@article{,

title = {Tursiops aduncus},

author = {Braulik, G.,Natoli, A.,Kiszka, J,Parra, G.,Plon, S.,Smith, B.D.},

url = {https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/41714/50381127},

doi = {https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2019-3.RLTS.T41714A50381127.en},

year  = {2019},

date = {2019-01-01},

journal = {IUCN Red List of Threatened Species},

volume = {Downloaded on 20 April 2020},

number = {50},

abstract = {Near-threatened:  Justification: Indo-Pacific Bottlenose Dolphins generally occur in shallow coastal waters of the Indian Ocean,

Southeast Asia and Australia. They are among the more commonly studied cetaceans in the Indian

Ocean, especially in Shark Bay, Western Australia. However, information on distribution, population size,

and trends in abundance and mortality from much of the species’ range is still very limited. As they are

primarily coastal, Indo-Pacific Bottlenose Dolphins often co-occur with fisheries, and bycatch is a major

cause of concern for this species. Indo-Pacific Bottlenose Dolphins are also at risk from high levels of

noise and chemical pollution, industrial activity such as oil and gas development, and habitat reduction

caused by land reclamation and coastal development (Curry and Smith 1997, Wells and Scott 1999,

Reeves et al. 2003, Kiszka et al. 2008). Furthermore, survey data suggest that Indo-Pacific Bottlenose

Dolphins occur in relatively small populations or communities with limited geographic ranges, especially

where they reside close to islands (Krützen et al. 2004, Natoli et al. 2008, Fury et al. 2008, Särnblad et al.

2011, Kiszka et al. 2012, Gray et al. 2018), which can exacerbate the impact of human activities and

demographic stochasticity on this species. Estimates of abundance from populations for which

information on bycatch is also available indicate that human-caused mortality is frequently

unsustainable (Cockcroft et al. 1992, Shirakihara and Shirakihara 2012, Preen 2004). Based on the sum

of existing abundance estimates, the total population size for the species over its entire range is likely

well in excess of 40,000 individuals. Large parts of the range have never been surveyed (e.g. much of the

Arabian Sea, Arabian/Persian Gulf, Pakistan, India, Red Sea, Somalia, Yemen, Mozambique, Indonesia,

Philippines). The Indo-Pacific Bottlenose Dolphin was classified as Data Deficient in 2008. The species

distribution overlaps the range of several other coastal cetacean species that are red-listed as

Endangered (Irrawaddy Dolphin Orcaella brevirostris and Indian Ocean Humpback Dolphin Sousa

plumbea) or Vulnerable (Indo-Pacific Humpback Dolphin Sousa chinensis and Australian Humpback

Dolphin Sousa sahulensis, Australian Snubfin Dolphin Orcaella heinsohni and the Indo-Pacific Finless

Porpoise Neophocaena phocaenoides) and are subject to the same anthropogenic threats. However,

compared to these other species, the Indo-Pacific Bottlenose Dolphin is assumed to be under less

immediate threat because it has a wider geographic range and probably larger numbers, greater

behavioural plasticity and broader habitat preferences. Data are insufficient to present a robust case for

listing the Indo-Pacific Bottlenose Dolphin in a threatened category (CR, EN, or VU). However, its coastal

distribution, inferred local declines, and intensity of threats throughout its range lead to the conclusion

that Least Concern is not an appropriate category. The Red List Guidelines (version 11, 2014) state that

“the category Near Threatened is applied to taxa that do not qualify as threatened now, but may be

close to qualifying as threatened, and to taxa that do not currently meet the criteria for a threatened

category, but are likely to do so if ongoing conservation actions abate or cease.” Also, to qualify for Near

Threatened, the taxon “should be close to qualifying for the Vulnerable category; estimates of

population size or habitat should be close to the Vulnerable thresholds, especially when there is a high

degree of uncertainty, or possibly meet some of the subcriteria; and this may be combined with

biological susceptibility and threat.” Considering the above, the Indo-Pacific Bottlenose Dolphin is listed

as Near Threatened because: 1) it occurs in a relatively small and restricted near-shore range, 2) it is

highly vulnerable to entanglement in fishing gear and its range overlaps with intensive fisheries known

to entangle and kill dolphins, 3) its near-shore habitat is subject to increasing anthropogenic threats

resulting in habitat loss and degradation, and 4) it is experiencing mortality rates that are likely to be

causing population declines in several areas. The species therefore comes close to meeting criterion A4

for Vulnerable. Population size is inferred and suspected to have declined by close to 30% throughout

the range of the species, over three generations and in a time period encompassing the past, present

and future. The causes of the reduction (gillnet entanglement and coastal habitat degradation) have not

ceased. Generation length for Indo-Pacific Bottlenose Dolphins, according to Taylor et al. (2007), is 21.1

years, therefore three generations is 63.3 years. Thus, an annual decline of around 0.5% would result in

exceeding the 30% decline in 3 generations. Gillnet fisheries and coastal development are increasing

throughout the range of the species and bycatch is anticipated to remain stable or to increase in the

future without urgent and intensive efforts which are unlikely to be forthcoming. It is important to

emphasize that numerous isolated populations of this species would likely qualify as threatened

subpopulations, particularly those found around island groups in the Indian Ocean.},

keywords = {conservation status, indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphin, IUCN, Red List, tursiops aduncus},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{,

title = {Risk of biodiversity collapse under climate change in the Afro-Arabian region},

author = {Soultan, Alaaeldin,Wikelski, Martin,Safi, Kamran},

url = {https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-37851-6},

issn = {2045-2322},

year  = {2019},

date = {2019-01-01},

journal = {Scientific Reports},

volume = {9},

number = {236},

pages = {955},

abstract = {For 107 endemic mammal species in the Afro-Arabian region, Sahara-Sahel and Arabian Desert, we used ensemble species distribution models to: (1) identify the hotspot areas for conservation, (2) assess the potential impact of the projected climate change on the distribution of the focal species, and (3) assign IUCN threat categories for the focal species according to the predicted changes in their potential distribution range. We identified two main hotspot areas for endemic mammals: the Sinai and its surrounding coastal area in the East, and the Mediterranean Coast around Morocco in the West. Alarmingly, our results indicate that about 17% of the endemic mammals in the Afro-Arabian region under the current climate change scenarios could go extinct before 2050. Overall, a substantial number of the endemic species will change from the IUCN threat category “Least Concern” to “Critically Endangered” or “Extinct” in the coming decades. Accordingly, we call for implementing an urgent proactive conservation action for these endemic species, particularly those that face a high risk of extinction in the next few years. The results of our study provide conservation managers and practitioners with the required information for implementing an effective conservation plan to protect the biodiversity of the Afro-Arabian region.},

keywords = {Arabia, Arabian Gulf, Arabian Sea, biodiversity, Climate change, conservation status, extinction, IUCN Red List, Threat assessment},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{,

title = {Status review of the humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) under the Endangered Species Act. US Dep. Commer},

author = {Bettridge, S,Baker, CS,Barlow, J,Clapham, PJ,Ford, M,Gouveia, D,Mattila, DK,Pace III, RM,Rosel, PE,Silber, GK},

url = {https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/4883},

year  = {2015},

date = {2015-01-01},

journal = {NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SWFSC},

volume = {540},

number = {45},

pages = {263},

abstract = {Humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) were listed as endangered in 1970 under the

Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969, the precursor to the Endangered Species Act

(ESA). When the ESA was enacted in 1973, humpback whales were included in the List of

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (the List) as endangered and were considered as

“depleted” under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA).

In May 2010, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) convened the Humpback Whale

Biological Review Team (BRT) to conduct a comprehensive review of the status of humpback

whales as the basis for considering revisions to this species’ listing status. The ESA, as amended

in 1978, defines a species to be “any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct

population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature”

(Section 3(16)). Guidance on what constitutes a “distinct population segment” (DPS) is provided

by the joint NMFS-Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) interagency policy on vertebrate

populations (61 FR 4722, 7 February 1996). To be considered a DPS, a population, or group of

populations, must be “discrete” from the remainder of the taxon to which it belongs; and

“significant” to the taxon to which it belongs. Information on distribution, ecological situation,

genetics, and other factors is used to evaluate a population’s discreteness and significance.

Conducting an ESA status review therefore involves two key tasks: identifying the taxonomic

units (species, subspecies or DPS) to be evaluated, and assessing the risk of extinction for each

of these units.

Identification of Distinct Population Segments

Humpback whales are found in all oceans of the world with a broad geographical range from

tropical to temperate waters in the Northern Hemisphere and from tropical to near-ice-edge

waters in the Southern Hemisphere. Nearly all populations undertake seasonal migrations

between their tropical and sub-tropical winter calving and breeding grounds1 and high-latitude

summer feeding grounds.

Humpback whales are currently considered to be a monotypic species, but whales from the

Northern and Southern Hemispheres differ from each other substantially in a number of traits,

including coloration, timing of reproduction and migratory behavior, diet, and molecular genetic

characteristics. Within the Northern Hemisphere, populations from the Atlantic and Pacific also

differ markedly in molecular genetic traits and coloration patterns, with no evidence of exchange

of individuals between these ocean basins. In the Northern Indian Ocean, a population

inhabiting the Arabian Sea is also markedly divergent in molecular and behavioral characteristics

from all other populations globally. Whales from these four areas (North Pacific, North Atlantic,

Southern Hemisphere, and Arabian Sea) were so divergent that the BRT considered the

possibility that they might reasonably be considered different sub-species, and enlisted the aid of

the Committee on Taxonomy of the Society for Marine Mammalogy to help address this

question. The committee concluded that if a taxonomic revision of humpback whales were to be

undertaken, it is likely that the North Atlantic, North Pacific and Southern Hemisphere groups

In this document, the term “breeding ground” refers to areas in tropical or subtropical waters where humpback

whales migrate in winter to mate and give birth to calves.

 

would be recognized as sub-species. The BRT therefore largely focused on the question of

whether any DPS could be identified within each of these major ocean basins, although we also

evaluated whether any DPS so identified would also be discrete and significant if evaluated with

reference to the entire global species.

Population structure in humpback whales has been previously evaluated both for breeding areas

and feeding areas. In applying the discreteness and significance criteria, the BRT focused on

breeding populations as the units that could be identified as DPSs, consistent with the language

in the ESA that species (including DPS) “interbreed when mature.” Information on where a

breeding population feeds, however, was considered in evaluating both the significance and

discreteness of that population.

The BRT evaluated genetic data, tagging and photographic-ID data, demographic information,

geographic barriers, and stranding data, and determined that there are at least 15 DPS of

humpback whales. Significant differences in patterns of genetic variation and information on the

rates of exchange of individuals among breeding areas were particularly important for evaluating

population discreteness, and patterns of geographic occurrence, differences in ecology among

feeding and in some cases breeding areas, and degree of genetic differentiation were most

important for determining significance.

Based on this information, the BRT identified the following humpback whale distinct population

segments, named after their primary breeding locations (Figure 1):

1. West Indies

2. Cape Verde Islands/Northwest Africa

3. Hawaii

4. Central America

5. Mexico

6. Okinawa/Philippines

7. Second West Pacific (exact location unknown)

8. West Australia

9. East Australia

10. Oceania

11. Southeastern Pacific

12. Brazil

13. Gabon/Southwest Africa

14. Southeast Africa/ Madagascar

15. Arabian Sea},

keywords = {conservation status, Endangered species, Humpback Whale, megaptera novaeangliae, population status, USA},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}