Estimating the number of whales entering trade using DNA profiling and capture-recapture analysis of market products

Surveys of commercial markets combined with molecular taxonomy (i.e. molecular monitoring) provide a means to detect products from illegal, unregulated and/or unreported (IUU) exploitation, including the sale of fisheries bycatch and wild meat (bushmeat). Capture-recapture analyses of market products using DNA profiling have the potential to estimate the total number of individuals entering the market. However, these analyses are not directly analogous to those of living individuals because a ‘market individual’ does not die suddenly but, instead, remains available for a time in decreasing quantities, rather like the exponential decay of a radioactive isotope. Here we use mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequences and microsatellite genotypes to individually identify products from North Pacific minke whales (Balaenoptera acutorostrata ssp.) purchased in 12 surveys of markets in the Republic of (South) Korea from 1999 to 2003. By applying a novel capture-recapture model with a decay rate parameter to the 205 unique DNA profiles found among 289 products, we estimated that the total number of whales entering trade across the five-year survey period was 827 (SE, 164; CV, 0.20) and that the average ‘half-life’ of products from an individual whale on the market was 1.82 months (SE, 0.24; CV, 0.13). Our estimate of whales in trade (reflecting the true numbers killed) was significantly greater than the officially reported bycatch of 458 whales for this period. This unregulated exploitation has serious implications for the survival of this genetically distinct coastal population. Although our capture-recapture model was developed for specific application to the Korean whale-meat markets, the exponential decay function could be modified to improve the estimates of trade in other wildmeat or fisheries markets or abundance of living populations by noninvasive genotyping.

Provisioning Strategies of Antarctic Fur Seals and Chinstrap Penguins Produce Different Responses to Distribution of Common Prey and Habitat

Central-place foragers that must return to a breeding site to deliver food to offspring are faced with trade-offs between prey patch quality and distance from the colony. Among colonial animals, pinnipeds and seabirds may have different provisioning strategies, due to differences in their ability to travel and store energy. We compared the foraging areas of lactating Antarctic fur seals and chinstrap penguins breeding at Seal Island, Antarctica, to investigate whether they responded differently to the distribution of their prey (Antarctic krill and myctophid fish) and spatial heterogeneity in their habitat. Dense krill concentrations occurred in the shelf region near the colony. However, only brooding penguins, which are expected to be time-minimizers because they must return frequently with whole food for their chicks, foraged mainly in this proximal shelf region. Lactating fur seals and incubating penguins, which can make longer trips to increase energy gain per trip, and so are expected to be energy-maximizers, foraged in the more distant (>20 km from the island) slope and oceanic regions. The shelf region was characterized by more abundant, but lower-energy-content immature krill, whereas the slope and oceanic regions had less abundant but higher-energy-content gravid krill, as well as high-energy-content myctophids. Furthermore, krill in the shelf region undertook diurnal vertical migration, whereas those in the slope and oceanic regions stayed near the surface throughout the day, which may enhance the capture rate for visual predators. Therefore, we sug- gest that the energy-maximizers foraged in distant, but potentially more profitable feeding regions, while the time-minimizers foraged in closer, but potentially less profitable regions. Thus, time and energy constraints derived from different provisioning strategies may result in sympatric colonial predator species using different foraging areas, and as a result, some central-place foragers use sub- optimal foraging habitats, in terms of the quality or quantity of available prey.