4.2 Article

Monitoring North Atlantic right whale Eubalaena glacialis entanglement rates: a 30 yr retrospective

期刊

MARINE ECOLOGY PROGRESS SERIES
卷 466, 期 -, 页码 293-302

出版社

INTER-RESEARCH
DOI: 10.3354/meps09923

关键词

North Atlantic right whale; Eubalaena glacialis; Fishing gear; Entanglement; Scars; Conservation

资金

  1. NMFS, Northeast Fisheries Science Center

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Entanglement in non-mobile fishing gear has been identified as one of the leading causes of mortality in North Atlantic right whales Eubalaena glacialis. To investigate this issue further, all available photographs of right whales taken from 1980 to 2009 were examined for evidence of entanglement with gear used in fisheries based on presence of rope or netting on the whale or scars inferred to have been caused by an encounter with rope. Photographs of 626 individual whales were assessed and 1032 unique entanglement events were documented. Of the 626 animals, 519 (82.9%) had been entangled at least once and 306 of the 519 (59.0%) had been entangled more than once. Males and females were entangled at similar rates. Juveniles were entangled at a higher rate than adults. On average, 25.9% of adequately photographed animals acquired new wounds or scars from fishing gear annually with no significant trend over time detected. However, the annual percentage of animals observed with rope on the body increased significantly during the study period, suggesting that it is becoming more difficult for whales to free themselves completely from fishing gear. Such high annual rates of entanglement remain a serious conservation concern for right whales because entanglements can have both lethal and sub-lethal effects. Federally required changes to fixed-gear fisheries in US waters have not reduced serious injuries and mortality to legally required levels. Here we show how documenting various annual rates of entanglement can monitor progress and impacts that fishing gear regulations may have on right whale recovery.

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