4.2 Article

Declining seahorse populations linked to loss of essential marine habitats

期刊

MARINE ECOLOGY PROGRESS SERIES
卷 546, 期 -, 页码 173-181

出版社

INTER-RESEARCH
DOI: 10.3354/meps11619

关键词

Habitat loss; Hippocampus whitei; Syngnathidae; Population abundance; Mark-resight; NOREMARK

资金

  1. University of Technology Sydney ACEC Project [2014-046]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Habitat loss is a key driver in the decline of terrestrial and marine species worldwide. In the marine environment, habitat loss is considered to be a major threat to seahorses Hippocampus spp. This study assessed changes in the population abundance of White's seahorse Hippocampus whitei from mark-resight surveys undertaken between 2006 and 2015 in Port Stephens (New South Wales, Australia). The mark-resight closed population estimates found that the population at the Seahorse Gardens site had declined by 97% between 2009 and 2015, and similarly, the population at the Pipeline site was found to decrease by 83% over the same time period. Comparison of habitat composition data found a significant decline in available marine habitats between 2009 and 2015 at both sites. SIMPER analysis indicated that 5 habitat types (soft coral Dendronephthya australis, sand, seagrass Halophila ovalis, sponges and algae) contributed 76% of the dissimilarity between the sampling periods. The preferred habitats of H. whitei had significantly declined at both sites, with D. australis declining at the Seahorse Gardens site by similar to 96% from 2009 to 2015 and by similar to 73% at the Pipeline site, whilst sponge habitat was also found to decline by similar to 49% at the Seahorse Gardens site and similar to 25% at the Pipeline site. The significant decline of H. whitei abundance is concerning, as there is no evidence to suggest that the populations are recovering, and given the large decline of habitat availability at both sites, it would be difficult for seahorses to recolonise these areas without some form of habitat remediation.

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

4.2
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