4.3 Article

Trends in bowhead whales in West Greenland: Aerial surveys vs. genetic capture-recapture analyses

期刊

MARINE MAMMAL SCIENCE
卷 31, 期 1, 页码 133-154

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/mms.12150

关键词

Hidden Markov Models; aerial surveys; capture-recapture; Arctic; genetics; bowhead whale; Balaena mysticetus; Disko Bay; abundance

资金

  1. Greenland Institute of Natural Resources
  2. Greenlandic Bureau of Minerals and Petroleum
  3. National Ocean Partnership Program (NOPP: US National Science Foundation)
  4. National Ocean Partnership Program (NOPP: Office of Naval Research)
  5. Danish Natural Science Research Council
  6. Commission for Scientific Investigations in Greenland (KVUG)
  7. Danish Cooperation for Environment in the Arctic (Dancea)
  8. University of Oslo

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We contrast two methods for estimating the trends of bowhead whales (Balaena mysticetus) in West Greenland: (1) double platform visual aerial survey, corrected for missed sightings and the time the whales are available at the surface; and (2) a genetic capture-recapture approach based on a 14-yr-long biopsy sampling program in Disko Bay. The aerial survey covered 39,000 km(2) and resulted in 58 sightings, yielding an abundance estimate of 744 whales (CV = 0.34, 95% CI: 357-1,461). The genetic method relied on determining sex, mitochondrial haplotypes and genotypes of nine microsatellite markers. Based on samples from a total of 427 individuals, with 11 recaptures from previous years in 2013, this resulted in an estimate of 1,538 whales (CV = 0.24, 95% CI: 827-2,249). While the aerial survey is considered a snapshot of the local spring aggregation in Disko Bay, the genetic approach estimates the abundance of the source of this aggregation. As the whales in Disko Bay primarily are adult females that do not visit the bay annually, the genetic method would presumably yield higher estimates. The studies indicate that an increase in abundance observed between 1998 and 2006 has leveled off.

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

4.3
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