Bringing the right fishermen to the table: Indices of overlap between endangered false killer whales and nearshore fisheries in Hawaiʻi

Baird, Robin W.; Anderson, D. B.; Kratofil, Michaela A.; Webster, Daniel L.

doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2021.108975

Cited by 17 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The S-BIA quantitative scoring matrix can result in lower Importance scores for populations that may require immediate protective measures based on additional independent lines of evidence of status or stressors, or upon considering socioeconomic factors. For instance, the MHI insular false killer whale parent S-BIA had an Importance score of 1; although there was high Data Support (score = 3) for this population based on long-term photoidentification (Baird et al, 2008b;Baird et al, 2019b), satellite tracking (Baird et al, 2010;Baird et al, 2012;Baird et al, 2021b), and genetic studies (Chivers et al, 2007 ;Martien et al, 2014), their range size is large and the total estimated abundance is intermediate (approximately 167 individuals, Bradford et al, 2018) yielding an Intensity score of 1. Nevertheless, MHI insular false killer whales are exposed to a number of anthropogenic activities that pose a risk to their long-term viability, notably, interactions with nearshore fisheries (Oleson et al, 2010;Baird et al, 2015b;Baird et al, 2017;Baird et al, 2021b), and this stock was listed as endangered in 2012.…”

Section: Scoringmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Cetaceans in Hawaiian waters overlap with a number of anthropogenic activities that have the potential to result in both indirect and direct harmful population-level consequences. Threats include military operations (e.g., Martin et al, 2015;Henderson et al, 2019;Baird et al, 2021a;Durbach et al, 2021), commercial and recreational fishing (e.g., Baird and Webster, 2020;Baird et al, 2021b), tourism (e.g., Currie et al, 2021), shipping (e.g., Lammers et al, 2013), pollutants (e.g., Ylitalo et al, 2009;Bachman et al, 2014;Kratofil et al, 2020), protozoal disease from feral, non-native cats (Migaki et al, 1990;Landrau-Giovannetti et al, 2022), and marine debris (Currie et al, 2017). The range-resident behavior of many Hawaiian cetaceans (Baird, 2016) may further exacerbate risk from these threats; where site fidelity may have once been evolutionarily advantageous, this mechanism may become maladaptive in the Anthropocene (Merkle et al, 2022).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Biologically Important Areas II for cetaceans within U.S. and adjacent waters – Hawaiʻi Region

et al. 2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this assessment we incorporated published and unpublished information to delineate and score Biologically Important Areas (BIAs) for cetaceans in the Hawaiʻi region following standardized criteria. Twenty-six cetacean species have been documented in Hawaiʻi. Eleven odontocete species have distinct small populations resident to one or more island areas: rough-toothed dolphins, pantropical spotted dolphins, common bottlenose dolphins, spinner dolphins, short-finned pilot whales, false killer whales, pygmy killer whales, melon-headed whales, Blainville’s beaked whales, Cuvier’s beaked whales, and dwarf sperm whales. Eight species of mysticetes have been documented, although their occurrence and behavior are poorly understood, with the exception of breeding humpback whales and, more recently, common minke whales. Thirty-five BIAs were delineated or revised from the initial 2015 effort: 33 for small and resident odontocete populations and two for humpback whale reproductive areas. Hierarchical BIAs reflecting core areas of use or population-specific ranges were delineated for nine species. Reproductive watch list areas were designated for common minke whales in the main Hawaiian Islands (MHI) and humpback whales in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI); these areas did not meet the criteria for a BIA due to limited supporting information. All but three BIAs were in the MHI, reflecting the disparities in research effort between this region and the NWHI. Spatial extents of BIA boundaries ranged from 457 km2 to 138,001 km2 (median = 8,299 km2). Scores (range: 1-3) for Data Support and Boundary Certainty were moderate to high (mean = 2.40 and 2.43, respectively), while Intensity and Importance scores were slightly lower (mean = 1.94 and 1.89, respectively). Many of the Hawaiʻi species have been extensively studied over several decades; accordingly, this region ranks among the highest in terms of Data Support relative to other regions. BIAs presented here describe known ranges of small resident populations, intensities of use, and uncertainties in important areas for cetaceans in Hawaiʻi based on the best available data, and have also revealed knowledge gaps to guide future research efforts.

show abstract

Section: Scoringmentioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biologically Important Areas II for cetaceans within U.S. and adjacent waters – Hawaiʻi Region

et al. 2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Between 1997 and 2021, 164 publications documented the scale of marine mammal bycatch, including fishery and gear-specific bycatch estimates (Julian and Beeson, 1998;Allen, 2000;D'Agrosa et al, 2000;Ortega-Argueta et al, 2005). Marine mammal bycatch is spatially variable, with larger bycatch estimates coinciding with areas of higher marine mammals or fish (prey species) abundance (Lewison et al, 2004(Lewison et al, , 2014de Godoy et al, 2020;Baird et al, 2021), reflecting the increasing resource overlap between marine mammals and fishery operations. In many regions, spatial, temporal, and oceanographic factors affect bycatch.…”

Section: Direct Interactions: Bycatchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Marine Mammal Interactions With Fisheries: Review of Research and Management Trends Across Commercial and Small-Scale Fisheries

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Marine mammal interactions with fisheries, such as bycatch and depredation, are a common occurrence across commercial and small-scale fisheries. We conducted a systematic review to assess the management responses to marine mammal interactions with fisheries. We analyzed literature between 1995 and 2021 to measure research trends in studies on direct and indirect interactions for: (i) high and low to middle-income countries, (ii) fishery operations (commercial and small-scale), and (iii) taxonomic groups. Management responses were categorized using the framework described previously in peer-reviewed studies. Marine mammal bycatch remains a major conservation concern, followed by marine mammal depredation of fishing gear. A high proportion of studies concentrated on commercial fisheries in high-income countries, with an increase in small-scale fisheries in low to middle-income countries between 1999 and 2020. The insufficient understanding of the social dimensions of interactions and the inevitable uncertainties concerning animal and human behaviors are major challenges to effective management. Despite the key role of human behavior and socioeconomics, we found only eight articles that incorporate human dimensions in the management context. Integrating social dimensions of marine mammal interactions with fisheries could help in setting pragmatic conservation priorities based on enhanced understanding of critical knowledge gaps. An area-specific adaptive management framework could be an effective tool in reducing the risk to marine mammals from fisheries by coupling technical solutions with socio-economic and political interventions. We conclude that despite the vast body of literature on this subject, a “silver bullet” management solution to marine mammal interactions with fisheries does not yet exist.

show abstract

“…Methods can be combined; for example, Mustika et al (2014) describe a pilot study to identify the extent of small cetacean bycatch in Indonesia through fishermen interviews and stranding data. Another possibility arises if a marine mammal survey is conducted; data on direct occurrence of fishing boats can then also be collected to document the distribution of fisheries and their co-occurrence with marine mammals, to identify important areas of overlap (e.g., Goldsworthy and Page, 2007;de Boer et al, 2016;Baird et al, 2021). Similarly, Braulik et al (2018) describe an approach for a rapid assessment that integrated collection of data on cetaceans from visual, acoustic, and interview surveys with existing information from multiple sources, to provide low-resolution data on the relative abundance of cetaceans as well as on threats such as bycatch.…”

Section: Gear Typementioning

confidence: 99%

Best Practices for Assessing and Managing Bycatch of Marine Mammals

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bycatch in marine fisheries is the leading source of human-caused mortality for marine mammals, has contributed to substantial declines of many marine mammal populations and species, and the extinction of at least one. Schemes for evaluating marine mammal bycatch largely rely on estimates of abundance and bycatch, which are needed for calculating biological reference points and for determining conservation status. However, obtaining these estimates is resource intensive and takes careful long-term planning. The need for assessments of marine mammal bycatch in fisheries is expected to increase worldwide due to the recently implemented Import Provisions of the United States Marine Mammal Protection Act. Managers and other stakeholders need reliable, standardized methods for collecting data to estimate abundance and bycatch rates. In some cases, managers will be starting with little or no data and no system in place to collect data. We outline a comprehensive framework for managing bycatch of marine mammals. We describe and provide guidance on (1) planning for an assessment of bycatch, (2) collecting appropriate data (e.g., abundance and bycatch estimates), (3) assessing bycatch and calculating reference points, and (4) using the results of the assessment to guide marine mammal bycatch reduction. We also provide a brief overview of available mitigation techniques to reduce marine mammal bycatch in various fisheries. This paper provides information for scientists and resource managers in the hope that it will lead to new or improved programs for assessing marine mammal bycatch, establishing best practices, and enhancing marine mammal conservation globally.

show abstract

Bringing the right fishermen to the table: Indices of overlap between endangered false killer whales and nearshore fisheries in Hawaiʻi

Cited by 17 publications

References 15 publications

Biologically Important Areas II for cetaceans within U.S. and adjacent waters – Hawaiʻi Region

Biologically Important Areas II for cetaceans within U.S. and adjacent waters – Hawaiʻi Region

Marine Mammal Interactions With Fisheries: Review of Research and Management Trends Across Commercial and Small-Scale Fisheries

Best Practices for Assessing and Managing Bycatch of Marine Mammals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About