4.2 Article

Sex-biased incidental mortality of albatrosses and petrels in longline fisheries: differential distributions at sea or differential access to baits mediated by sexual size dimorphism?

期刊

JOURNAL OF ORNITHOLOGY
卷 152, 期 2, 页码 261-268

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s10336-010-0577-x

关键词

Adult sex ratio; Seabirds; Incidental capture; Longline fishery; Sexual dimorphism

资金

  1. CAPES

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Skewed adult sex ratio (ASR) has been proposed as a common pattern in birds, frequently biased towards males and with larger biases in globally threatened species. In albatrosses and petrels, it has been suggested that differential mortality of one gender in fisheries is caused either by sexual size dimorphism giving males a competitive advantage, which allows more access of the larger sex (i.e. males) to discards and/or baits, or to at sea segregation of sexes. Here, we tested these hypotheses by determining ASRs in albatrosses and petrels trapped at sea when attending longline fishing vessels for discards in the southwestern Atlantic Ocean, and searched in the literature for patterns in ASR in albatrosses and petrels killed by fisheries in this area and elsewhere. We show that skewed ASR is common in albatrosses and petrels in the community attending vessels for discards, confirming results found for birds in general. There was no correlation between skewed ASR and conservation status, or between ASR and sexual size dimorphism. Our review of the sex of birds incidentally killed in fisheries found skewed ASR toward males, females or parity to be equally reported. Thus, sexual dimorphism in size does not explain skewed ASR in the community we sampled or in incidental captures in fisheries in the review. Differential at-sea distribution of sexes appears to be a better explanation of the patterns found in the community sampled at sea as well as skewed ASR in seabird fatalities, particularly distant from breeding areas.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据