@article{,

title = {Feeding ecology of small cetaceans in the Sultanate of Oman},

author = {Ponnampalam,L.,Collins,T.J.Q.,Minton,G.,Baldwin,R},

year  = {2007},

date = {2007-01-01},

journal = {Poster presented at the 17th meeting of the Society for Marine Mammals in Cape Town},

number = {433},

abstract = {Beach surveys were conducted along the coast of Oman between 2000 and 2006 to locate and examine cetacean remains. This study examines the stomach contents of 11 bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops sp.), 5 Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins (Sousa chinensis) and 2 spinner dolphins (Stenella longirostris) that were found beach-cast along the Omani coastline. Across the three species examined, a total of 4796 fish otoliths and 214 cephalopod beaks were found, representing 36 species in 23 families. No crustacean remains were found. Prey item importance was calculated using the percentage by number (%N), and percentage by frequency of occurrence (%FO) methods, and a modified index of relative importance (IRI). Percentage similarity was also calculated to examine interspecific and intraspecific dietary overlap. All three species of dolphins examined here ate mainly fish. The fish families Apogonidae and Carangidae were the most numerically important prey in the diet of bottlenose dolphins. Sciaenidae was the most numerically important fish family for humpback dolphins. Mesopelagic fishes comprised the diet of spinner dolphins, with the myctophid Benthosema pterotum forming the bulk of the prey items. The cephalopod preys found in the stomach samples were represented by the families Sepiidae, Loliginidae and Onychoteuthidae. The frequency distribution of prey items indicate that the bottlenose dolphins fed in a wide variety of habitats, and may reflect the occurrence of at least two species or ecotypes of Tursiops in Oman. The humpback dolphin prey items indicate feeding in coastal, nearshore areas with soft substrate. Spinner dolphins appeared to feed in the upper 200m of the water column on nocturnal vertically migrating prey. Although most of the prey species do not appear to be of commercial importance, the findings of this study indicated that all three species of dolphins were feeding in areas where fishing occurs and this is likely to have conservation implications. },

keywords = {bottlenose dolphin, bottlenose dolphins, cephalopod, cetacean, cetaceans, conservation, diet, Distribution, dolphin, dolphins, ecology, feeding, feeding ecology, fish, habitat, humpback dolphins, occurrence, Oman, prey, Spinner dolphin, Stenella longirostris, stomach contents, survey, tursiops},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{,

title = {The Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin of the Arabian region: a status review},

author = {Baldwin,R.M.,Collins,T.J.Q.,Van Waerebeek,K.,Minton,G.},

url = {https://www.aquaticmammalsjournal.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=247:the-indo-pacific-humpback-dolphin-of-the-arabian-region-a-status-review&catid=13&Itemid=157},

year  = {2004},

date = {2004-01-01},

journal = {Aquatic Mammals},

volume = {30},

number = {319},

pages = {111-124},

abstract = {Records of Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin sightings, strandings, and museum specimens in the Arabian region were compiled and used to review the distribution and status of this species. Nominal usage of Sousa chinensis (Osbeck, 1765) has been retained as a pragmatic measure, although the species present in the region resembles Sousa plumbea (G. Cuvier, 1828). Little is known about the ecology of this species in the region. Most available information on S. chinensis in the region originates from the Sultanate of Oman, where this species is among the most commonly recorded cetaceans. However, there is no absolute measure of abundance for anywhere in the region and the status of the species is unknown. Distribution is described for the region to include much of the Arabian (Persian) Gulf, Arabian Sea, Gulf of Aden, and Red Sea, but notably excludes the Gulf of Oman. This discontinuous distribution suggests the possible presence of discrete populations within the region. Beach-cast/dead individuals represent nearly two-thirds of all records (n=303) of this species in Oman. Live sightings indicate unusually large group sizes (up to 100 individuals) in the Arabian Sea and Arabian Gulf. Occasional associations with Tursiops sp. and Delphinus capensis tropicalis were documented. Mating behaviour and the presence of calves were recorded in the months of April and May and calves are also reported in June, October, November and December. Threats to humpback dolphins in the Arabian region include incidental capture in fishing nets, coastal and offshore development (e.g. land reclamation, dredging, port and harbour construction), pollution, boat traffic, oil and gas exploration (including seismic surveying), military exercises and biotoxins associated with red tide events. Evidence for historic and current directed catches of S. chinensis is limited, but opportunistic hunting may occur. Intraspecific variation in cranial measurements of individuals from the Arabian Sea coast of Oman fall within relative values found in individuals from the Saudi Arabian Gulf coast. Cranial abnormalities were few. Recommendations are made for conservation management-oriented research focusing on stock identity and status assessments, as well as for monitoring of fisheries bycatch, clearer definition of other threats, continued specimen and sample collection and training of local scientists.},

keywords = {abundance, Arabian Gulf, Arabian region, Arabian Sea, associations, behaviour, Boat traffic, cetacean, cetaceans, conservation, development, Distribution, dolphin, dolphins, ecology, Fisheries, Gulf of Aden, Gulf of Oman, humpback dolphins, incidental capture, military, museum specimens, nets, Oman, pollution, population, populations, Red Sea, status, Stock identity, Strandings, tursiops},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}