History and fate of a small isolated population of Weddell seals at White Island, Antarctica

Weddell seals (Leptonychotes weddellii Lesson) at White Island, Antarctica form a small, completely enclosed, natural population hypothesized to be of recent origin, likely founded by individuals from nearby Erebus Bay. This population constitutes an ideal model to document a founder event and ensuing genetic drift, with implications for conservation. Here we combined historical accounts, census and tagging data since the late 1960s, and genetic data (41 microsatellite loci and mitochondrial DNA sequences) from 84 individuals representing nearly all individuals present between 1990 and 2000 to investigate the history of the founding of the White Island population, document its population dynamics and evaluate possible future threats. We fully resolved parental relationships over three overlapping generations. Cytonuclear disequilibrium among the first generation suggested that it comprised the direct descendants of a founding group. We estimated that the White Island population was founded by a small group of individuals that accessed the island during a brief break in the surrounding sea ice in the mid-1950s, consistent with historical accounts. Direct and indirect methods of calculating effective population size were highly congruent and suggested a minimum founding group consisting of three females and two males. The White Island population showed altered reproductive dynamics compared to Erebus Bay, including highly skewed sex ratio, documented inbred mating events, and the oldest known reproducing Weddell seals. A comparison with the putative source population showed that the White Island population has an effective inbreeding coefficient (Fe) of 0.29. Based on a pedigree analysis including the hypothesized founding group, 86% of the individuals for whom parents were known had inbreeding coefficients ranging 0.09–0.31. This high level of inbreeding was correlated with reduced pup survival. Seals at White Island therefore face the combined effects of low genetic variability, lack of immigration, and inbreeding depression. Ultimately, this study provides evidence of the effects of natural isolation on a large, long-lived vertebrate and can provide clues to the potential effects of anthropogenic- caused isolation of similar taxa.

Biological Background on Bottlenose Dolphins (Tursiops spp.) in the 'Live-Capture' Trade and Specifically on the Indo-Pacific Bottlenose Dolphin, T. Aduncus

The most significant cetacean trade items until commercial whaling all but ceased in the 1990s (aside from scientific exchanges of tissues etc.) were meat and blubber from baleen whales for human consumption. Since then, live dolphins and 'small' whales for display (and to some extent for research, military use, and 'therapy') have become the most significant cetacean 'products' in international trade. Trade in live cetaceans is presently dominated by bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops spp.), beluga whales (Debhinapterns leucas) and to a lesser extent killer whales (Orcinus orca) (Fisher and Reeves 2005). In the past, most of the dolphins in trade were common bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) originating in the United States, Mexico and the Black Sea, but since the 1980s the United States has essentially stopped its capture-for-export activities and in 2001Mexico implemented a moratorium on live-captures. The source countries for dolphins in trade are now geographically diverse, but Cuba and Japan are currently major source nations for common bottlenose dolphins. Russia is the only current source for belugas. Russia and Japan have become the main potential sources for killer whales since Iceland ceased exporting them in the 1980s or early 1990s.

Killer Whales and Marine Mammal Trends in The North Pacific—A Re-Examination of Evidence for Sequential Megafauna Collapse and the Prey-Switching Hypothesis

Springer et al. (2003) contend that sequential declines occurred in North Pacific populations of harbor and fur seals, Steller sea lions, and sea otters. They hypothesize that these were due to increased predation by killer whales, when industrial whaling’s removal of large whales as a supposed primary food source precipitated a prey switch. Using a regional approach, we reexamined whale catch data, killer whale predation observations, and the current biomass and trends of potential prey, and found little support for the prey-switching hypothesis. Large whale biomass in the Bering Sea did not decline as much as suggested by Springer et al., and much of the reduction occurred 50–100 yr ago, well before the declines of pinnipeds and sea otters began; thus, the need to switch prey starting in the 1970s is doubtful. With the sole exception that the sea otter decline followed the decline of pinnipeds, the reported declines were not in fact sequential. Given this, it is unlikely that a sequential megafaunal collapse from whales to sea otters occurred. The spatial and temporal patterns of pinniped and sea otter population trends are more complex than Springer et al. suggest, and are often inconsistent with their hypothesis. Populations remained stable or increased in many areas, despite extensive historical whaling and high killer whale abundance. Furthermore, observed killer whale predation has largely involved pinnipeds and small cetaceans; there is little evidence that large whales were ever a major prey item in high latitudes. Small cetaceans (ignored by Springer et al.) were likely abundant throughout the period. Overall, we suggest that the Springer et al. hypothesis represents a misleading and simplistic view of events and trophic relationships within this complex marine ecosystem.