Bettridge, S,Baker, CS,Barlow, J,Clapham, PJ,Ford, M,Gouveia, D,Mattila, DK,Pace III, RM,Rosel, PE,Silber, GK
Status review of the humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) under the Endangered Species Act. US Dep. Commer Journal Article
In: NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SWFSC, vol. 540, no. 45, pp. 263, 2015.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: conservation status, Endangered species, Humpback Whale, megaptera novaeangliae, population status, USA
@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}
}
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
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
Roman, Joe,Dunphy-Daly, Meagan M.,Johnston, David W.,Read, Andrew J.
Lifting baselines to address the consequences of conservation success Journal Article
In: Trends in Ecology & Evolution, vol. 30, no. 447, pp. 299-302, 2015, ISBN: 0169-5347.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: conservation success, Endangered species, historical abundance, management, Marine mammals, population trends, recovery, shifting baselines
@article{,
title = {Lifting baselines to address the consequences of conservation success},
author = {Roman, Joe,Dunphy-Daly, Meagan M.,Johnston, David W.,Read, Andrew J.},
url = {http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169534715000932},
issn = {0169-5347},
year = {2015},
date = {2015-01-01},
journal = {Trends in Ecology & Evolution},
volume = {30},
number = {447},
pages = {299-302},
abstract = {In recent years, many marine mammals, seabirds, and other species have begun to recover.
These changes are the result of legislation, international agreements, and conservation efforts.
Conservation efforts and legislation are lifting baselines for new generations.
Conservationists should help the public understand recovery by lifting baselines.
Managing wildlife abundance rather than scarcity presents an opportunity for human society.Biologists and policymakers are accustomed to managing species in decline, but for the first time in generations they are also encountering recovering populations of ocean predators. Many citizens perceive these species as invaders and conflicts are increasing. It is time to celebrate these hard-earned successes and lift baselines for recovering species.},
keywords = {conservation success, Endangered species, historical abundance, management, Marine mammals, population trends, recovery, shifting baselines},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
In recent years, many marine mammals, seabirds, and other species have begun to recover.
These changes are the result of legislation, international agreements, and conservation efforts.
Conservation efforts and legislation are lifting baselines for new generations.
Conservationists should help the public understand recovery by lifting baselines.
Managing wildlife abundance rather than scarcity presents an opportunity for human society.Biologists and policymakers are accustomed to managing species in decline, but for the first time in generations they are also encountering recovering populations of ocean predators. Many citizens perceive these species as invaders and conflicts are increasing. It is time to celebrate these hard-earned successes and lift baselines for recovering species.
These changes are the result of legislation, international agreements, and conservation efforts.
Conservation efforts and legislation are lifting baselines for new generations.
Conservationists should help the public understand recovery by lifting baselines.
Managing wildlife abundance rather than scarcity presents an opportunity for human society.Biologists and policymakers are accustomed to managing species in decline, but for the first time in generations they are also encountering recovering populations of ocean predators. Many citizens perceive these species as invaders and conflicts are increasing. It is time to celebrate these hard-earned successes and lift baselines for recovering species.
Thomas, Peter O.,Reeves, Randall R.,Brownell, Robert L.
Status of the world's baleen whales Journal Article
In: Marine Mammal Science, no. 242, 2015, ISBN: 1748-7692.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: anthropogenic noise, baleen whales, blue whales, Bycatch, cetaceans, Climate change, Endangered species, Entanglement, IUCN, ocean acidification, Red List, ship strike, status, whaling
@article{,
title = {Status of the world's baleen whales},
author = {Thomas, Peter O.,Reeves, Randall R.,Brownell, Robert L.},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/mms.12281},
issn = {1748-7692},
year = {2015},
date = {2015-01-01},
journal = {Marine Mammal Science},
number = {242},
abstract = {No global synthesis of the status of baleen whales has been published since the 2008 IUCN Red List assessments. Many populations remain at low numbers from historical commercial whaling, which had ceased for all but a few by 1989. Fishing gear entanglement and ship strikes are the most severe current threats. The acute and long-term effects of anthropogenic noise and the cumulative effects of multiple stressors are of concern but poorly understood. The looming consequences of climate change and ocean acidification remain difficult to characterize. North Atlantic and North Pacific right whales are among the species listed as Endangered. Southern right, bowhead, and gray whales have been assessed as Least Concern but some subpopulations of these species - western North Pacific gray whales, Chile-Peru right whales, and Svalbard/Barents Sea and Sea of Okhotsk bowhead whales - remain at low levels and are either Endangered or Critically Endangered. Eastern North Pacific blue whales have reportedly recovered, but Antarctic blue whales remain at about 1% of pre-exploitation levels. Small isolated subspecies or subpopulations, such as northern Indian Ocean blue whales, Arabian Sea humpback whales, and Mediterranean Sea fin whales are threatened while most subpopulations of sei, Bryde's, and Omura's whales are inadequately monitored and difficult to assess.},
keywords = {anthropogenic noise, baleen whales, blue whales, Bycatch, cetaceans, Climate change, Endangered species, Entanglement, IUCN, ocean acidification, Red List, ship strike, status, whaling},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
No global synthesis of the status of baleen whales has been published since the 2008 IUCN Red List assessments. Many populations remain at low numbers from historical commercial whaling, which had ceased for all but a few by 1989. Fishing gear entanglement and ship strikes are the most severe current threats. The acute and long-term effects of anthropogenic noise and the cumulative effects of multiple stressors are of concern but poorly understood. The looming consequences of climate change and ocean acidification remain difficult to characterize. North Atlantic and North Pacific right whales are among the species listed as Endangered. Southern right, bowhead, and gray whales have been assessed as Least Concern but some subpopulations of these species - western North Pacific gray whales, Chile-Peru right whales, and Svalbard/Barents Sea and Sea of Okhotsk bowhead whales - remain at low levels and are either Endangered or Critically Endangered. Eastern North Pacific blue whales have reportedly recovered, but Antarctic blue whales remain at about 1% of pre-exploitation levels. Small isolated subspecies or subpopulations, such as northern Indian Ocean blue whales, Arabian Sea humpback whales, and Mediterranean Sea fin whales are threatened while most subpopulations of sei, Bryde's, and Omura's whales are inadequately monitored and difficult to assess.