The status of harbour seals (Phoca vitulina) in the UK

Surveys in England and the Moray Firth were funded by the UK Natural Environment Research Council (National Capability Grant no. SMRU1001). Surveys in the rest of Scotland were funded by Scottish Natural Heritage and surveys in Northern Ireland were funded by The Department of Trade and Industry, Marine Current Turbines, and the Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs.1. Estimates of population size and trends are essential for effective conservation and management of wildlife populations. For harbour seals (Phoca vitulina), these data are required to fulfil statutory reporting obligations under national and international regulations. 2. Aerial survey counts of harbour seals hauled out during their annual moult were used to estimate population sizes and trends at UK, regional (seal management unit, SMU) and local (Special Area of Conservation, SAC) scales. 3. Results indicate that the current UK harbour seal population is similar to estimates from the late 1990s, but there were significant declines in some subpopulations and increases in others. 4. Fitted trends suggest that the UK harbour seal population can be divided into three geographically coherent groups: South‐east populations (South‐East and North‐East England SMUs) have shown continuous increases punctuated by phocine distemper virus epidemics in 1988 and 2002; north‐east populations (East Scotland, Moray Firth, North Coast and Orkney, and Shetland SMUs) have declined since the late 1990s; north‐west populations (West Scotland, Western Isles, and South‐West Scotland SMUs) have remained stable or increased. Similar geographical population substructure is evident in recent population genetics results. 5. Trends within SACs generally match SMU trends since 2002. Of the nine SACs designated for harbour seals, four declined (in East Scotland, Moray Firth, and North Coast and Orkney SMUs), four remained stable (in Shetland and West Scotland SMUs), and one increased (in South‐East England SMU). 6. Large changes in relative abundance have resulted from differences in regional trends. For example, in 1996–1997 the West Scotland and North Coast and Orkney SMUs each held ~27% of the Great Britain population but now hold ~50% and ~4% respectively; in 1980, the South‐East England SMU population was ~50% that of the Wadden Sea population, but by 2016 it was equivalent to <20% of the Wadden Sea count.PostprintPeer reviewe

Monitoring long-term changes in UK grey seal pup production

The work was supported by funding from the Natural Environment Research Council to SMRU (grant no. SMRU1001).1.  The population size of many species, particularly those in the aquatic environment, cannot be censused directly. Counts, during the breeding season, of one component of the population (e.g. breeding females) are often used as an index to allow investigation of trends. In species, such as grey seals (Halichoerus grypus), for which births are not tightly synchronous, single counts of pups represent an unknown proportion of the total number of pups born (pup production), and thus of breeding females (i.e. each pup born represents a breeding female). 2.  Grey seals pup at large colonies around the coast of the UK. Information on their populations is required under national and international legislation. 3.  In the UK, pup production has been monitored at some colonies since 1956. Currently, large colonies (~90% of UK pup production) are monitored either using ground (~10%; annually) or aerial surveys (~80%; annually until 2010, and thereafter biennially). 4.  Here, the model used to estimate pup production at aerially surveyed colonies from 1987 to 2010 is described; structured pup counts from multiple surveys are combined with knowledge of life‐history parameters to model birth curves. 5.  The resulting trends in pup production up to 2010 (aerially surveyed colonies) and 2016 (ground surveyed colonies) are examined. 6.  In 2010, over 45,000 pups were estimated to be born in the UK. Pup production appeared to have reached an asymptote in the Inner Hebrides, Outer Hebrides and Orkney, whereas it is still increasing exponentially in the North Sea. Although density‐dependent processes acting at sea are likely to be responsible for these regional trends, we suggest that the substantial variation in trends within regions are likely caused by processes acting at the colony level. Some long‐established colonies, including Special Areas of Conservation, are exhibiting decreasing trends. 7.  Special Areas of Conservation often serve as de facto monitoring sites and are the focus of management efforts. The observed temporal and spatial variability in patterns of colony growth rates highlight the potential risks of using such sites to develop wider management policies.PostprintPeer reviewe

Sympatric seals, satellite tracking and protected areas : habitat-based distribution estimates for conservation and management

Analysis was funded by the UK Government Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS; OESEA-16-76/OESEA-17-78) with support from the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC; INSITE Phase II NE/T010614/1 EcoSTAR), EU INTERREG (MarPAMM), and the Scottish Government (MMSS/002/15). DJFR’s contribution was funded by NERC National Capability Funding (NE/R015007/1). WJG was supported by INSITE Phase I (MAPS). Telemetry tags and their deployment were funded in the UK by BEIS (and previous incarnations), NERC, Marine Scotland, Scottish Government, NatureScot, SMRU, SMRU Instrumentation Group, Marine Current Turbines, Ørsted, the Met Office, the Zoological Society of London (ZSL), the Crown Estate, Highlands & Islands Enterprise, Moray Firth Renewables Limited (MORL), Beatrice Offshore Windfarm Limited (BOWL), SITA Trust, BBC Wildlife Fund and the Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust. Tags and their deployment in Ireland were funded by Inland Fisheries Ireland, the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, the Higher Education Authority of Ireland, the National Geographic Society, the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, and the National Parks and Wildlife Service. UK aerial surveys conducted by SMRU were funded by NERC (NE/R015007/1), NatureScot, the Department for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (Northern Ireland), Marine Current Turbines, Marine Scotland, Natural England, and Scottish Power. Aerial surveys in Ireland were funded by the Department for Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media.Marine predator populations are crucial to the structure and functioning of ecosystems. Like many predator taxa, pinnipeds face an increasingly complex array of natural and anthropogenic threats. Understanding the relationship between at-sea processes and trends in abundance at land-based monitoring sites requires robust estimates of at-sea distribution, often on multi-region scales. Such an understanding is critical for effective conservation management, but estimates are often limited in spatial extent by spatial coverage of animal-borne tracking data. Grey (Halichoerus grypus) and harbour seals (Phoca vitulina) are sympatric predators in North Atlantic shelf seas. The United Kingdom (UK) and Ireland represents an important population centre for both species, and Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) are designated for their monitoring and protection. Here we use an extensive high-resolution GPS tracking dataset, unprecedented in both size (114 grey and 239 harbour seals) and spatial coverage, to model habitat preference and generate at-sea distribution estimates for the entire UK and Ireland populations of both species. We found regional differences in environmental drivers of distribution for both species which likely relate to regional variation in diet and population trends. Moreover, we provide SAC-specific estimates of at-sea distribution for use in marine spatial planning, demonstrating that hotspots of at-sea density in UK and Ireland-wide maps cannot always be apportioned to the nearest SAC. We show that for grey seals, colonial capital breeders, there is a mismatch between SACs (where impacts are likely to be detected) and areas where impacts are most likely to occur (at sea). We highlight an urgent need for further research to elucidate the links between at-sea distribution during the foraging season and population trends observed in SACs. More generally, we highlight that the potential for such a disconnect needs to be considered when designating and managing protected sites, particularly for species that aggregate to breed and exhibit partial migration (e.g. grey seals), or spatial variation in migration strategies. We demonstrate the use of strategic tracking efforts to predict distribution across multiple regions, but caution that such efforts should be mindful of the potential for differences in species-environment relationships despite similar accessible habitats.Publisher PDFPeer reviewe

Phenological sensitivity to climate across taxa and trophic levels

Differences in phenological responses to climate change among species can desynchronise ecological interactions and thereby threaten ecosystem function. To assess these threats, we must quantify the relative impact of climate change on species at different trophic levels. Here, we apply a Climate Sensitivity Profile approach to 10,003 terrestrial and aquatic phenological data sets, spatially matched to temperature and precipitation data, to quantify variation in climate sensitivity. The direction, magnitude and timing of climate sensitivity varied markedly among organisms within taxonomic and trophic groups. Despite this variability, we detected systematic variation in the direction and magnitude of phenological climate sensitivity. Secondary consumers showed consistently lower climate sensitivity than other groups. We used mid-century climate change projections to estimate that the timing of phenological events could change more for primary consumers than for species in other trophic levels (6.2 versus 2.5–2.9 days earlier on average), with substantial taxonomic variation (1.1–14.8 days earlier on average)

British grey seal (Halichoerus grypus) abundance in 2008:An assessment based on aerial counts and satellite telemetry

Recent estimates of the total size of the British grey seal population have been based on fitting age-structured models to estimates of pup production. The estimates were sensitive to whether density-dependence was considered to act on fecundity or pup survival. This study provides an alternative estimate for abundance in 2008: 91 800 animals (95% confidence interval, CI, 78 400-109 900). The estimate is consistent with the results of existing models where population density influences pup survival. It suggests that reductions in fecundity are unlikely to have been the cause of the recent slowing of the rate of growth of the population. The estimate presented is based on aerial surveys of the entire Scottish coast and the east coast of England. The surveys were carried out in August of 20072009 and restricted to the 2 h each side of daylight low water. Data from 107 electronic tags deployed between 1995 and 2008 were used to estimate the proportion of animals hauled out during the surveys. Overall, the animals hauled out for 31% (95% CI 15-50%) of the survey windows. No significant effects on the proportion of animals hauled out were detected from year, location, age, sex, temperature, rainfall, or the timing of low tide.</p

An assessment of population size and distribution ofharbour seals in the Republic of Ireland during the moultseason in August 2003

The status of Ireland's harbour seal Phoca vitulina vitulina population is poorly understood. The most recent national population estimate dates back to the breeding season in 1978 and did not cover the entire coastline. Reliable up-to-date information on the abundance and distribution of harbour seals in Ireland is necessary to assess the conservation status of the species and for the effective identification, management and monitoring of special areas of conservation required for harbour seals under the EU Habitats Directive. To provide comprehensive current information on Ireland's harbour seal population, a geographically extensive survey was conducted along the coastline of the Republic of Ireland during the species' annual moult in August 2003. This complemented a similar survey of Northern Ireland, which was conducted in 2002. Using thermal imaging technology, haul-out groups of harbour seals and grey seals Halichoerus grypus were identified from the air, aerial-counts were obtained and compared with simultaneous ground-count data from selected sites. Harbour seal distribution recorded during the 2003 moult season was concentrated in the south-west, west and north-west of the country. This national survey yielded a minimum population estimate for the Republic of Ireland of 2905 harbour seals, delivering an effective baseline for current and future population research.</p

Harbour seal movements and haul-out patterns:Implications for monitoring and management

1. Compliance with conservation legislation requires knowledge on the behaviour, abundance and distribution of protected species. Seal life history is characterized by a combination of marine foraging and a requirement to haul out on a solid substrate for reproduction and moulting. Thus understanding the use of haul out sites, where seals are Counted, its well as their at-sea movements is crucial for designing effective monitoring and management plans. 2. This study used satellite transmitters deployed on 24 harbour seals in western Scotland to examine movements and haul-out patterns. 3. The proportion of time harbour seals spent hauled Out (daily means of between 11 and 27%) varied spatially, temporally and according to sex. The mean haul-out duration was 5 h, with a maximum of over 24 h. 4. Patterns of movement were observed at two geographical scales; while some seals travelled over 100 km, 50% of trips were within 25 km of a haul-out site. These patterns are important for the identification of a marine component to designated protected areas for the species. 5. On average seals returned to the haul-out. sites they last used during 40% of trips, indicating a degree of site fidelity, though there was wide variation between different haul-out sites (range 0% to &gt; 75%). 6. Low fidelity haul-out sites could form a network of land-based protected areas, while high fidelity sites might form appropriate management units. Copyright (c) 2008 John Wiley &amp; Sons, Ltd.</p