Spatiotemporal trends in cetacean strandings and response in the southwestern Indian Ocean : 2000–2020

On behalf of SIF, we would like to thank the Seychelles partners (Alphonse Foundation, Desroches Foundation, Island Conservation Society, Farquhar Foundation, Seychelles Islands Foundation, Silhouette Foundation) for providing financial support to acquire and grant use of their data. Collection of data in Reunion was funded by DEAL Reunion and Region-Reunion.The south-western Indian Ocean (SWIO) is a region of global importance for marine mammal biodiversity, but our understanding of most of the species and populations found there is still rudimentary. The Indian Ocean Network for Cetacean Research (IndoCet) was formed in 2014 and is dedicated to the research of all cetacean species across the SWIO. Since 2019, there have been efforts to create a regional network for coordinated response to stranding events as well as training and capacity building in the SWIO region. The present analysis represents a first investigation of stranding data collected by various members and collaborators within the IndoCet network, covering over 14,800km of coastline belonging to nine countries/territories. Between 2000–2020, there were 397 stranding events, representing 1,232 individual animals, 17 genera and 27 species, belonging to six families: four balaenopterids, one balaenid, one physeterid, two kogiids, six ziphiids and 14 delphinids. Seven mass strandings were recorded: two were composed of three to 20 individuals and five composed of > 20 individuals. Spatial analysis of stranding events indicated that local spatio-temporal clusters (excessive number of events in time and geographic space) were present in all countries/territories, except for the Comoros. The only significant cluster was detected on the southwest coast of Mauritius, just west of the village of Souillac. The SWIO region predominantly comprises relatively poor countries/territories, but imminent Ocean Economy developments are prevalent throughout the region. This study highlights the importance of establishing baselines upon which any future potential impact from anthropogenic developments in the region can be measured.Peer reviewe

To see or not to see: investigating detectability of Ganges River dolphins using a combined visual-acoustic survey

Detection of animals during visual surveys is rarely perfect or constant, and failure to account for imperfect detectability affects the accuracy of abundance estimates. Freshwater cetaceans are among the most threatened group of mammals, and visual surveys are a commonly employed method for estimating population size despite concerns over imperfect and unquantified detectability. We used a combined visual-acoustic survey to estimate detectability of Ganges River dolphins (Platanista gangetica gangetica) in four waterways of southern Bangladesh. The combined visual-acoustic survey resulted in consistently higher detectability than a single observer-team visual survey, thereby improving power to detect trends. Visual detectability was particularly low for dolphins close to meanders where these habitat features temporarily block the view of the preceding river surface. This systematic bias in detectability during visual-only surveys may lead researchers to underestimate the importance of heavily meandering river reaches. Although the benefits of acoustic surveys are increasingly recognised for marine cetaceans, they have not been widely used for monitoring abundance of freshwater cetaceans due to perceived costs and technical skill requirements. We show that acoustic surveys are in fact a relatively cost-effective approach for surveying freshwater cetaceans, once it is acknowledged that methods that do not account for imperfect detectability are of limited value for monitoring

Expert range maps of global mammal distributions harmonised to three taxonomic authorities

Aim: Comprehensive, global information on species' occurrences is an essential biodiversity variable and central to a range of applications in ecology, evolution, biogeography and conservation. Expert range maps often represent a species' only available distributional information and play an increasing role in conservation assessments and macroecology. We provide global range maps for the native ranges of all extant mammal species harmonised to the taxonomy of the Mammal Diversity Database (MDD) mobilised from two sources, the Handbook of the Mammals of the World (HMW) and the Illustrated Checklist of the Mammals of the World (CMW). Location: Global. Taxon: All extant mammal species. Methods: Range maps were digitally interpreted, georeferenced, error-checked and subsequently taxonomically aligned between the HMW (6253 species), the CMW (6431 species) and the MDD taxonomies (6362 species). Results: Range maps can be evaluated and visualised in an online map browser at Map of Life (mol.org) and accessed for individual or batch download for non-commercial use. Main conclusion: Expert maps of species' global distributions are limited in their spatial detail and temporal specificity, but form a useful basis for broad-scale characterizations and model-based integration with other data. We provide georeferenced range maps for the native ranges of all extant mammal species as shapefiles, with species-level metadata and source information packaged together in geodatabase format. Across the three taxonomic sources our maps entail, there are 1784 taxonomic name differences compared to the maps currently available on the IUCN Red List website. The expert maps provided here are harmonised to the MDD taxonomic authority and linked to a community of online tools that will enable transparent future updates and version control.Fil: Marsh, Charles J.. Yale University; Estados UnidosFil: Sica, Yanina. Yale University; Estados UnidosFil: Burguin, Connor. University of New Mexico; Estados UnidosFil: Dorman, Wendy A.. University of Yale; Estados UnidosFil: Anderson, Robert C.. University of Yale; Estados UnidosFil: del Toro Mijares, Isabel. University of Yale; Estados UnidosFil: Vigneron, Jessica G.. University of Yale; Estados UnidosFil: Barve, Vijay. University Of Florida. Florida Museum Of History; Estados UnidosFil: Dombrowik, Victoria L.. University of Yale; Estados UnidosFil: Duong, Michelle. University of Yale; Estados UnidosFil: Guralnick, Robert. University Of Florida. Florida Museum Of History; Estados UnidosFil: Hart, Julie A.. University of Yale; Estados UnidosFil: Maypole, J. Krish. University of Yale; Estados UnidosFil: McCall, Kira. University of Yale; Estados UnidosFil: Ranipeta, Ajay. University of Yale; Estados UnidosFil: Schuerkmann, Anna. University of Yale; Estados UnidosFil: Torselli, Michael A.. University of Yale; Estados UnidosFil: Lacher, Thomas. Texas A&M University; Estados UnidosFil: Wilson, Don E.. National Museum of Natural History; Estados UnidosFil: Abba, Agustin Manuel. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - La Plata. Centro de Estudios Parasitológicos y de Vectores. Universidad Nacional de La Plata. Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y Museo. Centro de Estudios Parasitológicos y de Vectores; ArgentinaFil: Aguirre, Luis F.. Universidad Mayor de San Simón; BoliviaFil: Arroyo Cabrales, Joaquín. Instituto Nacional de Antropología E Historia, Mexico; MéxicoFil: Astúa, Diego. Universidade Federal de Pernambuco; BrasilFil: Baker, Andrew M.. Queensland University of Technology; Australia. Queensland Museum; AustraliaFil: Braulik, Gill. University of St. Andrews; Reino UnidoFil: Braun, Janet K.. Oklahoma State University; Estados UnidosFil: Brito, Jorge. Instituto Nacional de Biodiversidad; EcuadorFil: Busher, Peter E.. Boston University; Estados UnidosFil: Burneo, Santiago F.. Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador; EcuadorFil: Camacho, M. Alejandra. Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador; EcuadorFil: de Almeida Chiquito, Elisandra. Universidade Federal do Espírito Santo; BrasilFil: Cook, Joseph A.. University of New Mexico; Estados UnidosFil: Cuéllar Soto, Erika. Sultan Qaboos University; OmánFil: Davenport, Tim R. B.. Wildlife Conservation Society; TanzaniaFil: Denys, Christiane. Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle; FranciaFil: Dickman, Christopher R.. The University Of Sydney; AustraliaFil: Eldridge, Mark D. B.. Australian Museum; AustraliaFil: Fernandez Duque, Eduardo. University of Yale; Estados UnidosFil: Francis, Charles M.. Environment And Climate Change Canada; CanadáFil: Frankham, Greta. Australian Museum; AustraliaFil: Freitas, Thales. Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul; BrasilFil: Friend, J. Anthony. Conservation And Attractions; AustraliaFil: Giannini, Norberto Pedro. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico - Tucumán. Unidad Ejecutora Lillo; ArgentinaFil: Gursky-Doyen, Sharon. Texas A&M University; Estados UnidosFil: Hackländer, Klaus. Universitat Fur Bodenkultur Wien; AustriaFil: Hawkins, Melissa. National Museum of Natural History; Estados UnidosFil: Helgen, Kristofer M.. Australian Museum; AustraliaFil: Heritage, Steven. University of Duke; Estados UnidosFil: Hinckley, Arlo. Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas. Estación Biológica de Doñana; EspañaFil: Holden, Mary. American Museum of Natural History; Estados UnidosFil: Holekamp, Kay E.. Michigan State University; Estados UnidosFil: Humle, Tatyana. University Of Kent; Reino UnidoFil: Ibáñez Ulargui, Carlos. Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas. Estación Biológica de Doñana; EspañaFil: Jackson, Stephen M.. Australian Museum; AustraliaFil: Janecka, Mary. University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown; Estados Unidos. University of Pittsburgh; Estados UnidosFil: Jenkins, Paula. Natural History Museum; Reino UnidoFil: Juste, Javier. Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas. Estación Biológica de Doñana; EspañaFil: Leite, Yuri L. R.. Universidade Federal do Espírito Santo; BrasilFil: Novaes, Roberto Leonan M.. Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro; BrasilFil: Lim, Burton K.. Royal Ontario Museum; CanadáFil: Maisels, Fiona G.. Wildlife Conservation Society; Estados UnidosFil: Mares, Michael A.. Oklahoma State University; Estados UnidosFil: Marsh, Helene. James Cook University; AustraliaFil: Mattioli, Stefano. Università degli Studi di Siena; ItaliaFil: Morton, F. Blake. University of Hull; Reino UnidoFil: Ojeda, Agustina Alejandra. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Mendoza. Instituto Argentino de Investigaciones de las Zonas Áridas. Provincia de Mendoza. Instituto Argentino de Investigaciones de las Zonas Áridas. Universidad Nacional de Cuyo. Instituto Argentino de Investigaciones de las Zonas Áridas; ArgentinaFil: Ordóñez Garza, Nicté. Instituto Nacional de Biodiversidad; EcuadorFil: Pardiñas, Ulises Francisco J.. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Centro Nacional Patagónico. Instituto de Diversidad y Evolución Austral; ArgentinaFil: Pavan, Mariana. Universidade de Sao Paulo; BrasilFil: Riley, Erin P.. San Diego State University; Estados UnidosFil: Rubenstein, Daniel I.. University of Princeton; Estados UnidosFil: Ruelas, Dennisse. Museo de Historia Natural, Lima; PerúFil: Schai-Braun, Stéphanie. Universitat Fur Bodenkultur Wien; AustriaFil: Schank, Cody J.. University of Texas at Austin; Estados UnidosFil: Shenbrot, Georgy. Ben Gurion University of the Negev; IsraelFil: Solari, Sergio. Universidad de Antioquia; ColombiaFil: Superina, Mariella. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Mendoza. Instituto de Medicina y Biología Experimental de Cuyo; ArgentinaFil: Tsang, Susan. American Museum of Natural History; Estados UnidosFil: Van Cakenberghe, Victor. Universiteit Antwerp; BélgicaFil: Veron, Geraldine. Université Pierre et Marie Curie; FranciaFil: Wallis, Janette. Kasokwa-kityedo Forest Project; UgandaFil: Whittaker, Danielle. Michigan State University; Estados UnidosFil: Wells, Rod. Flinders University.; AustraliaFil: Wittemyer, George. State University of Colorado - Fort Collins; Estados UnidosFil: Woinarski, John. Charles Darwin University; AustraliaFil: Upham, Nathan S.. University of Yale; Estados UnidosFil: Jetz, Walter. University of Yale; Estados Unido

Expert range maps of global mammal distributions harmonised to three taxonomic authorities

AimComprehensive, global information on species' occurrences is an essential biodiversity variable and central to a range of applications in ecology, evolution, biogeography and conservation. Expert range maps often represent a species' only available distributional information and play an increasing role in conservation assessments and macroecology. We provide global range maps for the native ranges of all extant mammal species harmonised to the taxonomy of the Mammal Diversity Database (MDD) mobilised from two sources, the Handbook of the Mammals of the World (HMW) and the Illustrated Checklist of the Mammals of the World (CMW).LocationGlobal.TaxonAll extant mammal species.MethodsRange maps were digitally interpreted, georeferenced, error-checked and subsequently taxonomically aligned between the HMW (6253 species), the CMW (6431 species) and the MDD taxonomies (6362 species).ResultsRange maps can be evaluated and visualised in an online map browser at Map of Life (mol.org) and accessed for individual or batch download for non-commercial use.Main conclusionExpert maps of species' global distributions are limited in their spatial detail and temporal specificity, but form a useful basis for broad-scale characterizations and model-based integration with other data. We provide georeferenced range maps for the native ranges of all extant mammal species as shapefiles, with species-level metadata and source information packaged together in geodatabase format. Across the three taxonomic sources our maps entail, there are 1784 taxonomic name differences compared to the maps currently available on the IUCN Red List website. The expert maps provided here are harmonised to the MDD taxonomic authority and linked to a community of online tools that will enable transparent future updates and version control

From sea monsters to charismatic megafauna: changes in perception and use of large marine animals

Marine megafauna has always elicited contrasting feelings. In the past, large marine animals were often depicted as fantastic mythological creatures and dangerous monsters, while also arousing human curiosity. Marine megafauna has been a valuable resource to exploit, leading to the collapse of populations and local extinctions. In addition, some species have been perceived as competitors of fishers for marine resources and were often actively culled. Since the 1970s, there has been a change in the perception and use of megafauna. The growth of marine tourism, increasingly oriented towards the observation of wildlife, has driven a shift from extractive to non-extractive use, supporting the conservation of at least some species of marine megafauna. In this paper, we review and compare the changes in the perception and use of three megafaunal groups, cetaceans, elasmobranchs and groupers, with a special focus on European cultures. We highlight the main drivers and the timing of these changes, compare different taxonomic groups and species, and highlight the implications for management and conservation. One of the main drivers of the shift in perception, shared by all the three groups of megafauna, has been a general increase in curiosity towards wildlife, stimulated inter alia by documentaries (from the early 1970s onwards), and also promoted by easy access to scuba diving. At the same time, environmental campaigns have been developed to raise public awareness regarding marine wildlife, especially cetaceans, a process greatly facilitated by the rise of Internet and the World Wide Web. Currently, all the three groups (cetaceans, elasmobranchs and groupers) may represent valuable resources for ecotourism. Strikingly, the economic value of live specimens may exceed their value for human consumption. A further change in perception involving all the three groups is related to a growing understanding and appreciation of their key ecological role. The shift from extractive to non-extractive use has the potential for promoting species conservation and local economic growth. However, the change in use may not benefit the original stakeholders (e.g. fishers or whalers) and there may therefore be a case for providing compensation for disadvantaged stakeholders. Moreover, it is increasingly clear that even non-extractive use may have a negative impact on marine megafauna, therefore regulations are needed.SFRH/BPD/102494/2014, UID/MAR/04292/2019, IS1403info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Using technology to improve the management of development impacts on biodiversity

Funder: The research was funded through a long‐term collaboration between Conservational International and Chevron.Abstract: The mitigation hierarchy (MH) is a prominent tool to help businesses achieve no net loss or net gain outcomes for biodiversity. Technological innovations offer benefits for business biodiversity management, yet the range and continued evolution of technologies creates a complex landscape that can be difficult to navigate. Using literature review, online surveys, and semi‐structured interviews, we assess technologies that can improve application of the MH. We identify six categories (mobile survey, fixed survey, remote sensing, blockchain, data analysis, and enabling technologies) with high feasibility and/or relevance to (i) aid direct implementation of mitigation measures and (ii) enhance biodiversity surveys and monitoring, which feed into the design of interventions including avoidance and minimization measures. At the interface between development and biodiversity impacts, opportunities lie in businesses investing in technologies, capitalizing on synergies between technology groups, collaborating with conservation organizations to enhance institutional capacity, and developing practical solutions suited for widespread use

The destruction of the nations and the promise of return: hermeneutical observations on the book of Deuteronomy

Many Israelis, but also many Christian Palestinians, today understand the current conflict around the possession of the land in a Bible-oriented way. They associate it with the radical destruction of all inhabitants of the land and its subsequent occupation as it is formulated in Deuteronomy, namely as an instruction of God, and as portrayed in the book of Joshua, namely as an historical event. This typologising form of� common hermeneutics contradicts both modern historiography on ancient Israel and the historic-critical exegesis of the two books as well as their interpretation in Jewish tradition. The campaign of the twelve-tribe nation under Joshua and the destruction of the peoples of Canaan is a� theological,� fictitious� image of radical trust in God, which was designed under King Josiah for mythical ancient times. Neither the laws on warfare nor the promises of return in a synchronically read Deuteronomy know about any future violent conquest of� the� land of Canaan. The article analyses Israel's relation to the inhabitants of the land, especially in� chapters 29-30, which are decisive for Moses� vision of the� future.� Based on this analysis, it develops the hermeneutics of Deuteronomy� for� the directives on the destruction of the nations. Applying these directives typologically proves to� be� ruled� out, both for the wars following the conquest of the land and for the return of Israel from exile

Deuteronomy and Human Rights

If one compares the articles of the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" dated December 10th, 1948, with the regulations of the book of Deuteronomy, one detects a surprising abundance of correspondences, or at least of similar tendencies, between them. As the social theorists of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the architects of the catalogue of Human Rights, knew the Scripture very well. References to Deuteronomy are historically well probable and factually hardly coincidental. Deuteronomy rightly boasts about its social laws (4:8) that are unique in the Ancient Near East. The paper orientates itself to the short formula of Human Rights and at the same time to the normative basic character of each human right, as it is formulated in the first article of the declaration: "liberty", "equality", "fraternity". Each of these basic categories are concretised in terms of several Deuteronomic regulations and prove themselves to be central matters of concern within the YHWH religion. Finally, it is outlined how the connection between Deuteronomy and modem expressions of human rights might be explained, and further it is shown what actually makes up the peculiarity of biblical thinking on human rights

Local ecological knowledge demonstrates shifting baselines and the large-scale decline of sawfishes (Pristidae) in Tanzania

Sawfishes are coastally distributed rays that grow to very large sizes. All five species are assessed as Endangered or Critically Endangered as a result of population declines caused mainly by entanglements in fishing gear and by habitat degradation. Three species occur in the western Indian Ocean, but their populations are believed to have declined drastically in many areas and little is known about their presence in Tanzania. Fisher interviews were conducted to provide an overview of the status of sawfishes in Tanzania and to highlight where conservation actions should be focused to conserve sawfishes nationally. In total, 386 interviews were conducted: 296 at 31 villages in four regions on Tanzania’s mainland, and 90 interviews at 12 villages in four regions of Pemba Island. Less than half (46%) of the fishers were familiar with sawfishes and could identify one from a photograph. A precipitous decline in sawfish abundance in Tanzania could be inferred from the age-related decline in local Knowledge of their  existence; all fisheres aged between 70 and 80 years were familiar with sawfishes, whereas only 10% of fishers younger than age 20 had ever heard of them. A total of 29 sawfish records were compiled, comprising 16 rostra and 14 catches that occurred between 2002 and 2014 (one record  included both a catch and a rostrum). All rostra examined were from the largetooth sawfish Pristis pristis. Since 2002, the sawfish catches occurred in three locations, all on the mainland coast: in the southern Mtwara region, in the vicinity of the Rufiji Delta, and at Bagamoyo on the Zanzibar Channel. Interview data and rostra evidence suggest that the Rufiji Delta may be a largetooth sawfish nursery area, and confirmation of this should be a priority. Keywords: biodiversity conservation, Endangered marine megafauna, elasmobranch, extinction, gillnets, participatory research, Pristis pristis  rostrum, rapid bycatch assessmen