The impact of predation by marine mammals on Patagonian toothfish longline fisheries

Predatory interaction of marine mammals with longline fisheries is observed globally, leading to partial or complete loss of the catch and in some parts of the world to considerable financial loss. Depredation can also create additional unrecorded fishing mortality of a stock and has the potential to introduce bias to stock assessments. Here we aim to characterise depredation in the Patagonian toothfish (Dissostichus eleginoides) fishery around South Georgia focusing on the spatio-temporal component of these interactions. Antarctic fur seals (Arctocephalus gazella), sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus), and orcas (Orcinus orca) frequently feed on fish hooked on longlines around South Georgia. A third of longlines encounter sperm whales, but loss of catch due to sperm whales is insignificant when compared to that due to orcas, which interact with only 5% of longlines but can take more than half of the catch in some cases. Orca depredation around South Georgia is spatially limited and focused in areas of putative migration routes, and the impact is compounded as a result of the fishery also concentrating in those areas at those times. Understanding the seasonal behaviour of orcas and the spatial and temporal distribution of “depredation hot spots” can reduce marine mammal interactions, will improve assessment and management of the stock and contribute to increased operational efficiency of the fishery. Such information is valuable in the effort to resolve the human-mammal conflict for resources

Past and present distribution, densities and movements of blue whales <i>Balaenoptera musculus</i> in the Southern Hemisphere and northern Indian Ocean

1Blue whale locations in the Southern Hemisphere and northern Indian Ocean were obtained from catches (303 239), sightings (4383 records of =8058 whales), strandings (103), Discovery marks (2191) and recoveries (95), and acoustic recordings.2Sighting surveys included 7 480 450 km of effort plus 14 676 days with unmeasured effort. Groups usually consisted of solitary whales (65.2%) or pairs (24.6%); larger feeding aggregations of unassociated individuals were only rarely observed. Sighting rates (groups per 1000 km from many platform types) varied by four orders of magnitude and were lowest in the waters of Brazil, South Africa, the eastern tropical Pacific, Antarctica and South Georgia; higher in the Subantarctic and Peru; and highest around Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Chile, southern Australia and south of Madagascar.3Blue whales avoid the oligotrophic central gyres of the Indian, Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, but are more common where phytoplankton densities are high, and where there are dynamic oceanographic processes like upwelling and frontal meandering.4Compared with historical catches, the Antarctic (‘true’) subspecies is exceedingly rare and usually concentrated closer to the summer pack ice. In summer they are found throughout the Antarctic; in winter they migrate to southern Africa (although recent sightings there are rare) and to other northerly locations (based on acoustics), although some overwinter in the Antarctic.5Pygmy blue whales are found around the Indian Ocean and from southern Australia to New Zealand. At least four groupings are evident: northern Indian Ocean, from Madagascar to the Subantarctic, Indonesia to western and southern Australia, and from New Zealand northwards to the equator. Sighting rates are typically much higher than for Antarctic blue whales.6South-east Pacific blue whales have a discrete distribution and high sighting rates compared with the Antarctic. Further work is needed to clarify their subspecific status given their distinctive genetics, acoustics and length frequencies.7Antarctic blue whales numbered 1700 (95% Bayesian interval 860–2900) in 1996 (less than 1% of original levels), but are increasing at 7.3% per annum (95% Bayesian interval 1.4–11.6%). The status of other populations in the Southern Hemisphere and northern Indian Ocean is unknown because few abundance estimates are available, but higher recent sighting rates suggest that they are less depleted than Antarctic blue whales.</li

Estimates of abundance and trend on a Blue Whale feeding ground off Isla de Chiloé, Chile

Since 1970, blue whales (Balaenoptera musculus) have been seen feeding in the waters off southern Chile during the summer and autumn (December to May). Investigation of the genetic, acoustic and morphological characteristics of these blue whales shows that they are a distinct but unnamed subspecies, called the Chilean blue whales. Photo-identification surveys have been conducted in the waters off northwestern Isla Grande de Chiloé, southern Chile from 2004–2012 and Isla Chañaral, central Chile in 2012. Over this time, 1,070 blue whales were encountered yielding, after photo-quality control, 318 and 267 unique photographs of the left and right side of the flank respectively. Using mark-recapture analysis of left and right side photographs collected from Isla Grande de Chiloé (2004–2012), open population models estimate that ~570–760 whales are feeding seasonally in this region. POPAN superpopulation abundance estimates for the same feeding ground in 2012 are 762 (95% confidence intervals, CI = 638–933) and 570 (95% CI 475–705) for left and right side datasets respectively, very similar to results from closed population models. Estimates of trend revealed strong variation in abundance, peaking in 2009 and [suggesting] fluctuating use in the survey area over time, likely related to the density of their prey. High inter-annual return rates suggest a degree of site-fidelity of individuals to Isla Grande de Chiloé and that the number of whales using this feeding ground is relatively small

Feeding ecology of Antarctic fur seals at Cape Shirreff, South Shetlands, Antarctica

This study examined the diet of Antarctic fur seals, Arctocephalus gazella, from an active breeding colony at Cape Shirreff (62°28′S, 60°48′W), Livingston Island, South Shetland Archipelago, Antarctica. It analysed faecal samples from five consecutive years (1997–2001) and length distribution of krill taken by trawl nets in the vicinity of Livingston Island. Antarctic krill, Euphausia superba, was the most frequent prey item, followed by several myctophid species (Gymnoscopelus nicholsi, Electrona antarctica and Electrona carlsbergi), squid and penguin remains. From 1998 to 2001, a modal progression in krill size was evident, suggesting that A. gazella was depending on a strong krill cohort, at least over the study period. Analysis of size distribution and size selectivity of krill preyed upon by fur seals suggests a preference for larger krill (>34 mm), despite the broader size range of preys items available