Impact Of Colonial Sealing On Seal Stocks Around
Australia, New Zealand And Subantarctic Islands
Between 150 And 170 Degrees East

Ling, John K.

doi:10.1071/am02117

Cited by 12 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The current species census estimate is ϳ14,700 individuals, and it is listed as endangered on the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List (22). In the late 18th and early 19th centuries, the Australian sea lion was subjected to unregulated harvests, resulting in a reduction in numbers and extirpation of colonies in the Bass Strait and within the current range (23,24). Unlike the two sympatric fur seal species, the Australian fur seal (Arctocephalus pusillus doriferus) and the New Zealand fur seal (Arctocephalus forsteri), the Australian sea lion is not recovering (22).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Colony Location and Captivity Influence the Gut Microbial Community Composition of the Australian Sea Lion (Neophoca cinerea)

Delport

Power

Harcourt

et al. 2016

Appl Environ Microbiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Gut microbiota play an important role in maintenance of mammalian metabolism and immune system regulation, and disturbances to this community can have adverse impacts on animal health. To better understand the composition of gut microbiota in marine mammals, fecal bacterial communities of the Australian sea lion (Neophoca cinerea), an endangered pinniped with localized distribution, were examined. A comparison of samples from individuals across 11 wild colonies in South and Western Australia and three Australian captive populations showed five dominant bacterial phyla: Firmicutes, Proteobacteria, Bacteroidetes, Actinobacteria, and Fusobacteria. The phylum Firmicutes was dominant in both wild (76.4% ؎ 4.73%) and captive animals (61.4% ؎ 10.8%), while Proteobacteria contributed more to captive (29.3% ؎ 11.5%) than to wild (10.6% ؎ 3.43%) fecal communities. Qualitative differences were observed between fecal communities from wild and captive animals based on principal-coordinate analysis. SIMPER (similarity percentage procedure) analyses indicated that operational taxonomic units (OTU) from the bacterial families Clostridiaceae and Ruminococcaceae were more abundant in wild than in captive animals and contributed most to the average dissimilarity between groups (SIMPER contributions of 19.1% and 10.9%, respectively). Differences in the biological environment, the foraging site fidelity, and anthropogenic impacts may provide various opportunities for unique microbial establishment in Australian sea lions. As anthropogenic disturbances to marine mammals are likely to increase, understanding the potential for such disturbances to impact microbial community compositions and subsequently affect animal health will be beneficial for management of these vulnerable species. IMPORTANCEThe Australian sea lion is an endangered species for which there is currently little information regarding disease and microbial ecology. In this work, we present an in-depth study of the fecal microbiota of a large number of Australian sea lions from geographically diverse wild and captive populations. Colony location and captivity were found to influence the gut microbial community compositions of these animals. Our findings significantly extend the baseline knowledge of marine mammal gut microbiome composition and variability. It is predicted that global change will have many major, but as yet unknown, impacts on aquatic ecosystems. Marine mammal species, including bottlenose dolphins, sea otters, manatees, and gray whales, have been proposed as sentinels for diverse threats to aquatic health, including disease transmission, changes in food webs, and contaminant levels (1-6). The key roles and contributions of microbes to mammalian host health are becoming increasingly recognized, yet remain largely unexplored for marine mammals (7). An understanding of the impacts of anthropogenic pressures on marine mammal microbial communities and of the potential cascade of impacts on marine health is necessary for full exploration of the roles a...

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Colony Location and Captivity Influence the Gut Microbial Community Composition of the Australian Sea Lion (Neophoca cinerea)

Delport

Power

Harcourt

et al. 2016

Appl Environ Microbiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The numbers harvested may therefore be as much a reflection of the small size of the original populations as of the low commercial value of the pelts. (Ling 2002). Although the pre-harvested population size of Australian sea lions is unknown, the overall population is believed to be depleted relative to pre-European colonisation of Australia (Goldsworthy et al 2010) and the population is still believed to be in recovery.…”

Section: Sealingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As sealing grounds were closely guarded secrets, the early sealers left few records of the identity, distribution and abundance of sea lion colonies from which to draw comparisons with the sea lion colonies today (Ling 2002).…”

Section: Sealingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Pup numbers of the Australian sea lion (Neophoca cinerea) at The Pages Islands, South Australia, over two decades

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Executive SummaryThis strategy has been developed to reduce and monitor interactions between Australian sea lions and gillnets used by Commonwealth shark fishers in the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery. At the same time, AFMA increased the at sea, independent observer coverage to collect additional information on interactions between gillnets and Australian sea lions including trials of underwater video cameras as a method of electronic monitoring.In April 2010, SARDI released the final report on sea lion interactions in the fishery. Since then AFMA has held two stakeholder workshops and received comments on a draft management strategy. Under the strategy, AFMA will implement long-term management measures including formal fisheries closures (covering 6,300km 2 ) around all 48 colonies, increased independent monitoring of fishing activity (i.e. from 2.4% to 11%) and adaptive management arrangements for further closures to respond to further sea lion interactions. These additional closures would cover nearly 100% of the fishery off South Australia if implemented.AFMA's observer coverage for the 2009/10 financial year shows that the observed bycatch rate is, at most, one third that estimated by the independent observer program used by Goldsworthy et al. (2010). The observed AFMA rate is between 0 and 0.004 sea lions per km net set depending on the observer protocols used. The underlying bycatch rate from the SARDI report was 0.013 sea lions per km net set.The strategy will also support development of an industry Code of Conduct, research into mitigation trials to reduce the risk posed by gillnets and facilitate a transfer of fishing effort to hook methods. It is expected that these measures will lead to a significant reduction of the impact of fishing activity on Australian sea lions and enable the recovery of the species A key feature of the strategy will be the ongoing review of new data and information on the level and nature of interactions. For the first year of the strategy AFMA will undertake quarterly reviews of the effectiveness of the strategy utilising all available information. These quarterly reviews will engage all key stakeholders. Changes to the strategy may be necessary to respond to new information about the ongoing risk to sea lions.While the objectives of the strategy are to reduce the impact of gillnet fishers on Australian sea lions and enable their recovery, a number of other factors impact on Australian sea lions such as marine debris, State commercial fisheries (e.g. rock lobster), aquaculture and Australian Sea Lion Management Strategy 3 tourism. Recovery of Australian sea lion populations will benefit from action to reduce all impacts on sea lions.

show abstract

“…It is believed fur seals were driven inland from a small cove to be trapped by the stone wall and then killed and skinned. More than 48 000 fur seal skins were harvested at King Island between 1801 and 1819 (Ling 1999a(Ling , 2002.…”

Section: Descriptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Historical ecology: a critique of François Péron’s account of Southern Elephant Seals, Mirounga leonina (Linn.),

Ling¹

2015

PPRST

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

François Péron's quite detailed observations of Southern Elephant Seals, Mirounga leonina (Linn.), at King Island, Tasmania, in December 1802, are considered in the light of current knowledge of this species. Acute observations of the elephant seal and its behaviour, as well as remarks about its life history, which appears to have differed slightly from that observed recently at sub-Antarctic Macquarie Island, the nearest current breeding site, were recorded. There is a suggestion that the breeding season at King Island may have been earlier than where Southern Elephant Seals now occur in the sub-Antarctic, possibly due to King Island being closer to the equator. Péron noted that Aborigines at Port Jackson called them Mirourong, from which their current generic name was derived, and they still frequent this coast. He does not mention seeing small immature elephant seals at King Island in December when this age class hauls out to moult on Macquarie Island. The presence then of (probably exaggeratedly) large males again suggests that the annual cycle at King Island may have been in advance of that observed at Macquarie Island today. Péron's growth rates were far in excess of those now known for the species anywhere: how he arrived at them he does not record; possibly this and other information was related to him by the sealers.

show abstract

Impact Of Colonial Sealing On Seal Stocks Around Australia, New Zealand And Subantarctic Islands Between 150 And 170 Degrees East

Cited by 12 publications

References 18 publications

Colony Location and Captivity Influence the Gut Microbial Community Composition of the Australian Sea Lion (Neophoca cinerea)

Colony Location and Captivity Influence the Gut Microbial Community Composition of the Australian Sea Lion (Neophoca cinerea)

Pup numbers of the Australian sea lion (Neophoca cinerea) at The Pages Islands, South Australia, over two decades

Historical ecology: a critique of François Péron’s account of Southern Elephant Seals, Mirounga leonina (Linn.),

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About