Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T21:33:59.355Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Individual and group behavioural reactions of small delphinids to remote biopsy sampling

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

JJ Kiszka ,
B Simon-Bouhet ,
F Charlier ,
C Pusineri  and
V Ridoux
JJ Kiszka*
Affiliation:
LIENSs (Llttoral, ENvironnement et Sociétés), UMR 6250, CNRS-Université de La Rochelle, 2, rue Olympe de Gouges, F-17000, La Rochelle, France Direction de l’Environnement et du Développement Durable, Collectivité Départementale de Mayotte, BP 101 F-97600 Mamoudzou, Mayotte
B Simon-Bouhet
Affiliation:
LIENSs (Llttoral, ENvironnement et Sociétés), UMR 6250, CNRS-Université de La Rochelle, 2, rue Olympe de Gouges, F-17000, La Rochelle, France
F Charlier
Affiliation:
Office National de la Chasse et de la Faune Sauvage, Délégation Régionale Outre-Mer, Coconi, Mayotte
C Pusineri
Affiliation:
Office National de la Chasse et de la Faune Sauvage, Délégation Régionale Outre-Mer, Coconi, Mayotte
V Ridoux
Affiliation:
LIENSs (Llttoral, ENvironnement et Sociétés), UMR 6250, CNRS-Université de La Rochelle, 2, rue Olympe de Gouges, F-17000, La Rochelle, France
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: [email protected]/[email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Biopsy sampling is an effective technique for collecting cetacean skin and blubber samples for various biological studies. However, determining the impact of this research practice is important, as it may vary between sites, species and equipment used. We examined the short-term behavioural reactions of four small (160-278 cm in length) delphinid species (Stenella longirostris, S. attenuata, Tursiops aduncus and Peponocephala electra) to remote biopsy sampling in the vicinity of the island of Mayotte (12°50’S, 45°10’E, SW Indian Ocean). Two scales of behavioural reactions were considered: i) the behavioural reaction of the individual, and ii) the reaction of the focal group to which the targeted individual belonged. Three main categories of behavioural responses were defined on the basis of character and duration: low, moderate and strong. This study underlines that biopsy sampling induces moderate reactions in individuals. No inter-specific variations of responses, at the scale of the individual or focal group, were observed. In other words, smaller delphinids were not more reactive than larger ones. No effect of group size was observed on the strength of behavioural reactions. However, it was clear that biopsy success during sampling sessions was higher in species with large group size. Finally, in the spinner dolphin (S. longirostris), we investigated whether initial behavioural state affected the level of reaction. Resting and socialising groups showed a stronger response than milling and travelling groups. This study confirms the limited impact of remote biopsy sampling in small delphinids, especially in the spinner dolphin. However, as a precautionary approach, wherever possible, biopsy sampling of milling and travelling dolphins may be preferable.

Keywords

animal welfarebehavioural impactdolphinsgroup reactionsindividual reactionsremote biopsy sampling
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 19 , Issue 4 , November 2010 , pp. 411 - 417
Copyright
© 2010 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Amos, W and Hoelzel, AR 1990 DNA fingerprinting cetacean biopsy samples for individual identification. Report of the International Whaling Commission 12: 79–85Google Scholar
Bearzi, G 2000 First report of a common dolphin (Delphinus delphis) death following penetration of a biopsy dart. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 2: 217–221Google Scholar
Bérubé, M, Aguilar, A, Dendanto, D, Larsen, F, Notarbartolo di Sciara, G, Sears, R, Sigurjónsson, R, Urban, RJ and Palsb⊘l, PJ 1998 Population genetic structure of North Atlantic, Mediterranean and Sea of Cortez fin whales, Balaenoptera physalus (Linnaeus 1758): analysis of mitochondrial and nuclear loci. Molecular Ecology 7: 585–599CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Best, PB, Reeb, D, Rew, MB, Palsb⊘l, PJ, Schaeff, C and Brandão, A 2005 Biopsying southern right whales: their reactions and effect on reproduction. Journal of Wildlife Management 69: 1171–1180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bilgmann, K, Griffiths, OJ, Allen, SJ and Möller, LM 2007 A biopsy pole system for bow-riding dolphins: sampling success, behavioral responses, and test for sampling bias. Marine Mammal Science 23: 218–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, MW, Kraus, SD and Gaskin, DE 1991 Reaction of north Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) to skin biopsy sampling for genetic and pollutant analysis. In: Hoelzel, AE and Donovan, GP (eds) Genetic Ecology of Whales and Dolphins pp 81–89. The International Whaling Commission: Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
Clapham, PJ and Mattila, DK 1993 Reactions of humpback whales to skin biopsy sampling on a West Indies breeding ground. Marine Mammal Science 9: 382–391Google Scholar
De Stephanis, R, Garcia-Tíscar, S, Verborgh, P, Esteban-Pavo, R, Pérez, S, Minvielle-Sebastia, L and Guinet, C 2008 Diet of social groups of long-finned pilot whales (Globicephala melas) in the Strait of Gibraltar. Marine Biology 154: 603–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gauthier, J and Sears, R 1999 Behavioral response of four species of balaenopterid whales to biopsy sampling. Marine Mammal Science 15: 85–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godard, CAG, Smolowitz, RM, Wilson, JY, Payne, RS and Stegeman, JJ 2004 Induction of cetacean cytochrome P4501A1 by ß-naphthoflavone exposure of biopsy slices. Toxicological Sciences 80: 268–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gorgone, AM, Haase, PA, Griffith, ES and Hohn, A 2008 Modelling response of target and nontarget dolphins to biopsy darting. Journal of Wildlife Management 72: 926–932CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gross, A, Kiszka, J, Van Canneyt, O, Richard, P and Ridoux, V 2009 A preliminary study of habitat and resource partitioning among co-occurring tropical dolphins around Mayotte, southwest Indian Ocean. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 84: 367–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harlin, AD, Würsig, B, Baker, CS and Markowitz, TM 1999 Skin swabbing for genetic analysis: application to Dusky dolphins (Lagenorhynchus obscurus). Marine Mammal Science 15: 409–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herman, DP, Burrows, DG, Wade, PR, Durban, JW, Matkin, CO, LeDuc, RG, Barret-Lennard, LG and Krahn, MM 2005 Feeding ecology of eastern North Pacific killer whales Orcinus orca from fatty acid, stable isotope, and organochlorine analyses from blubber biopsies. Marine Ecology Progress Series 302: 275–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooker, SK, Baird, RW, Al-Omari, S, Gowans, S and Whitehead, H 2000 Behavioral reactions of northern bottlenose whales (Hyperoodon ampullatus) to biopsy darting and tag attachment procedures. Fishery Bulletin 99: 303–308Google Scholar
International Whaling Commission 1991 Report of the ad hoc working group on the effect of biopsy sampling on individual cetaceans. In: Hoelzel, AE and Donovan, GP (eds) Genetic Ecology of Whales and Dolphins pp 23–27. The International Whaling Commission: Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, TA and Hung, SK 2008 Effects of biopsy sampling on Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins (Sousa chinensis) in a polluted coastal environment. Aquatic Mammals 34: 310–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiszka, J, Ersts, PJ and Ridoux, V 2007 Cetacean diversity around the Mozambique Channel island of Mayotte (Comoros archipelago). Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 9: 105–109Google Scholar
Krützen, M, Barre, LM, Möller, LM, Heithaus, MR, Simms, C and Sherwin, WB 2002 A biopsy system for small cetaceans: darting success and wound healing in Tursiops spp. Marine Mammal Science 18: 863–878CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mann, J 1999 Behavioral sampling methods for cetaceans: a review and critique. Marine Mammal Science 15: 102–122Google Scholar
Parsons, KM, Dallas, JF, Claridge, DE, Durban, JW, Balcomb, KC, Thompson, PM and Noble, LR 1999 Amplifying dolphin mitochondrial DNA from faecal plumes. Molecular Ecology 8: 1766–1768CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parsons, KM, Durban, JW and Claridge, DE 2003 Comparing two alternative methods for genetic sampling of small cetaceans. Marine Mammal Science 19: 224–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Development Core Team 2009 R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical # Computing: Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
Shane, SH 1990 Comparison of bottlenose dolphin behavior in Texas and Florida, with a critique of methods for studying dolphin behavior. In: Leatherwood, S and Reeves, RR (eds) The Bottlenose Dolphin pp 245–265. Academic Press: San Diego, USAGoogle Scholar
Smolker, RA, Richards, AF, Connor, RC and Pepper, JW 1992 Sex differences in patterns of association among Indian Ocean bottlenose dolphins. Behaviour 123: 38–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weinrich, MT, Lambertsen, RH, Baker, CS, Schilling, MR and Belt, CR 1991 Behavioral responses of humpback whales Megaptera novaeangliae in the southern Gulf of Maine to biopsy sampling. In: Hoelzel, AR and Donovan, GP (eds) Genetic Ecology of Whales and Dolphins pp 91–98. International Whaling Commission: Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
Weinrich, MT, Lambertsen, RH, Belt, CR, Shilling, MR, Iken, JH and Syrjala, SE 1992 Behavioral responses of humpback whales Megaptera novaeangliae to biopsy procedures. Fishery Bulletin 90: 588–598Google Scholar