Implantation of Subcutaneous Radio Transmitters in the Harbor Seal (Phoca vitulina)

Radio telemetry has become a standard tool for studying the behavior, physiology, life history traits, and population dynamics of marine mammals. Radio transmitters typically are attached to the hind flippers of pinnipeds or glued to the fur using marine epoxy or other cyanocrylare adhesives (Fedak et al. 1983, Bengtson 1993, Jeffries et al. 1993). Longterm data acquisition is difficult, however, because radio-flipper transmitters commonly tear from the webbing of the flipper and instruments that are glued to the fur are shed during the seasonal molt.

Space–time zero-inflated count models of Harbor seals

Environmental data are spatial, temporal, and often come with many zeros. In this paper, we included space–time random effects in zero-inflated Poisson (ZIP) and ‘hurdle’ models to investigate haulout patterns of harbor seals on glacial ice. The data consisted of counts, for 18 dates on a lattice grid of samples, of harbor seals hauled out on glacial ice in Disenchantment Bay, near Yakutat, Alaska. A hurdle model is similar to a ZIP model except it does not mix zeros from the binary and count processes. Both models can be used for zero-inflated data, and we compared space–time ZIP and hurdle models in a Bayesian hierarchical model. Space–time ZIP and hurdle models were constructed by using spatial conditional autoregressive (CAR) models and temporal first-order autoregressive (AR(1)) models as random effects in ZIP and hurdle regression models. We created maps of smoothed predictions for harbor seal counts based on ice density, other covariates, and spatio-temporal random effects. For both models predictions around the edges appeared to be positively biased. The linex loss function is an asymmetric loss function that penalizes overprediction more than underprediction, and we used it to correct for prediction bias to get the best map for space–time ZIP and hurdle models.

Pinniped Populations at Islas ae Guadalupe, San Benito, Cedros, and Natividad, Baja California, in 1968

In April and June 1968, the Pacific Ocean Biological Survey Program (POBSP) of the Smithsonian Institution conducted surveys on breeding marine birds and pinnipeds on various Mexican islands. Between 18 to 26 April and 21 to 29 June, pinniped populations were surveyed at Islas de Guadalupe, San Benito, Cedros, and Natividad off Baja California. Species observed were the California sea lion, Zalophus californianus, Guadalupe fur seal, Arctocephalus townsendi, harbor seal, Phoca vitulina, and northern elephant seal, Mirounga angustirostris

Draft U.S. Pacific Marine Mammal Stock Assessments: 2009

Under the 1994 amendments to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) are required to publish Stock Assessment Reports for all stocks of marine mammals within U.S. waters, to review new information every year for strategic stocks and every three years for non-strategic stocks, and to update the stock assessment reports when significant new information becomes available. This report presents stock assessments for 13 Pacific marine mammal stocks under NMFS jurisdiction, including 8 “strategic” stocks and 5 “non-strategic” stocks (see summary table). A new stock assessment for humpback whales in American Samoa waters is included in the Pacific reports for the first time. New or revised abundance estimates are available for 9 stocks, including Eastern North Pacific blue whales, American Samoa humpback whales, five U.S. west coast harbor porpoise stocks, the Hawaiian monk seal, and southern resident killer whales. A change in the abundance estimate of Eastern North Pacific blue whales reflects a recommendation from the Pacific Scientific Review Group to utilize mark-recapture estimates for this population, which provide a better estimate of total population size than the average of recent line-transect and mark-recapture estimates. The ‘Northern Oregon/Washington Coast Stock’ harbor porpoise stock assessment includes a name change (‘Oregon’ is appended to ‘Northern Oregon’) to reflect recent stock boundary changes. Changes in abundance estimates for the two stocks of harbor porpoise that occur in Oregon waters are the result of these boundary changes, and do not reflect biological changes in the populations. Updated information on the three stocks of false killer whales in Hawaiian waters is also included in these reports. Information on the remaining 50 Pacific region stocks will be reprinted without revision in the final 2009 reports and currently appears in the 2008 reports (Carretta et al. 2009). Stock Assessments for Alaskan marine mammals are published by the National Marine Mammal Laboratory (NMML) in a separate report. Pacific region stock assessments include those studied by the Southwest Fisheries Science Center (SWFSC, La Jolla, California), the Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center (PIFSC, Honolulu, Hawaii), the National Marine Mammal Laboratory (NMML, Seattle, Washington), and the Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NWFSC, Seattle, WA). Northwest Fisheries Science Center staff prepared the report on the Eastern North Pacific Southern Resident killer whale. National Marine Mammal Laboratory staff prepared the Northern Oregon/Washington coast harbor porpoise stock assessment. Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center staff prepared the report on the Hawaiian monk seal. Southwest Fisheries Science Center staff prepared stock assessments for 9 stocks. The stock assessment for the American Samoa humpback whale was prepared by staff from the Center for Coastal Studies, Hawaiian Islands Humpback National Marine Sanctuary, the Smithsonian Institution, and the Southwest Fisheries Science Center. Draft versions of the stock assessment reports were reviewed by the Pacific Scientific Review Group at the November 2008, Maui meeting. The authors also wish to thank those who provided unpublished data, especially Robin Baird and Joseph Mobley, who provided valuable information on Hawaiian cetaceans. Any omissions or errors are the sole responsibility of the authors. This is a working document and individual stock assessment reports will be updated as new information on marine mammal stocks and fisheries becomes available. Background information and guidelines for preparing stock assessment reports are reviewed in Wade and Angliss (1997). The authors solicit any new information or comments which would improve future stock assessment reports. These Stock Assessment Reports summarize information from a wide range of sources and an extensive bibliography of all sources is given in each report. We strongly urge users of this document to refer to and cite original literature sources rather than citing this report or previous Stock Assessment Reports. If the original sources are not accessible, the citation should follow the format: [Original source], as cited in [this Stock Assessment Report citation].

Ringed and bearded seal densities in the eastern Chukchi Sea, 1999–2000

Aerial surveys were conducted in 1999 and 2000 to estimate the densities of ringed (Phoca hispida) and bearded (Erignathus barbatus) seals in the eastern Chukchi Sea. Survey lines were focused mainly on the coastal zone within 37 km of the shoreline, with additional lines flown 148–185 km offshore to assess how densities of seals changed as a function of distance from shore. Satellite-linked time-depth recorders were attached to ringed seals in both years to evaluate the time spent basking on the ice surface. Haulout patterns indicated that ringed seals transitioned to basking behavior in late May and early June, and that the largest proportion of seals (60–68%) was hauled out between 0830 and 1530 local solar time. Ringed seals were relatively common in nearshore fast ice and pack ice, with lower densities in offshore pack ice. The average density of ringed seals was 1.91 seals km-2 in 1999 (range 0.37– 16.32) and 1.62 seals km-2 in 2000 (range 0.42–19.4), with the highest densities of ringed seals found in coastal waters south of Kivalina and near Kotzebue Sound. The estimated abundance of ringed seals for the entire study area was similar in 1999 (252,488 seals, SE=47,204) and 2000 (208,857 seals, SE=25,502). Bearded seals were generally more common in offshore pack ice, with the exception of high bearded seal numbers observed near the shore south of Kivalina. Bearded seal densities were not adjusted for haulout behavior, and therefore, abundance was not estimated. Unadjusted average bearded seal density was 0.07 seals km-2 in 1999 (range 0.011–0.393) and 0.14 seals km-2 in 2000 (range 0.009– 0.652). Levels of primary productivity, benthic biomass, and fast ice distribution may influence the distributions of ringed and bearded seals in the Chukchi Sea. Information on movement and haulout behavior of ringed and bearded seals would be very useful for designing future surveys.

Stability in The Proportion of Harbor Seals Hauled Out Under Locally Ideal Conditions

We monitored the haul-out behavior of 68 radio-tagged harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) during the molt season at two Alaskan haul-out sites (Grand Island, August-September 1994; Nanvak Bay, August-September 2000). For each site, we created a statistical model of the proportion of seals hauled out as a function of date, time of day, tide, and weather covariates. Using these models, we identified the conditions that would result in the greatest proportion of seals hauled out. Although those “ideal conditions” differed between sites, the proportion of seals predicted to be hauled out under those conditions was very similar (81.3% for Grand Island and 85.7% for Nanvak Bay). The similar estimates for both sites suggest that haul-out proportions under locally ideal conditions may be constant between years and geographic regions, at least during the molt season.

The Abundance of Harbor Seals in the Gulf of Alaska

The abundance of harbor seals (Phoca vitulina richardii) has declined in recent decades at several Alaska locations. The causes of these declines are unknown, but there is concern about the status of the populations, especially in the Gulf of Alaska. To assess the status of harbor seals in the Gulf of Alaska, we conducted aerial surveys of seals on their haul-out sites in August-September 1996. Many factors influence the propensity of seals to haul out, including tides, weather, time of day, and time of year. Because these “covariates” cannot simultaneously be controlled through survey design, we used a regression model to adjust the counts to an estimate of the number of seals that would have been ashore during a hypothetical survey conducted under ideal conditions for hauling out. The regression, a generalized additive model, not only provided an adjustment for the covariates, but also confirmed the nature and shape of the covariate effects on haul-out behavior. The number of seals hauled out was greatest at the beginning of the surveys (mid-August). There was a broad daily peak from about 1100-1400 local solar time. The greatest numbers were hauled out at low tide on terrestrial sites. Tidal state made little difference in the numbers hauled out on glacial ice, where the area available to seals did not fluctuate with the tide. Adjusting the survey counts to the ideal state for each covariate produced an estimate of 30,035 seals, about 1.8 times the total of the unadjusted counts (16,355 seals). To the adjusted count, we applied a correction factor of 1.198 from a separate study of two haul-out sites elsewhere in Alaska, to produce a total abundance estimate of 35,981 (SE 1,833). This estimate accounts both for the effect of covariates on survey counts and for the proportion of seals that remained in the water even under ideal conditions for hauling out.

Hunting and social behaviour of leopard seals (Hydrurga leptonyx) at Seal Island, South Shetland Islands, Antarctica

The hunting behavior of leopard seals Hydrurga leptonyx was monitored opportunistically at Seal Island, South Shetland Islands, during the austral summers from 1986/87 to 1994/95. Leopard seals used several methods to catch Antarctic fur seal pups Arctocephalus gazella and chinstrap penguins Pygoscelis antarctica, and individuals showed different hunting styles and hunting success. One to two leopard seals per year were responsible for an average of 60% of observed captures of fur seal pups. Leopard seals preyed on penguins throughout the summer, but preyed on fur seal pups only between late December and mid-February. Hunting behavior differed significantly between different locations on the island; fur seals were hunted only at one colony, and penguins were hunted in several areas. The relative abundance of prey types, size of prey in relation to predator, and specialization of individual leopard seals to hunt fur seal prey probably influence individual prey preferences among leopard seals. On five occasions, two leopard seals were seen together on Seal Island. Possible interpretations of the relationship between the interacting leopard seals included a mother-offspring relationship, a consorting male-female pair, and an adult leopard seal followed by an unrelated juvenile. In two incidents at Seal Island, two leopard seals were observed interacting while hunting: one seal captured fur seal pups and appeared to release them to the other seal. Observations of leopard seals interacting during hunting sessions were difficult to confirm as co-operative hunting, but they strongly implied that the two seals were not agonistic toward one another. The hunting success of individual leopard seals pursuing penguins or fur seals is probably high enough for co-operative hunting not to become a common hunting strategy; however, it may occur infrequently when it increases the hunting productivity of the seals.

Taking account of dependent species in management of the Southern Ocean krill fishery: estimating crabeater seal abundance off east Antarctica

1. The crabeater seal Lobodon carcinophaga is considered to be a key species in the krill-based food web of the Southern Ocean. Reliable estimates of the abundance of this species are necessary to allow the development of multispecies, predator–prey models as a basis for management of the krill fishery in the Southern Ocean. 2. A survey of crabeater seal abundance was undertaken in 1500 000 km2 of pack-ice off east Antarctica between longitudes 64–150° E during the austral summer of 1999/2000. Sighting surveys, using double observer line transect methods, were conducted from an icebreaker and two helicopters to estimate the density of seals hauled out on the ice in survey strips. Satellite-linked dive recorders were deployed on a sample of seals to estimate the probability of seals being hauled out on the ice at the times of day when sighting surveys were conducted. Model-based inference, involving fitting a density surface, was used to infer densities in the entire survey region from estimates in the surveyed areas. 3. Crabeater seal abundance was estimated to be between 0.7 and 1.4 million animals (with 95% confidence), with the most likely estimate slightly less than 1 million. 4. Synthesis and applications. The estimation of crabeater seal abundance in Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) management areas off east Antarctic where krill biomass has also been estimated recently provides the data necessary to begin extending from single-species to multispecies management of the krill fishery. Incorporation of all major sources of uncertainty allows a precautionary interpretation of crabeater abundance and demand for krill in keeping with CCAMLR’s precautionary approach to management. While this study focuses on the crabeater seal and management of living resources in the Southern Ocean, it has also led to technical and theoretical developments in survey methodology that have widespread potential application in ecological and resource management studies, and will contribute to a more fundamental understanding of the structure and function of the Southern Ocean ecosystem.

Population Growth of Antarctic Fur Seals: Limitation by a Top Predator, The Leopard Seal?

Antarctic fur seals (Arctocephalus gazella) in the South Shetland Islands are recovering from 19th-century exploitation more slowly than the main population at South Georgia. To document demographic changes associated with the recovery in the South Shetlands, we monitored fur seal abundance and reproduction in the vicinity of Elephant Island during austral summers from 1986/1987 through 1994/1995. Total births, mean and variance of birth dates, and average daily mortality rates were estimated from daily live pup counts at North Cove (NC) and North Annex (NA) colonies on Seal Island. Sightings of leopard seals (Hydrurga leptonyx) and incidents of leopard seal predation on fur seal pups were recorded opportunistically during daily fur seal research at both sites. High mortality of fur seal pups, attributed to predation by leopard seals frequently observed at NC, caused pup numbers to decline rapidly between January and March (i.e., prior to weaning) each year and probably caused a long-term decline in the size of that colony. The NA colony, where leopard seals were never observed, increased in size during the study. Pup mortality from causes other than leopard seal predation appeared to be similar at the two sites. The number of pups counted at four locations in the Elephant Island vicinity increased slowly, at an annual rate of 3.8%, compared to rates as high as 11% at other locations in the South Shetland Islands. Several lines of circumstantial evidence are consistent with the hypothesis that leopard seal predators limit the growth of the fur seal population in the Elephant Island area and perhaps in the broader population in the South Shetland Islands. The sustained growth of this fur seal population over many decades rules out certain predator–prey models, allowing inference about the interaction between leopard seals and fur seals even though it is less thoroughly studied than predator–prey systems of terrestrial vertebrates of the northern hemisphere. Top-down forces should be included in hypotheses for future research on the factors shaping the recovery of the fur seal population in the South Shetland Islands.

Harbor Porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) Abundance in Alaska: Bristol Bay to Southeast Alaska, 1991-1993

Between 1991 and 1993, Alaska harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) abundance was investigated during aerial surveys throughout much of the coastal and offshore waters from Bristol Bay in the eastern Bering Sea to Dixon Entrance in Southeast Alaska. Line-transect methodology was used, and only those observations made during optimal conditions were analyzed. Survey data indicated densities of 4.48 groups/100 km2, or approximately 3,531 harbor porpoises (95% C.I. 2,206-5,651) in Bristol Bay and 0.54 groups/100 km2, or 136 harbor porpoises (95% C.I. 11-1,645) for Cook Inlet. Efforts off Kodiak Island resulted in densities of 1.85 groups/100 km2, or an abundance estimate of 740 (95% C.I. 259-2,115). Surveys off the south side of the Alaska Peninsula found densities of 2.03 groups/100 km2 and an abundance estimate of 551 (95% C.I. 423-719). Surveys of offshore waters from Prince William Sound to Dixon Entrance yielded densities of 4.02 groups/100 km’ and an abundance estimate of 3,982 (95% C.I. 2,567-6,177). Combining all years and areas yielded an uncorrected density estimate of 3.82 porpoises per 100 km2, resulting in an abundance estimate of 8,940 porpoises (CV = 13.8%) with a 95% confidence interval of 6,746-11,848. Using correction factors from other studies to adjust for animals missed by observers, the total number of Alaska harbor porpoises is probably three times this number.