Regional assessment of the conservation status of snubfin dolphins (Orcaella heinsohni) in the Kimberley Region, Western Australia

This research was financially supported by the following organizations: The Australian Marine Mammal Centre, Mia J. Tegner Award, The Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society UK (WDCS), W. V. Scott Estate, Commonwealth Department of Environment (Caring for Our Country), WWF Australia, the Western Australian Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions, and Ghostnets Australia.Implementing conservation measures for data-limited species is a fundamental challenge for wildlife managers and policy-makers, and proves difficult for cryptic marine animals occurring in naturally low numbers across remote seascapes. There is currently scant information on the abundance and habitat preferences of Australian snubfin dolphins (Orcaella heinsohni) throughout much of their geographical range, and especially within the Kimberley region of northern Western Australia. Such knowledge gaps curtail rigorous threat assessments on both local and regional scales. To address this and assist future conservation listings, we built the first comprehensive catalog of snubfin dolphin sightings for the Kimberley. We used these data to estimate the species’ extent of occurrence (EOO) and area of occupancy (AOO) along the region’s 7,000 km coastline, following a simple Bootstrap bivariate kernel approach to combine datasets of varying quality and quantify uncertainty. Our catalog consists of 1,597 visual detections of snubfin dolphins made over a period of 17 years (2004–2020) and collated from multiple sources, including online biodiversity repositories, peer-reviewed scientific articles, citizen science programs, as well as dedicated marine wildlife surveys with local Indigenous communities and Ranger groups. Snubfin dolphins were consistently encountered in shallow waters (2 and 700 (656–736) km2 respectively, suggesting that snubfin dolphins in the Kimberley are likely Vulnerable under IUCN criteria B2 at a regional scale, in keeping with their global classification. Our study offers insights into the distribution of a vulnerable coastal cetacean species and demonstrates the value of integrating multiple data sources for informing conservation assessments in the face of uncertainty.Publisher PDFPeer reviewe

Regional Ranking of Marine Turtle Nesting in Remote Western Australia by Integrating Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Remote Sensing

Western Australia’s remote Kimberley coastline spans multiple Traditional Owner estates. Marine turtle nesting distribution and abundance in Indigenous Protected Areas and newly declared Marine Parks were assessed by aerial photogrammetry surveys for the Austral summer and winter nesting seasons. Images of nesting tracks were quantified in the lab and verified by ad hoc ground patrols. The rankings of log-scaled plots of track abundance and density give guidance to regional co-management planning. Spatial and temporal differences were detected in that remoter islands had higher nesting usage and few terrestrial predators. The surveys found year-round green turtle nesting peaking in summer, as well as spatial boundaries to the summer and winter flatback stocks. Summer surveys recorded 126.2 island activities per km and 17.7 mainland activities per km. Winter surveys recorded 65.3 island activities per km and quantified a known winter mainland rookery with 888 tracks/km. The three highest density rookeries were found to be winter flatback turtles at Cape Domett, summer green turtles at the Lacepede Islands and summer flatback turtles at Eighty Mile Beach. Moderate to lesser density nesting by summer green turtles and winter flatback turtles occurred in the North Kimberley offshore islands. Traditional Ecological Knowledge and ground-based surveys verified the harder-to-detect species (olive ridley or hawksbill turtles) with irregular nesting, low track persistence and non-aggregated nesting. Higher-density rookeries may provide locations for long-term monitoring using repeated aerial or ground surveys; however, the sparse or infrequently nesting species require insights gleaned by Tradition Ecological Knowledge. Common and conspicuous nesters are easily detected and ranked, but better-informed co-management requires additional ground surveys or surveys timed with the reproductive peaks of rarer species