and Ensor, P. 2003. Three forms of killer whales (Orcinus orca) in Antarctic waters. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 5: 131-139.

Reeves, R.R., Perrin, W.F., Taylor, B.L., Baker, C.S. and Mesnick, S.L. 2004. Report of the Workshop on Shortcomings of Cetacean Taxonomy in Relation to Needs of Conservation and Management, April 30 - May 2, 2004, La Jolla, California. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SWFSC 363: 94 pp.

Reyes, L.M. and García-Borboroglu, P. 2004. Killer whale (Orcinus orca) predation on sharks in Patagonia, Argentina: A first report. Aquatic Mammals 30(3): 376-379.

Rice, D.W. 1998. Marine Mammals of the World: Systematics and Distribution. Society for Marine Mammalogy, Special Publication Number 4, Lawrence, Kansas.

Ross, P. S., Ellis, G. M., Ikonomou, M. G., Barrett-Lennard, L. G. and Addison, R. F. 2000. High PCB concentrations in free-ranging Pacific killer whales, Orcinus orca: effects of age, sex and dietary preference. Marine Pollution Bulletin 40: 504-515.

Secchi, E.R. and Vaske, T. 1998. Killer whale (Orcinus orca) sightings and depredation on tuna and swordfish longline catches in southern Brazil. Aquatic Mammals 24: 117-122.

Sironi, M., López, J.C., Bubas, R., Carribero, A., García, C., Harris, G., Intrieri, E., Iñíguez, M. and Payne, R. 2008. Predation by killer whales (Orcinus orca) on southern right whales (Eubalaena australis) off Patagonia, Argentina: effects on behavior and habitat choice. Document SC/60/BRG29 presented to the International Whaling Commission Scientific Committee. Chile, June 2008.

Viddi, F.A., Hucke-Gaete, R., Torres-Florez, J.P. and Ribeiro, S. 2010. Spatial and seasonal variability in cetacean distribution in the fjords of northern Patagonia, Chile. ICES Journal of Marine Science 67: 959-970.

Vila, A.R., Campagna, C., Iñíguez, M. and Falabella, V. 2008. Killer whale (Orcinus orca) predation avoidance by South American Sea Lions (Otaria flavescens). Aquatic Mammals 34(3): 317-330.

Visser, I. N. 1999. Antarctic orca in New Zealand waters? New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 33: 515-520.

White, R.W., Gillon, K.W., Black, A.D., and Reid, J.B. 2002. The distribution of seabirds and marine mammals in Falkland Islands waters. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough, UK. 107p.

Williams, R., Lusseau, D. and Hammond, P. S. 2006. Estimating relative energetic costs of human disturbance to killer whales (Orcinus orca). Biological Conservation 133: 301-311.

Williams, R., Trites, A. W. and Bain, D. E. 2002. Behavioural responses of killer whales (Orcinus orca) to whale-watching boats: opportunistic observations and experimental approaches. Journal of Zoology (London) 256: 255-270.

Yano, K. and Dahlheim, M. E. 1995. Killer whale, Orcinus orca, depredation on longline catches of bottomfish in the southeastern Bering Sea and adjacent waters. Fishery Bulletin 93: 355-372.

Yates, O., Black, A.D. and Palavecino, P. 2007. Site fidelity and behaviour of killer whales (Orcinus orca) at Sea Lion Island in the Southwest Atlantic. LAJAM 6(1): 89-95.

VU - Vulnerable, C2a(i); D1 (IUCN version 3.1)

Assessment Rationale:

Common Bottlenose Dolphin is widespread in the Patagonia Sea, and it is distributed along the entire Atlantic and Pacific coasts, with records in the Malvinas (three stranding but no sightings). The abundance of this species is dramatically decreasing in Argentina, based on average numbers of sightings since the 1970's, even in areas with increasing or constant survey effort. It is unknown the cause of this decline, as there are not obvious threats. One hypothesis postulates that is due a reduction of reproduction rates in the region. There is also genetic evidence of population fragmentation in the Patagonia Sea, with estimation of less than 1000 mature individuals, across at least 2 genetically distinct subpopulations.

In summary, there is evidence of decline in abundance in at least one portion of its range (Argentina). It is not known if all subpopulations (especially in southern Chile) are lower than 250 mature individuals. As such, this species is listed as Vulnerable under Criterion C2a(i) and D1. More research is needed to determine why this species population is declining, especially in Argentine waters.

Assessor(s): Sironi, M., Franco-Trecu, V., Capella, J., Crespo, E. & Sepúlveda, M. Reviewer(s): Shope, M., Falabella, V. Contributor(s): Hammond, P.S., Bearzi, G., Bjørge, A., Forney, K., Karczmarski, L., Kasuya, T., Perrin, W.F., Scott, M.D., Wang, J.Y., Wells, R.S. & Wilson, B. Facilitators/Compilers: Polidoro, B.

Taxonomic information

ANIMALIA - CHORDATA - MAMMALIA - CETARTIODACTYLA - DELPHINIDAE - Tursiops truncates (Montagu, 1821)

Common Names: Common Bottlenose Dolphin (English), Afalina (Turkish), Bottle-nosed Dolphin (English), Bottlenose Dolphin (English), Bottlenosed Dolphin (English), Dauphin souffleur (French), Delfin Geddumu Qasir (Maltese), Delfin I Madh (Albanian), Delfin Kabir (Arabic), Delfín Mular (Spanish; Castilian), Grand dauphin (French), Pez Mular (Spanish; Castilian), Souffleur (French), Tursiope (Italian), Tursiops (French), Tursión (Spanish; Castilian), Ρινοδέλφινο (Rinodélfino) (Greek, Modern (1453-)) Synonyms: Tursiops gephyreus Lahille, 1908; Tursiops gilli Dall, 1873; Tursiops nuuanu Andrews, 1911

Note: All Bottlenose Dolphins around the world were previously recognized as Tursiops truncatus, but currently, the genus is considered to be composed of two species: T. truncatus (Common Bottlenose Dolphin) and T. aduncus (the smaller Indo-Pacific Bottlenose Dolphin) (Wang et al. 1999, 2000a,b). The Common Bottlenose Dolphin has a worldwide distribution in tropical and temperate latitudes but exhibits a strong ability to adapt to local conditions, a complex social structure and strong site fidelity which results in considerable habitat partitioning throughout its range. This, in turn, has created strong population differentiation accompanied, in some cases, by marked morphological differentiation. The taxonomy of Bottlenose Dolphins is confused due to this geographical variation, and it is very possible that additional species will be recognized in the future.

on Taxonomy (2017) and a recent re-assessment of Tursiops taxonomy worldwide conducted by the International Whaling Commission confirmed their validity (IWC 2018). These subspecies are the Black Sea Bottlenose Dolphin (T. t. ponticus Barabash-Nikiforov, 1940) which differs morphologically and genetically from other forms including those in the nearby Mediterranean Sea (Barabash-Nikiforov 1960, Geptner et al. 1976, Natoli et al. 2005, Viaud- Martinez et al. 2008). The Lahille Bottlenose Dolphin (T. t. gephyreus) (Lahille, 1908), a larger form in the coastal waters of the western South Atlantic Ocean, is morphologically and genetically different from the offshore population in eastern South America (Costa et al. 2015, 2016; Fruet et al. 2011, 2015). The third subspecies is the nominate subspecies that includes the remaining Common Bottlenose Dolphins worldwide (T. t. truncatus (Montagu, 1821)). In the western North Atlantic, two forms, offshore and coastal, are distinguishable on the basis of morphology and ecological markers (Mead and Potter 1995) and have fixed genetic differences (Le Duc and Curry 1997, Hoelzel et al. 1998, Kingston et al. 2009, Rosel et al. 2009, Van Waerebeek et al. 2017a) and according to the recent IWC review the coastal population should be recognized as at least a different subspecies.

UAE Taxonomic Note All Bottlenose Dolphins around the world were previously recognized as Tursiops truncatus, but currently, the genus is considered to be composed of two species: T. truncatus (Common Bottlenose Dolphin) and T. aduncus (the smaller Indo-Pacific Bottlenose Dolphin) (Wang et al. 1999, 2000a,b). The taxonomy of Bottlenose Dolphins is confused due to wide geographical variation, and it is very possible that additional species will be recognized in the future.

Geographic Range

Common bottlenose dolphin is widespread in the Patagonia Sea, and it is distributed along the entire Atlantic and Pacific coasts (Aguayo-Lobo et al. 2006, Bastida y Rodríguez 2003, Crespo et al. 2008, Olavarría et al. 2010, Viddi et al. 2010), with records in Malvinas Islands (Otley 2008).

Globally, the spesies is distributed worldwide through tropical and temperate inshore, coastal, shelf, and oceanic waters (Leatherwood and Reeves 1990, Wells and Scott 1999, Reynolds et al. 2000). Bottlenose Dolphins generally do not range pole-ward of 45°except in northern Europe (as far as the Faroe Islands 62°N 7°W - Bloch and Mikkelsen 2000) and to southern New Zealand. The species is rare in the Baltic Sea (it may best be considered extralimital there) and is vagrant to Newfoundland and Norway (Wells and Scott 1999).

Population

Abundance has been estimated for several parts of the species' range, summing a minimum world-wide estimate of 600,000 individuals. For the Patagonia Sea, it is estimated that there are less than 1000 mature individuals, across at least 2 genetically distinct subpopulations, showing genetic evidence of population fragmentation (Fruet et al. 2014).

This species has been dramatically decreasing in Argentina, based on average numbers of sightings over the since the 1970's (Vermeulen et al. 2016), even in areas with increasing or constant survey effort. It is not known the cause of this decline, as there are no obvious threats. One hypothesis is the reduction in reproduction rates in the region (Vermeulen et al. 2016), for instance in the Province of Chubut, Coscarella et al. (2011) reported a complete absence of calves in all sighting between 1999 and 2007. Further, in Argentina, there are 2 remaining populations of approximately 90-133 individuals and less than 40 individuals (Vermeulen et al. 2016). There is low genetic diversity, which suggests 2 genetically isolated populations.

In Uruguay there may be 55 individuals, and 38% of all of them can be also found in southern Brazil (Laporta 2009). The population from Brazil is estimated to be 88 individuals (Fruet et al. 2015), and in some south places, populations has been increasing, except in the last 2 years. In the south of Chile, several groups of this species are observed with groups as large as 100 individuals (Olavarria et al. 2010, Aguayo et al. 2006). However, across populations in Uruguay, Brazil and Argentina, there is genetic evidence of population fragmentation (Fruet et al. 2014). Overall, across the Patagonia Sea, it is estimated that there are less than 1000 mature individuals, across at least 2 genetically distinct subpopulations. There has been 3 strandings in the Malvinas (Otley 2012), and no sightings (White et al. 2002).

Habitats and Ecology

Common Bottlenose Dolphins tend to be primarily coastal, but they can also be found in pelagic waters (Wells and Scott 1999). Individuals that primarily use inshore waters, frequents estuaries, bays, lagoons and other shallow coastal regions, and occasionally can swim far up into rivers. Individuals of this ecotype tend to maintain definable, long-term multi-generational home ranges, but in some locations near the extremes of the species range they show migratory behaviors. On the other hand, the offshore ecotype is apparently less restricted in range and movement. Some offshore dolphins are residents around oceanic islands. Off the coasts of North America, they tend to inhabit waters with surface temperatures ranging from about 10°C to 32°C (Wells and Scott, 1999). Black Sea Bottlenose Dolphins are common over the continental shelf; but they sometimes occur far offshore (Birkun 2006).

Bottlenose Dolphins are commonly associated with many other cetaceans, including both large whales and other dolphin species (Wells and Scott 1999). Mixed schools with bottlenose dolphins have been found in the Indo-Pacific, for instance off China and Taiwan (J. Wang pers. comm.).

This dolphin species consumes a wide variety of prey, mostly fish and squid (Barros and Odell 1990, Barros and Wells 1998, Blanco et al. 2001, Santos et al. 2001), and sometimes shrimps and other crustaceans.

General Use and Trade Information

It is hunted in many areas for human consumption, and as bait in fisheries. In addition, animals are removed from the widely for captive display.

Threats

Comon Bottlenose Dolphins have been described as a resilient species. Causes of declines in the world are often related to either habitat degradation, prey depletion of contamination (Vermeulen and Bräger 2015).Coastal and island-center populations are exposed to a wide variety of threats in addition to direct and indirect catches (bycatch) . Threats that are cause for concern include: 1) the toxic effects of xenobiotic chemicals; 2) reduced prey availability caused by environmental degradation and overfishing (Pauly et al. 1998; Jackson et al. 2001); 3) direct and indirect disturbance and harassment (e.g. boat traffic and commercial dolphin watching and interactive programs); 4) marine construction and demolition and 5) other forms of habitat destruction and degradation (including anthropogenic noise).

In relation to direct catches, Dolphin take for bait, human consumption, or to remove competition with fisheries have been reported worldwide (Peru, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Japan, Black sea etc.) (Wells and Scott 1999, 2002). Incidental catches of Common Bottlenose trawls, long-lines, and on hook-and-line gear used in commercial and recreational fisheries, but the mortality rate is often poorly documented (Wells and Scott 1999).

There are no specific threats for the species in the Patagonian Sea, being the same as the global ones. In the case of Argentina, research has indicated that there is little to no interaction between the bottlenose dolphin and fisheries of this country (Crespo et al. 1997, 2008).

Conservation

The species is listed in Appendix II of CITES.

Bibliography

Barros, N. B. and Odell, D. K. 1990. Food habits of bottlenose dolphins in the southeastern United States. In: S. Leatherwood and R. R. Reeves (eds), The bottlenose dolphin, pp. 309- 328. Academic Press.

Barros, N. B. and Wells, R. S. 1998. Prey and feeding patterns of resident bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) in Sarasota Bay, Florida. Journal of Mammalogy 79(3): 1045-1059.

Bastida, R. and Rodríguez, D. 2003. Mamíferos Marinos de Patagonia y Antártida. Vazquez Mazzini Editores, Buenos Aires.

Bearzi, G. and Fortuna, C. M. 2006. Common bottlenose dolphin Tursiops truncatus (Mediterranean subpopulation). In: R. R. Reeves and G. Notarbartolo di Sciara (eds), The status and distribution of cetaceans in the Black Sea and Mediterranean Sea, pp. 64-73. IUCN Centre for Mediterranean Cooperation, Malaga, Spain.

Birkun Jr., A. A. 2002. Direct killing and live capture: Black Sea. In: G. N. D. Sciara (ed.), Cetaceans of the Mediterranean and Black Seas: State of knowledge and conservation strategies, pp. 31-38. ACCOBAMS Secretariat, Monaco.

Birkun, A. 2006. Common bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus ponticus): Black Sea subspecies. In: R. R. Reeves and G. Notarbartolo di Sciara (eds), The status and distribution of cetaceans in the Black Sea and Mediterranean Sea, pp. 74-83. IUCN Centre for Mediterranean Cooperation, Malaga, Spain.

Blanco, C., Salomon, O. and Raga, J. A. 2001. Diet of the bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) in the western Mediterranean Sea. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 81: 1053-1058.

Bloch, D. 1998. A review of marine mammals observed, caught or stranded over the last two centuries in Faroese Waters. Shetland Sea Mammal Report 1997.

Bloch, D. and Mikkelsen, B. 2000. Preliminary estimates of seasonal abundance and food consumption of marine mammals in Faroese waters. NAMMCO.

Buckland, S. T., Smith, T. and Cattanach, K. L. 1992. Status of small cetacean populations in the Black Sea: a review of current information and suggestions for future research. Reports of the International Whaling Commission 42: 513-516.

Coscarella, M.A., Dans, S.L., Degrati, M., Garaffo, G.V., Crespo, E.A. 2011. Bottlenose dolphins at the southern extreme of the south-western Atlantic: local population decline? Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 92(08): 1843-1849.

Curry, B. E. and Smith, J. 1997. Phylogeographic structure of the bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus): stock identification and implications for management. In: A. E. Dizon, S. J. Chivers and W. F. Perrin (eds), Molecular genetics of marine mammals, pp. 227-247. The Society of Marine Mammalogy, Allen Press, Lawrence.

Fisher, S. J. and Reeves, R. R. 2005. The global trade in live cetaceans: Implications for conservation. Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy 8: 315-340. 87

Fruet, P.F., Genoves, R.C., Möller, L.M., Botta, S., Secchi, E.R. 2015. Using mark-recapture and stranding data to estimate reproductive traits in female bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) of the Southwestern Atlantic Ocean. Marine Biology 162(3): 661-673.

Fruet, P.F., Secchi, E.R., Daura-Jorge, F., Vermeulen, E., FLores, P.A.C., Simões-Lopes, P.C., Genoves, R.C., Laporta, P., Di Tullio, J.C., Freistas, T.R.O, Dalla Rosa, L., Valiati, V.H., Beheregaray, L.B., Möller, L.M. 2014. Remarkably low genetic diversity and strong population structure in common bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) from coastal waters of the Southwestern Atlantic Ocean. Conserv. Genet. 15: 879-895.

Hammond, D. D. and Leatherwood, S. 1984. Cetaceans live-captured for Ocean Park, Hong Kong April 1974-February 1983. Reports of the International Whaling Commission 34: 491-495.

Hoelzel, A.R., Potter, C.W. and Best, P.B. 1998. Genetic differentiation between parapatric 'nearshore' and 'offshore' populations of the bottlenose dolphin. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B Biological Sciences 265: 1177-1183.

Ilangakoon, A. 1997. Species composition, seasonal variation, sex ratio and body length of small cetaceans caught off west, south-west and south coast of Sri Lanka. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 94: 298-306.

International Whaling Commission. 1992. Report of the scientific committee. Reports of the International Whaling Commission 42: 51-270.

Kannan, K., Blankenship, A. L., Jones, P. D. and Geisy, J. P. 2000. Toxicity reference values for the toxic effects of polychlorinated biphenyls to aquatic mammals. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 6: 181-201.

Kasuya, T. 1985. Effect of exploitation on reproductive parameters of the spotted and striped dolphins off the Pacific coast of Japan. Scientific Reports of the Whales Research Institute 36: 107-138.

Kasuya, T. 2007. Japanese Whaling and other cetacean fisheries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 10: 39-48.

Kleinenberg, S. E. 1956. Marine mammals of the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov. Results of joint biological-commercial dolphin whaling studies. USSR Academy of Science Press.

Lahvis, G. P., Wells, R. S., Kuehl, D. W., Stewart, J. L., Rhinehart, H. L. and Via, C. S. 1995. Decreased lymphocyte responses in free-ranging bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) are associated with increased concentrations of PCBs and DDT in peripheral blood. Environmental Health Perspectives 103: 67-72.

Laporta, P. 2009. Abundância, distribuição e uso do habitat do boto Tursiops truncatus em La Coronilla e Cabo Polonio (Rocha, Uruguai). Universidade Federal de Rio Grande.

Leatherwood, S. and Reeves, R. R. (eds). 1990. The Bottlenose Dolphin. Academic Press.

Leatherwood, S. and Reeves, R. R. 1982. Bottlenose dolphin Tursiops truncatus and other toothed cetaceans. In: J. A. Chapman and G. A. Feldhammer (eds), Wild mammals of North America, pp. 369-414. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD, USA.

Leatherwood, S. and Reeves, R.R. 1989. Marine mammal research and conservation in Sri Lanka 1985-1986. UNEP Marine Mammal Technical Report. United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya.

Miyazaki, N. 1983. Catch statistics of small cetaceans taken in Japanese waters. Reports of the International Whaling Commission 33: 621-631.

Olavarría, C., Acevedo, J., Vester, H.I., Zamorano-Abramson, J., Viddi, F.A., Gibbons, J., Newcombe, E., Capella, J., Hoelzel, A.R., Flores, M., Hucke-Gaete, R., Torres-Flórez, J.P. 2010. Southernmost Distribution of Common Bottlenose Dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) in the Eastern South Pacific. Aquatic Mammals 36(3): 288-293.

Otley, H. 2012. The composition of the cetacean community in the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands, southwest South Atlantic Ocean. Revista de Biología Marina y Oceanografía 47(3): 537-551.

Otley, H., Munro, G., Clausen, A. Ingham, B. 2008. Falkland Islands. State of the Environment Report 2008. Falkland Islands Government and Falklands Conservation, Stanley.

Pauly, D., V., Christensen, Dalsgaard, J., Froese, R. and Torres Jr., F. 1998. Fishing Down Marine Food Webs. Science 279(5352): 860.

Perrin, W. F. 1989. Dolphins, porpoises, and whales. An action plan for the conservation of biological diversity: 1988-1992. IUCN/SSC Cetacean Specialist Group.

Read, A. J., Van Waerebeek, K., Reyes, J. C., Mckinnon, J. S. and Lehman, L. C. 1988. The exploitation of small cetaceans in coastal Peru. Biological Conservation 46: 53-70.

Read, A. J., Waples, D. M., Urian, K. W. and Swanner, D. 2003. Fine-scale behaviour of bottlenose dolphins around gillnets. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B Biological Sciences 270: S90-92.

Reeves, R. R., Read, A. J. and Notarbartolo Di Sciara, G. 2001. Report of the workshop on interactions between dolphins and fisheries in the Mediterranean: evaluation of mitigation alternatives. ICRAM, Rome, Italy.

Reeves, R.R. and Notarbartolo Di Sciara, G. 2006. The status and distribution of cetaceans in the Black Sea and Mediterranean Sea. IUCN Centre for Mediterranean Cooperation, Malaga, Spain.

Reynolds, J. E., Wells, R. S. and Eide, S. D. 2000. The bottlenose dolphin: biology and conservation. University Press of Florida.

Sanino, G. P., Van Waerebeek, K., Van, M. F. Bressem and Pastene, L. A. 2005. A preliminary note on population structure in eastern South Pacific common bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops truncatus. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 7(1): 65-70.

Santos, M. B., Pierce, G. J., Reid, R. J., Patterson, A. P., Ross, H. M. and Mente, E. 2001. Stomach contents of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) in Scottish waters. Journal of the Marine Biological Association and United Kingdom 81: 873-878.

Schwacke, L. H., Voit, E. O., Hansen, L. J., Wells, R. S., Mitchum, G. B., Hohn, A. A. and Fair, P. A. 2002. Probabilistic risk assessment of reproductive effects of polychlorinated biphenyls on bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) from the southeast United States coast. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 21(12): 2752-2764.

Spradlin, T. R., Gulland, F. M. D., Wells, R. S., Ragen, T. J. and Rowles, T. K. 2005. Review of marine mammal Unusual Mortality Events in the United States: 1992-2005. 16th Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals. San Diego, CA.

Tomilin, A.G. 1957. Mammals of the USSR and adjacent countries. Vol. IV. Cetaceans. USSR Academy of Science Publishing House, Moscow, Russia.

Van Waerebeek, K., Reyes, J. C., Read, A. J. and Mckinnon, J. S. 1990. Preliminary observations of bottlenose dolphins from the Pacific coast of South America. In: S. Leatherwoodand R. R. Reeves (ed.), The bottlenose dolphin, pp. 143-154. Academic Press.

Van Waerebeek, K., Sequeira, M., Williamson, C., Sanino, G. P., Gallego, P. and Carmo, P. 2006. Live-captures of common bottlenose dolphins Tursiops truncatus and unassessed bycatch in Cuban waters: evidence of sustainability found wanting. Latin American Journal of Aquatic Mammals 5(1): 39-48.

Vermeulen, E. Bräger, S. 2015. Demographics of the Dissapearing Bottlenose Dolphin in Argentina: A Common Species on Its Way Out? PLoS ONE 10(3): e0119182.

Vermeulen, E., Bastida, R., Bernisone, L.G., Bordino, P., Faila, M., Fruet, P., Harris, G., Iñiguez, M., Marchesi, M., Petracci, P., Reyes, L., Sironi, M., Brager, S. 2016. A review of the status of the common bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) in Argentina. In: International Whaling Commission (ed.), SC/66b/SM/08.

Wang, J. Y. and Yang, S. C. 2002. Interactions between Taiwan's distant water tuna longline fishery and cetaceans. Toothed Whales/Longline Fisheries Interactions in the South Pacific. Apia, Western Samoa.

Wang, J. Y., Chou, L. S. and White, B. N. 2000. Osteological differences between two sympatric forms of bottlenose dolphins (genus Tursiops) in Chinese waters. Journal of Zoology (London) 252: 147-162.

Wang, J.Y., Chou, L.S. and White, B.N. 1999. Mitochondrial DNA analysis of sympatric morphotypes of bottlenose dolphins (genus: Tursiops) in Chinese waters. Molecular Ecology 8: 1603-1612. 90

Waring, G.T., Josephson, E., Fairfield, C.P. and Maze-Foley, K. 2008. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico marine mammal stock assessments - 2007. NOAA Technical Memorandum. NOAA.

Wells, R. S. and Scott, M. D. 1999. Bottlenose dolphin Tursiops truncatus (Montagu, 1821). In: S. H. Ridgway and R. Harrison (eds), Handbook of marine mammals, Vol. 6: The second book of dolphins and the porpoises, pp. 137-182. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, USA.

Wells, R. S. and Scott, M. D. 2002. Bottlenose dolphins Tursiops truncatus and T. aduncus. In: W. F. Perrin, B. Wursig and J. G. M. Thewissen (eds), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals, pp. 122-128. Academic Press.

Wells, R. S., Tornero, V., Borrell, A., Aguilar, A., Rowles, T. K., Rhinehart, H. L., Hofmann, S., Jarman, W. M., Hohn, A. A. and Sweeney, J. C. 2005. Integrating life-history and reproductive success data to examine potential relationships with organochlorine compounds for bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) in Sarasota Bay, Florida. Science of the Total Environment 349: 106-119.

White, R.W., Gillon, K.W., Black, A.D., and Reid, J.B. 2002. The distribution of seabirds and marine mammals in Falkland Islands waters. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough, UK. 107p.

Yang, S. C., Liao, H. C., Pan, C. L. and Wang, J. Y. 1999. A survey of cetaceans in the waters of central-eastern Taiwan. Asian Marine Biology 16: 23-34.

Öztürk, B. 1999. Black Sea Biological Diversity: Turkey. United Nations Publication, New York, USA.

DD - Data Deficient, (IUCN version 3.1)

Assessment Rationale:

This species is present in the Patagonia Sea, but it is rarely observed. There is nothing known on this species population, the impact of potential threats, or its habitat or ecology. It is listed as Data Deficient.

Assessor(s): Crespo, E. Reviewer(s): Shope, M.; V. Falabella Contributor(s): Hammond, P.S., Bearzi, G., Bjørge, A., Forney, K., Karczmarski, L., Kasuya, T., Perrin, W.F., Scott, M.D., Wang, J.Y., Wells, R.S. & Wilson, B. Facilitators/Compilers: Polidoro, B.

Taxonomic information

ANIMALIA - CHORDATA - MAMMALIA - CETARTIODACTYLA - PHOCOENIDAE - Phocoena dioptrica (Lahille, 1972)

Common Names: Spectacled Porpoise (English), Marsopa De Anteojos (Spanish; Castilian), Marsouin De Lahille (French), Marsouin À Lunettes (French)

Taxonomic Note: The Spectacled Porpoise was briefly considered to be in its own genus, Australophocaena, and was listed in the 1996-2002 Red Lists as Australophocaena dioptrica. However, due to more recent genetic and morphometric findings (Rosel et al. 1995, Perrin et al. 2000), it has again been assigned to the genus Phocoena (Committee on Taxonomy 2018).

Geographic Range

Stranding records indicate that the species has a widespread distribution in the Southern Oncean, with records described in the southern coast of South America. In the Patagonian Sea the species is present from Uruguay and southern Brazil to Tierra del Fuego and, Malvinas. This species is now known from offshore in the southern Hemisphere (Brownell and Clapham 1999) with circumpolar distribution around Antarctic in the vicinity of the Polar Front, with water temperatures range of 1-10°C (Goodall 2002, Sekiguchi et al. 2006). The southernmost sighting is from 64°34'S (Goodall 2008).

Population

There are no estimates of abundance.

Habitats and Ecology

Spectacled porpoises seem to occur only in cold temperate waters. Although they have been observed or incidentally caught in coastal waters, rivers and channels, their habitat is thought to be primarily oceanic. Where recorded, water temperatures associated with sightings ranged from 5.5°C to 9.5°C (Brownell and Clapham, 1999).

Only four stomachs have been examined; the contents included anchovies and stomatopods (mantis shrimp), (Goodall and Schiavini 1995).

Threats

Like all phocoenoids, spectacled porpoises are caught in gillnets as bycatch. At least 34 animals were killed incidentally between 1975 and 1990 in coastal gill nets set in Tierra del Fuego. Also, during this period, simultaneouly strandings and fishing activity were reported in southeastern Chile, suggesting additional undocumented mortality from these sources. In Chubut, Argentina, mortality of spectacled porpoises was also reported from bottom and mid- water trawls (Brownell and Clapham, 1999). The effects of these catches on spectacled porpoise subpopulations are not known (Jefferson and Curry 1994).

Conservation

The species is listed in Appendix II of CITES.

Estimates of abundance are needed as well as information on direct and incidental takes.

Bibliography

Brownell Jr., R. L. and Clapman, P. J. 1999. Spectacled Porpoise Phocoena dioptrica (Lahille, 1912). In: S. H. Ridgeway and R. Harrison (eds), Handbook of Marine Mammals. Volume 6: The Second Book of Dolphins and the Porpoises, pp. 379-391. Academic Press, San Diego, USA.

Goodall, R. N. P. 2002. Spectacled porpoise Phocoena dioptrica. In: W. F. Perrin, B. Wursig and J. G. M. Thewissen (eds), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals, pp. 1158-1161. Academic Press, San Diego, California, USA.

Goodall, R. N. P. 2008. Spectacled porpoise Phocoena dioptrica. In: W. F. Perrin, B. Wursig and J. G. M. Thewissen (eds), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals, pp. 1087-1091. Academic Press, San Diego, California, USA.

Goodall, R.N.P. and Schiavini, A.C.M. 1995. On the biology of the Spectacled Propoise, Australophocaena dioptrica. Report of the International Whaling Commission (Special Issue) 16: 411 453.

Jefferson, T.A. and Curry, B.E. 1994. A global review of porpoise (Cetacea, Phocoenidae) mortality in gillnets. Biological Conservation 67: 167-183.

Perrin, W. F., Goodall, R. N. P. and Cozzuol, M. A. 2000. Osteological variation in the spectacled porpoise (Phocoena dioptrica). Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 2(3): 211-215.

Rosel, P.E., Haygood, M.G. and Perrin, W.F. 1995. Phylogenetic relationships among the true porpoises (Cetacea: Phocoenidae). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 4: 463-474.

Sekiguchi, K., Olavarría, C., Morse, L., Olson, P., Ensor, P., Matsuoka, K., Pitman, R., Findlay, K. and Gorter, U. 2006. The spectacled porpoise (Phocoena dioptrica) in Antarctic waters. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 8(3): 265-271.

DD - Data Deficient, (IUCN version 3.1)

Assessment Rationale:

Burmeister's Porpoise is found throughout the Patagonia Sea and south to the Beagle Channel. This species is less common than other dolphin species. In the Peninsula Valdes, Argentina it is estimated that there are 37 individuals with low density distribution and an average group size of 1.6 individuals (1.26-2.04 confidence interval). No other population estimates are available within its range in the Patagonia Sea. In Chile, this species is found in low density in the southern part of the fjords. Compared to Pontoporia blainvillei, the bycatch of this species is very low, although it is the second most common species observed in bycatch of coastal gillnet fisheries in northern Buenos Aires. There is also incidental catch of this species in gillnets in Uruguay and Chile. Additionally, this species is likely impacted by salmon farming. However, there is no information on this species population size or the impact of potential threats in the Patagonia Sea and, as such, it is listed as Data Deficient. More research is needed to determine this species population size in the Patagonia Sea.

Assessor(s): Franco-Trecu, V., Sironi, M., Capella, J., Crespo, E. & Sepúlveda, M. Reviewer(s): Shope, M., Falabella, M. Contributor(s): Perrin, W.F., Kasuya, T., Karkzmarski, L., Forney, K.A., Bjørge, A., Bearzi, G., Wang, J.Y. , Wells, R.S., Wilson, B., Scott, M.D. & Hammond, P.S. Facilitators/Compilers: Polidoro, B.

Taxonomic information

ANIMALIA - CHORDATA - MAMMALIA - CETARTIODACTYLA - PHOCOENIDAE - Phocoena spinipinnis (Burmeister, 1865)

Common Names: Burmeister's Porpoise (English), Burmeister Schweinswal (German), Marsopa Espinosa (Spanish; Castilian), Marsouin De Burmeister (French)

Note: Rosa et al. (2005) found fixed differences in mtDNA of Burmeister's Porpoises between Peru and strata in Chile and Argentina. Results were consistent with levels of differentiation at a subspecies or greater level (Taylor et al. 2017) but the basis for a change in taxonomy has not been evaluated. The genetic data also supported differences, though of a lesser degree, between Chile and Argentina, which would be consistent with morphological differences Corcuera et al. (1995).

Geographic Range

Burmeister's Porpoises are distributed in shallow, coastal waters of South America, from

for the Pacific Ocean side, so it can be found throughout the Patagonian Sea (Brownell and Clapham 1999). It is unclear whether the distribution is continuous between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans (Brownell and Clapham 1999).

Population

There are no global estimates of abundance or trends. Burmeister's Porpoises are very difficult to detect in any but calm conditions, which may explain the rarity of field observations (Brownell and Clapham 1999). In the Peninsula Valdes, Argentina, it is estimated that there are 37 individuals with low density (Sueyro et al. 2014, Crespo pers comm. 2016), and the average group size is 1.6 individuals (1.26-2.04 confidence interval). No other population estimates are available within its range in the Patagonia Sea. In Chile this species is found in low density in the southern part of the fjords (Gibbons et al. 2001).

Recent genetic studies have indicated that porpoises in Peru form separate subpopulations from those in southern Chile and in Argentina. The possibility of multiple subpopulations in Peruvian waters is also considered likely (Rosa et al. 2005). Some evidence suggests that the

(Corcuera et al. 1995).

Habitats and Ecology

This is a coastal species, which sometimes frequents inshore bays, channels, and fjords of Tierra del Fuego, and can be occasionally observed inside the kelp line. It is typically found shoreward of the 60-m isobath, but it has been recorded in depths as great as 1,000 m (Brownell and Clapham 1999). There are records of sightings of this species at around 50 km off the coast of Argentina, further offshore than usually expected (Corcuera 1991).

This species has been known to feed on demersal and pelagic fish species, such as anchovies and hake, as well as various squid and shrimp (Goodall et al. 1995).

General Use and Trade Information

It is harvested and used as crab bait in Chile (Cosentino and Fisher 2016).

Threats

Compared to Pontoporia blainvillei, the bycatch of this species is very low, although it is the second most common species observed in bycatch of coastal gillnet fisheries in northern Buenos Aires. There is incidental catch of this species in gillnets in Uruguay and Chile (Aguayo-Lobo 1999, Corcuera et al. 1994, Franco-Trecu et al. 2009). This species is also impacted by salmon farming (Heinrich 2006). Finnally, it is widely known that Burmeister's Porpoises are shot or harpooned for use as crab bait in southern Chile (Brownell and Clapham 1999). However, because quantitative data are lacking, the extent of this problem is unknown (Lescrauwaet and Gibbons 1994).

Conservation

The species is in Appendix II of CITES.

Better documentation of catches and new approaches to dealing with porpoise/gillnet interaction problems are clearly needed, in order to enable an assessment of the effects and suggest mitigation measures in the case of Burmeister's Porpoise.

Bibliography

Aguayo-Lobo, A. 1999. Los cetáceos y sus perspectivas de conservación. Estudios Oceanológicos 18: 35-43.

Brownell Jr., R. L. and Clapham, P. J. 1999. Burmeister's porpoise Phocoena spinipinnis Burmeister, 1865. In: S. H. Ridgway and R. Harrison (eds), Handbook of marine mammals, Vol. 6: The second book of dolphins and the porpoises, pp. 393-410. Academic Press.

Consentino, A.M. and Fisher, S. 2016. The utilization of aquatic bushmeat from small cetaceans in Latin America. Document SC/66b/SM02 presented to the International Whaling Commission Scientific Committee. Bled, Slovenia, June 2016.

Corcuera, J. 1991. Marsopa espinosa, Phocoena spinipinnis . In: Capozzo, H.L., Junín, M. (ed.), Mares Regionales. Estado de Conservación de los Mamíferos Marinos del Atlántico Sudoccidental, pp. 27-30. Informes y Estudios del Programa de Mares Reigionales del PNUMA.

Corcuera, J., Monzon, F., Aguilar, A., Borrell, A. and Raga, J. A. 1995. Life history data, organochlorine pollutants and parasites from eight Burmeister's porpoises, Phocoena spinipinnis, caught in northern Argentine waters. Reports of the International Whaling Commission Special Issue 16: 365-372.

Corcuera, J., Monzon, J. A., Crespo, E. A., Aguilar, A. and Raga, J. A. 1994. Interactions between marine mammals and the coastal fisheries of Neocochea and Claromeco (Buenos Aires Province, Argentina). Reports of the International Whaling Commission Special Issue 15: 283-290.

Franco-Trecu V., Costa P., Abud C., Dimitriadis C., Laporta P., Passadore C. and Szephegyi M. 2009. By-catch of franciscana (Pontoporia blainvillei) in Uruguayan artisanal gillnet fisheries: an evaluation after a twelve-year gap in data collection. Latin American Journal of Aquatic Mammals 7(1-2): 11-22.

Gibbons, J., Venegas, C., Guzmán, L., Pizarro, G. and Boree, D. 2001. Programa de monitoreo de pequeños cetáceos en la XII región. Informe Final FIP Nº 99-28.

Goodall, R. N. P., Wursig, B., Wursig, M., Harris, G. and Norris, K. S. 1995. Sightings of Burmeister's porpoise, Phocoena spinipinnis, off southern South America. Reports of the International Whaling Commission Special Issue 16: 297-316.

Heinrich, S. 2006. Ecology of Chilean dolphins and Peale's dolphins at Isla Chiloé, southern Chile. University of St. Andrews, Chile.

Rosa, S., Milinkovitch, M. C., Van Waerebeek, K., Berck, J., Oporto, J. A., Alfaro-Shigueto, J., Van Bressem, M. F., Goodall, R. and Cassens, I. 2005. Population structure of nuclear and mitochondrial DNA variation among South American Burmeister's porpoiises (Phocoena spinipinnis). Conservation Genetics 6: 431-443.

Sueyro, N., Coscarella, M.A. Crespo, E.A. 2014. Estimación de abundancia de la marsopa espinosa (Phocoena spinipinnis) en la región costera de Península Valdés, Chubut, Argentina. . XXVII Jornadas De Mastozoología. Esquel, noviembre, 2014.

Taylor, B.L., Archer, F.I., Martien, K.K., Rosel, P.E., Hancock‐Hanser, B.L., Lang, A.R., Leslie, M.S., Mesnick, S.L., Morin, P.A., Pease, V.L. and Perrin, W.F. 2017. Guidelines and quantitative standards to improve consistency in cetacean subspecies and species delimitation relying on molecular genetic data. Marine Mammal Science 33: 132-155.

100

101

LC - Least Concern, (IUCN version 3.1)

Assessment Rationale:

Southern right whales is found throughout the Patagonia Sea, with important breeding areas along the coast in the north of Golfo Nuevo, the east of Golfo San Jose, the south and north of Golfo San Matias. The estimated total number of individuals in the Peninsula Valdes ranges from 3,300-4,000. This estimate may be an underestimate of actual population size and, based on surveys over the past 15 years, the number of pups per year is increasing in this region. Illegal Soviet catches (mainly in the 1960s) temporarily inhibited recovery with the hunting of 1,300 individuals, but there are no population estimates from this time and, although population numbers are still very low relative to pre-whaling estimates, there is no current evidence of decline and overall the population appears to be recovering. As such, this species is listed as Least Concern. However, there is a subpopulation on the Pacific coast that extends from Peru to Golfo de Penas, Chile, that is threatened (see published account for Peruvian-Chile subpopulation).

Assessor(s): Sironi, M., Truda Palazzo, J. & Crespo, E. Reviewer(s): Shope, M. Contributor(s): Reilly, S.B., Bannister, J.L., Best, P.B., Brown, M., Brownell Jr., R.L., Butterworth, D.S., Clapham, P.J., Cooke, J., Donovan, G.P., Urbán, J. & Zerbini, A.N. Facilitators/Compilers: Polidoro, B.

102

Taxonomic information

ANIMALIA - CHORDATA - MAMMALIA - CETARTIODACTYLA - BALAENIDAE - Eubalaena australis (Desmoulins, 1822)

Common Names: Southern Right Whale (English), Baleia Franca Austral (Portuguese), Baleine Australe (French), Ballena Franca Austral (Spanish; Castilian)

Note: The Southern Right Whale has for some time been widely accepted as a species separate from its Northern Hemisphere relatives, although Rice (1998) regarded the Right Whales in all oceans as a single species and placed them in the genus Balaena along with B. mysticetus, the Bowhead Whale. Genetic analyses support the concept of three separate phylogenetic species of Right Whale, one in the North Atlantic, one in the North Pacific, and one in the Southern Hemisphere (Rosenbaum et al. 2000). The International Whaling Commission (IWC 2004) and the Society for Marine Mammalogy's Taxonomy Committee (Committee on Taxonomy 2017) accept the latter taxonomy. The ranges of the three Right Whale species do not overlap.

Geographic Range

Southern right whales have a circumpolar distribution in the Southern Hemisphere. The distribution in winter, at least of the breeding component of the population, is concentrated near coastlines in the northern part of the range. Globally, the major current breeding areas are nearshore off southern Australia, New Zealand (particularly Auckland Islands and Campbell Islands), Atlantic coast of South America (Argentina and Brazil), and southern Africa (mainly South Africa). Small numbers are also seen off central Chile, Peru, Tristan da Cunha (British Overseas Territory), and the east coast of Madagascar (IWC 2001, Rosenbaum et al. 2001). In summer right whales are found mainly in latitudes 40-50°S (Ohsumi and Kasamatsu 1986) but have been seen, especially in recent years, in the Antarctic as far south as 65°S (International Whaling Commission 2007, Bannister et al. 1999) and around South Georgia (Rowntree et al. 2001).

This species is found throughout the Patagonia Sea, with important breeding areas along the coast in the north of Golfo Nuevo, the east of Golfo San Jose, the south and north of Golfo San Matias (Crespo et al. 2015, Payne 1986, Rowntree et al. 2001).

103

Population

In the Patagonian Sea, the major estimates had been done in Península Valdés, where the projected total number of individuals ranges from 3,300-4,000. That range may be an underestimation. In 2009, modeled populations (IWC 2011), estimated 3,373 individuals in the Peninsula Valdes, but a more recent estimate of 4,006 individuals was made in 2010 (Cooke 2012). Furthermore, there are at least 2,000 individuals visiting this area each year (Crespo et al. 2015). There are 75 individuals known from Uruguay (Rodrigo Garcia per comm. 2016), but there are no associated population estimates. These observations of the southern right whale in Uruguay are likely to be of individuals moving (vagrants) and there is little/weak evidence for breeding in this area (Costa et al. 2005, Piedra et al. 2006). Even so, recent surveys claim the area may be increasingly important for calving (Rodrigo Garcia pers comm. 2016).

The breeding population of the Southern Right Whale in Brazil is about 540 individuals (Rowntree and Groch pers comm. 2010). The Brazilian component of the Patagonian Sea Southern Right Whale population interacts with the northern Argenine-Patagonia populations, with at least 90 individuals from Brazil having been resighted in the Valdes area from 1971- 2010, which represents 14% in the Brazilian catalog and 3% of the Argentine catalog (Rowntree and Groch pers comm. 2010) . Additionally, surveys done over the past 15 years, have shown a regional increase in the the number of pups per year. In Península Valdés there has been an increase from 240 pups (1998) to 500 (2015) pups observed over the last 17 years and in San Matias there has been an increase from 0 pups (1998) to 60 (2015) pups observed over the last 5 years (Crespo pers comm. 2016). There are likely some births from the Chile-Peru subpopulation in the central Lagos region. Overall, by 2015, the population in Península Valdés increased 3.23% annually and the number of calves increased by 5.54%. Eventually, the rate of increase declined from 6.22% (1999-2007) to 3.23 (1999-2014). The

104 mortality rates have shown to be very variable between years. Maximum mortality rates were observed in 2007, 2008 and 2009, (with the highest mortality rate of 30% occurring in 2008). Minimum mortality rates were observed at their lowest in 2004 and 2014. The rates observed in the former years show the same pattern of variability with a range of 2-10%.

Finally, the analysis of the available information shows that the Southern Right Whale population is increasing in the nursing area around Península Valdés (Cooke 2012). In spite of the fact that the number of whales in the surveyed area is increasing, the rate of increase is steadily decreasing (Cooke et al. 2015; Crespo et al. 2014, Crespo et al. 2015, Crespo et al. 2017). Similarly, density has been increasing and whales have been expanding their distribution to deeper waters and Golfo San Matías during the last decade (Crespo et al. 2015, Arias et al. 2017). The analysis of mortality rates since the early 70´shows an increase in Southern Right Whale mortality rates (IWC 2011, IWC 2014, Marón et al. 2015, Rowntree et al. 2013, Sironi et al. 2016) however there is an important variability from year to year (Crespo et al. 2015). In recent years, there has been an density-dependent, fluctuating mortality rates in the Peninsula Valdes calving grounds (Rowntree et al. 2013, IWC 2012, 2014). Hypotheses for increasing mortality include potentially: density dependent processes, biotoxins, nutritional aspects, infections, kelp-gull attacks (IWC 2011, 2014). All these facts together are coherent with a density-dependence response for the gulfs of Península Valdés (Crespo et al. 2015). Illegal Soviet catches (mainly in the 1960s) temporarily inhibited recovery with the hunting of 1,300 individuals, but there are no population estimates from this time and, although population numbers are still very low relative to pre-whaling estimates, there is no current evidence of decline, and overall the population appears to be recovering.

There is a subpopulation on the Pacific coast that extends from Peru to Golfo de Penas, Chile (Galletti et al. 2014), that is Critically Endangered (see published account for Peruvian-Chile subpopulation).

Global Population:

The International Whaling Commission conducted its last major review of southern right whales in 1998 (International Whaling Commission 2001), from which most of this information is taken. Following severe historical depletion by commercial whaling, several breeding populations (Argentina/Brazil, South Africa, and Australia) of southern right whales (E. australis) have shown evidence of strong recovery, with a doubling time of 10-12 years (Bannister 2001, Best et al. 2001, Cooke et al. 2001). The other breeding populations are still very small, and data are insufficient to determine whether they are recovering.

Estimated total global population size as of 1997 was 7,500 animals (of which 1,600 were mature females, including 547 from Argentina and 659 from South Africa), and the three main populations have continued to increase at a similar rate since then (Best et al. 2005, Cooke et al. 2003, International Whaling Commission 2007). Illegal Soviet catches (mainly in the 1960s) temporarily inhibited recovery, but overall the population appears to have grown strongly since then. There appears to be substantial interchange between breeding grounds off the same continent, e.g. between Argentina and Brazil (Groch et al. 2005), but a much smaller rate of interchange between land masses, e.g. between Australia and New Zealand (Anon. 2004) and Argentina and Tristan da Cunha (Best et al. 1993).

Habitats and Ecology

Southern right whales have been well-studied on their winter breeding grounds, especially at Peninsula Valdés, Argentina, Australia and South Africa. Researchers have used callosity patterns to identify individuals on these grounds, and have learned much about these whale's behavior, communication, and reproduction. There is an assumed generation length of 29 years (Taylor et al. 2007) and females produce calves at 3-5 year intervals, usually three years

105 but with a lengthening of the cycle to five years when feeding conditions are poor (Leaper et al. 2006). Calves are born from June to October with a peak in August after a 12-13 month gestation period (Best 1994). Feeding north of 40°S consists mainly of copepods and south of 50°S they eat mainly euphausiids (krill). Different proportions of the two food items are consumed at intermediate latitudes (Tormosov et al. 1998).

Generation Length: 29 years (Taylor et al. 2007)

General Use and Trade Information

This species is no longer harvested. It was once the targeted of major commercial whaling.

Threats

Southern right whales were hunted extensively by pre-modern whaling starting in the early 17th century, but especially in the 18th and 19th centuries by American and European whalers. Not all records of this activity exists, and furthermore there is uncertainty over the numbers of animals killed but not caught. The total number of southern right whales individuals processed between 1770 and 1900 is conservatively estimated at about 150,000, of which 48,000-60,000 were taken in the 1830s alone. By the start of modern whaling at the beginning of the 20th century, the species and its caches were rare, being reported a total of only about 1,600 individuals . Over 3,000 animals were taken illegally by Soviet whaling fleets in the 1960s (Tormosov et al. 1998). The hemispheric population in 1770 was estimated at 55,000-70,000 individuals, and was likely been depleted to a low of about 300 animals by the 1920s. The species presumably began to recover following protection in 1935, but the illegal Soviet catches in the 1960s are estimated to have removed over half of the remaining population and delayed its recovery (IWC 2001).

Like their congeners in the Northern Hemisphere, southern right whales are subject to mortality due to entanglements in fishing gear and collisions with shipping (IWC 2001). However, this does not seem to have impeded their recovery, at least in some areas. The lower average density of human populations and thus fishing, shipping and other potentially harmful activities in the Southern Hemisphere, compared with the western North Atlantic, probably makes this species less affected by such activities than the North Atlantic right whale.

Parasitism by kelp gulls Larus dominicanus backs, has been increasing rapidly in the Península Valdés calving ground and may eventually drive the whales elsewhere (Rowntree et al. 1998). This appears to be a learned behaviour that has spread through the gull population, and which is likely exacerbated by the elevated gull populations provisioned by the prevalence of uncovered disposal sites for fishery and other waste.

Conservation

Right whales have been protected internationally from commercial hunting since 1935, but this has only been fully respected since the early 1970s, when the presence of international observers ended illegal catches by Soviet fleets, and land stations in South America also stopped the cathes of right whales. Although several countries have designated marine protected areas that preserve right whale breeding habitat, it is not always clear what

106 waters generally. Some of those protected areas with specific management measures aimed at protecting the right whales in their calving grounds include the Area de Proteção Ambiental de Baleia Franca (Right Whale Environmental Protection Area) off Catarina State in Brazil, the Golfo San José Provincial Marine Park (Parque Marino Golfo San José) in Argentina, the Península Valdés Marine Protected Area and the Great Australian Bight Marine Park in South Australia. Argentina declared the species as "Monumento Natural Nacional" in 1984.

The species is listed in Appendix I of CITES and CMS.

Bibliography

Anonymous. 2004. Report on the Australasian workshop on right whales photo-identification and data analysis. Department of Environment and Heritage, Canberra: 21 pp.. Adelaide, South Australia.

Arias, M., Coscarella, M.A., Svendsen, G.M., Romero, M.A., Curcio, N., Sueyro, N., Crespo, E.A. and González, R. 2017. Changes in the distribution and abundance of Southern Right Whale Eubalaena australis in San Matías Gulf (Patagonia, Argentina). Scientific Committee of the International Whaling Commission Sc67a, Bled, Slovenia: 13-18.

Bannister, J. L., Pastene, L. A. and Burnell, L. A. 1999. First record of movement of a southern right whale (Eubalaena australis) between warm water breeding grounds and the Antarctic Ocean, south of 60 degrees South. Marine Mammal Science 15(4): 1337-1342.

Bannister, J.L. 2001. Status of southern right whales (Eubalaena australis) off southern Australia. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management Special Issue 2: 103-110.

Best, P. B. 1994. Seasonality of reproduction and the length of gestation in southern right whale Eubalaena australis. Journal of Zoology (London) 232: 175-189.

Best, P. B., Brandao, A. and Butterworth, D. S. 2001. Demographic parameters of southern right whales off South Africa. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management Special Issue 2: 161-169.

Best, P. B., Brandão, A. and Butterworth, D. S. 2005. Updated estimates of demographic parameters for southern right whales off South Africa. International Whaling Commission Scientific Committee.

Best, P. B., Payne, R., Rowntree, V., Palazo, J. T. and do Carmo Both, M. 1993. Long-range movements of South Atlantic right whales Eubalaena australis. Marine Mammal Science 9: 227- 234.

Cooke, J. 2012. Southwest Atlantic right whales: updated population assessment from photo-id collected at Península Valdés, Argentina. IWC/64/Rep 1 Annex F.

Cooke, J. G., Rowntree, V. J. and Payne, R. 2003. Analysis of intra-annual variation in reproductive success of South Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena australis) from photo- identification of calving females observed off Pen¡nsula Valdes, Argentina, 1971-2000. International Whaling Commission Scientific Committee.

Cooke, J. G., Rowntree, V. J. and Payne, R. S. 2001. Estimates of demographic parameters for southern right whales (Eubalaena australis) observed off Peninsula Valdes, Argentina. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 2: 125-132.

107

Cooke, J., Rowntree, V. and Sironi, M. 2015. Southwest Atlantic right whales: interim updated population assessment from photo-id collected at Península Valdéz, Argentina. International Whaling Commission Scientific Committee, San Diego, USA, May 2015 Document #SC/66a/BRG/23 : 9 pp.

Costa, P., Praderi, R., Piedra, M., Franco-Fraguas, P., 2005. Sigthtings of Southern Right Whales, Eubalaena Australis, off Uruguay. The Latin American Journal of Aquatic Mammals 27(4): 701-718.

Crespo, E. A., Pedraza, S. N., Dans, S. L., Coscarella, M. A., Svendsen, G. M. and Degrati, M. 2014. Number of southern right whales Eubalaena australis and population trend in the neighbourhood of Península Valdés during the period 1999-2013 by means of aerial and boat surveys. International Whaling Commission Scientific Committee, Bled, Slovenia, June 2015 Document SC/65b/BRG/07.

Crespo, E.A., Coscarella, M.A., Pedraza, S.N., Dans, S.L., Svendsen, G.M. and Degrati, M. 2017. Southern Right Whales Eubalaena australis still growing but at a decelerated speed. Scientific Committee of the International Whaling Commission Sc67a Bled, Slovenia: 13-18.

Crespo, E.A., Pedraza, S.N., Dans, S.L., Coscarella, M.A., Svendsen, G.M., Degrati, M., Pedraza, J.C. and Schiavini, A.C.M. 2015. More whales Eubalaena australis growing at a decelerated speed. International Whaling Commission Scientific Committee Doc. SC/66a/BRG05.

Crespo. E.A., S.N. Pedraza, S.L.Dans, M.A. Coscarella, G.M. Svendsen & M. Degrati. 2014. Number of southern right whales Eubalaena australis and population trend in the neighbourhood of Península Valdés during the period 1999-2013 by means of aerial and boat surveys. BRG SC65 IWC, Bled, Slovenia. 17pp..

Galletti Vernazzani, B., Cabrera, E. and Brownell, R.L. 2014. Eastern South Pacific southern right whale photo-identification catalog reveals behavior and habitat use patterns. Marine Mammal Science 30: 389-398.

Groch, K.R., Palazzo Jr, J.T., Flores, P.A.C., Adler, F.R. and Fabian, M.E. 2005. Recent rapid increases in the Brazilian right whale population. Latin American Journal of Aquatic Mammals 4(1): 41-47.

Groch, K.R., Palazzo, J.T., Flores, P.A.C., Adler F.R., Fabian, M.E. 2005. Recent increases in the right whale (Eubalaena australis) population off southern Brazil. Latin American Journal of Aquatic Mammals 4(1): 41-47.

IWC. 2011. Report of the IWC workshop on the assessment of southern right whales. International Whaling Commission Document SC/64/Rep5: 1-39.

IWC. 2014. Report of the 2nd workshop on mortality of southern right whales (Eubalaena australis) at Península Valdés, Argentina. International Whaling Commission Document SC/66a/Rep 8 : 1-24.

International Whaling Commission. 2001b. Report of the workshop on the comprehensive assessment of right whales: a worldwide comparison. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management Special Issue 2: 1-60.

108

International Whaling Commission. 2004. Classification of the order Cetacea. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 6(1): xi-xii.

International Whaling Commission. 2007. Report of the subcommittee on bowhead, right and gray whales. Journal of Cetcaean Research and Management 9.

International Whaling Commission. 2012. Report of the subcommittee on other Southern Hemisphere whale stocks. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 13(Suppl.): 192- 216.

Leaper, R., Cooke, J. G., Trathan, P., Reid, K., Rowntree, V. and Payne, R. 2006. Global climate drives southern right whale (Eubalaena australis) population dynamics. Biology Letters 2: 289-292.

Marón, C. F., Rowntree, V.J., Sironi, M., Uhart, M., Payne, R.S., Adler, F.R., Seger, J. 2015. Estimating population consequences of increased calf mortality in the southern right whales off Argentina. . Document #SC/66a/BRG/1 presented to the International Whaling Commission Scientific Committee. San Diego, USA, May 2015.

Ohsumi, S. and Kasamatsu, F. 1986. Recent off-shore distribution of the southern right whale in summer. Reports of the International Whaling Commission Special Issue 10: 177-186.

Payne, R.S. 1986. Long term behavioral studies of the southern right whale (Eubalaena australis). Report of the International Whaling Commission Special Issue 10: 161-167.

Piedra, M., Costa, P., Franco-Fraguas, P. 2006. Ballena Franca Eubalaena australis en la costa atlántica uruguaya. In: Menafra, R., Rodriguez-Gallego, L., Scarabino, F., Cconde, D. (ed.), Bases para la Conservación y el manejo de la costa uruguaya, Vida Silvestre (Sociedad Uruguaya para la Conservación de la Naturaleza).

Rice, D.W. 1998. Marine Mammals of the World: Systematics and Distribution. Society for Marine Mammalogy, Special Publication Number 4, Lawrence, Kansas.

Rosenbaum, H. C., Brownell Jr., R. L., Brown, M. W., Scaeff, S. C., Portway, V., White, B. N., Malik, S. and Pastene, L. A. 2000. World-wide genetic differentiation of Eubalaena: Questioning the number of right whale species. Molecular Ecology 9: 1793-1802.

Rosenbaum, H. C., Razafindrakoto, Y., Vahoavy, J. and Pomilla, C. 2001. A note on recent sightings of southern right whales (Eubalaena australis) along the east coast of Madagascar. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 2: 177-179.

Rowntree V.J., Uhart M.M., Sironi M., Chirife A., Di Martino M., La Sala L., Musmeci L., Mohamed N., Andrejuk J., McAloose D., Emilio Sala J., Carribero A., Rally H., Franco M., Adler F.R., Brownell R.L. Jr., Seger J., Rowles T. 2013. Unexplained recurring high mortality of southern right whale Eubalaena australis calves at Penïnsula Valdïs, Argentina. Marine Ecology Progress Series 493(275-289).

Rowntree, V. J., Mcguinness, P., Marshall, K., Payne, R., Sironi, M. and Seger, J. 1998. Increase harassment of right whales (Eubalaena australis) by kelp gulls (Larus dominicanus) at Peninsula Valdez, Argentina. Marine Mammal Science 14(1): 99-115.

Rowntree, V. J., Payne, R. S. and Schell, D. S. 2001. Changing patterns of habitat use by southern right whales (Eubalaena australis) on their nursery ground at Peninsula Valdes, Argentina, and in their long-range movements. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 2: 133-144.

109

Sironi, M., Rowntree, V.J., Di Martino, M., Beltramino, L., Rago, V., Marón, C.F. and Uhart, M. 2016. Southern right whale mortalities at Península Valdés, Argentina: updated information for 2014-2015. Document SC/66b/BRG/02 presented to the International Whaling Commission Scientific Committee. Bled, Slovenia, June 2016.

Sironi, M., Rowntree, V.J., Di Martino, M., Beltramino, L., Rago, V., Marón, C.F. and Uhart, M. 2016. Southern right whale mortalities at Península Valdés, Argentina: updated information for 2014-2015. International Whaling Commission Scientific Committee Document SC/66b/BRG/02. Bled, Slovenia, June 2016.

Tormosov, D. D., Mikhaliev, Y. A., Best, P. B., Zemsky, V. A., Sekiguchi, K. and Brownell Jr., R. L. 1998. Soviet catches of Southern Right Whales Eubalaena australis, 1951 1971. Biological data and conservation implications. Biological Conservation 86: 185 197.

110

111

EN - Endangered, A3cde (IUCN version 3.1)

Assessment Rationale:

In the Patagonia Sea, Marine Otter has a restricted distribution along the Pacific coast from northern Peru along the Chilean coast to Cape Horn and Isla de Los Estados in Argentina. However, little effort has been made to confirm its presence in Argentina. The species is patchily distributed from Peru to Tierra del Fuego. It has been introduced in the Malvinas, but has not been recently observed. Its distribution north of 39°S latitude is becoming highly fragmented because of exploitation, pollution and increased human occupation along the seashores. Poaching and illegal hunting is still present in many regions, where there is little or no enforcement of protective legislation. In the south of Chile, the species distribution overlaps with salmon aquaculture, which also contributes to habitat loss. The greatest threats to its continuous existence are accelerating habitat destruction, degradation, and competition for prey, accidental kill in crab pots and poaching throughout the range. The original range of Marine Otter has decreased considerably because of excessive hunting, and the species has been nearly exterminated from the regions of Cape Horn and southern Tierra del Fuego as well as from the northern extremities of its former range. These threats are inferred to result in future population reductions of at least 50% over the next three generations (30 years), unless conservation measures are strengthened. Therefore, it is proposed to keep the Marine Otter listed under the category Endangered based on criterion A3cde.

Assessor(s): Sepúlveda, M. & Capella, J. Reviewer(s): Shope, M., Falabella, V. Contributor(s): Alvarez, R. & Medina-Vogel, G. Facilitators/Compilers: Polidoro, B.

112

Taxonomic information

ANIMALIA - CHORDATA - MAMMALIA - CARNIVORA - MUSTELIDAE - Lontra felina (Molina, 1782)

Common Names: Marine Otter (English), Chichimen (Spanish; Castilian), Chinchimen (Spanish; Castilian), Chingungo (Spanish; Castilian), Chungungo (French), Gato Marino (Spanish; Castilian), Gato de Mar (Spanish; Castilian), Huallaca (Spanish; Castilian), Loutre de mer (French), Nutria de Mar (Spanish; Castilian), Sea Cat (English)

Note: The use of Lutra for three the New World otter species (L. felina, L. canadiensis, L. longicaudis) has been widespread in the past. Van Zyll de Jong (1972, 1987) separated this group into the genus Lontra based on morphological criteria, which was confirmed by Wozencraft (1993). Koepfli and Wayne (1998) and Koepfli et al. (2008) re-confirmed this classification based molecular data. Thus, nowadays the generic name Lontra should be accepted as valid for all New World otters (except Pteronura).

Geographic Range

The Marine Otter is distributed along the Pacific Coast of South America from Chimbote (9°S) in northern Peru (Valqui 2012), to Isla Grevy (56°S) at the southern tip of Chile (Sielfeld 1997) and eastwards to the Isla de los Estados (54°S), in Argentina (Parera 1996). In the Patagonia Sea, this species has a restricted distribution along the Pacific coast along the Chilean coast to Cape Horn and Isla de Los Estados in Argentina (Lewis y Campagna 2008, Sielfeld 1992). Little effort has been made to confirm this species presence in Argentina (Schiavini pers comm.2016).The species has been introduced in the Malvinas, but has not been recently observed (Stanworth pers comm. 2016).

In 1964, Schweigger reported Lontra felina up to the Isla Lobos de Tierra (6° 26'S) in northern Peru. Studies of the last decades registered the northern range limit at Chimbote (9°S) (Brack 1978, Brownell 1978, Larivière 1998, Apaza et al. 2004, Sánchez and Ayala 2006, Valqui et al. 2010). Recent sightings in Huanchaco (8°S) suggest at least occasional events of recolonization north to the actual northern limit of distribution range, yet reasons for appearance or disappearance in these areas remain unclear (Alfaro-Shigueto et al. 2011). In the south the species´ presence is unclear in the XVth, Ist, XIth and XIIth regions and in the Tierra del Fuego region in Argentina (Cassini 2008). However, little effort has been made to confirm this species presence in Argentina (Schiavini pers comm.2016).

Its distribution north of 39°S latitude is becoming highly fragmented because of exploitation, pollution and increased human occupation along the seashores. Along those lines, although Lontra felina has decreased any specific regions or study cases. exterminated from the regions of Cape Horn and so (1990) claimed the Marine Otter has also been exterminated from the northern extremities of its former range, but several works (Sielfeld 1989, 1990, 1992; Sielfeld and Castilla 1999) reported the species' presence between 49°S (Puerto Orella) and 55°S (Isla Grevy).

The Marine Otter´s habitat is naturally fragmented in a very heterogeneous alternation of suitable habitat (rocky shore patches with caves or, sometimes, docks, shipwrecks or abandoned fishing boats) and unsuitable habitat (sandy beaches or rocky shoreline without

113 caves). Thus, Marine Otters may be absent in several hundreds of kilometres of coast throughout the species´ total distribution range (Redford and Eisenberg 1992, Vianna et al. 2010, Valqui 2012).

Population

Population size of Marine Otter at the Patagonian Sea Region is unknown.

Survey numbers and abundance estimations are highly dependent on the methodology applied (Valqui 2012) and detecting individuals on the rocky shores is very difficult. The fact that the species is solitary or only present in very small groups (not larger than ten individuals) makes it difficult to determine if the species is abundant in one specific area. The density estimates proposed by various authors are very variable (from 0.04 to 10 individuals per kilometre, see Castilla and Bahamondes 1979, Castilla 1982, Cabello 1983, Rozzi and Torres- Mura 1990, Ebensperger and Castilla 1991, Sanchez 1992, Sielfeld 1992, Medina-Vogel 1995, Apaza et al. 2004, Mangel and Alfaro-Shigueto 2004, Medina-Vogel et al. 2006), therefore the reported numbers are to be taken with care. A global population of about 800 to 2,000 individuals is proposed for the Peruvian coast (ca 150 km) by Valqui (2012).

114

Habitats and Ecology

Lontra felina has a generation length of 10 years (3 generations is equivalent to 30 years) (Pacifici et al. 2013) and is the only species of the genus Lontra that is found exclusively in marine habitats. It uses coastlines with range extending approximately 30 m inland and 100- 150 m offshore (Castilla and Bahamondes 1979). The species inhabits marine areas exposed to heavy seas and strong wind (Cabello 1978, Ostfeld et al. 1989) and prefers rocky shores with caves that are above water at high tide, as well as areas with large algae communities offering a wide abundance and diversity of prey species (Castilla and Bahamondes 1979). Sandy beaches offer marginal habitat (Sielfeld 1989) and typically are used only for travel between dens and water (Ebensperger and Castilla 1992). Marine Otters are, for the most part, restricted to marine waters, but may occasionally travel up freshwater rivers in search of prey (Brownell 1978, Cabello 1978, Redford and Eisenberg 1992). Because not all coastlines are suitable, marine otters are found in disjunctive populations throughout their distribution range (Redford and Eisenberg 1992).

The fact that Marine Otters are solitary or only gathering in small groups suggests high ecological requirements regarding space. The species' preference for coastal waters offering a wide abundance and diversity of prey species (Castilla and Bahamondes 1979) is in conflict with the increasing artisan and industrial fishing effort. Marine Otters are top predators with a high metabolic rate, thus pollution of their environments may affect them more than other species, as their position in the food chain leads to high bioaccumulation of heavy metals, pesticides and other toxic elements. The Marine Otter diet is composed mostly of invertebrates, including crustaceans (decapods, shrimps, and crabs) and molluscs (bivalves and gastropods), and in smaller precentage, of vertebrate prey, including fish from the families Blennidae, Cheilodactylidae, Gobiesocidae, and Pomacentridae, and occasionally birds and small mammals (Cabello 1978, Castilla and Bahamondes 1979, Ostfeld et al. 1989, Sielfeld 1990). Along the Valdivian coast in the south of Chile the diet of marine otter consisted of 25 species; 52% (13/25) of the species identified were crustaceans, 40% (10/25) were fish, and 8% (2/25) were molluscs. Crustaceans were found in 78% of 475 spraints, 100% of 929 prey remains, and 90.8% of prey determined by direct observation, fish in 20% of spraints and 9.0% of prey determined by direct observation, and molluscs in 2% of spraints and 0.2% of prey determined by direct observation. Observed seasonal variation in prey availability was reflected in the otter diet. Fourteen prey species were trapped; 43% (6/14) were crustaceans and 57% (8/14) fish, crustaceans were 93% of 566 trapped individuals, fish 7%. L. felina showed opportunistic feeding behaviour, selecting prey seasonally according to their availability rather than to their energy input (Medina-Vogel et al. 2004).

Some studies have found that fruits (Greigia sphacelata, Fascicularia bicolor) may also be consumed on occasion (Brownell 1978, Cabello 1978, Medina 1995). Marine Otters may compete with gulls (Larus) and the South American Sea Lion (Otaria flavescens) for similar species of prey fish (Cabello 1978). The most important natural predator of the Marine Otter is the Killer Whale (Orcinus orca; Cabello 1978), but adults also may be killed by sharks (Parera 1996) and some birds may capture juveniles when on land (Cabello 1983).

The Marine Otter is most likely a monogamous species. Mating typically occurs during December or January (Cabello 1978) with a gestation period of 60-65 days (Housse 1953, Sielfield 1989). Parturition usually occurs from January to March and it takes place in a den or on shore, between rocky outcroppings and vegetation. The litter size varies from two to four young, with two being observed most frequently. Young Marine Otters remain with their parents for approximately ten months. Adults transport their pups by carrying them in their mouths or on their bellies as they swim on their backs. Both adults in the monogamous pair bring prey back to the den to feed their young (Parera 1996). When not breeding, Marine Otters are mostly solitary. The group size is seldom more than two to three individuals. Its activity pattern is generally diurnal, with peaks of activity noted in early morning, mid-afternoon, and evenings. Marine Otters are much more agile in the water than on land.

115

Generation Length: 10 years (Pacifi et al. 2013)

General Use and Trade Information

Thounthands of otter pelts were exported from Chile between 1910 and 1954 (Iriarte and Jaksic 1986). Today, the lack of demand in the pelt market and fur trade prohibitions, have diminished the hunting threat considerably. Nonetheless, poaching and illegal hunting is still present in many regions, where there is little or no enforcement of protective legislation.

Threats

In the 20th Century the major threat to the Marine Otter was hunting (Sielfeld and Castilla 1999). 38 000 otter pelts were exported from Chile between 1910 and 1954 (Iriarte and Jaksic 1986). Although two otter species (L. provocax and L. felina such, no hunting estimate of each species can be inferred from this data, these numbers show the magnitude of the pelt industry in the 20th Century. Today, the lack of demand in the pelt market and fur trade prohibitions, have diminished the hunting threat considerably. Nonetheless, illegal hunting for fur and trophies still occurs in some areas as Samanco, (Sánchez and Ayala 2006), La Libertad (15°29'S) and Morro Sama (18°00'S) (Apaza et al. 2004), Peru and south of 39°S latitude in Chile. As such, poaching and illegal hunting is still present in many regions, where there is little or no enforcement of protective legislation.

However, now the greatest threats to its continuous existence are accelerating habitat destruction, degradation, and competition for prey, accidental kill in crab pots and poaching throughout the range.

In the last decades, the major threats derive from an intensive urbanization of western South America, where the immense anthropogenic pressure on the coastal ecosystem accelerates habitat degradation and increases its fragmentation (Brownell 1978, Eisenberg and Redford 1999, Sielfield and Castilla 1999, Medina-Vogel et al. 2008, Vianna et al. 2010). In the south of Chile, this species distribution overlaps with salmon aquaculture, which also contributes to habitat loss. It is not yet clear at what point these fragmentation forces will cause isolation to result in local extinction events due to lack of gene flow (Valqui 2012). In any case, these global changes will trigger more local threats in different regions. In and around human settlements, big dens with terrestrial entrances may be occupied by dogs, cats and rats, displacing the Marine Otter from its reproduction, feeding and resting areas (Apaza et al. 2003, Valqui 2012). Dog attacks are increasingly reported in several locations of the distribution (Medina-Vogel et al. 2008, Mangel et al. 2010, Vianna et al. 2010).

Industrial and artisan fishing ports have been established along the Pacific coast, affecting structure and productivity of marine life communities. Although Lontra felina shows certain capacity to coexist with humans, for example in fishing ports (Valqui 2004, Ruiz 2009, Medina- Vogel et al. 2007), fishing has intensified global natural declines in the abundance of many forage fishes, leading to reduced reproductive success and reduced abundance of birds and marine mammals (Majluf et al. 2002). The human-otter coexistence implies competition for resources that humans exploit for food, commerce and housing (Moreno et al. 1984; Ostfeld et al. 1989; Moreno 2001; Medina-Vogel et al. 2004, 2007, 2008), as it is the case of aquaculture (crabs and molluscs, Apaza et al. 2004). Additionally, marine otters may be persecuted and killed directly for alleged damage to local fish, bivalves, and shrimp populations (Miller et al. 1983, Redford and Eisenberg 1992, Apaza et al. 2004).). Illegal fishing techniques (e.g. dynamite fishing) are a frequent problem in several localities of the Peruvian coast, such as Huarmey (Valqui 2012) and Paracas (Apaza et al. 2004, Valqui 2012). Industrial ships have frequently been observed fishing closer to the coast than allowed by law (Apaza et al. 2004),

116 perturbing the coastal habitat on a broader scale. Another threat for Marine Otters is accidental death by entanglement (bycatch) in fishing nets (Brownell 1978, Mangel and Alfaro-Shigueto 2004, Pizarro 2008) and in crab pots (Medina-Vogel et al. 2004), although the dimension of these mortality cases is unknown.

Pollution of the Marine Otter´s habitat comes from several centers of industrial fishing activity like Chimbote (probably the most important fishing port at the Peruvian coast) and mining cities Ite, Ilo and Marcona in Peru, where tailings have been spilled directly into the ocean for over 40 years, altering several kilometres of the littoral (Apaza et al. 2004). Additionally, spills of domestic effluents reach the ocean directly or through rivers (Hinrichsen 1998, Thorne-Miller 1999). Thus, heavy metals and other toxic substances can be diffused through currents and progressively transmitted through the food chain at least in a regional level (Valqui 2004, Apaza et al. 2004). Oil spillage and extreme noise affect the species in areas near beach resorts in the vicinity of big cities (Valqui 2004).

Global natural factors like the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) also may considerably affect the Marine Otter population (Vianna et al. 2010), due climatic and oceanographic changes that cause the mortality of several marine communities from fish to mammals (Apaza and Figari 1999, Wang and Fiedler 2006).

A common denominator for all regions is that there is very low enforcement regarding the Marine Otter´s conservation status and protection, as hunting or killings on fish farms do not implicate consequences to the offenders.

Conservation

The Marine Otter is protected in Argentina, Chile, and Peru. It is listed in Appendix I of CITES (Nowak 1991) and in Appendix I of the Bonn Convention (Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS)). It is listed as Endangered on the Argentine Red List (2012).

Bibliography

Alfaro-Shigueto, J., Valqui, J., and Mangel, J.C. 2011. Nuevo registro de la nutria marina Lontra felina (Molina, 1782) al norte de su distribución actual. Ecología Aplicada 10(2): 87-91.

- litoral sur de San Juan de Marcona, Ica-Peru. Revista Peruana de Biología Extraordinario: 110- 117.

Apaza, M., Valqui, J. and Castañeda, C. 2003. Estado de Conservación de las Poblaciones de Spheniscus humboldti y Lontra felina en la Costa Norte del Perú. Instituto Nacional de Recursos Naturales (INRENA), Lima.

Apaza, M., Valqui, J., Mangel, J., Roca, M., Alfaro, J., Santillan, L., Perret, J.P., Onton, G., Castaneda, C., Munemura, G., Tovar, A. 2004. Estado de Conservación de Lontra felina (Molina, 1782) en la Costa Peruana. Reporte para la Comisión Permanente del Pacífico Sur, Lima.

Brack Egg, A. 1978. Situacion actual de las nutrias (Lutrinae: Mustelidae) en el Peru. In: N. Duplaix (ed.), Otters: Proceedings of the first working meeting of the otter specialist group, pp.

117

76-84. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Morges, Switzerland.

Brownell Jr., R.L. 1978. Ecology and conservation of the marine otter L. felina. In: N. Duplaix (ed.), Otters: Proceedings of the first working meeting of the otter specialist group, pp. 104- 106. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Morges, Switzerland.

Cabello, C.C. 1978. La nutria de Mar L. felina en la Isla de Chiloe. In: N. Duplaix (ed.), Proceedings of the first working meeting of the otter specialist group, pp. 108-119. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Morges, Switzerland.

Cabello, C.C. 1983. La nutria de mar en la Isla de Chiloe. Boletín Tecnico CONAF: 37-61.

Cassini, M.H. 2008. Present status of Lontra felina in Argentina. Endangered Species Update 25(2): 57-60.

Castilla, J.C. 1982. Nuevas observaciones sobre conducta, ecología y densidad de Lutra felina (Molina, 1782) (Carnívora: Mustelidae) en Chile. Publicación Ocasional Museo Nacional de Historia Natural 38: 197-206.

Castilla, J.C. and Bahamondes, I. 1979. Observaciones conductuales y ecologicas sobre Lutra felina (Molina) 1782 (Carnivora: Mustelidae) en las zonas central y centro-norte de Chile. Archivos de Biologia y Medicina Experimentales, Santiago 12: 119-132.

Chehebar, C. 1990. Action plan for Latin American otters. IUCN/SSC Otter Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland.

Ebensperger, L. and Castilla, J.C. 1991. Conducta y densidad poblacional de Lutra felina en Isla Pan de Azúcar (III Región), Chile. Medio Ambiente 11: 79-83.

Ebensperger, L.A. and Castilla, J.C. 1992. Seleccion de habitat en tierra por la nutria marina, Lutra felina, en Isla Pan de Azucar, Chile.

Eisenberg, J.F. and Redford, K.H. 1999. Mammals of the Neotropics. The Central Neotropics, Volume 3: Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, Brazil. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Hinrichsen, D. 1998. Coastal waters of the world: trends threats and strategies. Washington DC.

Housse, P.R. 1953. Animales salvajes de Chile en su clasificacion moderna: su vida y costumbres. Ediciones de la Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile.

Iriarte, J.A. and Jaksic, F.M. 1986. The fur trade in Chile: An overview of seventy-five years of export data (1910-1984). Biological Conservation 38: 243-253.

Koepfli, K.-P., Deer, K.A., Slater, G.J., Begg, C., Begg, K., Grassman, L., Lucherini, M., Veron, G. and Wayne, R.K. 2008. Multigene phylogeny of the Mustelidae: resolving relationships, tempo and biogeographic history of a mammalian adaptive radiation. BMC Biology 6: 10. doi:10.1186/1741-7007-6-10.

Koepfli, K.P. and Wayne, R.K. 1998. Phylogenetic relationships of otters (Carnivora: Mustelidae) based on mitochondrial cytochrome b sequences. Journal of Zoology 246: 410- 416.

Larivière, S. 1998. Lontra feline. Mammalian Species 575: 1-5.

118

Lewis, M., Campagna, C. 2008. Mamíferos Marinos. In: Foro para la Conservacion del Mar Patagónico (ed.), Estado de Conservación del Mar Patagónico, https://www.marpatagonico.org/libro/.

Majluf, P., Babock, E., Riveros J.C., Arias, M. and Alderete, W. 2002. Catch and Bycatch of Sea Birds and Marine Mammals in the Small-Scale Fishery of Punta San Juan, Peru. Conservation Biology 16(5): 1333-1343.

Mangel J.C., Whitty, T., Medina-Vogel, G., Alfaro-Shigueto, J., Caceres, C. and Godley, B.J. 2010. Latitudinal variation in diet and patterns of human interaction in the marine otter. Marine Mammal Science 30: 95-96.

Mangel, J.C. and Alfaro-Shigueto, J. 2004. Comunidades pesqueras y la conservacion de la nutria marina (Lontra felina) en el sur de Peru. Revista de Conservación Regional 2: 5-10.

Medina, G. 1995. Feeding habits of marine otter (Lutra felina) in southern Chile. Proceedings of the International Otter Colloquium 6: 65-68.

Medina-Vogel, G., Bartheld, J.V.L., Alavarez, R.E. and Delgado, C.R. 2006. Population assessment and habitat use by marine otter (Lontra felina) in Southern Chile. Wildlife Biology 12: 191 199.

Medina-Vogel, G., Boher, F., Flores, G., Santibanez, A. and Soto-Azat, C. 2007. Spacing behavior of marine otters (Lontra felina) in relation to land refuges and fishery wastes in Central Chile. Journal of Mammology 88: 487 494.

Medina-Vogel, G., Delgado-Rodriguez, C., Alvarez, R.E. and Bartheld, J.L. 2004. Feeding ecology of the marine otter (Lutra felina) in a rocky seashore of the south of Chile. Marine Mammal Science 20(1): 134 144.

Medina-Vogel, G., Merino, L.O., Monsalve Alarcón, R. and Vianna, J. de A. 2008. Coastal- marine discontinuities, critical patch size and isolation: implications for marine otter conservation. Animal Conservation 11: 57-64.

Miller, S.D., Rottmann, J., Raedeke, K.J. and Taber, R.D. 1983. Endangered mammals of Chile: status and conservation. Biological Conservation 25: 335-352.

Molina, G.I. 1782. Saggio Sulla Storia Naturale del Chili

Moreno, C. 2001. Community patterns generated by human harvesting on Chilean shores: a review. Aquatic Conservation 11: 19-30.

Moreno, C., Sutherland, J. and Jara, F. 1984. Man as predator in the intertidal zone of Southern Chile. Oikos 42: 155-160.

Nowak, R.M. 1991. Walker's Mammals of the World. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, USA and London, UK.

Ostfeld, R.S., Ebensperger, L., Klosterman, L. and Castilla, J.C. 1989. Foraging, activity budget, and social behavior of the South American marine otter Lutra felina (Molina 1782). National Geographic Research 5: 422-438.

Pacifici, M., Santini, L., Di Marco, M., Baisero, D., Francucci, L., Grottolo Marasini, G., Visconti, P. and Rondinini, C. 2013. Generation length for mammals. Nature Conservation 5: 87 94.

119

Parera, A. 1996. Las nutrias verdaderas de la Argentina. Boletín Tecnico de la Fundacion Vida Silvestre Argentina. Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Pizaro Neyra, J. 2008. Mortality of the Marine Otter (Lontra felina) in southern Peru. IUCN Otter Spec. Group Bulletin 25(2): 94-99.

Redford, K.H. and Eisenberg, J.F. 1992. Mammals of the Neotropics, The Southern Cone: Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, USA.

Rozzi, R. and Torres-Mura, J.C. 1990. Observaciones del Chungungo (Lutra felina) al sur de la Isla Grande de Chiloé: antecedentes para su conservación. Medio Ambiente 11(1): 24-28.

Ruiz, E. 2009. Estudio etológico de la nutria marina Lontra felina (Molina, 1782) en una ambiente antrópico, la bahía de Pucusana -Lima, Perú de junio a agosto del 2008. Tesis para optar el título de Biólogo, Universidad Nacional Agraria La Molina (UNALM). .

Schweigger, E. 1964. El litoral peruano. Universidad Nacional "Frederico Villarreal", Lima.

Sielfeld, W. 1997. Las áreas protegidas de la XII Región de Chile en la perspectiva de los mamíferos marinos. Estudios Oceanológicos 16: 87-107.

Sielfeld, W.K. 1989. Sobreposicion de nicho y patrones de distribucion de Lutra felina y L. provocax (Mustelidae, Carnivora) en el medio marino de Sud America austral. Andes Museo de Historia Natural Valparaiso 20: 103-108.

Sielfeld, W.K. 1990. Dieta del chungungo (Lutra felina (Molina, 1782)) (Mustelidae, Carnivora) en Chile austral. Investigacion Cientificas y Tecnicas, Serie: Ciencias del Mar 1: 23-29.

Sielfeld, W.K. 1992. Abundancias relativas de Lutra felina (Molina, 1782) y L. provocax Thomas 1908 en el litoral de Chile austral. Investigaciones Cientificas y Tecnicas, Serie: Ciencias del Mar 2: 3-11.

Sielfeld, W.K. and Castilla, J.C. 1999. Estado de conservación y conocimiento de las nutrias en Chile. Estudios Oceanológicos 18: 69-79.

Sánchez, R. 1992. Distribución y abundancia del gato marino Lutra felina en el Departamento de Ica.

Sánchez, R. and Ayala, L. 2006. Evaluacion de la distribucion y abundancia del gato marino Lontra felina en la costa central y norte del Peru durante el otono del 2006. Reporte APECO.

Thorne-Miller, B. 1999. The living ocean: understanding and protecting marine biodiversity. Washington DC.

Valqui, J. 2004. Comportamiento de la nutria marina Lontra felina (Molina, 1782) en una ambiente antrópico, la bahía de Pucusana -Lima, Perú. Tesis para optar el título de Biólogo, Universidad Nacional Agraria La Molina (UNALM). .

Valqui, J. 2012. The marine otter Lontra felina (Molina, 1782): A review of its present status and implications for future conservation . Mammalian Biology 77: 75-83.

Valqui, J., Hartl G.B., Zachos, F.E. 2010. Non-invasive genetic analysis reveals high levels of mtDNA variability in the endangered South-American marine otter (Lontra felina). Conservation Genetics 11: 2067-2072.

120

Van Zyll de Jong, C.G. 1972. A systematic review of the Nearctic and Neotropical river otters (Genus Lutra, Mustelidae, Carnivora). Life Sciences Contributions of the Royal Ontario Museum 80: l-104.

Van Zyll de Jong, C.G. 1987. A phylogenetic study of the Lutrinae (Carnivora; Mustelidae) using morphological data. Canadian Journal of Zoology 65: 2536-2544.

Vianna. J., Ayerdi, P., Medina-Vogel, G., Mangel, J.C., Zeballos, H., Apaza, M. and Faugeron, S. 2010. Phylogeography of the Marine Otter (Lontra felina): historical and contemporary factors determining its distribution. Journal of Heredity 101(6): 676-689.

Wang, C. and Fiedler, P.C. 2006. ENSO variability and the eastern tropical Pacific: A review. Progress in Oceanography 69: 239-266.

Wozencraft, W.C. 1993. Order Carnivora, Family Mustelidae. In: D.E. Wilson and D.M. Reeder (eds), Mammal species of the world: a taxonomic and geographic reference, pp. 309-325. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.

Wozencraft, W.C. 1993. Order Carnivora. In: D.E. Wilson and D.M. Reeder (eds), Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference. Second Edition, pp. 279-344. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, USA.

121

EN - Endangered, A3cde (IUCN version 3.1)

Assessment Rationale:

In the Patagonia Sea, the Southern River Otter is found in Chile and Argentina in freshwater and marine environments, where it is patchily distributed. Accelerating habitat destruction and degradation throughout the Southern River Otter's range is the greatest threat to the species, and is projected (based on current trends) to lead to a future >50% reduction in population size over the next 30 years (three generations) for those subpopulations using rivers and lakes (freshwater habitats). For the subpopulations using the southern fjords and islands (marine habitats) of Chile the population may reduce to 50% over the next 30 years due to the impacts of intensive fishery activities. The distribution of the Southern River Otter has declined drastically due combined pressures, as the destruction of habitat, removal of vegetation, river and stream canalization, and extensive dredging. At present, poaching is a minor problem but still occurs particularly south of 43°S latitude where control of hunting is difficult to implement. Extirpation of the Southern River Otter began in local basins but has become widespread. The lack of re-establishment of the species is probably due to high mortality or reproductive failure following the dispersal of otters into unsuitable areas. This is resulting in a population that is becoming increasingly fragmented and more susceptible to local extinctions through habitat destruction, human disturbance, predation by domestic dogs, and demographic or environmental stochastic events. Genetic studies have confirmed a lower genetic diversity in the northern freshwater subpopulations in comparison to those from the south confirming a past bottleneck probably due to anthropogenic factors.

This species is considered to be Endangered under criterion A3cde based on projected future population decline due to habitat loss.

Assessor(s): Sepúlveda, M. & Capella, J. Reviewer(s): Shope, M., Falabella, V. Contributor(s): Alvarez, R. & Fasola, L. Facilitators/Compilers: Polidoro, B.

122

Taxonomic information

ANIMALIA - CHORDATA - MAMMALIA - CARNIVORA - MUSTELIDAE - Lontra provocax (Thomas, 1908)

Common Names: Southern River Otter (English), Huillin (English), Huillín (Spanish; Castilian), Lobito Patagonica (Spanish; Castilian), Loutre du Chili (French), Nutria de Chile (Spanish; Castilian)

Note: Lontra provocax had been considered a subspecies of L. canadensis (Davis 1978). It was placed in the genus Lontra by van Zyll de Jong (1987). Koepfli and Wayne (1998) and Bininda-Emonds et al. (1999) supported the separation of New World otters into genus Lontra from Lutra, except Pteronura.

Geographic Range

The Southern River Otter occurs in Chile and Argentina in freshwater and marine environments. historically wider in both countries. In Chile, river otters occurred from Cachapoal River (34ºS) (Gay 1847, Reed 1877) down to Taitao Península (46ºS), with a continuous distribution in rivers and lakes (Medina 1996). The current distribution in Chile has been strongly restricted from north to south due to land use change and human colonization (Medina 1996), as a consequence, the otter populations are only found at present from the Imperial River (38ºS ) (Rodríguez-Jorquera and Sepúlveda 2011) to the south. In Argentina freshwater subpopulations were distributed historically from the Neuquen Province (36ºS) to Buenos Aires Lake (46ºS) and mostly associated with water courses from the Andean Range and the steppe (Valenzuela et al. 2012). The present freshwater distribution in Argentina is mostly restricted to the Limay watershed, mainly within the Nahuel Huapi National Park (Chehebar 1985, Cassini et al. 2010, Valenzuela et al. 2012).

Southern River Otter subpopulations that inhabit marine environments are distributed along the Pacific coast of Chile from 46ºS to Tierra del Fuego (Cabrera 1957, Redford and Eisenberg 1992, Sielfeld 1992, Malmierca et al. 2006). In Argentina, marine subpopulations are present only in the Archipielago Fueguino in Los Estados Island and in the Beagle Channel (Malmierca et al. 2006, Valenzuela et al. 2012, Valenzuela et al. 2013). Marine river otters in Argentina are probably a continuous subpopulation of the main otter subpopulation in Chile (Sielfeld 1992).

123

Population

Because most studies on this species have been made based on indirect signs of the species, there are no estimates of the size of their subpopulations. The freshwater subpopulations have been studied more than those in marine environments. Monitoring of signs such as faeces or tracks has been implemented particularly for the population in Nahuel Huapi National Park in Argentina by the Administration of National Parks for over 30 years (Chehebar 1985, Chehebar et al. 1986, Chehebar and Porro 1998, Aued et al. 2003, Cassini et al. 2009, Pozzi and Chehebar 2013). A relatively stable otter distribution has been observed in this area with some marginal expansion outside the Nahuel Huapi Park in the Limay River (Carmanchahi et al. 2006). Recent volcanic activity (2011) could have disrupted freshwater ecosystems and consequently affected the otter population, but there are no studies on the subject, which are of utmost urgency.

Freshwater subpopulations have been described as seven isolated, fragmented and comprised subpopulations (Medina 1996) but subsequent surveys have identified presence in areas previously thought not to have otters (Rodríguez et al. 2008); it is not clear if this is the result of a recent recolonization or sampling bias in earlier studies, and more research is needed. A radiotelemetry study in the Queule River found densities of 0.25 otters/km of river (Sepúlveda et al. 2007).

Studies of the marine population in Chile indicate that the otter distribution in this environment would be continuous and abundances estimated are 0.57 otters/km of coast (Sielfeld 1992). Studies based on indirect signs in marine populations in Argentina, indicate two separate subpopulations, one in Isla de Los Estados (Provincial Reserve) and the other in Bahia Lapataia, Tierra del Fuego National Park, in the Beagle Channel (Valenzuela et al. 2012).

124

Genetic studies have confirmed a lower genetic diversity in the northern freshwater subpopulations in comparison to those from the south confirming a past bottleneck probably due to anthropogenic factors (Centron et al. 2008, Vianna et al. 2011).

Habitats and Ecology

The Southern River Otter, which has a generation length of 10 years (3 generations being equivalent to 30 years) (Pacifici et al. 2013), is distributed in the southern temperate forest of South America. This species presents a distribution associated with inland waters in the northern parts of its range, and marine habitat in the southern part of its range. In freshwater habitats otters are associated with the presence of macro-crustaceans from the genus Aegla spp. and Sammastacus spp. (Aued et al. 2003, Cassini et al. 2009, Sepúlveda et al. 2009), Medina-Vogel and Gonzalez-Lagos 2008, Fasola et al. 2009, Rodríguez-Jorquera and Sepúlveda 2011, Franco et al. 2013). Other occurrence. The otter use rivers with abundant vegetation (Chehebar et al. 1986, Medina- Vogel et al. 2003) and inhabit diverse types of wetlands including Andean lakes, rivers of different sizes, ponds and estuaries. A study using telemetry described an average home range of 11.3 km, with solitary behaviour and a low spatial overlap between individuals of same sex suggesting intrasexual territoriality (Sepúlveda et al. 2007). In the marine range the species uses the marine rocky coast with abundant vegetation cover and low exposure to wind and waves (Sielfeld 1992, Sielfeld and Castilla 1999). In this environment the Southern River Otter is sympatric with the Marine Otter (L. felina), but the later is segregated by its use of more wave- exposed coastal areas (Sielfeld 1992, Ebensperger and Botto-Mahan 1997). The diet in the marine environment is composed of coastal fish of the genera Harpagifer, Patagonotothen, Eleginops, Cottoperca and crustaceans of the genera Munida, Taliepus, Cancridae, Galatheidae, Lithodidae, Lithodes, Paralomis and Campylonotus (Sielfeld and Castilla 1999, Valenzuela et al. 2013). In general for both marine and inland waters the Southern River Otter seems to be a specialized aquatic bottom forager preying on slow benthic fish and crustaceans.

Generation Length: 10 years (Pacifici et al. 2013)

General Use and Trade Information

The animals are hunted for their pelts which are used to make clothing.

Threats

The Southern River Otter habitat is very sensitive to anthropogenic impacts (Medina-Vogel et al. 2003, Sepúlveda et al. 2009, Valenzuela et al. 2013). In those subpopulations inhabiting freshwater environments, the high demand for water by human activities such as agriculture, human use, etc. is altering watercourses through canalization and drainage, together with the loss of riparian vegetation. These activities are promoted to increase the amount of agricultural lands but are impacting those otter subpopulations distributed in lowlands, particularly in the Central Valley and the Coastal Range of Chile (Medina-Vogel et al. 2003, Sepúlveda et al. 2009). In the case of Andean lakes, where the species occurred historically, the high level of urbanization and tourism has been proposed as the main causes responsible for the local extinction of the species in those areas (Medina 1996). Extirpation of the Southern River Otter began in local basins but has become widespread. The lack of re-establishment of the species

125 is probably due to high mortality or reproductive failure following the dispersal of otters into unsuitable areas (Medina 1996). Genetic studies have confirmed a lower genetic diversity in the northern freshwater subpopulations in comparison to those from the south confirming a past bottleneck probably due to anthropogenic factors (Centron et al. 2008, Vianna et al. 2011).

Other threats are poaching (Medina 1996, Espinosa 2012), predation by free-ranging domestic dogs (Espinosa 2012) and transmission of diseases such as Canine Distemper Virus (CDV) (Sepúlveda et al. 2014). Free-ranging dogs are an important threat to carnivores because of predation and disease transmission (Vanak and Gompper 2009), and are present in rural and protected areas where the Southern River Otter occurs (Sepúlveda et al. 2014). Implementing dog population control measures as well as vaccination programmes are important measures to mitigate the impact of dogs on this species (Sepúlveda et al. 2014). In several parts of the otter's distribution range, hydroelectric dams are installed or are planned to be built in the near future, but no research on their potential impact on the otter population has been conducted so far. The presence of wild exotic salmon and the salmon farming industry are suggested as a potential threat to otter prey leading to potential competition between otters and salmon (Medina 1996, Aued et al. 2003, Cassini et al. 2009) but no studies have confirmed this as yet. In relation to the invasive American Mink (Neovison vison), although several studies have investigated competition between these mustelids and river otters (Medina 1997, Aued et al. 2003, Fasola et al. 2009, Valenzuela et al. 2013), there is no clear evidence of a negative effect of the mink on the otter. Indeed, current studies in the marine part of the range suggest a negative effect of otters over minks by habitat (Valenzuela et al. 2013) and temporal segregation (Medina‐Vogel et al. 2013). The invasive mink is a potential vector of CDV to otters given their behavioural similarities and sharing of latrines (Sepúlveda et al. 2014).

During 1910-1954 a total of 38,263 otter pelts (Lontra felina and L. provocax) were exported from Chile but after that period no exports exist due to the implementation of different laws and international agreements (Iriarte and Jaksic 1986) .

Conservation

The Southern River Otter is listed on CITES Appendix I and the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS) Appendix I.

In Chile, the conservation status is listed by the "Reglamento de Clasificación de Especies" (Species Classification Regulation) as Endangered in VI, VII, VIII, IX, XIV and X Districts, and as Data Deficient in XI and XII Districts (Chile 2011). The "Subsecretaria de Pesca" is the governmental agency responsible of their conservation and management. In those populations inside official protected areas, the "Corporacion Nacional Forestal" is responsible for their conservation. National Action plans in Chile are developed by the Minisiterio del present, which is the most urgent conservation action priority. Hunting has been prohibited since 1929 in Chile (Iriarte and Jaksic 1986) and the governmental agency responsible for hunting permits and enforcement is the "Servicio Agricola y Ganadero".

In Argentina the conservation status is Endangered (EN A3cd) (Valenzuela et al. 2012). At national level, the governmental agency on charge of native wildlife conservation and management is the "Secretaría de Ambiente y DesarrolloSustentable de la Nación" through the "Dirección de Fauna Silvestre". The "Administración de Parques Nacionales" (National Parks Administration) is responsible for conservation of those populations inside the national protected areas, where the species is classified as Special Value Species (APN 1994.). The two populations in Argentina from freshwater and marine habitats are mostly inside national protected areas.

126

Because of the high number of agencies involved in the management of the species a strong coordination with clear responsibilities and a work agenda is of utmost importance in the short term. Actions recommended for both Chile and Argentina are:

 To develop a Conservation Bi-National Plan for the species;  To develop specific National Conservation Plans for each country;  To develop validated Monitoring Programmes in protected and unprotected lands; particularly in Chile where population are not being monitored; and  To reinforce the importance of environmental impact assessment projects in relation to the species in order to adequately determine: a) presence of otter population in areas of projects, and b) in those projects requiring the implementation of adequate actions, which incorporate: 1) measures of monitoring, 2) mitigation and 3) compensation activities.

There have not been any reintroduction attempts, which could be an appropriate conservation action considering the success of such plans in North American and European species. Although otters are one of the most appealing species in zoo/aquarium exhibitions, providing good opportunities for education and awareness about conservation issues in aquatic environments, no known individuals of the Southern River Otter are currently in captivity and there are no historical records for any captive animals.

Bibliography

APN. 1994. Resolución P.D. Nº 180/94. Listados de especies de Vertebrados de Valor Especial para los Parques Nacionales, Reservas Nacinales y Monumentos Naturales de la Patagonia.In: A.d.P. Nacionales (ed.), pp. 8. Buenos Aires.

Aued, M.B., Chehebar, C., Porro, G., Macdonald, D.W. and Cassini, M.H. 2003. Environmental correlates of the distribution of southern river otters Lontra provocax at different ecological scales. Oryx 37: 413-421.

Bininda-Emonds, O.R.P., Gittleman, J.L. and Purvis, A. 1999. Building large trees by combining phylogenetic information: a complete phylogeny of the extant Carnivora (Mammalia). Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 74: 143-175.

Cabrera, A. 1957. Catálogo de los mamíferos de América del Sur: I (Metatheria-Unguiculata- Carnivora). Revista del Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales "Bernardino Rivadivia" e Instituto Nacional de Investigación de las Ciencias Naturales, Ciencias Zoológicas 4(1): 1-307.

Carmanchahi, P., Funes, M., Bongiorno, M. and Monsalvo, O. 2006. Actualización de la distribución del huillín en la provincia del Neuquén. In: M. H. Cassini and M. Sepúlveda (eds), El Huillín Lontra provocax: Investigaciones sobre una nutria patagónica en peligro de extinción, pp. 162. Publicación de la Organización PROFAUNA, Buenos Aires.

Cassini, M.H., Fasola, L., Chehebar, C. and Macdonald, D.W. 2010. Defining conservation status using limited information: the case of Patagonian otters Lontra provocax in Argentina. Hydrobiologia 652: 389-394.

Cassini, M.H., Fasola, L., Chehébar, C. and Macdonald, D.W. 2009. Scale-dependent analysis of an otter crustacean system in Argentinean Patagonia. Naturwissenschaften 96: 593-599.

Centron, D., Ramirez, B., Fasola, L., Macdonald, D.W., Chehebar, C., Schiavini, A. and Cassini, M.H. 2008. Diversity of mtDNA in Southern River Otter (Lontra provocax) from Argentinean Patagonia. Journal Hered. 99: 198-201.

127

Chehebar, C. 1985. A survey of the southern river otter Lutra provocax Thomas in Nahuel Huapi National Park, Argentina. Biological Conservation 32: 299-307.

Chehebar, C. Gallur, A., Giannico, G., Gottelli, M. D. and Yorio, P. 1986. A survey of the southern river otter Lutra provocax in Lanin, Puelo and Los Alerces National Parks, Argentina, and evaluation of its conservation status. Biological Conservation 38: 293-304.

Chehebar, C. and Porro, G. 1998. Distribución y estatus del huillín (Lontra provocax) en el Parque Nacional Huapi, Argentina. Vida Silvestre Neotropical 7: 99-106.

Davis, J.A. 1978. A classification of the otters. In: N. Duplaix (ed.), Otters: proceedings of the First Working Meeting of the Otter Specialist Group, pp. 14-33. Morges, Switzerland.

Ebensperger, L.A. and Botto-Mahan, C. 1997. Use of habitat, size of prey, and food-niche relationships of two sympatric others in southernmost Chile. Journal of Mammalogy.

Espinosa, M. 2012. Dieta y uso de hábitat del huillín (Lontra provocax) en ambientes de agua dulce y su relación con comunidades locales en el bosque templado lluvioso, Isla Grande de Chiloé, Chile. Universidad Mayor, Santiago de Chile, Chile.

Fasola, L., Chehebar, C., Macdonald, D.W., Porro, G. and Cassini, M.H. 2009. Do alien North American mink compete for resources with native South American river otter in Argentinean Patagonia? Journal of Zoology 277: 187-195.

Franco, M., Guevara, G., Correa, L. and Soto-Gamboa, M. 2013. Trophic interactions of the endangered Southern river otter (Lontra provocax) in a Chilean Ramsar wetland inferred from prey sampling, fecal analysis, and stable isotopes. Naturwissenschaften 100: 299-310.

Gay, C. 1847. Historia Física y Política de Chile. Zoología,Tomo I. Imprenta de Maulde y Renou París.

Iriarte, J.A. and Jaksic, F.M. 1986. The fur trade in Chile: An overview of seventy-five years of export data (1910-1984). Biological Conservation 38: 243-253.

Koepfli, K.P. and Wayne, R.K. 1998. Phylogenetic relationships of otters (Carnivora: Mustelidae) based on mitochondrial cytochrome b sequences. Journal of Zoology 246: 410- 416.

Malmierca, L., Gallo, E., Calvi, M. and Ferrari, N. 2006. Monitoreo y uso de cuevas del huillín en el Parque Nacional Tierra del Fuego, Argentina. In: M.H. Cassini and M.A. Sepúlveda (eds), El Huillín Lontra provocax: Investigaciones sobre una nutria patagónica en peligro de extinción., pp. 46-53. Publicación de la Organización PROFAUNA, Buenos Aires.

Medina, G. 1996. Conservation and status of Lutra provocax in Chile. Pacific Conservation Biology 2: 414-419.

Medina, G. 1997. A comparison of diet and distribution of southern river otter (Lutra provocax) and mink (Mustela vison) in southern Chile. Journal of Zoology (London) 242: 291-297.

Medina-Vogel, G. and Gonzalez-Lagos, C. 2008. Habitat use and diet of endangered southern river otter Lontra provocax in a predominantly palustrine wetland in Chile. Wildlife Biology 14: 211-220.

Medina-Vogel, G., Kaufman, V.S., Monsalve, R. and Gomez, V. 2003. The influence of riparian vegetation, woody debris, stream morphology and human activity on the use of rivers by southern river otters in Lontra provocax in Chile. Oryx 37: 422-430.

128

Medina‐Vogel, G., Barros, M., Organ, J. and Bonesi, L. 2013. Coexistence between the southern river otter and the alien invasive North American mink in marine habitats of southern Chile. . Journal of Zoology 290: 27-34.

Pacifici, M., Santini, L., Di Marco, M., Baisero, D., Francucci, L., Grottolo Marasini, G., Visconti, P. and Rondinini, C. 2013. Generation length for mammals. Nature Conservation 5: 87 94.

Pozzi, C. and Chehebar, C. 2013. Distribución del huillín (Lontra provocax) en el Parque Nacional Nahuel Huapi año 2011. Macroscopia: Divulgación técnico científica del patrimonio natural y cultural del Parque Nacional Nahuel Huapi. Administración de Parques Nacionales 3: 23-30.

Redford, K.H. and Eisenberg, J.F. 1992. Mammals of the Neotropics, The Southern Cone: Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, USA.

Reed, E. C. 1877. Apuntes de la zoología de la Hacienda de Cauquenes, provincia de Colchagua. Anales de la Universidad de Chile 49: 535-569.

Rodríguez, J., Ponce, C., Méndez, P., Sepúlveda, M.A. and Maldonado, V. 2008. Southern river otter conservation and basin management for the conservation and connectivity of temperate rainforest.In: 1247/98-CODEFF, F. (ed.), pp. 97. CODEFF, Valdivia.

Rodríguez-Jorquera, I. and Sepúlveda, M.A. 2011. Trophic spatial variations in the Southern river otter, Lontra provocax, in freshwater habitats, Chile. Proceedings of XIth International Otter Colloquium: 70-75.

Sepúlveda, M., Bartheld, J., Meynard, C., Benavides, M., Astorga, C., Parra, D. and Medina‐ Vogel, G. 2009. Landscape features and crustacean prey as predictors of the Southern river otter distribution in Chile. Animal Conservation 12: 522-530.

Sepúlveda, M., Bartheld, J.L., Monsalve, R., Gómez, V. and Medina-Vogel, G. 2007. Habitat use and spatial behaviour of the endangered Southern river otter (Lontra provocax) in riparian habitats of Chile: conservation implications. Biological Conservation 140(3): 329-338.

Sepúlveda, M.A., Singer, R.S., Silva-Rodríguez, E., Eguren, A., Stowhas, P. and Pelican, K. 2014. Invasive American mink: linking pathogen risk between domestic and endangered carnivores. EcoHealth 11: 409-419.

Sielfeld, W.K. and Castilla, J.C. 1999. Estado de conservación y conocimiento de las nutrias en Chile. Estudios Oceanológicos 18: 69-79.

Valenzuela, A.E., Raya Rey, A., Fasola, L. and Schiavini, A. 2013. Understanding the inter- specific dynamics of two co-existing predators in the Tierra del Fuego Archipelago: the native southern river otter and the exotic American mink. Biological Invasions 15: 645-656.

Valenzuela, A.E.J., Gallo, E., Pozzi, C., Fasola, L. and Chehébar, C. 2012. Lontra provocax. In: R. Ojeda, V. Chillo, V and G.B.Díaz Isenrath (eds), Libro Rojo de Mamíferos Amenazados de la Argentina, pp. 105-107. Ediciones SAREM, Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Van Zyll de Jong, C.G. 1987. A phylogenetic study of the Lutrinae (Carnivora; Mustelidae) using morphological data. Canadian Journal of Zoology 65: 2536-2544.

129

Vanak, A.T. and Gompper, M.E. 2009. Dogs Canis familiaris as carnivores: their role and function in intraguild competition. Mammal Review 39: 265-283.

Vianna, J., Medina-Vogel, G., Chehébar, C., Sielfeld, W., Olavarría, C. and Faugeron, S. 2011. Phylogeography of the Patagonian otter Lontra provocax: adaptive divergence to marine habitat or signature of southern glacial refugia? BMC Evolutionary Biology 11: 53.

130

131

LC - Least Concern, (IUCN version 3.1)

Assessment Rationale:

The total number of South American Fur Seals in the Patagonian Sea is estimated at about 305,000 individuals, and the population size of this subspecies is likely increasing. The species does not meet any IUCN criteria for a threatened listing and should be listed as Least Concern.

South American Fur Seal has two recognized subspecies, the South American and Peruvian subspecies. Given the much less abundant Peruvian subspecies, with about 21,000 individuals in total, the IUCN Pinniped Specialist Group has listed it as Vulnerable in its global evaluation.

Assessor(s): Crespo, E. & Sepúlveda, M. Reviewer(s): Shope, M. Contributor(s): Oliva, D., Cárdenas-Alayza, S. & Oliveira, L. Facilitators/Compilers: Polidoro, B.

132

Taxonomic information

ANIMALIA - CHORDATA - MAMMALIA - CARNIVORA - OTARIIDAE - Arctocephalus australis (Zimmermann, 1783)

Common Names: South American Fur Seal (English), Oso Marino Austral (Spanish; Castilian), Otarie à fourrure Australe (French)

Note: In 2011 the genus of all Fur Seals other than Arctocephalus pusillus was changed from Arctocephalus to Arctophoca (Committee on Taxonomy 2011) based on evidence presented in Berta and Churchill (2012). However, in 2013, based on genetic evidence presented in Nyakatura and Bininda-Emonds (2012), this change was considered to be premature and these species were returned to the genus Arctocephalus pending further research (Committee on Taxonomy 2014).

In the past, two subspecies were recognized: Arctocephalus australis australis (Zimmerman, 1783) for the Falkland subpopulation and A. a. gracilis (Nehring, 1887) for the mainland subpopulation. Animals from the Falklands have been reported to be larger than animals from coastal South America (Rice 1998). However, the validity of these subspecies was disputed (Reijnders et al. 1993). In their review of pinniped taxonomy, Berta and Churchill (2012) concluded that the Fur Seals in Peru and northern Chile probably represent an unnamed subspecies. After examining all the morphological, genetic and distributional evidence, Oliveira and Brownell (2014) concluded that A. a. gracilis should be treated as a junior synonym of A. a. australis, and they supported the recognition of a Peru/northern Chile subspecies. This assessment combines the IUCN Red List assessments for the South American and Peruvian Fur Seal subspecies to assess the status of the South American Fur Seal as a species.

Geographic Range

South American Fur Seal has two recognized subspecies, the South American and Peruvian subspecies.

The South American subspecies is distributed along all Patagonian Sea, from western South Atlantic (southern Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina, and the Falkland Islands), to eastern South Pacific (southern Chile) coasts. On the Atlantic side, haulouts can be found along the coasts of Rio Grande do Sul in Brazil (approximately from 29º to 32º S) (Muelbert and Oliveira 2006, Oliveira 2013), although the northern limit for breeding colonies is at Islas del Castillo, Uruguay -breeding colonies continue to be found until Tierra del Fuego-Isla de los Estados at the extreme south, also including the Falkland Islands (Túnez et al. 2008, Crespo et al. 2015). Their distribution continues all around the southern tip of South America to the Pacific side, to Isla Guafo in southern Chile (43

The Peruvian subspecies is distributed along the coast of Peru and northern Chile (Guerra and Torres 1987, Oliveira et al. 2012, Torres 1985). Athough, the majority of the breeding population occurs in Peru from 15° to 17°S.

133

Population

Total population in the Patagonian Sea has been estimated at 305,000 individuals and increasing (Lewis and Campagna 2008). Available data on South American Fur Seal abundance were compiled and reviewed in the 2016 IUCN Red List assessments for the two recognized subspecies. Estimates of the number of mature individuals, and population trend, for each of those subspecies were:

 South American Fur Seal --99,000, trend increasing weakly;  Peruvian Fur Seal --10,500, trend unknown.

Since the much more abundant South American subspecies is known to be increasing it is likely that the species as a whole is also increasing.

Habitats and Ecology

South American Fur Seals are sexually dimorphic. Adult males are approximately 1.3 times longer and 3.3 times heavier than adult females. Adult males can reach 2 m and 90 200 kg; females do not exceed 1.5 m long and weigh on average 60 kg. Males of the Peruvian subspecies are smaller than the South American subspecies and females are slightly larger (Oliveira et al. 2005, 2008a). Newborns are 50-65 cm and 3-7.5 kg (Vaz-Ferreira 1982, Punta

134

San Juan Program unpublished data), with initial mass being significantly greater for male pups (Baladán Corbo 2012). Females reach their maximum reproductive value at 3-5 years old (Lima and Páez 1995, 1997). Their reproductive cycle has a duration of 11 months, with a 3-4 months embryonic diapause (Vaz Ferreira et al. 1982, Katz et al. 2013). Males are sexually mature between 5-6 years old, but the real access to females are after 7 years old. Longevity for both, males and females, has been estimated of 17 years (Schiavini, 1990) for individuals at Beagle Chanel (Argentina) and 20 years for individual at Uruguay (Lima y Páez, 1995).

Breeding takes place from late October through mid January (Majluf 1987a, Franco-Trecu 2005). Pupping peaks in mid November to mid December, and mating occurs 1-6 days after the female gives birth (Franco-Trecu 2005, Pavés and Schlatter 2008). Following birth, the mother suckles her pup and fasts on shore for almost 11 days (Franco-Trecu 2010). Then the female begins to make foraging trips punctuated by time attending the pup ashore, spending up to 4-5 days foraging at sea and 1-2 days feeding offspring at rookeries (Bastida and Rodriguez 2003). During the first three months of maternal care, duration of foraging trips by females is highly variable, which affects the survival of offspring since longer trips increase pup mortality (Franco-Trecu et al. 2010b).

Time spent on feeding trips and attending offspring likely varies with location, changes in marine productivity, age of offspring, or a combination of these two factors. Trip distances, trip durations and lengths of visits increase throughout the season. During the early lactation females perform short nocturnal foraging trips. Trip duration starts increasing during mid- lactation, but the majority of foraging effort still concentrates close to breeding sites. Later in the season, when pups are capable of withstanding longer fasts and metabolic demands of pregnancy and lactation are higher, females may stay at sea longer and forage in more distant prey patches (Thompson et al. 2003). In the Atlantic, the effects of El Niño-La Niña are less strong. Within the usual variability, the differences between years are relatively minor and the effects of the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) are relatively moderate. In the absence of drastic changes in the ecosystem, attendance patterns are not affected (Franco-Trecu 2010).

Colonies are generally found along rocky coasts, on ledges above the shoreline or in boulder strewn areas. Most areas utilized have some source of shade such as at the base of cliffs or under boulders, and easy access to the ocean or tidal pools (Stevens and Boness 2003). Around midday, Fur Seals make daily movements from high and dry levels of the rookeries to cool off in low and wet areas or in the sea (Cassini 2001, Vaz-Ferreira and Ponce de León 1984). During the reproductive season, these movements can often cause female aggression towards conspecifics, mostly at other females, in order to protect their new-born pups and

Males are polygynous and territorial, and fighting can result in serious wounds and scars (Cappozzo 1995). The number of breeding females associated with a territorial male varies between 3-6 in southern Chile (Pavés and Schlatter 2008) and 6-20 at Punta San Juan (Majluf 1987a). The highest number of territorial males at the colonies can be found in late December, decreasing in January (Franco-Trecu 2005, Franco-Trecu et al. 2014). Individual bulls can occupy territories for up to 60 days (Cappozzo 1995) until most of the females are mated, and then they leave their territories to start foraging at sea (Pavés and Schlatter 2008). Only a few adult males out of the total population achieve mating, and a large proportion is excluded to peripheral or male exclusive areas. In Uruguay, the breeding pattern is a "lek" system where females have extensive home ranges that overlap with the small territories of many males. Females move freely in the colony and males do not monopolize access to females (Franco- Trecu et al. 2014).

Most pup mortality take place at the beginning of the breeding season, during the peak of birthing (Franco-Trecu 2010). In general, the principal causes of death of South American Fur Seal pups are enteritis with microscopic lesions of bacteremia (associated with the presence of hookworms) (28%), starvation, trauma and drowning (63%) (Seguel et al. 2013). Locally, pup mortality is also caused by predation by adult male South American Sea Lions that can be significant at some colonies (Harcourt 1993). Maternal aggression was also recognized as an important source of mortality for Peruvian Fur Seals before the 1997-98 ENSO (Harcourt 135

1991,1992; Majluf 1992).

Based on satellite tracking data, South American Fur Seals apparently forage between 50 and 600 m with no clear water-depth preference, and mean duration of the female foraging trips during the breeding season is 126 hours (Thompson et al. 2003). Lactating females in Uruguay forage 41-185 km from the breeding sites (Vaz-Ferreira 1976, York et al. 1998). For the Peruvian Fur Seal, ENSO years have a negative impact on animals and during those years females must spend much more time attempting to forage, which affects offspring growth and survival (Majluf 1987a, Gentry and Kooyman 1986).

The location of foraging grounds almost certainly depends on the distribution of preferred prey (Laptikhovsky 2009). The foraging area of the South American Fur Seals southwest of the Falkland Islands coincides with the region of the highest abundance of the Lobster Krill (Munida spp.), the most important food resource of Fur Seals off the Falklands (Laptikhovsky 2009). Seasonal variations in intensity and position of both the Falkland Current and Argentine Drift could also be a reason for seasonal changes in female foraging grounds (Thompson et al. 2003).

The Southern Fur Seal diet varies according to prey availability. Although they are trophic generalists with the potential to prey upon many species, a few species dominate their diet. Pelagic and demersal fishes and cephalopods are the most common prey (Vásquez 1995; Zavalaga et al. 1998, Arias-Schreiber 2000, 2003; Oliveira et al. 2008b, Vallejos 2010, Franco- Trecu et al. 2012, 2013, 2014).

Generation Length: 11.7 years (Pacifici et al. 2013).

General Use and Trade Information

Human subsistence hunting of South American Fur Seals undoubtedly began with first contact and continues today. Commercial exploitation began after the discovery of South American Fur Seals by Europeans in the 18th century. As an example, in 1775 the ship "States" from Boston, loaded 13,500 skins from the Falkland Islands area (Bonner 1982). A managed harvest was conducted in Uruguay, and between 1965 and 1991 (when harvesting ceased) 234,000 Fur Seals were harvested. Harvest levels generally declined in the 20th century bringing about the cessation of hunting at many locations (Ximenez and Languth 2002). In Peru, commercial harvests are believed to have reduced Fur Seal numbers to the point that it was thought that few, if any, Fur Seals were left by the late 20th Century (Majluf and Trillmich 1981, Muck and Fuentes 1987). That led to the banning of all sealing in 1959, and population numbers increased following protection.

Threats

Development of large and small scale commercial fisheries have a negligible effect on South American Fur Seals in the Atlantic due to the minimal overlap between Fur Seal prey items and target commercial species (Crespo pers. comm. 2016). Mortality due to bycatch and interactions is known to occur occasionally in artisanal and other fisheries (Franco-Trecu et al. 2009, De Maria 2012, Sepúlveda pers. comm. 2016, Cárdenas-Alayza unpublished data). Incidental captures of Fur Seals in shark nets have been reported in Uruguay (Scialabba 1989, Franco-Trecu et al. 2009).

During the 1970s and part of the 1980s, South American Fur Seals (and other wildlife) were hunted illegally in southern Chile and Argentina to bait traps set for Southern King Crab. Bait 136 used between 1976 and 1980 was estimated as 200 400 tons per year (Cárdenas et al. 1987). Because this fishery is decreasing due to overexploitation, hunting pressure on the Fur Seal is being reduced. In Peru, Arias-Schreiber (1993) reported that it is common for some fishermen to kill and use pinnipeds as bait to catch saltwater Snails. However, the incidence of illegal Fur Seal catches and their impact on populations are not known.

The limited number of large, dense breeding aggregations could make this species particularly sensitive to the effects of oil spills and disease epidemics. Like other Fur Seals, South American Fur Seals are vulnerable to oil spills because of their dependence on their thick pelage for thermoregulation. In February 1997, 5,000 metric tons of crude oil were spilled from the vessel San Jorge onto on the coast of Isla de Lobos in southern Uruguay. Nearly 5,000 South American Fur Seal pups (2-3 months old) were heavily oiled and/or died (Mearns et al. 1999).

With the breeding population located at a limited number of rookeries, human activities could have populations consequences if disturbance occurs (Cárdenas-Alayza 2012).

Conservation

South American Fur Seals are protected and managed by laws in most of the countries where they occur. In Chile, the status of total protection was given to all Arctocephalus species in 1978 (Torres 1987, Reijnders et al. 1993), and in 1995 the protection was extended for 30 years (Decreto Supremo No. 225-Subsecretaría de Pesca; Sielfeld 1999). In Argentina, marine mammals are under the administration of the provinces. At the Falkland Islands, Fur Seals are protected by British law. In Brazil, all the pinniped species have been protected by law since 1986 (Portaria SUDEPE n0 N-11, de 21-02-1986) and also by the National Action Plans for Conservation of Brazilian Aquatic Mammals (IBAMA 2001, Rocha-Campos et al. 2011). In Uruguay, the South American Fur Seal was named as a focal object of conservation in the Marine Protected Area of Cabo Polonio by the National System of Protected Areas. South American Fur Seals have also been afforded protection by the establishment of numerous reserves and marine protected areas, including privately owned sites.

In Peru it is illegal to poach, export, or transport Fur Seals for commercial purposes (Decreto Supremo No. 013-99-AG). The catastrophic decline that followed the 1997-1998 ENSO led to South American Fur Seals being categorized as in danger of extinction in Peru (Decreto Supremo No. 034-2004-AG), and this decree was recently revised and Fur Seals remain in the same category (Decreto Supremo No. 004-2014-MINAGRI).

Bibliography

Arias-Schreiber, M. 1993. Interacciones entre lobos marinos (Fam.Otariidae) y la pesquería artesanal en el puerto de San Juan de Marcona, Perú. BSc. Thesis, Universidad Agraria La Molina, Lima.

Arias-Schreiber, M. 2000. Los lobos marinos y su relación con la abundancia de la anchoveta peruana durante 1979-2000. Boletín del Instituto del Mar del Perú 19: 133-138.

Arias-Schreiber, M. 2003. Prey spectrum and feeding behaviour of two sympatric pinnipeds (Arctocephalus australis and Otaria flavescens) in relation to the 1997/98 ENSO in southern Peru. MSc Thesis, University of Bremen.

137

Baladán, C.A. 2012. Dimorfismo sexual en el crecimiento y comportamiento de Arctocephalus australis durante los tres primeros meses de vida. Universidad de la República Uruguay.

Bastida, R. and Rodríguez, D. 2003. Mamíferos Marinos de Patagonia y Antártida. Vazquez Mazzini Editores, Buenos Aires.

Berta, A. and Churchill, M. 2012. Pinniped taxonomy: review of currently recognized species and subspecies, and evidence used for their description. Mammal Review 42: 207-234.

Bonner, W. N. 1982. Seals and man: A study of interactions. University of Washington Press.

Cappozzo, H.L. 1995. Comportamiento Reproductivo en dos Especies de Otáridos de América del Sur. Tesis de Doctorado, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Cassini, M.H. 2001. Aggression between females of the Southern Fur Seal (Arctocephalus australis) in Uruguay. Mammal Review 31(2): 169-172.

Committee on Taxonomy. 2011. List of marine mammal species and subspecies. Society for Marine Mammalogy. Available at: https://www.marinemammalscience.org/species- information/list-of-marine-mammal-species-subspecies/. (Accessed: 10 January 2012).

Committee on Taxonomy. 2014. List of marine mammal species and subspecies. Society for Marine Mammalogy. Available at: https://www.marinemammalscience.org/species- information/list-of-marine-mammal-species-subspecies/. (Accessed: 4 February 2014).

Crespo, E.A., Schiavini, A.C.M., García, N.A., Franco-Trecu, V., Goodall, R.N.P., Rodriguez, D., Morgante, J.S. and Oliveira, L.R. de. 2015. Status, population trend and genetic structure of South American fur seals, Arctocephalus australis, in southwestern Atlantic waters. Marine Mammal Science 31: 866-890.

Cárdenas, J.C., Oporto, Y., Stutzin, M. and Gibbons, J. 1987. Impact of the crab fishery (Lithodes antarctica) and snow crabs (Paralomis granulosa) on populations of cetaceans and pinnipeds of Magallanes, Chile. Proposiciones para una política de conservación y manejo. Anais da 2a. Reuniao de Trabalho de Especialistas em Mamíferos Aquáticos da América do Sul:32 36. Available from SOLAMAC at http://www.solamac.org/.

Cárdenas-Alayza, S. 2012. Prey abundance and population dynamics of South American fur seals (Arctocephalus australis) in Peru. MSc. dissertation, University of British Columbia, Vancouver.

De María, M., Golluchi, M., Szteren, D. 2012. Registros de Arctocephalus australis (Carnivora Mammalia) interaccionando con la pesca artesanal en Uruguay. Boletín de la Sociedad Zoológica del Uruguay (2a época) 21(1-2): 50-58.

Franco-Trecu V., Aurioles D., Lima M. and Arím M. 2012. Prepartum and postpartum trophic segregation between sympatrically breeding female Arctocephalus australis and Otaria flavescens. Journal of Mammalogy 93: 514-521.

Franco-Trecu V., Aurioles-Gamboa, D. and Inchausti, P. 2014. Individual trophic specialisation and niche segregation explain the contrasting population trends of two sympatric otariids. Marine Biology 161(3): 609-618.

138

Franco-Trecu, V. 2005. Comportamiento maternal y aspectos reproductivos de Arctocephalus australis en Isla de Lobos - Uruguay. Universidad de la República.

Franco-Trecu, V. 2010. Éxito de crianza y hábitos alimenticios en hembras del lobo fino sudamericano (Arctocephalus australis) y su relación trófica con hembras del león marino sudamericano (Otaria flavescens). Universidad de la República.

Franco-Trecu, V., Drago, M., Riet-Sapriza, F.G., Parnell, A., Frau, R. and Inchasuti, P. 2013. Bias in diet determination: Incorporating traditional methods in Bayesian mixing models. Plos ONE 8(11): e80019.

Franco-Trecu, V., Tassino, B. and Páez, E. 2010b. Comportamiento maternal de Arctocephalus australis, en Isla de Lobos-Uruguay. Revista de Etología 9(1): 29-40.

Gentry, R.L. and Kooyman, G.L. 1986. Fur seals: Maternal strategies on land and at sea. Princeton University Press, Princeton.

Guerra, C.C. and Torres, D.N. 1987. Presence of South American fur seal, Arctocephalus australis, in northern Chile. In: J.P. Croxall and R.L. Gentry (eds), Proceedings of the International Symposium and Workshop: Status, Biology and Ecology of Fur Seals, Cambridge, UK 23-27 April 1984, pp. 169-176.

Harcourt, R. 1991. Maternal aggression in the South American fur seal in Peru. Canadian Journal of Zoology 70: 320-325.

Harcourt, R. 1992. Factors affecting early mortality in the South American fur seal (Arctocephalus australis) in Peru: density-related effects and predation. Journal of Zoology, London 226: 259-270.

Harcourt, R. 1993. Individual variation in predation on fur seals by southern sea lions (Otaria byronia) in Peru. Canadian Journal of Zoology 71(9): 1908-1911.

IBAMA. 2001. Mamiferos aquaticos do Brasil: Plano de Acao versao II. Brasilia, Brazil.

Katz, H., Pessina, P. and Franco-Trecu, V. 2013. Serum progesterone concentration in female South American fur seals (Arctophoca australis) during the breeding season. Aquatic Mammals 39(3): 290-295.

Laptikhovsky, V. 2009. Oceanographic factors influencing the distribution of South American fur seal, Arctocephalus australis around the Falkland Islands before the breeding season. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 89(8): 1597.

Lewis, M., Campagna, C. 2008. Mamíferos Marinos. In: Foro para la Conservacion del Mar Patagónico (ed.), Estado de Conservación del Mar Patagónico, https://www.marpatagonico.org/libro/.

Lima, M. and Páez, E. 1995. Growth and reproductive patterns in the South American fur seal. Journal of Mammalogy 76(4): 1249-1255.

Lima, M. and Páez, E. 1997. Demography and population dynamics of South American fur seals using projection matrix models. Journal of Mammalogy 78(3): 914-920.

Majluf, P. 1987a. Reproductive ecology of female South American fur seals at Punta San Juan, Peru. PhD Thesis, University of Cambridge, Cambridge.

139

Majluf, P. 1987b. South American fur seal, Arctocephalus australis, in Peru. NOAA Technical Report NMFS 51: 33-35.

Majluf, P. 1992. Timing of births and juvenile mortality in the South American fur seal in Peru. Journal of Zoology 227: 367-383.

Majluf, P. and Trillmich, F. 1981. Distribution and abundance of sea lions (Otaria byronia) and fur seals (Arctocephalus australis) in Peru. Saugtierk 46: 384-393.

Mearns, A., Levine, E., Yender, E., Helton, D. and Loughlin, T. 1999. Protecting Fur Seals During Spill Response: Lessons from the San Jorge (Uruguay) Oil Spill. International Oil Spill Conference.

Muck, P. and Fuentes, H. 1987. Sea lion and fur seal predation on the Peruvian anchoveta, 1953-1982. In: D. Pauly and I. Tsukayama (eds), The Peruvian Anchoveta and its Upwelling Ecosystem: Three Decades of Change, IMARPE-GTZ-ICLARM, Lima.

Muelbert, M.M.C. and Oliveira, L.R. de. 2006. First records of stranded pregnant female South American fur seals, Arctocephalus australis, in the southern Brazilian coast. Latin American Journal of Aquatic Mammals 5(1): 67-68.

Nyakatura, K. and Bininda-Emonds, O.R.P. 2012. Updating the evolutionary history of Carnivora (Mammalia): a new species-level supertree complete with divergence time estimates. BMC Biology 10: 12.

Oliveira, L.R. 2004. Variação geográfica do lobo-marinho sulamericano, Arctocephalus australis (Zimmermann, 1783) com base em dados morfológicos e moleculares. PhD thesis, Universidade de São Paulo.

Oliveira, L.R. 2013. Canívoros Marinhos. In: M.M. Weber, C. Roman, N.C. Cáceres (ed.), Mamíferos do Rio Grande do Sul, pp. 405-427.

Oliveira, L.R. and Brownell Jr., R.L. 2014. Taxonomic status of two subspecies of South American fur seals: Arctocephalus australis australis vs. A. a. gracilis. Marine Mammal Science 30: 1258-1263.

Oliveira, L.R., Hingst-Zaher, E. and Morgante J.S. 2005. Size and shape sexual dimorphism in the skull of the South American fur seal, Arctocephalus australis (Zimmermann, 1783) (Carnivora: Otariidae). Latin American Journal of Aquatic Mammals 4: 27-40.

Oliveira, L.R., Hoffman, J.I., Hingst-Zaher, E., Majluf, P., Muelbert, M.M.C., Morgante J.S. and Amos, W. 2008a. Morphological and genetic evidence for two evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) in the South American fur seal, Arctocephalus australis. Conservation Genetics 91451- 1466.

Oliveira, L.R., Lopes, F.R.V., Almeida, R., Cárdenas, S., Márquez, J.C., García, D., Bonatto, S.L. 2012. Status Taxonomico dos lobos-marinhos de Isla Foca (Peru): Arctocephalus australis, A. galapagoensis (CARNIVORA: OTARIIDAE) ou híbridos? 15va Reunión de Trabajo de Expertos en Mamíferos Acuáticos de América del Sur. 9no. Congreso SOLAMAC. 16-20 Setiembre, Puerto Madryn, Argentina.

140

Oliveira, L.R., Ott, P.H., Malbarba, L.R. 2008b. Ecologia alimentar dos pinípedes do sul do Brasil e uma avaliação de suas interações com atividades pesqueiras. In: N. Furtado (ed.), Ecologia de Mamíferos, pp. 97-116.

Pacifici, M., Santini, L., Di Marco, M., Baisero, D., Francucci, L., Grottolo Marasini, G., Visconti, P. and Rondinini, C. 2013. Generation length for mammals. Nature Conservation 5: 87 94.

Pauly, D. and Palomares, M. 1989. New estimates of monthly biomass recruitment and related statistics of anchoveta (Engraulis ringens) off Peru (4-14S), 1953-1985. In: D. Pauly, P. Muck, J. Mendo and I. Tsukayama (eds), The Peruvian Upwelling Ecosystem: Dynamics and Interactions, IMARPE-GTZ-ICLARM.

Pauly, D. and Tsukayama, I. 1987. The Peruvian Anchoveta and its Upwelling Ecosystem: Three Decades of Change. 1987. The Peruvian Anchoveta and its Upwelling Ecosystem: Three Decades of Change. IMARPE-GTZ-ICLARM.

Pavés, H.J. and Schlatter, R.P. 2008. Temporada reproductiva del lobo fino austral, Arctocephalus australis (Zimmerman, 1783) en la Isla Guafo, Chiloé, Chile. Revista Chilena de Historia Natural, pp. 137-149.

Reijnders, P., Brasseur, S., van der Toorn, J., van der Wolf, P., Boyd, I., Harwood, J., Lavigne, D. and Lowry, L. 1993. Seals, fur seals, sea lions, and walrus. Status survey and conservation action plan. IUCN Seal Specialist Group.

Rice, D.W. 1998. Marine Mammals of the World: Systematics and Distribution. Society for Marine Mammalogy, Special Publication Number 4, Lawrence, Kansas.

Rocha-Campos, C., Moreno, I.B., Rocha, J.M., Palazzo, J.T. Jr., Karina R.G., Oliveira, L.R., Gonçalves, L., Dalla Rosa, L., Emgel, M., Marcondes, M.C.C., Muelbert, M.M., Ott, P.H., Silva, V.M.F. 2011. Plano de ação nacional para conservação dos mamíferos aquáticos - grandes cetáceos e pinípedes.. 1. ed. Brasília: INSTITUTO CHICO MENDES DE CONSERVAÇÃO DA BIODIVERSIDADE, v. 1. .

Schiavini, A.C.M. In prep. Estudio de la Relación Entre el Hombre y los Pinnípedos en el Proceso Adaptativo Humano del Canal Beagle (Tierra del Fuego, Argentina) (Unpublished Ph. D. thesis). Universidad de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires.

Scialabba, N. 1989. World review of marine mammal entanglement in fishing gear and plastic marine debris. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome.

Seguel, M., Pavés, H., Paredes, E. and Schlatter, R. 2013. Causes of mortality in South American fur seal pups (Arctophoca australis gracilis) at Guafo Island, southern Chile (2004- 2008). Marine Mammal Science 29: 36-47.

Sielfeld, W. 1999. Estado del conocimiento sobre conservación y preservación de Otaria flavescens (Shaw, 1800) y Arctocephalus australis (Zimmermann, 1783) en las costas de Chile. Estudios Oceanológicos 18: 81-96.

Stevens, M. and Boness, D. 2003. Influences of habitat features and human disturbance on use of breeding sites by a declining population of southern fur seals (Arctocephalus australis). Journal of Zoology 260: 145-152.

Thompson, D., Moss, S.E.W. and Lovell, P. 2003. Foraging behaviour of South American fur seals Arctocephalus australis: extracting fine scale foraging behaviour from satellite tracks. Marine Ecology Progress Series 260: 285-296.

141

Torres, D.N. 1987. Juan Fernández fur seal, Arctocephalus philippii. In: J.P. Croxall and R.L. Gentry (eds), Status, biology, and ecology of fur seals, pp. 37-41. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administation Technical Report, National Marine Fisheries Service No. 51.

Túnez, J.I., Cappozzo, H.L. and Cassini, M.H. 2008. Natural and anthropogenic factors associated with the distribution of South American sea lions along the Atlantic coast of South America. Hydrobiologia 589(1): 191-202.

Vallejos, A. 2010. Dieta del lobo fino austral, Arctocephalus australis (Zimmermann, 1783), en Isla Guafo. Seminario de Título, Departamento de Acuicultura y Recursos Acuáticos, Universidad de los Lagos, Chile.

Vaz-Ferreira, R. 1976. Arctocephalus australis (Zimmermann) South American fur seal. Advisory Committee on Marine Resources Research:1 13.

Vaz-Ferreira, R. 1982. Arctocephalus australis Zimmermann, South American fur seal. Mammals in the Seas, Vol. IV: Small cetaceans, seals, sirenians and otters, pp. 497-508. FAO Fisheries Ser. 5.

Vaz-Ferreira, R. and Ponce de Leon, A. 1984. South American fur seal, Arctocephalus australis, in Uruguay. In: J. P. Croxall and R. L. Gentry (eds), Status, biology, and ecology of fur seals. Proceedings of an international workshop. Cambridge, England. April 1984, pp. 29-32. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Technical Report National Marine Fisheries Service 51, Cambridge, UK.

Vásquez, P. 1995. Determinación de los hábitos alimentarios de Arctocephalus australis y Otaria byronia en Punta San Juan de Marcona, Ica, Perú. MSc. thesis, Universidad Nacional Agraria La Molina, Lima.

Ximenez, I.M., and Langguth, E. 2002. Isla de Lobos. Graphis ??

York, A., Lima, M., Ponce de León, A., Malek, A., and Páez, E. 1998. First description of diving behavior of female South American fur seals in Uruguay. World Marine Mammal Science Conference, Monaco.

Zavalaga, C., Paredes, R. and Arias-Schreiber, M. 1998. Dieta del lobo fino (Arctocephalus australis) y del lobo chusco (Otaria byronia) en la costa sur del Perú, en febrero de 1998. Informe Progresivo del Instituto del Mar del Perú 79: 3-16.

142

143

LC - Least Concern, (IUCN version 3.1)

Assessment Rationale:

South American Sea Lion numbers are high in most of their range and trends are positive for some of the most important local populations. Total population in the Patagonian Sea is estimated at approximately 136,000 - 150,000 individuals. Uruguayan populations are in decline for reasons that are not well known. The South American Sea Lion does not meet any IUCN criteria for a threatened listing and is classified as Least Concern.

Assessor(s): Cárdenas-Alayza, S., Crespo, E. & Oliveira, L. Reviewer(s): Shope, M., Falabella, V. Contributor(s): Oliva, D., Sepúlveda, M., Franco-Trecu, V. & Túnez, J. Facilitators/Compilers: Polidoro, B.

144

Taxonomic information

ANIMALIA - CHORDATA - MAMMALIA - CARNIVORA - OTARIIDAE - Otaria flavescens (Shaw, 1800)

Common Names: South American Sea Lion (English), Southern Sea Lion (English)

Note: The South American Sea Lion has been referred to by the scientific names Otaria byronia (following de Blainville 1820) and O. flavescens (following Shaw 1800). Rice (1998) concluded that O. flavescens has priority. More recently, Berta and Churchill (2012) noted that the specific name for this taxa is controversial, but concluded that O. byronia O. byronia is the name approved by the Society for Marine Mammalogy (Committee on Taxonomy 2014). However, O. flavescens is still in use, particularly by South American scientists.

Szapkievich et al. (1999) conducted the first genetic study on the species, analyzing 10 protein loci in 70 South American Sea Lion pups from two rookeries 1,300 km apart (Isla de Lobos, Uruguay and Peninsula Valdés, Argentina). They found only a small genetic distance between the rookeries, suggesting that they belong to the same population in which gene flow is currently occurring. Túnez et al. (2007) studied the population structure of South American Sea Lions by analyzing mtDNA from a few colonies along the Atlantic coast, and comparing their results with five sequences previously published from Peruvian populations (Wynen et al. 2001). They found no haplotypes shared between the Atlantic and Peruvian colonies. The South Atlantic population from Uruguay to southern Patagonia was studied by means of mtDNA (Túnez et al. 2007, 2010; Feijoó et al. 2011) and microsatellites (Feijoó et al. 2011). While mitochondrial markers showed geographically structured sub-populations, the nuclear loci showed a lack of geographical structure. These opposite patterns in genetic structure can be explained by female phylopatry and high male dispersion (Feijoo et al. 2011). On the Chilean coast, Weinberger (2013) using eight microsatellite loci showed the existence of two genetic clusters separated at approximately 41° S, supporting the existence of two subpopulations or management units.

Gehara (2009) and Túnez et al. (2007) concluded there is significant genetic differentiation between South American Sea Lions in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, suggesting complete and prolonged isolation and distinct evolutionarily significant units (ESUs). This was based on 10 microsatellite loci and mtDNA sequences from 4 areas (Uruguay, Argentina, Chile, and Peru). However, the rookeries of southern South America need to be sampled and analyzed in order to establish the limit of gene flow between the two ocean basins (Oliveira pers. comm.).

Geographic Range

Global distribution for the species ocurr more or less continuously from northern Peru south to Cape Horn, and north up the east coast of the continent to southern Brazil (Vaz-Ferreira 1982, Crespo 1988, Crespo et al. 2012). Vagrants have been found as far north as 13°S, near Bahia, Brazil and in Ecuadorian and Colombian waters (Félix et al. 1994, Capella et al. 2002). On the Atlantic side they can be found from Tierra del Fuego to the coastal island Ilha dos Lobos in ut individuals have been seen as far north as Río de Janeiro (Vaz-Ferreira 1982, Pinedo 1990, Rosas et al. 1993). In the Patagonian Sea, South American Sea Lions can be found from southern Chile in the Pacific to southern Brazil in the Atlantic. They also occur in Malvinas/Falkland Islands (Vaz- Ferreira 1982, Crespo 1988, Crespo et al. 2012). No breeding colonies occur in Brazil, so individuals there come from the breeding colonies in Uruguay (Rosas et al. 1994, Pinedo 1990, Oliveira 2013). The northernmost breeding rookery in the Atlantic is on the Uruguayan coast at Isla Verde and Isla La Coronilla (Vaz-Ferreira 1975). In the Atlantic coast, breeding colonies

145 aggregate in three areas, the Uruguayan coast, north-central Patagonia, and southern Tierra del Fuego, showing a patchy distribution of breeding activity that has not varied in the last 60 years (Túnez et al. 2008). Breeding activity is absent, or nearly absent, in two large segments of coast, the coast of Buenos Aires Province and southern Patagonia (Túnez et al. 2008). The lack of breeding colonies in Buenos Aires Province appears to be related to the large scale pattern of human settlement occurred at the end of the 19th century. In contrast, the low number of breeding colonies in southern Patagonia is probably due to the effect of extreme variations in tidal range that produce great fluctuations in the coastline location making it difficult for the Sea Lions to access the water (primarily an issue during the breeding season). In north-central Patagonia, the segment of coast with the highest number of Sea Lions is in Argentina. The distribution of colonies there is associated with availability of islands and is negatively correlated with places where anthropogenic disturbance is high. At the local scale, breeding colonies are positively associated with slightly sloping coasts and negatively associated with rocky beaches (Túnez et al. 2008). South American Sea Lions are primarily a neritic species, found in waters over the continental shelf and slope. Males can travel more than 320 km offshore (Campagna et al. 2001, Crespo et al. 2007, Hückstädt et al. 2014) as well as along the coast (Giardino et al. (2014), suggesting that they have a main role in the gene flow among colonies. This species ventures into fresh water and can be found around tidewater glaciers and in rivers (Schlatter 1976).

146

Population

The South American Sea Lion is the most abundant marine mammal occurring along the southern part of South America (Cappozzo 2002). There are at least 105,000 individuals in Peru (IMARPE 2013), 197,000 animals in Chile (Venegas et al. 2001, Bartheld et al. 2008, Sepúlveda et al. 2011, Oliva et al. 2012, Contreras et al. 2014), 123,000 in the Argentine coast, 7,500 in Malvinas/Falklands, 13,000 in Uruguay and approximately 200 on the Brazilian coast. The total global population is approximated of 500,000 individuals.

Total population in the Patagonian Sea is estimated at 136,000 - 150,000 individuals. The population of the coast of Uruguay consists of two main reproductive colonies, Isla Lobos -13,000 individuals (1,200-2,675 pups born per year; Páez 2006, Pedraza et al. 2012, Franco-Trecu 2015). On the northern coast of Argentina, there are only four haulouts (about 2,500 individuals), while the Patagonian region has both reproductive and non-reproductive colonies (about 120,700 individuals). An additional 7,500 animals are found in the Falkland Islands (Crespo et al. 2012). Baylis et al. (2015) reported a minimum estimate of 4,443 pups born at the Falklands in 2014. Southern chilean population is approximately 2,600-13,600 individuals (Lewis and Campagna 2008). There are no more than 200 individuals on the Brazilian coast (Sanfelice et al. 1999, Pavanato et al. 2013).

The majority of subpopulations in the southwestern Atlantic Ocean are increasing, although the trends are not homogeneous. However, in contrast to what is observed on the Peruvian Pacific coast, the population sizes do not show large inter-annual fluctuations (Crespo et al. 2012). South American Sea Lion numbers are increasing in northern Patagonia, in the Rio Negro -6% per year (Dans et al. 2003a, province, they are also increasing at 6% annually (Reyes et al. 1999, Reyes 2004). On the other hand, abundance has been decreasing in Uruguay. Negative trends for all sex and age classes of the breeding population were reported by Páez (2006) as -1.4% per year for adult males, -2.1% for adult females, and -4.5% for pups. Results from population modeling by Paez (2006) showed a 2% per year decline for total population size and a 3% decline in birth rates. This coincides with recent findings from Franco-Trecu (2015) that estimated a -2% (CI -1.1% to -2.5%) decline in pup production using pup count data from 1956-2013. Although the reasons for the population decline in Uruguay are still unknown, it is suspected that it could be related to interactions with fishing activities (Crespo et al. 2012, Riet-Sapriza et al. 2013) and with the long-term effect of harvest (Franco-Trecu 2015). The cumulative effects of population extractions, including pup harvesting (~50,000) and zoo and aquaria sales (144 young males and 285 young females), not only reduced the local population size, but also could have disrupted its social structure to the point where Allee effects could be limiting the post- harvesting population recovery at Isla de Lobos (Franco-Trecu et al. 2015). In southern trend is unknown because data are insufficient to estimate a rate of change (Schiavini et al. 2004); however, the current numbers are clearly less than the estimates reported in the late 1940s. Sealing activities, performed mainly at northern Patagonia and at Tierra del Fuego, are likely responsible for the depletion (Schiavini et al. 2004). At the Falkland Islands there was a 95% decline in the population from >380,000 animals to <30,000 (from 80,555 pups in the mid 1930s to 5,506 pups in 1965; Hamilton 1939, Strange 1979). The number of pups estimated in 2014 for the Falkland Islands was 6% of the number estimated in 1930s (Baylis et al. 2015). Different hypotheses have been proposed to explain the decline, include commercial sealing and environmental change (Strange 1979, Thompson et al. 2002, Baylis et al. 2015). However, the trend has been positive since 1990; with an 8.5% annual increase from 1990 to 1995, and a 3.8% annual increase between 1995 and 2003 (Crespo et al. 2012). South American Sea Lion population trends along the Chilean coast are not homogenous. In northern Chile the

137,000 to 197,000 in 7 years, Barthled et al. 2008, Oliva et al. 2012) whereas the trend is unknown for central and southern Chile (Sepúlveda et al. 2011).

147

Due to the 1997-98 El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO), the Peruvian population of South American Sea Lions declined from about 144,087 animals in December 1997 to 27,991 in December 1998, a reduction of 81% (Arias-Schreiber and Rivas 1998, Arias-Schreiber 1998). This was probably due to a combined effect of mortality and dispersal from historically surveyed breeding and haul out sites. After this dramatic reduction, there was a recovery of 76.3%, with an estimated 118,220 individuals by 2006 (IMARPE 2006). The recovery of the population of Sea Lions on the coast of Peru is due to improved reproductive levels as a consequence of an increase in food availability as well as migration from the colonies in northern Chile (Oliveira et al. 2012). However, the stronger and more frequent ENSOs that appear to be occurring along the Peruvian coast may put the population in Peru at greater risk (Soto et al. 2004).

Habitats and Ecology

South American Sea Lions are stocky, heavy-bodied otariids that are strongly sexually dimorphic (Cappozzo 2002). Adult males reach 2.1-2.6 m in length and weight around 300-350 kg; females reach 1.5-2 m and 170 kg (Grandi et al. 2012a, Rosas et al. 1993, Cappozzo and Perrin 2009, Riet-Sapriza et al. 2013). At birth, pups weigh 11-15 kg and are 75-85 cm long. Pups born black above and paler below, often with grayish-orange tones on the undersides. They undergo their first molt 1-2 months after birth, becoming dark brown. This color fades during the rest of the first year to a pale tan to light brown, with paler areas on the face (Vaz- Ferreira 1975).

Sexual maturity is attained at 4-5 years for females and 4-7 years for males, but males cannot hold and defend a territory and maintain a harem until they reach 9-11 years old (Grandi et al. 2012a, Vaz-Ferreira 1982). Gestation lasts about one year. Longevity is considered to be about 20 years. Mortality rates for adults are unknown (Reijnders et al. 1993). Pup mortality estimated for some Peruvian colonies ranged from 13% before ENSO events to 100% during ENSO, and was negatively correlated with prey availability (Soto et al. 2004).

Breeding takes place during the austral summer, starting in mid-December. The start of the breeding season varies somewhat by location and latitude, with longer seasons occurring at low latitudes and shorter seasons occurring further south at high latitudes (Campagna 1985, Soto 1999). At most breeding sites, both sexes arrive in mid-December, with peak numbers of males and females ashore during the second half of January. Females give birth to a single pup, 2-3 days after their arrival at the rookeries, and remain onshore to nurse for approximately 7 days. Pups are born from mid-December to early February, with a peak in mid-January, coinciding with the timing of peak numbers of females ashore. Estrous occurs 6 days after parturition, and females make their first foraging trip 2-3 days after estrous. From this point on, a cycle of foraging and pup attendance starts and lasts until pups are weaned at 8-10 months old (Ponce de León and Pin 2006, Vaz-Ferreira 1982). As is the case for many Sea Lions, it is not unusual for females to continue to care for a yearling while they are nursing a new pup, as lactation can be extended up to three years although that is rarely observed (Campagna and Le Boeuf 1988a, Soto 1999). In Chile, pups gather in large pods on the rookeries while waiting for their mothers to return from 1-4 day long foraging trips. Females usually stay ashore for 1-2 days between trips (Muñoz et al. 2011). In Uruguay, trips have an average duration of 1.5±0.9 days and visits ashore are 1.1±0.8 days (Riet-Sapriza et al. 2013).

South American Sea Lions are a highly polygynous species. Social groups are composed by a dominant male and 4-10 adult females, although some solitary couples are found. This variation in female numbers depends on the various strategies employed by males and females during the breeding season that are related to colony substrate, thermoregulatory requirements imposed by weather conditions at the site, or avoidance of male harassment (Vaz-Ferreira 1982; Campagna and Le Boeuf 1988b; Cassini 1999, 2000; Cappozzo et al. 2008; Franco-Trecu et al. 2015). Adult males tend to establish territories through vocalizing,

148 posturing, and fighting when rookeries provide shade, have tidal pools that can be used for cooling, or funnel interior areas through narrow beaches between rocks or ledges to the sea. At more homogeneous locations with long shorelines, the male strategy focuses on identifying, defending, and controlling individual females in estrous, wherever they are found. Bulls actively and aggressively work to keep estrous females close to them by grabbing, dragging, and throwing them back inland, away from the shoreline (Campagna and Le Boeuf 1988b). In Uruguay, researchers combining behavioural and molecular data found that the reproductive behaviour actually involves the coexistence of two types of polygyny each occurring in different parts of the same rookery (Isvaran 2005, Taborsky et al. 2008). On one hand, males at the tide line monopolize relatively stable groups of females (female-defense polygyny) within floating territories (i.e., a territory that changes position over time) whose locations change with the tidal variation at the study site (Wilson 1975, Alcock et al. 1978, Barrows 1983). On the other, males at the internal pools defend fixed territories (defined as territory having a stable location during the tenure by its holder (Dewsbury 1978) and established a resource-defense polygyny (Emlen and Oring 1977).

At sea, South American Sea Lions frequently raft alone or in small to large groups. They have been reported in association with feeding cetaceans and seabirds (Duffy 1983). On the Atlantic coast most lactating females have been described as benthic divers and forage in shallow water within the continental shelf. Mean depth of dives at Isla Lobos, Uruguay, were 15-25 m and they lasted 1.0-2.5 minutes (Riet-Sapriza et al. 2013), and females from northern Patagonian rookeries made dives in the range of 2-30 m lasting < 4 minutes (Campagna et al. 2001). However, high levels of variability in foraging patterns have been found, as some lactating females from northern Patagonia and the Falkland Islands also behave as pelagic predators (Werner and Campagna 1995, Thompson et al. 1998, Campagna et al. 2001). The deepest dives recorded for female South American Sea Lions (>60 m) off Patagonia, Argentina, are similar to the depth of the shelf in that area (Campagna et al. 2001). Other deep dives of 100 m have been recently recorded in individuals off the coast of Argentina by Drago, Crespo and Franco-Trecu (unpublished data).

Adult male South American Sea Lions have been observed to reach distances of more than 300 km from the coast, both in Argentinean and Chilean waters (Campagna et al. 2001, Hückstädt and Krautz 2004). Juvenile Sea Lions in central Chile rarely ventured into offshore waters, reaching a mean distance from the coastline of 20 km, with a maximum of only 80 km. They show a clear pattern of epipelagic foraging, with dives usually shallower than 20 m, but sometimes reaching depths of 240 m (Hückstädt et al. 2014). In southern Chile a mesopelagic foraging behavior has been described, with mean dive depths of 100-120 m lasting 2.0-2.5 minutes, with a maximum depth of 320 m and duration of 5 minutes (Hückstädt et al. 2014). Hückstädt and Krautz (2004) observed Southern Sea Lions in the Pacific Ocean in association with a fleet fishing for Jack Mackerel (Trachurus symmetricus) outside the continental shelf, suggesting different behavior than that observed in the Atlantic Ocean, where the diving pattern is likely related to the depth of the continental shelf (Werner and Campagna 1995, Thompson et al. 1998, Campagna et al. 2001, Riet-Sapriza et al. 2013).

South American Sea Lions are considered non-migratory, although many individuals make seasonal movements away from rookeries during the non-breeding season (Rosas et al. 1994), and some southerly locations such as the Falkland Islands are largely abandoned during the winter. Although there are no breeding colonies in Brazil, many Sea Lions are found there throughout the year, grouped in specific places to rest (Refúgio de Vida Silvestre da Ilha dos Lobos, Torres make seasonal movements away from their reproductive colonies in search of feeding grounds, it has been suggested that individuals in Brazil come from the breeding colonies off Uruguay after their breeding period (Rosas et al. 1994, Pinedo 1990). Among the continental and island colonies of the Argentine coast there is evidence of seasonal movements (Lewis and Ximénez 1983; Giardino et al. 2008, 2009). Animals that reproduce at Península Valdés (northern Argentine Patagonia) move to Uruguay and vice versa (Szapkievich et al. 1999).

149

As generalist feeders, South American Sea Lions take a wide variety of prey that varies by location. Their diet includes many species of benthic and pelagic fishes and invertebrates, some of them of commercial value. Forty-one prey species (including fishes, cephalopods, crustaceans, gastropods, polychetes, sponges, and tunicates) were identified in stomach contents of individuals found dead on beaches and from animals recovered in incidental catch of the fisheries of the Patagonian continental shelf (Koen Alonso et al. 2000). The most important items were Argentine Hake (Merluccius hubbsi), Red Octopus (Enteroctopus megalocyathus), Argentine Shortfin Squid (Illex argentinus), Raneya (Raneya brasiliensis), Patagonian Squid (Loligo gahi) and Argentine Anchovy (Engraulis anchoita). Differences in diet were found between sexes. Females fed mostly on coastal and benthic species, like Red Octopus and Argentine Shortfin, whereas males fed mostly on demersal-pelagic species, such as Argentine Hake and Patagonian Squid (Crespo et al. 1997, Koen Alonso et al. 2000). As expected from differences in body mass, Sea Lion males from northern Patagonia had been reported to exploit benthic and deeper foraging grounds than females (Campagna et al. 2001, Drago et al. 2009), although differences in foraging habits between the sexes are not constant over time (Drago et al. 2009). In Uruguay, carbon and nitrogen stable isotope values of skin and bone were used to infer the trophic relationships between the sexes during the pre- breeding period and year round. The study revealed that male and female Sea Lions used a variety of foraging strategies throughout the year and that no differences existed between the sexes. However, the diversity of foraging strategies was strongly reduced in both sexes during the pre-breeding period, when all individuals increased their consumption of pelagic prey over benthic prey, and isotopic niche space of males and females did not overlap at all (Drago et al. 2015). These results indicate that sexual foraging segregation only takes place during the pre- breeding season, when crowding in the areas surrounding the breeding rookeries increases and per-capita resource availability declines. At Isla de Lobos, Uruguay, the most abundant prey species during summer are cephalopods (Family Omastrephidae) and Striped Weakfish (Cynoscion guatucupa). However, the principal contribution by biomass is accounted by Whitemouth Croaker (Micropogonias furnieri), Large Head Hairtail (Trichiurus lepturus), Brazilian Codling (Urophysis brasiliensis), and Argentine Croaker (Umbrina canosai) (Riet- Sapriza et al. 2013).

In Chile, temporal and spatial diet plasticity was found by Muñoz et al. (2011). In southern Chile the main species were the Chilean Jack Mackerel (Trachurus murphyi) and Snoek. Farmed-raised salmonids are also important in the diet, suggesting that South American Sea Lions are capable of modifying their dietary habits in response to variation in abundance and/or accessibility of prey (Muñoz et al. 2011, Sepúlveda et al. 2015).

A small percentage of sub-adult and adult male South American Sea Lions regularly attack and kill South American Fur Seal (Arctocephalus australis) pups in Peru (Harcourt 1993), Argentina (Campagna et al. 1988b), and in Uruguay (Franco-Trecu, pers. comm). These attacks also indirectly increase mortality by creating disturbances on the beaches. Although rare, Sea Lions will also kill adult female Fur Seals, and if the female has a pup it will then die of starvation (Harcourt 1992). Sea Lions have been observed killing young Southern Elephant Seals (Mirounga leonina) at the Falkland Islands. They are also known to take several species of Penguins, but the importance of Penguins in the diet is unknown (Boswall 1972, Strange 1982, Raya Rey et al. 2012). Sea Lions have also been recorded preying on Sea Turtles in Peru and northern Chile (Hückstädt pers. comm., Cárdenas-Alayza unpublished data).

Predators of South American Sea Lions include killer whales (Orcinus orca) (Grandi et al. 2012b), sharks (Crespi Abril et al. 2004), and possibly leopard seals (Hydrurga leptonyx) and Puma (Puma concolor). Puma tracks have been observed on a rookery in Patagonia and remains of sea lions have been found in a cave used by a Puma in the area. At the well known rookery of Punta Norte, Península Valdés, killer whales are known to surf in on waves partially beaching themselves while grabbing predominantly young Sea Lions off the shoreline.

Generation Length:10.6 years (Pacifici et al. 2013)

150

General Use and Trade Information

South American Sea Lions were hunted by native people of South America for thousands of years and have been taken by Europeans as early as the 16th century for food, oil, and hides (Rodriguez and Bastida 1998, Saporiti et al. 2014, Zenteno et al. 2015). Significant commercial harvests occurred in several countries and Sea Lion numbers were drastically reduced over the last several hundred years (Majluf and Trillmich 1981, Drago et al. 2009, Grandi et al. 2015). Commercial harvesting is currently not allowed, however, illegal kills are still being conducted (Cárdenas-Alayza unpublished data).

Threats

During the second half of the 19th century humans rapidly colonized coastal zones and, by the turn of the century, South American Sea Lion rookeries had disappeared from parts of their range. Dramatic declines were not only due to spatial competition with humans, but also to the direct effect of over-exploitation in areas of the southwestern Atlantic (Crespo et al. 1997, 2012; Grandi et al. 2015).

The growing use of coastal waters for fishing and aquaculture activities have increased the potential for interaction between marine mammals and industries related to fishing (Bjørge et al. 2002). For South American Sea Lions the conflicts occur in all the areas in which colonies of the species are near fishing zones, since there is usually an overlap on the resources and/or the areas used by Sea Lions and fisheries (Aguayo and Maturana 1973, George-Nascimiento et al. 1985, Sielfeld et al. 1997, Koen Alonso et al. 2000). Interactions occur regularly with fisheries that use a variety of fishing gear and target coastal and pelagic species (Campagna et al. 2001, Corcuera et al. 1994, Crespo et al. 1994, Hückstädt and Antezana 2003, Sepulveda et al. 2007, Riet-Sapriza et al. 2013, Reyes et al. 2013, Machado et al. 2015a).

Catches of South American Sea Lions by fishing activities are reported for gillnet fisheries in Peru (Majluf et al. 2002), Chile (Sepúlveda et al. 2007), and Uruguay (Franco-Trecu et al. 2009); for purse seine fisheries in Chile (Hückstädt and Antezana 2003) and Argentina (Seco Pon et al. 2013); and for trawl fisheries in Argentina (Crespo et al. 1997, Dans et al. 2003b), Chile (Reyes et al. 2013), Uruguay (Szephegyi et al. 2010), and Brazil (Machado et al. 2015b). During the 1990s, the annual incidental catch of Sea Lions in bottom trawl nets off Patagonia, Argentina, was estimated as 175-602, which represented about 1-2% of the local population (Crespo et al. 1997, Dans et al. 2003a). Crespo et al. (2012) estimated that in the 2000s 74 South American Sea Lions were caught per year in San Matías Gulf in Argentina. Along the central-southern coast of Chile, Reyes et al. (2013) observed a relatively high level of incidental catches of Sea Lions by industrial trawl vessels, with about 1.2 animals taken per fishing operation. Of those caught,14.6% were dead when brought aboard. In Uruguay, the annual mortality of Sea Lions due to incidental catches in trawl fisheries was estimated at 36-107 per year, which represents approximately 0.3-0.9% of the local population (Franco-Trecu et al. in prep). In Brazil, 21.4% of dead stranded Sea Lions (n=15) had marks caused by fishery interaction in an analysis covering1991-2011 (Machado et al. 2012).

The interactions with fishing activities are not only at a direct, they also occur at an indirect level due to competition for the fish resources. A longstanding competition for fish has existed in Chile between South American Sea Lions and small-scale fisheries. According to fishermen, Sea Lions prey on fish caught in their fishing gear, often causing damage, and they feel that the only solution to their conflict would be the approval of harvest quotas for Sea Lions. However, a study of the operational interactions suggests that Sea Lions do not produce a significant effect on variations in the catch per unit effort by artisanal fishermen (Sepúlveda et al. 2007). Interactions between Sea Lions and Salmon farms in southern Chile are common, and some animals are illegally killed to protect the farming operations. Besides killing fish, Sea

151

Lions sometimes rip the nets, liberating some or all of the Salmon in the cage with consequent ecological, economic, and social problems (Sepúlveda et al. 2013). Anti-predator nets, the only protection system currently being used, result in significant reductions in Sea Lion attacks (Sepúlveda and Oliva 2005, Vilata et al. 2010).

Conservation

South American Sea Lions are protected and managed by laws in most of the countries where they occur. Sea lions have also been afforded protection by the establishment of numerous reserves and protected areas at rookeries and haul out sites, especially in Argentina and Chile. However, enforcement of protective regulations is weak in most of the distribution range, particularly in the most isolated areas and at sea.

In Chile, the South American Sea Lion exploitation is currently banned. A moratorium has been declared in 2004 for five years, and has been renewed since then. This moratorium could be lifted if the interaction with fisheries is shown to be detrimental for the activity. In 2006, for the first time, a Sea Lion harvest quota was established for the aboriginal populations of the Magallanes region, thus helping with the conservation of their traditions.

In Uruguay, the South American Sea Lion was declared a priority species for conservation by the SNAP (National System of Protected Areas) and was named as a focal object of conservation in the Marine Protected Area of Cabo Polonio. Since 2011, a community-based participatory research program (POPA) is being developed where the use of pound nets is evaluated to mitigate the interaction between Sea Lions and artisanal fishing in Piriápolis (Bentancour et al. 2014). In Brazil, all the pinniped species have been under protection since 1986 by law (Portaria SUDEPE n0 N-11, de 21-02-1986) and also by the National Action Plans for Conservation of Brazilian Aquatic Mammals (IBAMA 2001, Rocha-Campos et al. 2011). South American Sea Lions have also been afforded protection by the establishment of numerous reserves and marine protected areas (MPAs), including privately owned sites.

Bibliography

Aguayo, A. and Maturana, R. 1973. Presencia del lobo marino común Otaria flavescens en el Biologico Pesquera, Chile 6: 45-75.

Alcock, J., Barrows, E.M., Gordh, G., Hubbard, L.J., Kirkendall, L., Pyle, D.W., Ponder, T.L. and Zalom, F.G. 1978. The ecology and evolution of male reproductive behaviour in the bees and wasps. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 64: 293-326.

Araya, H., Contreras, F., Camos, F., Arroyo, M., Gallardo, H. and Rodriguez, E. 1987. Interferencia del león marino del Sur (Otaria flavescens) en la pesquería artesanal de Chile. Anais de II Reuniao de Trabalho de Especislistas em Mamiferos Aquaticos de America do Sul. Rio de Janeiro, Brasil, 4-8 agosto, 1986, pp. 17-20. FBCN Brasil.

Arias-Schreiber, M. 1998. Distribución y abundancia de las poblaciones de lobos marinos Arctocephalus australis y Otaria byronia en el litoral peruano durante Diciembre 1997 y Febrero 1998. Informe Anual. Instituto del Mar del Perú, Unpublished.

152

Arias-Schreiber, M. and Rivas, C. 1998. Distribución, tamaño poblacional y estructura de las poblaciones de lobos marinos (Arctocephalus australis y Otaria byronia) en el litoral peruano en noviembre de 1996 y Marzo de 1997. Informe Progresivo 73: 16-32.

Barrows, E.M. 1983. Male territoriality in the carpenter bee Xylocopa virginica. Animal Behavior 31: 806 813.

Bartheld, J., Pavés, H., Contreras, F., Vera, C., Manque, C., Miranda, D., Sepúlveda, D., Antacho, P. and Ossman, L. 2008. Cuantificación poblacional de lobos marinos en el litoral de la I a IV región. Informe Final Proyecto FIP 2006-50.

Baylis, M.M., Orben, R.A., Arnould, J.P.Y., Christiansen, F., Hays, G.C. and Staniland, I.J. 2015. Decline of Sea Lions. The Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America 96(4): 635-638.

Bentancur, O., Bouyssounade, J., De María, M., Franco-Trecu, V., Hargain, A., Heredia, F., Iribarne, P., Kurta, M., Puig, P., Riet, F., Santos, P., Szteren, D. and Micaela T. 2014. ¿Cómo mitigar la interacción entre Aguayo, A. and Maturana, R. 1973. Presencia del lobo marino común Otaria flavescens Biologico Pesquera, Chile 6: 45-75.

Barrows, E.M. 1983. Male territoriality in the carpenter bee Xylocopa virginica. Animal Behavior 31: 806 813.

Baylis, M.M., Orben, R.A., Arnould, J.P.Y., Christiansen, F., Hays, G.C. and Staniland, I.J. 2015. Decline of Sea Lions. The Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America 96(4): 635-638.

Bentancur, O., Bouyssounade, J., De María, M., Franco-Trecu, V., Hargain, A., Heredia, F., Iribarne, P., Kurta, M., Puig, P., Riet, F., Santos, P., Szteren, D. and Micaela T. 2014. ¿Cómo mitigar la interacción entre los leones marinos y la pesca artesanal? Una investigación participativa en la costa uruguaya. Congreso Colombiano de Zoología, Cartagena de Indias, 30 de noviembre 5 de diciembre de 2014.

Bjørge, A., Bekkby, T., Bakkestuen, V. and Framstad, E. 2002. Interactions between harbour seals, Phoca vitulina, and fisheries in complex coastal waters explored by combined Geographic Information System (GIS) and energetic modelling. ICES Journal of Marine Science 59: 29-42.

Boswall, J. 1972. The South American sea lion Otaria byronia as a predator on penguins. Bulletin of the British Ornithological Club 92: 129-132.

153

Campagna, C. 1985. The breeding cycle of the southern sea lion, Otaria byronia. Marine Mammal Science 1: 210-218.

Campagna, C. and Le Boeuf, B. J. 1988. Reproductive behaviour of Southern sea lions. Behaviour 104: 233-261.

Campagna, C., Cappozzo, H. L. and Le Boeuf, B. J. 1988b. Pup abductions, and infanticide in Southern sea lions. Behaviour 107: 44-60.

Campagna, C., Le Boeuf, B. J. and Cappozzo, H. L. 1988a. Group raids: a mating strategy of male southern sea lions. Behaviour 105: 224-249.

Campagna, C., Werner, R., Karesh, W., Marin, M. R., Koontz, F., Cook, R. and Koontz, C. 2001. Movements and location at sea of South American sea lions (Otaria flavescens). Journal of Zoology (London) 257: 205-220.

Capella, J.J., Flórez-González, L., Falk-Fernández, P. and Palacios, D.M. 2002. Regular appearance of otariid pinnipeds along the Colombian Pacific coast. Aquatic Mammals 28(1): 67-72.

Cappozzo, H. L. 2002. South American sea lion Otaria flavescens. In: W. F. Perrin, B. Wursig and J. G. M. Thewissen (eds), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals, pp. 1143-1146. Academic Press.

Cappozzo, H.L. and Perrin, W.P. 2009. South American sea lion (Otaria flavescens). In: W.F. Perrin, B. Würsing and J.G.M. Thewissen (eds), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (2nd ed.), pp. 1076-1079. Academic Press, San Diego.

Cappozzo, H.L., Túnez, J.I. and Cassini, M.H. 2008. Sexual harassment and female gregariousness in the South American sea lion, Otaria flavescens. Naturwissenschaften 95: 625-630.

Cassini, M.H. 1999. The evolution of reproductive systems in pinnipeds. Behavioral Ecology 10: 612-616.

Cassini, M.H. 2000. A model on female breeding dispersion and the reproductive systems of pinnipeds. Behavioral Processes 51: 93-99.

Committee on Taxonomy. 2014. List of marine mammal species and subspecies. Available at: www.marinemammalscience.org. (Accessed: 25 November 2014).

Contreras, F., Bartheld, J., Montecinos, M., Moreno F. and Torres, J. 2014. Cuantificación poblacional de lobo marino común (Otaria flavescens) en el litoral de la XV, I y II Regiones. Informe Final. Proyecto 2012-6-FAP-1, 86 pp + Anexos.

Crespi Abril, A., García, N.A., Crespo, E.A. and Coscarella, M.A. 2004. Marine mammals´ consumption by broadnose sevengill shark Notorynchus cepedianus in the northern and central Patagonian shelf. Latin American Journal of Aquatic Mammals 2(2): 101-107.

154

Crespo, E.A. 1988. Dinámica poblacional del lobo marino del sur Otaria flavescens (Shaw, 1800) en el norte del litoral Patagónico. Doctoral thesis, Facultad de Cs. Exáctas y Naturales, Universidad Nacional de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Crespo, E.A., Corcuera, J.F. and Cazorla, A.L. 1994. Interactions between marine mammals and fisheries in some coastal fishing areas of Argentina. In: Perrin, W.F., Donovan, G. and Barlow, J. (eds), Gillnets and cetaceans. Report of the International Whaling Commission Special Issue 15, pp. 269-282. Cambridge, U.K.

Crespo, E.A., Oliva, D., Dans, S., and Sepúlveda, M. 2012. Estado de situación del lobo marino común en su área de distribución. Editorial Universidad de Valparaíso, Valparaíso, Chile.

Dans, S. L., Koen-Alonso, M., Crespo, E. A., Pedraza, S. N. and García, N. A. 2003a. Interactions between marine mammals and high seas fisheries in Patagonia under an integrated approach. In: N. Gales, M. Hindell and R. Kirkwood (eds), Marine Mammals: Fisheries; Tourism and Management Issues, pp. 100-115. CSIRO Publ., Victoria, Australia.

Dans, S. L., Koen-Alonso, M., Pedraza, S. N. and Crespo, E. A. 2003b. Incidental catch of dolphins in trawling fisheries off Patagonia, Argentina: Can populations persist? Ecological Applications 13(3): 754-762.

Dewsbury, D. 1978. Comparative animal behavior. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York.

Drago, M., Crespo, E.A., Aguilar, A., Cardona, L., García, N., Dans, S.L. and Goodall, N. 2009. Historic diet change of the South American sea lion in Patagonia as revealed by isotopic analysis. Marine Ecology Progress Series 384: 273-286.

Drago, M., Franco-Trecu, V., Zenteno, L. , Szteren, D., Crespo, E.A., Riet Sapriza, F.G., de Oliveira, L., Machado, R., Inchaust,i P. and Cardona, L. 2015. Sexual foraging segregation in South American sea lions increases during the pre-breeding period in the La Plata River. Marine Ecology Progress Series 525: 261-272.

Duffy, D. C. 1983. The foraging ecology of Peruvian seabirds. The Auk 100: 800-810.

Emlen, S.T. and Oring, L.W. 1977. Ecology, sexual selection, and the evolution of mating systems. Science 197: 215-223.

Engel, M.T., Marchini, S., Pont, A.C., Machado, R. and Oliveira, L.R. 2014. Perceptions and attitudes of stakeholders towards the wildlife refuge of Ilha dos Lobos, a marine protected area in Brazil. Marine Policy 54: 45-51.

Feijoo, M., Lessa, E.P., Loizaga de Castro, R. and Crespo, E.A. 2011. Mitochondrial and microsatellite assessment of population structure of South American sea lion (Otaria flavescens) in the Southwestern Atlantic Ocean. Marine Biology 158: 1857-1867.

Franco-Trecu V., Costa P., Abud C., Dimitriadis C., Laporta P., Passadore C. and Szephegyi M. 2009. By-catch of franciscana (Pontoporia blainvillei) in Uruguayan artisanal gillnet fisheries: an

155 evaluation after a twelve-year gap in data collection. Latin American Journal of Aquatic Mammals 7(1-2): 11-22.

Franco-Trecu V., Drago M., García Olazabal, M. D., Baladán C., Crespo E.A., Cardona L. and Inchausti P. 2015b. Post-harvesting population dynamics of the South American sea lion (Otaria byronia) in the Southwestern Atlantic. Marine Mammal Science 31: 963-978.

Franco-Trecu, V. 2015a. Tácticas comportamentales de forrajeo y apareamiento y dinámica poblacional de dos especies de otáridos simpátricas con tendencias poblacionales contrastantes. PhD Thesis. Universidad de la República (UdelaR) Montevideo, Uruguay.

Franco-Trecu, V., Costa-Urrutia, P., Schramm, Y., Tassino, B. and Inchausti, P. 2015c. Tide line vs internal pool: mating system and breeding success in the South American sea lion males. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 69: 1985-1996.

Félix, F., Hasse, B.I.M., Samaniego, J. and Gechsle, J. 1994. New evidence of the presence of South American sea lion Otaria flavescens (Carnivora, Pinnipedia) in ecuadorean waters. Estudios Oceanológicos 13: 85-88.

George-Nascimiento, M., Bustamante, R. and Oyarzún, C. 1985. Feeding ecology of the South American sea lion Otaria flavescens: food contents and food selectivity. Marine Ecology Progress Series 21: 135-143.

Giardino, G., Mandiola, M.A., Bastida, R. and Rodríguez D. 2008. Movimientos estivales de machos de Otaria flavescens provenientes del Puerto Quequén (Argentina). XIII Reunión de Trabajo de Especialistas en Mamíferos Acuáticos de América del Sur. Montevideo, Uruguay.

Giardino, G., Mandiola, M.A., Bastida, R. and Rodríguez, D. 2009. Movimientos estivales de machos de Otaria flavescens entre Puerto Quequén (Argentina), Uruguay y Patagonia. Taller de Tr Valparaíso, Chile.

Giardino, G.V., Mandiola, M.A., Bastida, J., Denuncio, P.E., Bastida, R.O. and Rodríguez, D.H. 2014. Travel for sex: Long-range breeding dispersal and winter haulout fidelity in southern sea lion males. Mammalian Biology-Zeitschrift für Säugetierkunde.

Grandi, M.F. 2010. Dinámica poblacional y cambios estructurales en una población en crecimiento de lobo marino común, Otaria flavescens, del litoral Norpatagónico. PhD Thesis. Universidad Nacional del Comahue, Bariloche, Argentina.

Grandi, M.F., Dans, S.L., Crespo, E.A. and García, N.A. 2012a. Sexual maturity and corporal growth of the South American sea lion, Otaria flavescens, in Patagonia. Estado de situación del lobo marino común en su área de distribución. 2012, Editorial Universidad de Valparaíso, Valparaíso, Chile. 144p.

Grandi, M.F., Dans, S.L., and Crespo, E.A. 2015. The recovery process of a population is not always the same: The case of Otaria flavescens. Marine Biology Research 11(3): 225-235.

Hamilton, J.E. 1939. A second report on the southern sea lion (Otaria byronia) (de Blainville). Discovery Reports, Volume 19. University Press.

156

Harcourt, R. 1991. Survivorship costs of play in the South American fur seal. Animal Behavior 42: 509-511.

Harcourt, R. 1992. Factors affecting early mortality in the South American fur seal (Arctocephalus australis) in Peru: density-related effects and predation. Journal of Zoology, London 226: 259-270.

Harcourt, R. 1993. Individual variation in predation on fur seals by southern sea lions (Otaria byronia) in Peru. Canadian Journal of Zoology 71(9): 1908-1911.

Hückstädt, L.A and Antezana, T. 2003. Behaviour of the southern sea lion (Otaria flavescens) and consumption of the catch during purse-seining for jack mackerel (Trachurus symmetricus), central Chile. ICES Journal of Marine Science 60: 1-9.

Hückstädt, L.A. and Krautz, M.C. 2004. Interaction between Southern sea lions Otaria flavescens and jack mackerel Trachurus symmetricus commercial fishery off Central Chile: a geostatistical approach. Marine Ecology Progress Series 282: 285-294.

Hückstädt, L.A., Quiñones, R.A., Sepúlveda, M. and Costa, D.P. 2014. Movement and diving patterns of juvenile male South American sea lions off the coast of central Chile. Marine Mammal Science 30: 1175-1183.

IBAMA. 2001. Mamíferos Aquáticos do Brasil: Plano de ação, versão 2, 2a ed. Brasília.

IMARPE. 2006. Censo Nacional de Lobo Chusco (Otaria flavescens) 2006. Unidad de Investigación de Depredadores Superiores. Informe Interno.

IMARPE. 2013. Anuario Científico y Tecnológico. IMARPE Vol. 13, 2013.

Isvaran, K. 2005. Variation in male mating behaviour within ungulate populations: patterns and processes. Current Science 89: 1192-1199.

Koen Alonso, M., Crespo, E. A., Pedraza, S. N., Garcia, N. A. and Coscarella, M. A. 2000. Food habits of the South American sea lion, Otaria flavescens, off Patagonia, Argentina. Fishery Bulletin 98(2): 250-263.

Lewis, M., Campagna, C. 2008. Mamíferos Marinos. In: Foro para la Conservacion del Mar Patagónico (ed.), Estado de Conservación del Mar Patagónico, https://www.marpatagonico.org/libro/.

Lewis, M.N. and Ximénez, I. 1983. Dinámica de la población de Otaria flavescens (Shaw) en el área de Península Valdés y zonas adyacentes (segunda parte). Contribution 79. Centro Nacional Patagónico, Puerto Madryn, Chubut, Argentina.

Machado, R., Oliveira, L.R., Montealegre-Quijano, S. 2015b. Incidental catch of South American sea lion in a pair trawl off southern Brazil. Neotropical Biology and Conservation . Neotropical Biology and Conservation 10(1): 43-47.

Machado, R., Ott, P.H., Moreno, I.B., Danilewicz, D., Tavares, M., Crespo, H.A., Siciliano, S. and Oliveira, L.R. 2015a. Operational interactions between South American sea lions and gillnet fishing in southern Brazil. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems DOI: 10.1002/aqc.2554.

Machado, R., Tavares, M., Danilewicz, D., Ott ,P.H., Moreno, I.B. and Oliveira, L.R. 2012. Mortalidade de Otaria flavescens no sul do Brasil: Evidências de Conflitos com a Pesca.

157

Reunion de Trabajo de Especialistas de Mamíferos Acuáticos de América del Sur y 9º Congreso SOLAMAC.

Majluf, P. and Trillmich, F. 1981. Distribution and abundance of sea lions (Otaria byronia) and fur seals (Arctocephalus australis) in Peru. Saugtierk 46: 384-393.

Muñoz, L., Pavéz, G., Inostroza P. and Sepúlveda M. 2011. Foraging trips of female South American sea lions (Otaria flavescens) from Isla Chañaral, Chile. Latin American Journal of Aquatic Mammals 9(2): 140-144.

Oliva, D., Sepúlveda, M., Durán, L.R., Urra, A., Sielfeld, W., Moraga, R., Pavés, G. and Muñoz, L. 2012. Cuantificación poblacional de lobos marinos en las Regiones X XI y propuesta de escenarios de manejo. Informe Final Proyecto FAP ID 4728-46-LP11.

Oliveira, L.R. 2013. Canívoros Marinhos. In: M.M. Weber, C. Roman, N.C. Cáceres (ed.), Mamíferos do Rio Grande do Sul, pp. 405-427.

Oliveira, L.R., Fraga, L.D., and Majluf, P. 2012. Effective population size for South American sea lions along the Peruvian coast: the survivors of the strongest El Niño event in history. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 92(8): 1835.

Pacifici, M., Santini, L., Di Marco, M., Baisero, D., Francucci, L., Grottolo Marasini, G., Visconti, P. and Rondinini, C. 2013. Generation length for mammals. Nature Conservation 5: 87 94.

Paredes, R. and Arias-Schreiber, M. 1999. Dieta del Lobo Fino (Arctocephalus australis) y Lobo Chusco (Otaria byronia) en la costa peruana durante Mayo y Junio de 1999. Report for Subdirección de Investigaciones en Mamíferos Marinos. Instituto del Mar del Perú, Callao, Perú.

Pavanato, H.A, Silva, K.G., Estima, S.C., Monteiro, D.S. and Kinas, P.G. 2013. Occupancy dynamics of South American Sea-Lions in Brazilian haul-outs. Journal of Biology 74(4): 855- 862.

Pedraza, S.N., Franco-Trecu, V. and Ligrone, A. 2012. Population tendencies of Otaria flavescens and Arctocephalus australis in Uruguay. Estado de situación del lobo marino común en su área de distribución. 2012. Universidad de Valparaíso, Valparaíso, Chile.

Pinedo, M.C. 1990. Ocorrência de Pinípedes na costa brasileira. Garcia de Orla, Série Zoologia 15(2): 37-48.

Ponce de León, A. and Pin, O.D. 2006. Distribución, reproducción y alimentación del lobo fino Arctocephalus australis y del león marino Otaria flavescens en Uruguay. In: Menafra, R., Rodríguez-Gallego, L., Scarabino, F., Conde, D. (ed.), Bases para la conservación y el manejo de la costa uruguaya, pp. 305-313. Vida Silvestre Uruguay, Montevideo, Uruguay.

Páez, E. 2006. Situación de la administración del recurso lobos y leones marinos en Uruguay. In: R. Menafra, L. Rodríguez-Gallego, F. Scarabino and D. Conde (eds), Bases para la conservación y el manejo de la costa Uruguaya, pp. 577-583. Vida Silvestre, Sociedad Uruguaya para la Conservación de la Naturaleza, Montevideo.

158

Raya Rey, A., Sáenz Samaniego, R. and Petracci, P.F. 2012. New records of South American sea lion Otaria flavescens predation on southern rockhopper penguins Eudyptes chrysocome at Staten Island, Argentina. Polar Biology 35(2): 319-322.

Reyes, L. 2004. Estado actual y tendencia de la población de lobos marinos de un pelo del centro de Patagonia. XIX Jornadas Argentinas de Mastozoología, SAREM, Puerto Madryn, Argentina.

Reyes, L., Crespo, E. and Szapkievich, V. 1999. Distribution and population size of the Southern sea lion (Otaria flavescens) in central and Southern Chubut, Patagonia, Argentina. Marine Mammal Science 15: 478-493.

Reyes, P., Hucke-Gaete, R. and Torresflorez, J.P. 2013. First observation of operational interactions between bottom-trawling fisheries and South American sea lion, Otaria flavescens in south-central Chile. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 93(2): 1-6.

Rice, D.W. 1998. Marine Mammals of the World: Systematics and Distribution. Society for Marine Mammalogy, Special Publication Number 4, Lawrence, Kansas.

Riet-Sapriza, F.G., Costa, D.P. Franco-Trecu, V., Marín, Y., Chocca, J., González, B., Beathyate, G., Chilvers, B.L. and Hückstadt, L.A. 2013. Foraging behavior of lactating South American sea lions (Otaria flavescens) and spatial temporal resource overlap with the Uruguayan fisheries. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography 88-89: 106- 119.

Rocha-Campos, C., Moreno, I.B., Rocha, J.M., Palazzo, J.T. Jr., Karina, R.G., Oliveira, L.R., Gonçalves, L., Dalla Rosa, L., Emgel, M., Marcondes, M.C.C., Muelbert, M.M., Ott, P.H. and Silva, V.M.F. 2011. Plano de ação nacional para conservação dos mamíferos aquáticos - grandes cetáceos e pinípedes. 1. ed. Brasília: Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversidade, v. 1..

Rodriguez, D. and Bastida, R. 1998. Four hundred years in the history of pinniped colonies around Mar del Plata, Argentina. Aquatic Conservation of Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 8: 721-735.

Rosas, F. C. W., Haimovici, M. and Pinedo, M. C. 1993. Age and growth of the South American sea lion, Otaria flavescens (Shaw, 1800), in southern Brazil. Journal of Mammalogy 74: 141- 147.

Rosas, F.C.W., Pinedo, M.C., Marmotel, M. and Haimovici, M. 1994. Seasonal movements of the South American sea lion (Otaria flavescens, Shaw) off the Rio Grande do Sul coast, Brazil. Mammalia 58(1): 51-59.

Sanfelice, D., Vasques, V.C. and Crespo, E.A. 1999. Ocupação sazonal por Otariidae (Mammalia-Pinnipedia) da Reserva Ecológica da Ilha dos Lobos, Torres, Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil. Iheringia, Series Zoologia 87: 101-110.

Saporiti, F., Bala, L., Gómez-Otero, J., Piana, E.A., Crespo, E.L., Aguilar, A. and Cardona, L. 2014. Paleoindian pinniped exploitation in South America was driven by oceanic productivity. Quaternary Research 352: 85-91.

159

Schiavini, A. C. M., Crespo, E. A. and Szapkievich, V. 2004. Status of the population of South American sea lion (Otaria flavescens Shaw, 1800) in southern Argentina. Mammalian Biology 69: 108-118.

Schlatter, R.P. 1976. Penetracion del lobo marino comun, Otaria flavescens Shaw, en el Rio Valdivia y afluentes [Chile]. Medio Ambiente.

Seco Pon, P.S., Copello, S., Moretinni, A., Lértora, H.P., Buena, I., Bastida, J., Mauco, L. and Favero, M. 2013. Seabird and marine-mammal attendance and by-catch in semi-industrial trawl fisheries in near-shore waters of northern Argentinian. Marine and Freshwater Research 64(3): 237-248.

Sepulveda, M. and Oliva, D. 2005. Interactions between South American sea lions Otaria flavescens (Shaw) and salmon farms in southern Chile. Aquaculture Research 36(11): 1062- 1068.

Sepúlveda M., Pérez, M., Sielfeld, W., Oliva, D., Dúran, L., Rodriguez, L., Aros. V. and Buscaglia, M. 2007. Operational interaction between South American sea lions Otaria flavescens and artisanal (small-scale) fishing in Chile: Results from interview surveys and on- board observations. Fisheries Research 83: 332-340.

Sepúlveda, M. and Oliva, D. 2005. Interactions between South American sea lions Otaria flavescens (Shaw) and salmon farms in southern Chile. Aquaculture Research 36(11): 1062- 1068.

Sepúlveda, M., Arismendi, I., Soto, D., Jara, F. and Farías, F. 2013. Escaped farmed salmon and trout in Chile: incidence, impacts, and the need for an ecosystem view. Aquaculture Environment Interactions 4: 273-283.

Sepúlveda, M., Newsome, S.D., Pavez, G., Oliva, D., Costa, D.P. and Hückstädt, L.A. 2015. Using satellite tracking and isotopic information to characterize the impact of South American sea lions on salmonid aquaculture in southern Chile. PLoS ONE doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0134926.

Sepúlveda, M., Oliva, D., Urra, A., Pérez, M.J., Moraga, R., Schrader, D., Inostroza, P., Melo, A., Díaz H. and Sielfeld, W. 2011. Distribution and abundance of the South American sea lion Otaria flavescens (Carnivora: Otariidae) along the central coast off Chile. Revista Chilena de Historia Natural 84: 97-106.

Sielfeld, W., Guerra, C., Durán, R., Acuña, E., Aguayo Lobo, A., Sepúlveda, M., Palma, F., Malinarich, A., Cerda, G., Bolvaran, A., Grau, R., Veloso, X., Guerra, Y., Vargas, M., Amado, N., Peredo, R. and Galaz, J. 1997. Monitoreo de la pesquería y censo del lobo marino común en el litoral de las I-IV Regiones. Informe Final, Proyecto Fondo de Investigación Pesquera, pp. 95- 28. Subsecretaría de Pesca, Valparaíso.

Soto, K., Trites, A. and Arias-Schreiber, M. 2004. The effects of prey availability on pup mortality and the timing of birth of South American sea lions (Otaria flavescens) in Perú. Journal of Zoology (London) 264: 419-428.

Soto, K., Trites, A. and Arias-Schreiber, M. 2006. Changes in diet and maternal attendance of South American sea lions indicate changes in the marine environment and prey abundance. Marine Ecology Progress Series 312: 277-290.

Soto, K.H. 1999. Efectos de El Niño 1997 1998 sobre el ciclo reproductivo del lobo marino chusco Otaria byronia en las islas Ballestas, Pisco, Peru. Tesis Universidad Nacional Agraria La Molina, Perú.

160

Soto, K.H. and Trites, A.W. 2011. South American sea lions in Peru have a lek-like mating system. Marine Mammal Science 27: 306-333.

Strange, I. 1979. Sealion survey in the Falklands. Oryx 15: 175-184.

Strange, I. 1982. Breeding ecology of rockhopper penguin (Eudyptes crestatus) in the Falkland Islands. Le Gerfaut 72: 137-188.

Szapkievich, V.B., Cappozzo, H.L., Crespo E.A., Bernabeu, R.O., Comas C., and Mudry M. 1999. Genetic relatedness in two southern sea lion (Otaria flavescens) rookeries in southwestern Atlantic. Zeitschrift f r̈ Säugetierkunde 64: 1-5.

Szephegyi, M.N., Franco-Trecu, V., Doño, F., Reyes, F., Forselledo, R. and Crespo, E.A. 2010. Primer relevamento sistemático de captura incidental de mamíferos marinos en la flota de arrastre de fondo costero de Uruguay. XIV Reunión de Trabajo de Expertos en Mamíferos Acuáticos de América del Sur y 8º Congreso de la Sociedad Latino Americana de Especialistas en Mamíferos Acuáticos (SOLAMAC), Florianópolis, 2010. Anales 1: 103..

Taborsky, M., Oliveira, R.F. and Brockmann, H.J. 2008. The evolution of alternative reproductive tactics: concepts and questions. In: R. Oliveira, M, Taborsky and H.J. Brockmamm (eds), Alternative reproductive tactics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Thompson, D., Duck, C.D., McConnell, B.J. and Garrett, J. 1998. Foraging behaviour and diet of lactating female southern sea lions (Otaria flavescens) in the Falkland Islands. Journal of Zoology, London 246: 135-146.

Thompson, D., Strange, I., Riddy, M. and Duck, C.D. 2002. The size and status of the population of Southern sea lions Otaria flavescens in the Falkland Islands. Biological Conservation 121: 357-367.

Túnez, J.I., Cappozzo, H.L. and Cassini, M.H. 2008. Regional factors associated with the distribution of South American fur seals along the Atlantic coast of South America. ICES Journal of Marine Science 65.

Túnez, J.I., Cappozzo, H.L., Nardelli, M. and Cassini, M.H. 2010. Population genetic structure and historical population dynamics of the South American sea lion, Otaria flavescens, in north- central Patagonia. Genetica 138(8): 831-841.

Túnez, J.I., Centron, D., Cappozzo, H.L. and Cassini, M.H. 2007. Geographic distribution and diversity of mitochondrial DNA haplotypes in South American sea lions (Otaria flavescens) and fur seals (Arctocephalus australis). Mammalian Biology 72: 193-203.

Vaz-Ferreira, R. 1975. Behavior of the Southern Sea Lion Otaria flavescens (Shaw) in the Uruguayan Islands. Reun. Cons. Int. Explor. Mer 169: 219-227.

Vaz-Ferreira, R. 1982. Otaria flavescens (Shaw, 1800), South American sea lion. Mammals in the Seas, Vol. IV: Small cetaceans, seals, sirenians and otters, pp. 477-495. FAO Fisheries Ser. 5.

Venegas, C., Gibbons, J., Aguayo, A., Sielfeld, W., Acevedo, J., Amado, N., Capella, J., Guzmán, G. and Valenzuela, C. 2001. Cuantificación poblacional de lobos marinos en la XII Región. Informe Final Proyecto FIP 2000-22.

Vilata, J., Oliva, D. and Sepúlveda, M. 2010. The predation of farmed salmon by South American sea lions (Otaria flavescens) in southern Chile. ICES Journal of Marine Science 67(3): 475-482.

161

Weinberger Illanes, C.S. 2013. El lobo marino común, Otaria flavescens, en Chile: distribución espacial, historia demográfica y estructuración genética. PhD Thesis, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile.

Werner, R. and Campagna, C. 1995. Diving behaviour of lactating southern sea lions (Otaria flavescens) in Patagonia. Canadian Journal of Zoology 73: 1975-1982.

Wilson, E.O. 1975. Sociobiology: the new synthesis. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

Wynen, L.P., Goldsworthy, S.D., Insley, S.J., Adams, M., Bickham, J.W., Francis, J., Gallo, J.P., Hoelzel, A.R., Majluf, P., White, R.W.G. and Slade, R. 2001. Phylogenetic relationships within the eared seals (Otariidae: Carnivora): Implications for the historical biogeography of the family. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 21(2): 270-284.

Zenteno, L., Borella, F., Gómez Otero, J., Piana, E., Belardi, J.B., Borrero, L.A., Saporiti, F., Cardona L. and Crespo E.A. 2015. Shifting niches of marine predators due to human exploitation: the diet of the South American sea lion (Otaria flavescens) since the late Holocene as a case study. Paleobiology 41(3): 387-401.

162

163

LC - Least Concern, (IUCN version 3.1)

Assessment Rationale:

For the Patagonia Sea, the main population of this species concentrates at Península Valdés, in coastal Argentine Patagonia. A small colony occurs in the Malvinas-Falkland Islands and an aggregation of a few animals is reported for the Seno del Almirantazgo (Tierra del Fuego, Chile). Most of the breeding and molting population of Argentine Patagonia is found in a provincial coastal protected area. The Malvinas population is a nature reserve located on a privately owned island that manages ecotourism. The aggregation at Seno del Almirantazgo is isolated and difficult to reach. No protection exists for the pelagic phases of the annual cycle.

The Valdés population has been increasing over the past 30 years. The rate of increase appears to be reaching carrying capacity over the past 10 years. Global abundance is also inferred to have been stable or to have increased over the past three generations. This species is listed as Least Concern.

However, as the Patagonian breeding population expands outside the coastal protected area of Península Valdés, it is being negatively impacted by sport fisheries and off-road driving. At sea, interaction with fisheries occurs, causing entanglement and unknown mortality rates. In the light of the unknown effects of global climate change on this species at the latitudes of Patagonia demographic monitoring is imperative.

Assessor(s): Campagna, C. Reviewer(s): Shope, M., Falabella, V. Contributor(s): Capella, J. Facilitators/Compilers: Polidoro, B.

164

Taxonomic information

ANIMALIA - CHORDATA - MAMMALIA - CARNIVORA - PHOCIDAE - Mirounga leonina (Linnaeus, 1758)

Common Names: Southern Elephant Seal (English), Elefante Marino del Sur (Spanish; Castilian), Eléphant de mer Austral (French), Eléphant de mer du sud (French), South Atlantic Elephant-seal (English), Southern Elephant-seal (English), Suidelike Olifantrob (Afrikaans)

Geographic Range

In the Patagonian Sea, individuals are recorded as far north as southern Brazil in the Atlantic and as northern Chile in the Pacific, even though the records of animals are sporadic in the extremes of the distribution. A small colony occurs in the Malvinas-Falkland Islands (Galimberti and Boitani 1999) and an incipient aggregation is reported for the Seno del Almirantazgo, Isla Grande de Tierra del Fuego, in Chile (Acevedo et al. 2016). However, the bulk of the population is concentrated at Península Valdés and to the south of the Península (Campagna and Lewis 1992, Lewis et al. 2006, Falabella et al. 2009).

The distribution of the Valdés population has shifted from the northern coasts of the Península to the southern ones during the last three decades. During the same time, animals were recorded reproducing outside of the geographic limits of Península Valdés, in a stretch of coast between Punta Ninfas and Punta León, Chubut Province, Argentina. Around 2010 or perhaps earlier, animals started to move a few hundreds kilometers south of the southernmost point of the mainland colony, to areas known as Bajo de los Huesos, Isla Escondida and Dos Pozos (coast of Chubut Province, Argentina). Here, new reproductive areas were established and are flourishing [Campagna and Lewis, unpublished data 2016].

Worldwide Southern Elephant Seals have a nearly circumpolar distribution in the Southern Ocean. While most haul-out sites are on Subantarctic and Antarctic islands, a number of animals haul out regularly at sites on the coasts of southern Argentina and Chile (Campagna and Lewis 1992) and Antarctica (Bester 1988, Heimark and Heimark 1986, Murray 1981). They forage at sea between about 40° south and the Antarctic Continent. Occasional vagrants have been recorded on the coasts of northern South America (Alava and Carvajal 2005, De Moura et al. 2010), southern Africa (Kettlewell and Rand 1955, Oosthuizen et al. 1988), Australia and New Zealand (Mills et al. 1977, Taylor and Taylor 1989). The most distant vagrant was recorded at Oman on the Arabian Peninsula, some 9,000 km from the nearest possible point of origin (Johnson 1990).

165

Population

In the Patagonian Sea, Península Valdés and Malvinas colonies have increased in recent times (Lewis et al. 1998, Galimberti et al. 2001, SCAR EGS 2008, Ferrari et al. 2013). Valdés population has been increasing in the over the past 30 years. Pups production increased steadily from 2,400 in 1969 to 15,200 in 2010 (Ferrari et al. 2013). Elephant seals in Península Valdés have increased at a rate that, spanning the past 10 years, appears to be reaching carrying capacity (Ferrari et al. 2013). Regression models concur that the observed annual rate of pupulation growth was 8-10%/year prior to 1980 but <1%/yr during the past decade (Ferrari et al. 2013). Large proportion of the animals are found in marine protected areas (Le Boeuf and Campagna 2013).

The worldwide population was estimated to be 650,000 in the mid 1990s (SCAR EGS 2008) and there is no recent comprehensive estimate of the global abundance. Four distinct populations have been identified in the Southern Ocean (Gales et al. 1989, Hoelzel et al. 1993, Slade et al. 1998). While the movement of breeding individuals between these populations is rare, it does occur (Fabiani et al. 2003, Reisinger and Bester 2010). These populations include subpopulations at or close to Argentina (Peninsula Valdés and the Malvinas), in the Atlantic sector (South Georgia, South Orkney Islands, South Shetland Islands, Bouvetøya and Gough Island), in the Indian sector (Iles Kerguelen, Iles Crozet, Heard Island and the Prince Edward Islands) and in the Pacific sector (Macquarie Island, Campbell Island and Antipodes Island).

While Southern Elephant Seals breed at 14 islands or island groups, five of these are responsible for 99% of pup production. More than 50% of pup production takes place at South Georgia (Boyd et al. 1996, M. Fedak pers. comm. in SCAR EGS 2008), with Isle Kerguelen responsible for some 21% (Authier et al. 2011) and the Peninsula Valdes, Heard Island and

166

Macquarie Island each responsible for greater than 5% (Lewis et al. 1998, Slip and Burton 1999, van den Hoff et al. 2014). Three of those sites have experienced decreases over the past three generations that are not fully understood (McMahon et al. 2005, Pistorius et al. 2011, van den Hoff et al. 2014).

The Peninsula Valdes/Malvinas colonies have increased in recent times (Lewis et al. 1998, Galimberti et al. 2001, SCAR EGS 2008). Colonies in the Atlantic sector of the Southern Ocean are also growing or stable (Boyd et al. 1996, Galimberti et al. 2001, SCAR EGS 2008, Gil-Delgado et al. 2013). In contrast, those in the Indian Ocean (Guinet et al. 1999, Slip and Burton 1999, Pistorius et al. 2004, Bester and Hofmeyr 2005, de Bruyn 2009, Pistorius et al. 2011) and Pacific Ocean (van den Hoff et al. 2007, 2014) sectors have been either stable or decreasing up to the mid 1990s. However, recent cessations of decrease, and increases, have been recorded at island groups in the Indian Ocean sector (McMahon et al. 2009, Authier et al. 2011, Pistorius et al. 2011). This is not true for the Macquarie Island subpopulation, the only substantial population within the Pacific sector (van den Hoff et al. 2014). Numbers of adult females in this subpopulation declined at a mean annual rate of -0.8% between 1988 and 2011, and continued to do so through 2014 (McMahon et al. 2005).

The causes of these declines are debated. They are not completely understood and may differ between populations but evidence indicates that the low survival of adult females (Pistorius et al. 2004, de Bruyn 2009, Pistorius et al. 2011, van den Hoff et al. 2014) or of pups (McMahon and Burton 2005, McMahon et al. 2005ab) is important. Survival of both adult females (Pistorius et al. 2011, van den Hoff et al. 2014) and pups (McMahon and Burton 2005, McMahon et al. 2005b) varies interannually with climatic conditions. The low survival of adult females may be due to the effects of the limitation of food on an age and sex class that is responsible for successfully weaning offspring, and migrating to distant foraging grounds to recover from terrestrial fasts (Pistorius et al. 2011, van den Hoff et al. 2014) whereas the low survival of pups may be due to low weaning mass and also reduced food availability to naïve, and therefore vulnerable, animals (McMahon et al. 2003, 2005a).

Generation length has been calculated at 9.5 years (Pacifici et al. 2013). Population change over three generations from 1982 2009 is inferred to have been stable or positive (SCAR EGS 2008, Authier 2011, Pistorius et al. 2011, van den Hoff 2014).

Habitats and Ecology

Southern Elephant Seals are the largest of all pinnipeds with adult males reaching masses of two to four tons and lengths of up to 4.5 m. They show considerable sexual dimorphism, with adult females only reaching masses of 400-900 kg and average lengths of 2.8 m. Newborn pups weigh between 40 and 46 kg (Laws 1993). Females first haul out to pup at ages of three to six years, and males typically breed for the first time at six to ten years of age (Laws 1956, Carrick et al. 1962a, Jones 1981, McCann 1981, Pistorius et al. 2001, Kirkman et al. 2004). At Marion Island, less than 5% of females survived beyond 13 years of age, and less than 5% of males beyond 10 years of age (de Bruyn 2009). Longevity of 23 years has been recorded for adult females at Macquarie Island (Hindell and Little 1988).

Four types of terrestrial periods are experienced over the course of their lives: the breeding, moult and winter haul-outs, and the natal terrestrial period. The mating system is mate-defense polygyny. Breeding seasons are highly synchronized (Carrick et al. 1962b, Laws 1956, McCann 1981, Bonner 1989), with adult females spending approximately a month ashore during the breeding season, while adult males may spend one to three months ashore. During this time adult females will haul out in large aggregations that may contain up to a thousand animals (Carrick et al. 1962a, Bonner 1989). Some three to seven days after females come ashore they give birth to a single pup, which they will suckle for some three weeks. Mating

167 takes place shortly before the pup is weaned and the adult female returns to the sea a few days later. Breeding aggregations are ephemeral, and do not last beyond the breeding season. Access to all females in one breeding aggregation is defended by a dominant adult male. In larger breeding aggregations, subdominant males also gain access to females (Laws 1956, Carrick et al. 1962a, McCann 1981). Southern Elephant Seals undergo an annual double migration between foraging grounds and isolated haul-out sites (place where they are born and breed during the austral spring, moult in the austral summer, and, as immatures, haul-out during the winter.(Bartholomew and Hubbs 1960, Carrick et al. 1962b, Hindell and Burton 1988). Their foraging grounds may be located over 5,000 km from their terrestrial haul-out sites (Bester and Pansegrouw 1992, Jonker and Bester 1998, Campagna et al. 1999, Bailleul et al. 2007).Southern Elephant Seals are predominantly marine, with adult females spending more than 85% of each year at sea while adult males spend less than 80% (Carrick et al. 1962a, Hindell and Burton 1988, McIntyre et al. 2010).

Southern Elephant Seals spend most of their time at-sea foraging in association with frontal systems, currents and shifting marginal ice-edge zones. Studies of foraging sites suggest that they are sensitive to fine-scale variation in bathymetry and ocean properties (sea-ice concentration and sea temperature profiles) (Bailleul et al. 2007, Biuw et al. 2010). Southern Elephant Seals are prodigious divers, with dive depth and duration varying during the year and between the sexes, but mostly ranging from 200 to 700 m deep and from 20 to just over 30 minutes in duration (Biuw et al. 2010, McIntyre et al. 2010). Both sexes spend over 65% of their lives below 100 m, but the maximum record dive depth is 2,133 m for an adult male (McIntyre et al. 2010).

The diet varies between populations and seasons, but it consist primarily of myctophid and notothenid fish and squid (Brown et al. 1999, Piatkowski et al. 2002, Bradshaw et al. 2003, van den Hoff et al. 2003, Cherel et al. 2008, Newland et al. 2011).

Killer Whales are the primary predators of Southern Elephant Seals (Reisinger et al. 2011) but Leopard Seals are also known to take pups (Gwyn 1953).

Generation Length: 9.5 years (Pacifici et al. 2013)

General Use and Trade Information

Southern Elephant Seals were hunted for thousands of years by aboriginal and native people in Australia and South America and, more recently, they were subject to intensive commercial harvests starting in the early 19th century and not ending until 1964 at South Georgia (McCann 1985). They were prized for their large quantity of blubber that could be rendered to fine and valuable oil (Laws 1960). The commercial harvesting of Southern Elephant Seals ceased in 1964 (McCann 1985). Nowadays, this species has economic value as a tourist attraction at Península Valdés in Argentina and the Malvinas-Falkland Islands (Le Boeuf and Campagna 2013).

Threats

The impact of threats in the Patagonian Sea is unknown. Interaction with squid fisheries is evident as entangled animals are relatively common (Campagna et al., 2007). Lately, few animals were also found entangled in long-line fishing gear. Disturbance by tourists is very high in non-protected areas south of Península Valdés, with unknown impact on pup survival during the breeding season: September to early November (Campagna pers. comm. 2016). 168

Worldwide Southern Elephant Seals face few threats and conflicts today, since they live far from human population centres and have minimal interactions with commercial fisheries. Intensive fishing could, however, deplete important prey stocks (Hanchet et al. 2003). The possible effects of global climate change on Southern Elephant Seals are not well known but such changes may negatively impact prey populations or change marine habitat (Learmonth et al. 2006, Kovacs et al. 2012). It is also possible that a reduction in sea ice due to climate change may benefit Southern Elephant Seals (van den Hoff et al. 2014). Conversely, Southern Elephant Seals that haul out at mainland sites could come in contact with domestic and wild animals and be exposed to a variety of diseases including morbilliviruses (Lavigne and Schmitz 1990).

Conservation

Península Valdés, where the majority of this species' breeding and molting population occurs, is a provincial coastal protected area and a Biosphere Reserve (Le Boeuf and Campagna 2013). Yet, animals spend 80% of their life at sea, where interaction with fisheries is known to happen (Campagna et al. 2007). As the Valdés population is expanding to new areas that are not protected, there is more interaction with sport fishermen and 4x4 vehicles drivers (Campagna pers. comm. 2016).

The Malvinas population does not appear to be at risk (Galimberti et al. 2001) and it is located in a nature reserve on a privately owned island that manages ecotourism. On the other hand, the aggregation at the chilean fiords is isolated and difficult to reach but not yet formally protected.

The species is listed in Appendix II of CITES.

Bibliography

Acevedo, J., Aguayo-Lobo, A., Brito, J.L., Torres, D., Cáceres, B., Vila, A., Cardeña, M., Acuña, P. 2016. Review of the current distribution of southern elephant seals in the eastern South Pacific. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research: 1-19.

Alava, J.J. and Carvajal, R. 2005. First records of elephant seals on the Guayaquil Gulf, Ecuador: on the occurrence of either a Mirounga leonina or M. angustirostris. Latin American Journal of Aquatic Mammals 4: 195-198.

Authier M., Delord, K., and Guinet, C. 2011. Population trends of female Elephant Seals breeding on the Courbet Peninsula, Iles Kerguelen. Polar Biology 34: 319-328.

Bailleul, F., Charrassin, J. B., Monestiez, P., Roquet, F., Biuw, M. and Guinet, C. 2007. Successful foraging zones of southern elephant seals from the Kerguelen Islands in relation to oceanographic conditions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, Biological Sciences 362: 2169-2181.

Bartholomew, G.A. and Hubbs, C.L. 1960. Population growth and seasonal movements of the northern elephant seal, Mirounga angustirostris. Mammalia 24: 313-324.

Bester, M. N. 1980. The southern elephant seal Mirounga leonina at Gough Island. South African Journal of Zoology 15: 235-239.

169

Bester, M.N. 1988. Marking and monitoring studies of the Kerguelen stock of southern elephant seals Mirounga leonina and their bearing on biological research in the Vestfold Hills. Hydrobiologia 165: 269-277.

Bester, M.N. and Hofmeyr, G.J.G. 2005. Numbers of elephant seals at Prince Edward Island, Southern Ocean. South African Journal of Wildlife Research 35: 85-88.

Bester, M.N. and Pansegrouw, H.M. 1992. Ranging behaviour of southern elephant seal cows from Marion Island. South African Journal of Science 88: 574-577.

Biuw, M., Nøst, O.A., Stien, A., Zhou, Q., Lydersen, C. and Kovacs, K.M. 2010. Effects of hydrographic variability on the spatial, seasonal and diel diving patterns of southern elephant seals in the Eastern Weddell Sea. PLoS One 5: e13816.

Bonner, W.N. 1989. The biology of seals. Christopher Helm, Bromley, UK.

Boyd, I. L., Walker, T. R. and Poncet, J. 1996. Status of southern elephant seals at South Georgia. Antarctic Science 8: 237-244.

Bradshaw, C. J. A., Hindell, M. A., Best, N. J., Phillips, K. L., Wilson, G. and Nichols, P. D. 2003. You are what you eat: Describing the foraging ecology of southern elephant seals (Mirounga leonina) using blubber fatty acids. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B Biological Sciences 270: 1283-1292.

Brown, D.J., Boyd, I.L., Cripps, G.C. and Butler, P.J. 1999. Fatty acid signature analysis from the milk of Antarctic fur seals and Southern elephant seals from South Georgia: implications for diet determination. Marine Ecology Progress Series 187: 251-263.

Campagna, C. and Lewis, M. 1992. Growth and distribution of a southern elephant seal colony. Marine Mammal Science 8: 387-396.

Campagna, C., Falabella, V. and Lewis, M. 2007. Entanglement of southern elephant seals in squid fishing gear. Marine Mammal Science 23(2): 414-418.

Campagna, C., Fedak, M. A. and Mcconnell, B. J. 1999. Post-breeding distribution and diving behavior or adult male southern elephant seals from Patagonia. Journal of Mammalogy 80(4): 1341-1352.

Carrick, R., Csordas, S.E. and Ingham, S.E. 1962a. Studies on the southern elephant seal Mirounga leonina (L.). IV Breeding and development. Commonwealth Science and Industrial Research Organisations, Wildlife Research 7(161-197).

Carrick, R., Csordas, S.E., Ingham, S.E. and Keith, K. 1962b. Studies on the southern elephant seal, Mirounga leonina (L.). III. The annual cycle in relation to age and sex. Commonwealth Science and Industrial Research Organisations, Wildlife Research 7: 119-160.

Carrick, R., and Ingham, S.E. 1962. Studies on the southern elephant seal Mirounga leonina (L.). V. Population dynamics and utilisation. CSIRO Wildlife Research 7: 198-206.

Cherel, Y., Ducatez, S., Fontaine, C., Richard, P. and Guinet, C. 2008. Stable isotopes reveal the trophic position and mesopelagic fish diet of female southern elephant seals breeding on the Kergueln Islands. Marine Ecology Progress Series 370: 239-247.

De Moura, J.F., Di Dario, B.P.S., Lima, L.M. and Siciliano, S. 2010. Southern elephant seals (Mirounga leonina) along the Brazilian coast: review and additional records. Marine Biodiversity Records 3: e18.

170

Fabiani, A., Hoelzel, A. R., Galimberti, F., and Muelbert, M. M. C. 2003. Long-range paternal gene flow in the southern elephant seal. Science 299: 676.

Falabella, V.; Campagna, C.; Croxall, J. 2009. Atlas del Mar Patagónico. Especies y espacios. Wildlife Conservation Society & BirdLife International, Buenos Aires.

Ferrari, M.A., Campagna, C., Condit, R., Lewis, M.N. 2013. The founding of a southern elephant seal colony. Marine Mammal Science 29(3): 407-423.

Gales, N.J., Adams, M. and Burton, H.R. 1989. Genetic relatedness of two populations of the southern elephant seal, Mirounga leonina. Marine Mammal Science 5: 57-67.

Galimberti, F. and Boitani, L. L. 1999. Demography and breeding biology of a small, localized population of southern elephant seals (Mirounga leonina). Marine Mammal Science 15(1): 159- 178.

Galimberti, F., Sanvito, S., Boitani, L. and Fabiani, A. 2001. Viability of the southern elephant seal population of the Falkland Islands. Animal Conservation 4: 81-88.

Gil-Delgado, J.A., Villaescusa, J.A., Diazmacip, M.E., Velazquez, D., Rico, E, Toro, M., Quesada, A and Camacho, A. 2013. Minimum population size estimates demonstrate an increase in southern elephant seals (Mirounga leonina) on Livingston Island, maritime Antarctica. Polar Biology 36: 607-610.

Guinet, C., Jouventin, P. and Weimerskirch, H. 1999. Recent population change of the southern elephant seal at Iles Crozet and Iles Kerguelen: The end of the decrease? Antarctic Science 11: 193-197.

Gwynn, A.M. 1953. The status of the leopard seal at Heard Island and Macquarie Island, 1948 1950. ANARE Research Expedition Interim Report No. 3. Antarctic Division Department of External Affairs. Melbourne, Australia.

Hall, B.L., Hoelzel, A.R., Barroni, C., Denton, G.H., Le Boeuf, B.J., Overturf, B. and Töpf, A.L. 2006. Holocene elephant seal distribution implies warmer-than-present climate in the Ross Sea. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 103: 10213-10217.

Hanchet, S., Horn, P. and Stevenson, M. 2003. Fishing in the ice: is it sustainable? Water & Atmosphere 11: 24 25.

Heimark, R.J. and Heimark, G.M. 1986. Southern elephant seal pupping at Palmer Station, Antarctica. Journal of Mammalogy 67: 189-190.

Hindell, M. A., and Burton, H. R. 1988. The history of the elephant seal industry at Macquarie Island and estimates of the pre-sealing numbers. Papers and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania 122: 159-176.

Hindell, M.A. and Little, G.J. 1988. Longevity, fertility and philopatry of two female southern elephant seals (Mirounga leonina) at Macquarie Island. Marine Mammal Science 4: 168-171.

Hoelzel, A. R., Halley, J., O'Brien, S. J., Campagna, C., Arnbom, T., Le Boeuf, B. J., Ralls, K. and Dover, G. A. 1993. Elephant seal genetic variation and the use of simulation models to investigate historical population bottlenecks. Journal of Heredity 84: 443-449.

Johnson, D.W. 1990. A southern elephant seal (Mirounga leonina Linn.) in the northern hemisphere (Sultanate of Oman). Marine Mammal Science 6: 242-243.

171

Jones, E. 1981. Age in relation to breeding status of the male southern elephant seal, Mirounga leonina (L.), at Macquarie Island. Australian Wildlife Reseach 8: 327-334.

Jonker, F.C. and Bester, M.N. 1998. Seasonal movements and foraging areas of adult southern female elephant seals, Mirounga leonina, from Marion Island. Antarctic Science 10: 21-30.

Kettlewell, H.B.D. and Rand, B. 1955. Elephant seal cow and pup on South African coast. Nature 175: 1000-1001.

Kirkman, S.P., Bester, M.N., Hofmeyr, G.J.G., Jonker, F.C., Pistorius, P.A., Owen, R. and Strydom, N. 2004. Variation in the timing of the breeding haulout of female southern elephant seals at Marion Island. Australian Journal of Zoology 52: 379-388.

Kovacs, K.M., Aguilar, A., Aurioles, D., Burkanov, V., Campagna, C., Gales, N.J., Gelatt, T., Goldsworthy, S.D., Goodman, S.J., Hofmeyr, G.J.G., Härkönen, T., Lowry, L., Lydersen, L., Schipper, J., Sipilä, T., Southwell, C., Thompson, D. and Trillmich, F. 2012. Global threats to pinnipeds. Marine Mammal Science 28: 414-436.

Lavigne D.M. and Schmitz, O.J. 1990. Global warming and increasing population densities: a prescription for seal plagues. Marine Pollution Bulletin 21: 280-284.

Laws, R. M. 1956. The elephant seal (Mirounga leonina Linn.). II. General social and reproductive behavior. Falkland Islands Dependencies Survey Scientific Reports 13: 1-88.

Laws, R. M. 1993. Identification of species. In: R. M. Laws (ed.), Antarctic seals, pp. 1-28. Cambridge University Press.

Laws, R.M. 1960. The southern elephant seal (Mirounga leonina) at South Georgia. Norsk Hvalfangst-Tidende 49: 466-476, 520-542.

Le Boeuf, B. J., Campagna, C. 2013. Wildlife Viewing Spectacles: Best Practices from Elephant Seal (Mirounga sp.) Colonies. Aquatic Mammals 39(2): 132-146.

Lewis, M., Campagna, C., Marin, M. R. and Fernandez, T. 2006. Southern elephant seals north of the antarctic polar front. Antarctic Science 18(2): 213-222.

Lewis, M., Campagna, C., Quintana, F. and Falabella, V. 1998. Estado actual y distribución de la población del elefante marino del sur en la Península Valdés, Argentina. Mastozoología Neotropical 5(1): 29-40.

McCann, T. S. 1985. Size, status and demography of southern elephant seal (Mirounga leonina) populations. In: J. K. King and M. M. Bryden (eds), Studies of sea mammals in south latitudes, pp. 1-17. South Australian Museum, Adelaide, Australia.

McIntyre, T., deBruyn, P.J.N., Ansorge, I.J., Bester, M.N., Bornemann, H., Plötz, J. and Tosh, C.A. 2010. A lifetime at depth: vertical distribution of southern elephant seals in the water column. Polar Biology 33: 1037-1048.

McMahon, C. R., Bester, M. N., Burton, H. R., Hindell, M. A., and Bradshaw, C. J. A. 2005b. Population status, trends and a re-examination of the hypotheses explaining the recent decreases of the southern elephant seal, Mirounga leonina. Mammal Review 35: 82 100.

172

McMahon, C. R., Burton, H., and Bester, M. N. 2003. A demographic comparison of two southern elephant seal populations. Journal of Animal Ecology 72: 61-74.

McMahon, C. R., Hindell, M. A., Burton, H. R., and Bester, M. N. 2005a. Comparison of southern elephant seal populations, and observations of a population on a demographic knife- edge. Marine Ecology Progress Series 288: 273-283.

McMahon, C. R., and Burton, H. R. 2005. Climate change and seal survival: evidence for environmentally mediated changes in elephant seal, Mirounga leonina, pup survival. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 272: 923-928.

McMahon, C.R., Bester, M.N., Hindell, M.A., Brook, B.W. and Bradshaw, C.J.A. 2009. Shifting trends: detecting environmentally mediated regulation in long-lived marine vertebrates using time-series data. Oecologia 159: 69-82.

Mccann, T. S. 1981. Aggression and sexual activity of males southern elephant seals, Mirounga leonina. Journal of Zoology (London) 195: 295-310.

Mills, J.A., Ryder, J.P., Shaw, P.W. and McLay, R. 1977. Further birth records of elephant seal Mirounga leonina in New Zealand (note). New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 11: 789-791.

Murray, M.D. 1981. The breeding of the southern elephant seal, Mirounga leonina L, on the Antarctic continent. Polar Record 20: 370-371.

Newland, C. B., Field, I. C., Cherel, Y., Guinet, C., Bradshaw, C. J. A. McMahon, C. R., and Hindell M. A. 2011. Diet of juvenile southern elephant seals reappraised by stable isotopes in whiskers. Marine Ecology Progress Series 424: 247 258.

Oosthuizen, W.H., David, J.H.M. and Ross, G.J.B. 1988. New records of southern elephant seals Mirounga leonina L. on the coast of southern Africa. South African Journal of Marine Science 7: 75-86.

Pacifici, M., Santini, L., Di Marco, M., Baisero, D., Francucci, L., Grottolo Marasini, G., Visconti, P. and Rondinini, C. 2013. Generation length for mammals. Nature Conservation 5: 87 94.

Piatowski, U., Vergani, D.F. and Stanganelli, Z.B. 2002. Changes in the cephalopod diet of southern elephant seal females at King George Island, during El Niño-La Niña events. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 82: 913-916.

Pistorius, P. A., Bester, M. N., Lewis, M., Taylor, F. E., Campagna, C. and Kirkman, S. P. 2004. Adult female survival, population trend, and the implication of early primiparity in a capital breeder, the southern elephant seal (Mirounga leonina). Journal of Zoology (London) 263(2): 107-119.

Pistorius, P.A., Bester, M.N., Kirkman, S.P. and Taylor, F.E. 2001. Temporal changes in fecundity and age at sexual maturity of southern elephant seals at Marion Island. Polar Biology 24: 343-348.

Pistorius, P.A., de Bruyn, P.J.N. and Bester, M.N. 2011. Population dynamics of southern elephant seals: a synthesis of three decades of demographic research at Marion Island. African Journal of Marine Science 33: 523-534.

Reisinger, R.R. and Bester, M.N. 2010. Long distance breeding dispersal of a southern elephant seal. Polar Biology 33: 1289-1291.

173

Reisinger, R.R., de Bruyn, P.J.N. and Bester, M.N. 2011. Predatory impact of killer whales on pinniped and penguin populations at the Subantarctic Prince Edward Islands: fact and fiction. Journal of Zoology, London 285: 1-10.

SCAR-EGS. 2008. Scientific Committee for Antarctic Research Expert Group on Seals Report. Available at: http://www.seals.scar.org/pdf/statusofstocs.pdf. (Accessed: 5 November 2014).

Slade, R. W., Moritz, C., Hoelzel, A. R., and Burton, H. R. 1998. Molecular population genetics of the southern elephant seal Mirounga leonina. Genetics 149: 1945-1957.

Slip, D. J., and Burton, H. R. 1999. Population status and seasonal haulout patterns of the southern elephant seal (Mirounga leonina) at Heard Island. Antarctic Science 11: 38-47.

Taylor, R.H. and Taylor, G.A. 1989. Re-assessment of the status of southern elephant seals (Mirounga leonina) in New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 23: 201-213.

Wace, N. M.; Holdgate, M. 1976. Man and nature in the Tristan da Cunha Islands. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Morges, Switzerland. de Bruyn, P.J.N. 2009. Life history studies of the southern elephant seal population at Marion Island. Ph.D. thesis, University of Pretoria. van den Hoff, J., Burton, H., and Raymond, B. 2007. The population trend of Southern elephant seals (Mirounga leonina L.) at Macquarie Island (1952 2004). Polar Biology 30: 1275 1283. van den Hoff, J., Davies, R. and Burton, H.R. 2003. Origins, age composition and change in numbers of moulting southern elephant seals (Mirounga leonina L.) in the Windmill Islands, Vincennes Bay, east Antarctica, 1988-2001. Wildlife Research 30: 275-280. van den Hoff, J., McMahon, C.R., Simpkins, G.R., Hindell, M.A., Alderman, R. and Burton, H.R. 2014. Bottom-up regulation of a pole-ward migratory predator population. Proceedings of the Royal Society, Series B 281: 2013.2842.

174