Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-19T01:12:54.091Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Do abundance–occupancy relationships exist in cetaceans?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 June 2010

Karen Hall ,
Colin D. MacLeod ,
Laura Mandleberg ,
Caroline M. Schweder-Goad ,
Sarah M. Bannon  and
Graham J. Pierce
Karen Hall*
Affiliation:
School of Biological Sciences (Zoology), University of Aberdeen, Tillydrone Avenue, Aberdeen, AB24 2TZ, UK
Colin D. MacLeod
Affiliation:
School of Biological Sciences (Zoology), University of Aberdeen, Tillydrone Avenue, Aberdeen, AB24 2TZ, UK
Laura Mandleberg
Affiliation:
School of Biological Sciences (Zoology), University of Aberdeen, Tillydrone Avenue, Aberdeen, AB24 2TZ, UK
Caroline M. Schweder-Goad
Affiliation:
School of Applied Sciences, Marine Studies Department, Bay of Plenty Polytechnic, Tauranga, New Zealand
Sarah M. Bannon
Affiliation:
School of Biological Sciences (Zoology), University of Aberdeen, Tillydrone Avenue, Aberdeen, AB24 2TZ, UK
Graham J. Pierce
Affiliation:
School of Biological Sciences (Zoology), University of Aberdeen, Tillydrone Avenue, Aberdeen, AB24 2TZ, UK
*
Correspondence should be addressed to: K. Hall, School of Biological Sciences (Zoology), University of Aberdeen, Tillydrone Avenue, Aberdeen, AB24 2TZ, UK email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A positive relationship between the number of locations where a species occurs and the average density of individuals across those locations has been found in a wide variety of taxa and has been described as one of the most general and widespread relationships in macro-ecology. However, exceptions to this general rule have been found and this study tested whether abundance–occupancy relationships exist within the cetacean community of the west coast of Scotland. Data were collected in 2003–2006 and occupancy rates were calculated and compared to two density indices (relative density of groups per km2 surveyed and relative density of individuals per km2 surveyed) for four cetacean species (harbour porpoise, bottlenose dolphin, common dolphin and minke whale). Significant positive intraspecific abundance–occupancy relationships were found for both relative density of groups per km2 and relative density of individuals per km2 for two out of the four cetacean species tested (harbour porpoise and minke whale). When the relationships between the different species were compared, all four were found to conform to the same interspecific relationship when relative density of groups was used as the density index. However, some species were found to conform to different relationships when relative density of individuals was used as the density index, potentially due to differences in social structure between cetacean species. These relationships mean that when cetaceans are at a higher density within an area, they also occupy a greater number of locations and vice versa. The existence of positive abundance–occupancy relationships in cetaceans has a number of potential implications for their conservation and management. In particular, it means that when a potential impact is likely to positively or negatively affect the size of the range of a species or population, such as noise pollution or climate change, it is likely to also affect the species' or population's abundance in the same direction. It also has implications for the design and extent of protected areas, such as marine protected areas; as such relationships could be used to determine the area required to maintain a viable population size.

Keywords

cetaceansabundance–occupancy relationshipsconservationmanagement
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 90 , Special Issue 8: Marine Mammals , December 2010 , pp. 1571 - 1581
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Blackburn, T.M., Gaston, K.J., Greenwood, J.J.D. and Gregory, R.D. (1998) The anatomy of the interspecific abundance–occupancy–range size relationship for the British avifauna: II Temporal dynamics. Ecology Letters 1, 47–55.Google Scholar
Brown, J.H. (1984) On the relationship between abundance and distribution of species. American Naturalist 124, 255–279.Google Scholar
Carstensen, J., Henriksen, O.D. and Teilmann, J. (2006) Impacts of offshore wind farm construction on harbour porpoises: acoustic monitoring of echolocation activity using porpoise detectors (T-PODs). Marine Ecology Progress Series 321, 295–308.Google Scholar
Conrad, K.F., Perry, J.N. and Woiward, I.P. (2001) An abundance–occupancy time-lag during the decline of an arctiid tiger moth. Ecology Letters 4, 300–303.Google Scholar
Crecco, V. and Overholtz, W.J. (1990) Causes of density-dependent catchability for Georges Bank Haddock, Melanogrammus aeglefinus. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 47, 385–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falster, D.S., Murray, B.R. and Lepschi, B.J. (2001) Linking abundance, occupancy and spatial structure: an empirical test of a neutral model in an open-forest woody plant community in eastern Australia. Journal of Biogeography 28, 317–323.Google Scholar
Fisher, J.A.D. and Frank, K.T. (2004) Abundance–distribution relationships and conservation of exploited marine fishes. Marine Ecology Progress Series 279, 201–213.Google Scholar
Foggo, A., Frost, M.T. and Attril, M.J. (2003) Abundance–occupancy patterns in British estuarine macroinvertebrates. Marine Ecology Progress Series 265, 297–302.Google Scholar
Frost, M.T., Atrill, M.J., Rowden, A.A. and Foggo, A. (2004) Abundance–occupancy relationships in macrofauna on exposed sandy beaches: patterns and mechanisms. Ecography 27, 643–649.Google Scholar
Gaston, K.J. (1996) The multiple forms of interspecific abundance–distribution relationships. Oikos 76, 211–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaston, K.J., Blackburn, T.M. and Lawton, J.H. (1997a) Interspecific abundance–range size relationships: an appraisal of mechanisms. Journal of Animal Ecology 66, 579–601.Google Scholar
Gaston, K.J., Blackburn, T.M. and Gregory, R.D. (1997b) Interspecific abundance–range size relationships: range position and phylogeny. Ecography 20, 390–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaston, K.J., Blackburn, T.M. and Gregory, R.D. (1997c) Abundance–range size relationships of breeding and wintering birds in Britain: a comparative analysis. Ecography 20, 569–579.Google Scholar
Gaston, K.J., Blackburn, T.M., Gregory, R.D. and Greenwood, J.J.D. (1998) The anatomy of the interspecific abudance–range size relationship for the British avifauna I. Spatial patterns. Ecology Letters 1, 38–46.Google Scholar
Gaston, K.J., Blackburn, T.M., Greenwood, J.J.D., Gregory, R.D., Quinn, R.M. and Lawton, J.H. (2000) Abundance–occupancy relationships. Journal of Applied Ecology 37, 39–59.Google Scholar
Holt, A.R. and Gaston, K.J. (2003) Interspecific abundance–occupancy relationships of British mammals and birds: is it possible to explain the residual variation? Global Ecology and Biogeography 12, 37–46.Google Scholar
Johnson, C.N. (1998) Species extinction and the relationship between distribution and abundance. Nature 394, 272–274.Google Scholar
Johnston, D.W. (2002) The effect of acoustic harassment devices on harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) in the Bay of Fundy, Canada. Biological Conservation 108, 113–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawton, J.H. (1993) Range, population abundance and conservation. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 8, 409–413.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Learmonth, J.A., MacLeod, C.D., Santos, M.B., Pierce, G.J., Crick, H.Q.P. and Robinson, R.A. (2006) Potential effects of climate change on marine mammals. Oceanography and Marine Biology: an Annual Review 44, 431–464.Google Scholar
Lusseau, D. (2005) Residency pattern of bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops spp. in Milford Sound, New Zealand, is related to boat traffic. Marine Ecology Progress Series 295, 265–272.Google Scholar
MacLeod, C.D., Mandleberg, L., Schweder, C., Bannon, S.M. and Pierce, G.J. (2008) A comparison of approaches for modelling the occurrence of marine animals. Hydrobiologia 612, 21–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacLeod, C.D. (2009) Global climate change, range changes and potential implications for the conservation of marine cetaceans: a review and synthesis. Endangered Species Research 7, 125–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacLeod, C.D., Brereton, T. and Martin, C. (2009) Changes in the occurrence of common dolphins, striped dolphins and harbour porpoises in the English Channel and Bay of Biscay. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 89, 1059–1065.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morton, A.B. and Symonds, H.K. (2002) Displacement of Orcinus orca (L.) by high amplitude sound in British Columbia, Canada. ICES Journal of Marine Science 59, 71–80.Google Scholar
Olesiuk, P.F., Nichol, L.M., Sowden, M.J. and Ford, J.K.B. (2002) Effect of the sound generated by an acoustic harassment device on the relative abundance and distribution of harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) in Retreat Passage, British Columbia. Marine Mammal Science 18, 843–862.Google Scholar
Palka, D. (1996) Effects of Beaufort sea state on the sightability of harbour porpoise in the Gulf of Maine. Report to the International Whaling Commission 46, 575–582.Google Scholar
Parsons, E.C.M., Dolman, S.J., Wright, A.J., Rose, N.A. and Burns, W.C.G. (2000) Navy sonar and cetaceans: just how much does the gun need to smoke before we act? Marine Pollution Bulletin 56, 1248–1257.Google Scholar
Soininen, J. and Heino, J. (2005) Relationships between local population persistence, local abundance and regional occupancy of species: distribution patterns of diatoms in boreal streams. Journal of Biogeography 32, 1971–1978.Google Scholar
Stone, C.J. and Tasker, M.L. (2006) The effects of seismic airguns on cetaceans in UK waters. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 8, 255–263.Google Scholar
Swain, D.P. and Wade, E.J. (1993) Density-dependent geographic distribution of Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) in the southern Gulf of St Lawrence. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 50, 725–733.Google Scholar
Symonds, M.R.E. and Johnson, C.N. (2006) Range size–abundance relationships in Australian passerines. Global Ecology and Biogeography 15, 143–152.Google Scholar
Thompson, K., Hodgson, J.G. and Gaston, K.J. (1998) Abundance–range size relationships in the herbaceous flora of central England. Journal of Ecology 86, 439–448.Google Scholar
Thomsen, F., Lüdemann, K., Kafemann, R. and Piper, W. (2006) Effects of offshore wind farm noise on marine mammals and fish. Biola, Hamburg, Germany on behalf of COWRIE Ltd.Google Scholar
Zuckerberg, B., Porter, W.F. and Corwin, K. (2009) The consistency and stability of abundance–occupancy relationships in large-scale population dynamics. Journal of Animal Ecology 78, 172–181.Google Scholar