4.1 Article

Estimating population changes in humpback whales Megaptera novaeangliaemigrating past Cape Vidal, South Africa

期刊

AFRICAN JOURNAL OF MARINE SCIENCE
卷 45, 期 1, 页码 39-50

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.2989/1814232X.2023.2193591

关键词

abundance estimate; analogue theodolite; carrying capacity; mark-recapture; migration; shore-based survey; sightability; whale stock

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Shore-based surveys were conducted in Cape Vidal, South Africa to estimate the relative abundance and growth rate of humpback whales. The results indicate a slowing of the rate of increase compared to previous estimates, suggesting possible threats or reaching pre-exploitation levels.
Shore-based surveys of humpback whales Megaptera novaeangliae were performed from Cape Vidal, on the east coast of South Africa (iSimangaliso Marine Protected Area, Indian Ocean), from two independent platforms between 27 June and 7 August in 2018 and 2019, to estimate the relative abundance and growth rate of the C1 breeding substock of the species. Observed whale groups were tracked by analogue survey theodolites, and observed numbers were adjusted to account for daily sighting effort and the proportions of groups missed by observers. Daily sighting frequency was aggregated across the season to result in annual relative abundance estimates of 10 499 (2018) and 11 009 (2019) individuals, with peak frequencies from 28 July to 3 August in both years. When compared with previous estimates from the same study area, we estimated an average annual increase rate of 7.4% to 8.8% over 31 years from 1988. These results indicate a slowing of the rate of increase from previous estimates, which could suggest that the population is approaching pre-exploitation numbers or that yet unidentified threats are negatively impacting the growth rate. Continued monitoring of the recovering humpback whale stocks is critical to identify any possible effects of Southern Ocean ecosystem changes on the stock health of these whales.

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

4.1
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