gtag('config', 'UA-114241270-1');
Your browser is out-of-date!

Update your browser to view this website correctly. Update my browser now

×

Discipline
Biological
Keywords
Marine Debris
Human Impacts
Fishing Gear
Observation Type
Standalone
Nature
Case study
Submitted
Jul 26th, 2017
Published
Dec 15th, 2017
  • Abstract

    Entanglement in marine debris has become a serious matter for marine fauna, yet most data come from deceased animals. Here we studied a non-lethal entanglement event involving a female juvenile bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops aduncus), known as EDE, in Shark Bay, Western Australia who has been monitored and observed since birth as part of a long-term study. We compared her behavior before, during, and after entanglement. During entanglement, EDE markedly decreased time spent foraging, and increased time spent traveling. In contrast to before and after entanglement, EDE was mostly alone during entanglement, which may compound the negative impacts in a social species. During entanglement, erratic behaviors including leaps and fast swims were frequent. After entanglement, her activity budget and associations were similar to the period before entanglement. This study marks a rare opportunity to systematically examine the effects of entanglement on dolphin behavior and has implications for other highly social marine species.

  • Figure
  • Introduction

    Marine pollution and debris have become an issue of epic proportions. Plastic makes up the majority of marine litter with over 250,000 tons floating in the sea. In 2010 alone it has been estimated that 4–12 million metric tons of plastic entered the ocean. The impacts of debris, such as ingestion, entanglement, and habitat degradation are occurring in every ocean worldwide. Entanglement in marine debris is a major problem for marine fauna, including marine mammals, sea turtles, sea birds, fish, sharks, and crustaceans. Marine debris, such as fishing gear, is particularly problematic for marine animals that breathe air, travel large distances and dive for food. Synthetic fishing gear, which does not breakdown naturally, remain in the oceans for decades and entangle large numbers of cetaceans, pinnipeds, and sea turtles well after active use. The International Whaling Commission estimates that 308,000 whales and dolphins die each year due to entanglement in fishing gear. The impacts of entanglement may be short-term and non-lethal, or prolonged and result in death from infection, loss of appendages or drowning due to constricted body parts. Other possible outcomes are starvation due to impaired foraging ability, and exhaustion due to hydrodynamic drag.

    Gear from commercial fisheries is responsible for the majority of serious entanglements recorded. Drift nets are estimated to kill thousands of dolphins (Delphinus delphis, Stenella coeruleoalba) in the Mediterranean each year. The majority of humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) in near-shore waters of northern Southeast Alaska bear scars of non-lethal entanglement. Fishing gear entanglement is the leading cause of death for large whales in the Northwest Atlantic, and is one of the greatest threats to the critically endangered Mediterranean monk seal. While bycatch has caused the vaquita population to diminish to 30 individuals, making it the most endangered cetacean in the world.

    Coastal cetaceans are also affected by recreational fishing practices. For example, in Sarasota Bay, Florida, veterinary records from 1988–2006 show over 600 deceased bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) have ingested fishing gear. In addition to ingestion, entanglement in fishing gear can also result in death. Studies of entanglement are usually based on necropsies or scarring, but there are a few that have examined the impact of entanglement on cetacean behavior. Virtually no studies have detailed behavioral changes based on observations of individuals before, during, and after entanglement. Here, we describe observations of a female bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops aduncus), EDE, before, during and after entanglement in a fishing line. The entanglement was non-lethal and it took EDE one week to free herself from the line.

  • Objective

    We aim to understand the behavioral impacts of fishing line entanglement on a female bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops aduncus), by examining her behavior before, during and after entanglement.

  • Results & Discussion

    Activity Budget

    Figure 1C shows EDE’s behavior before, during and after entanglement. Notable changes in response to entanglement were no socializing, little foraging, in which we did not observe any successful foraging events such as fish catches or ‘with fish’, and an increase in traveling, particularly traveling more at faster speeds (5–6 kph) (5% before, 30% during, 3% after) and less at slower speeds (2–3 kph) (63% before, 20% during, 54% after). She also engaged in other behaviors, such as leaps, fast accelerations (fast swims), and rapid surfacings. Fast swims occurred at a rate of 5.68/h compared to 1.62/h before and 0.71/h after entanglement. Her rapid surfacing rate increased to 3.79/h, compared to 0.60/h before and 0.32/h after entanglement.

    Group Composition

    Prior to entanglement, EDE was in a group 89% of the time (61% of that with at least one maternal kin); however, during her entanglement, she was with others only 10% of the time (22% of that time with at least one maternal kin) (Fig. 1D). After she freed herself from entanglement, she spent 98% of her time in groups (71% of that time with at least one of her maternal kin) (Fig. 1D).

    Entanglement in fishing gear is a major threat to nearly all marine mammals. Detailed observations of individuals throughout an entanglement event are rare but provide important insight into behavioral impacts of such events. Our longitudinal dataset on EDE enabled us to compare her behavior and social interactions before, during, and after entanglement. Several marked changes stand out. First, she spent 30–50% less time foraging and 45–60% more time traveling during entanglement than before or after. In addition to traveling more, she increased her travel speed and engaged in other fast and erratic behaviors such as fast swims, rapid surfacings and leaps. She did not socialize at all when entangled. Post-entanglement, her activity budget was similar to pre-entanglement.

    Some of our observations are similar to those observed in Mann et al. (1995), where costly behaviors such as fast travel and leaping increased during entanglement. Further, the additional drag from trailing fishing gear can exacerbate energy expenditure and prevent efficient foraging. Van der Hoop et al. (2013) placed a Dtag on an entangled Northern right whale and found slower diving ascents and descents, as well as shallower dives during entanglement than for whales that were not entangled. Modeling the drag force of gear attached to the entangled right whale also showed that whales entangled in fishing gear experience a greater energetic demand. Further, there appears to be a critical duration period in which the duration of additional drag due to entanglement can be a predictor of survival. Thus, the combination of increased energetic behaviors and drag due to a fishing line may further decrease the chances of survival, especially with long durations of entanglement.

    In addition to physical and behavioral impacts, there was a drastic decrease in EDE’s social interactions. She was alone during the vast majority of the entanglement period, the inverse of time in groups before and after, respectively. Similarly, Wells et al. (1998) observed an entangled female dolphin in Sarasota Florida who was alone during each sighting of her entanglement, in comparison to only 24% of sightings alone when not entangled. Weinrich (1996) observed 30–40 Atlantic white-sided dolphins (Lagenorhynchus acutus) abandon a conspecific immediately after the individual became entangled in a gillnet. They noted that not a single conspecific remained or returned to investigate or assist the entangled individual. While this observation isn’t surprising, one might expect that close kin may remain with a distressed mother, calf, or sibling. When a young calf was entangled in Shark Bay, the mother remained nearby and others joined briefly, but none were close to the calf except the mother.

    There are multiple examples of dolphins pushing a dead conspecific at the surface, in what appears to be an attempt to assist the deceased. Mann and Barnett (1999) observed dolphins attempting to intervene and defend a calf from a tiger shark attack. Gibson (2006) observed a non-lethal shark attack on a calf in which there was very little response to the presence of several small to medium-sized sharks or the attack from the calf, mother or group members. Therefore, dolphins do not always flee or abandon an individual in a potentially dangerous situation, particularly when it is between a mother and calf.

    This begs the question then, why have we observed a pattern of seemingly social avoidance by conspecifics following entanglement? One hypothesis is that social avoidance is a strategy to avoid danger or an unfamiliar object. Furthermore, avoidance of diseased conspecifics has been observed in social lobsters. Even EDE’s brief encounters with others were simply in passing.

    Previous studies of entanglement focused on large whale species, such as right and humpback whales, which are classified as solitary. Here, we use longitudinal data to quantify the impact of entanglement in a highly social species. In addition to marked behavioral changes, we identified an additional stressor, isolation, which has received little attention with respect to entanglement. As such, the costs of entanglement (e.g., infection, injury, energetic costs, inability to forage), are likely exacerbated by social isolation. Bottlenose dolphins have highly differentiated social relationships that last for years. Thus, the effect of even short-term isolation could be substantial.

    These observations highlight the need for regulating the disposal of fishing gear and decreasing pollution in marine habitats. Marine debris is an increasing global threat that impacts a wide array of species. The number of individuals entangled in marine debris is three times higher than that of the 1990s and nearly 50% more species have been reported in marine debris encounters since 1997. Shark Bay is a relatively pristine habitat, listed as a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 1991, which experiences very low anthropogenic pressures. Despite that, in addition to EDE, at least five provisioned dolphins and their calves have been entangled in fishing gear at Monkey Mia (unpublished records). Many other sites around the world experience much greater fishing pressure (both recreational and commercial) and human impacts, thus even stricter regulations should exist in these regions. While such detailed observations of entanglement are rare, they offer a glimpse into the costs of entanglement for dolphins and whales.

  • Limitations

    This study is comprised of one individual, so we cannot draw population or species level conclusions. Because these data were collected opportunistically and the entanglement period was brief, we have a limited amount of data during entanglement. Although entanglement of marine animals is not a rare event, systematic data of this nature for an entangled individual are quite rare.

  • Methods

    Study Site

    The study site is a 300 km2 area in the eastern gulf of Shark Bay, Western Australia off a tourist site called Monkey Mia (25° 47’ S, 113° 43’ E). Shark Bay is a UNESCO World Heritage Site where human impacts are minimal. Since 1984, the Shark Bay Dolphin Research Project has collected demographic, behavioral, genetic, ecological, and life history data on over 1,600 individual dolphins using photo-identification methods. Sexes are assigned based on views of the genital area or association with a calf. Birthdates are estimated based on last sighting date of the mother without a calf and first sighting date with a calf, in addition to physical features of the calf.

    Monkey Mia, the launch site for our study, is also home to a long-term provisioning program, attracting more than 100,000 visitors to Shark Bay per year. Five adult dolphins, from three matrilines, are offered up to three handouts of fish per day through a program managed by the Department of Parks and Wildlife in a small protected shallow water area of the shoreline. This provisioning area is in close proximity to two jetties, two boat ramps, and a mooring area for two commercial catamarans and a number of recreational boats. Fishing commonly occurs from the Monkey Mia shoreline and near shore from small boats.

    Study Subject

    EDE, the focal individual in this study is a well-known and frequently sighted female dolphin born 19 November, 2003, who has been followed for 53.9 h since weaning in 2007. She has 8 living maternal kin. EDE’s mother and grandmother are provisioned, and while EDE regularly visits the provisioning area, she does not receive fish handouts.

    Data Collection

    Data for this study were collected during focal follows conducted 2010–2015. Focal follows are systematic boat-based observations on an individual’s behavior and group composition using one-minute point sampling. Behavioral states include foraging, resting, socializing, traveling, and other (for definitions see Karniski et al. 2014). Some behavioral events were continuously recorded (frequency and/or duration, see Fig. 1B). Group composition was determined using the 10 m chain rule, such that individuals within 10 m of another are considered to be in the same group. Each follow had to be greater than 30 mins to be included in this analysis.

    Three different time periods were compared: ‘before’ EDE became entangled (1854 mins; September 2010–May 2015), ‘during’ the entanglement (276 mins; June 16–18, 2015), and ‘after’ she freed herself from the fishing line (749 mins; June 27, 2015 –October 2015). In order to equalize sample size across periods, we randomly subsampled 276 mins from each the ‘before’ period and the ‘after’ period for 1,000 iterations. Subsamples produced the same results as the full dataset. EDE’s entanglement occurred on June 15. Summary statistics are presented since the sample size is one.

  • Funding statement

    The study was funded by the National Science Foundation (grants 0941487, 0918308, 0316800), Department of Parks and Wildlife (DPaW) of Western Australia, and Georgetown University.

  • Acknowledgements

    We thank all members of the Shark Bay Dolphin Research Project and are grateful to the Department of Parks and Wildlife (DPaW) of Western Australia and the Monkey Mia Dolphin Resort for logistical field support.

  • Ethics statement

    This work was approved by the Georgetown University Animal Care and Use Committee (permits 07-041, 10-023, 13-069), DPaW (permits SF009311, SF008076, SF009876) and The University of Western Australia (animal ethics permit 600-37).

  • References
  • 1
    Lorem ipsum Lorem ipsum Lorem ipsum Lorem ipsum Lorem ipsum Lorem ipsum Lorem ipsum Lorem ipsum

    Lorem ipsum Lorem ipsum Lorem ipsum Lorem ipsum ipsum Lorem ipsum Lorem ipsum Lorem ipsum Lorem ipsum ipsum

    Lorem ipsum Lorem ipsum Lorem ipsum
    2
    Lorem ipsum Lorem ipsum Lorem ipsum Lorem ipsum Lorem ipsum Lorem ipsum Lorem ipsum Lorem ipsum

    Lorem ipsum Lorem ipsum Lorem ipsum Lorem ipsum ipsum Lorem ipsum Lorem ipsum Lorem ipsum Lorem ipsum ipsum

    Lorem ipsum Lorem ipsum Lorem ipsum
    3
    Lorem ipsum Lorem ipsum Lorem ipsum Lorem ipsum Lorem ipsum Lorem ipsum Lorem ipsum Lorem ipsum

    Lorem ipsum Lorem ipsum Lorem ipsum Lorem ipsum ipsum Lorem ipsum Lorem ipsum Lorem ipsum Lorem ipsum ipsum

    Lorem ipsum Lorem ipsum Lorem ipsum
    4
    Lorem ipsum Lorem ipsum Lorem ipsum Lorem ipsum Lorem ipsum Lorem ipsum Lorem ipsum Lorem ipsum

    Lorem ipsum Lorem ipsum Lorem ipsum Lorem ipsum ipsum Lorem ipsum Lorem ipsum Lorem ipsum Lorem ipsum ipsum

    Lorem ipsum Lorem ipsum Lorem ipsum
    5
    Lorem ipsum Lorem ipsum Lorem ipsum Lorem ipsum Lorem ipsum Lorem ipsum Lorem ipsum Lorem ipsum

    Lorem ipsum Lorem ipsum Lorem ipsum Lorem ipsum ipsum Lorem ipsum Lorem ipsum Lorem ipsum Lorem ipsum ipsum

    Lorem ipsum Lorem ipsum Lorem ipsum
    Matters12.5/20

    Behavioral responses to fishing line entanglement of a juvenile bottlenose dolphin in Shark Bay, Australia

    Affiliation listing not available.
    Abstractlink

    Entanglement in marine debris has become a serious matter for marine fauna, yet most data come from deceased animals. Here we studied a non-lethal entanglement event involving a female juvenile bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops aduncus), known as EDE, in Shark Bay, Western Australia who has been monitored and observed since birth as part of a long-term study. We compared her behavior before, during, and after entanglement. During entanglement, EDE markedly decreased time spent foraging, and increased time spent traveling. In contrast to before and after entanglement, EDE was mostly alone during entanglement, which may compound the negative impacts in a social species. During entanglement, erratic behaviors including leaps and fast swims were frequent. After entanglement, her activity budget and associations were similar to the period before entanglement. This study marks a rare opportunity to systematically examine the effects of entanglement on dolphin behavior and has implications for other highly social marine species.

    Figurelink

    Figure 1. EDE entanglement.

    (A) EDE's dorsal fin during (June 15, 2015) and after entanglement (July 1, 2015).

    (B) Ethogram for a subset of common behavioral events.

    (C) Activity budget for EDE before, during, and after entanglement.

    (D) Group composition for EDE before, during, and after entanglement.

    Introductionlink

    Marine pollution and debris have become an issue of epic proportions. Plastic makes up the majority of marine litter with over 250,000 tons floating in the sea[1][2]. In 2010 alone it has been estimated that 4–12 million metric tons of plastic entered the ocean[3]. The impacts of debris, such as ingestion, entanglement, and habitat degradation are occurring in every ocean worldwide. Entanglement in marine debris is a major problem for marine fauna, including marine mammals, sea turtles, sea birds, fish, sharks, and crustaceans[4][5][6]. Marine debris, such as fishing gear, is particularly problematic for marine animals that breathe air, travel large distances and dive for food. Synthetic fishing gear, which does not breakdown naturally, remain in the oceans for decades and entangle large numbers of cetaceans, pinnipeds, and sea turtles well after active use[7]. The International Whaling Commission estimates that 308,000 whales and dolphins die each year due to entanglement in fishing gear[8]. The impacts of entanglement may be short-term and non-lethal, or prolonged and result in death from infection, loss of appendages or drowning due to constricted body parts. Other possible outcomes are starvation due to impaired foraging ability, and exhaustion due to hydrodynamic drag.

    Gear from commercial fisheries is responsible for the majority of serious entanglements recorded. Drift nets are estimated to kill thousands of dolphins (Delphinus delphis, Stenella coeruleoalba) in the Mediterranean each year[9]. The majority of humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) in near-shore waters of northern Southeast Alaska bear scars of non-lethal entanglement[10]. Fishing gear entanglement is the leading cause of death for large whales in the Northwest Atlantic, and is one of the greatest threats to the critically endangered Mediterranean monk seal[12]. While bycatch has caused the vaquita population to diminish to 30 individuals, making it the most endangered cetacean in the world[13][14].

    Coastal cetaceans are also affected by recreational fishing practices. For example, in Sarasota Bay, Florida, veterinary records from 1988–2006 show over 600 deceased bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) have ingested fishing gear[15]. In addition to ingestion, entanglement in fishing gear can also result in death[16]. Studies of entanglement are usually based on necropsies or scarring[10][16], but there are a few that have examined the impact of entanglement on cetacean behavior[17][15][18]. Virtually no studies have detailed behavioral changes based on observations of individuals before, during, and after entanglement. Here, we describe observations of a female bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops aduncus), EDE, before, during and after entanglement in a fishing line. The entanglement was non-lethal and it took EDE one week to free herself from the line.

    Objectivelink

    We aim to understand the behavioral impacts of fishing line entanglement on a female bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops aduncus), by examining her behavior before, during and after entanglement.

    Results & Discussionlink

    Activity Budget

    Figure 1C shows EDE’s behavior before, during and after entanglement. Notable changes in response to entanglement were no socializing, little foraging, in which we did not observe any successful foraging events such as fish catches or ‘with fish’, and an increase in traveling, particularly traveling more at faster speeds (5–6 kph) (5% before, 30% during, 3% after) and less at slower speeds (2–3 kph) (63% before, 20% during, 54% after). She also engaged in other behaviors, such as leaps, fast accelerations (fast swims), and rapid surfacings. Fast swims occurred at a rate of 5.68/h compared to 1.62/h before and 0.71/h after entanglement. Her rapid surfacing rate increased to 3.79/h, compared to 0.60/h before and 0.32/h after entanglement.

    Group Composition

    Prior to entanglement, EDE was in a group 89% of the time (61% of that with at least one maternal kin); however, during her entanglement, she was with others only 10% of the time (22% of that time with at least one maternal kin) (Fig. 1D). After she freed herself from entanglement, she spent 98% of her time in groups (71% of that time with at least one of her maternal kin) (Fig. 1D).

    Entanglement in fishing gear is a major threat to nearly all marine mammals. Detailed observations of individuals throughout an entanglement event are rare but provide important insight into behavioral impacts of such events. Our longitudinal dataset on EDE enabled us to compare her behavior and social interactions before, during, and after entanglement. Several marked changes stand out. First, she spent 30–50% less time foraging and 45–60% more time traveling during entanglement than before or after. In addition to traveling more, she increased her travel speed and engaged in other fast and erratic behaviors such as fast swims, rapid surfacings and leaps. She did not socialize at all when entangled. Post-entanglement, her activity budget was similar to pre-entanglement.

    Some of our observations are similar to those observed in Mann et al. (1995), where costly behaviors such as fast travel and leaping increased during entanglement[17]. Further, the additional drag from trailing fishing gear can exacerbate energy expenditure and prevent efficient foraging. Van der Hoop et al. (2013) placed a Dtag on an entangled Northern right whale and found slower diving ascents and descents, as well as shallower dives during entanglement than for whales that were not entangled[18]. Modeling the drag force of gear attached to the entangled right whale also showed that whales entangled in fishing gear experience a greater energetic demand[18]. Further, there appears to be a critical duration period in which the duration of additional drag due to entanglement can be a predictor of survival[19]. Thus, the combination of increased energetic behaviors and drag due to a fishing line may further decrease the chances of survival, especially with long durations of entanglement[20].

    In addition to physical and behavioral impacts, there was a drastic decrease in EDE’s social interactions. She was alone during the vast majority of the entanglement period, the inverse of time in groups before and after, respectively. Similarly, Wells et al. (1998) observed an entangled female dolphin in Sarasota Florida who was alone during each sighting of her entanglement, in comparison to only 24% of sightings alone when not entangled[15]. Weinrich (1996) observed 30–40 Atlantic white-sided dolphins (Lagenorhynchus acutus) abandon a conspecific immediately after the individual became entangled in a gillnet[21]. They noted that not a single conspecific remained or returned to investigate or assist the entangled individual. While this observation isn’t surprising, one might expect that close kin may remain with a distressed mother, calf, or sibling. When a young calf was entangled in Shark Bay, the mother remained nearby and others joined briefly, but none were close to the calf except the mother[17].

    There are multiple examples of dolphins pushing a dead conspecific at the surface, in what appears to be an attempt to assist the deceased[22][23][24]. Mann and Barnett (1999) observed dolphins attempting to intervene and defend a calf from a tiger shark attack[24]. Gibson (2006) observed a non-lethal shark attack on a calf in which there was very little response to the presence of several small to medium-sized sharks or the attack from the calf, mother or group members[25]. Therefore, dolphins do not always flee or abandon an individual in a potentially dangerous situation, particularly when it is between a mother and calf.

    This begs the question then, why have we observed a pattern of seemingly social avoidance by conspecifics following entanglement? One hypothesis is that social avoidance is a strategy to avoid danger or an unfamiliar object. Furthermore, avoidance of diseased conspecifics has been observed in social lobsters[26]. Even EDE’s brief encounters with others were simply in passing.

    Previous studies of entanglement focused on large whale species, such as right and humpback whales, which are classified as solitary[27]. Here, we use longitudinal data to quantify the impact of entanglement in a highly social species. In addition to marked behavioral changes, we identified an additional stressor, isolation, which has received little attention with respect to entanglement. As such, the costs of entanglement (e.g., infection, injury, energetic costs, inability to forage), are likely exacerbated by social isolation. Bottlenose dolphins have highly differentiated social relationships that last for years[28]. Thus, the effect of even short-term isolation could be substantial.

    These observations highlight the need for regulating the disposal of fishing gear and decreasing pollution in marine habitats. Marine debris is an increasing global threat that impacts a wide array of species. The number of individuals entangled in marine debris is three times higher than that of the 1990s[29] and nearly 50% more species have been reported in marine debris encounters since 1997[30]. Shark Bay is a relatively pristine habitat, listed as a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 1991, which experiences very low anthropogenic pressures. Despite that, in addition to EDE, at least five provisioned dolphins and their calves have been entangled in fishing gear at Monkey Mia[17] (unpublished records). Many other sites around the world experience much greater fishing pressure (both recreational and commercial) and human impacts, thus even stricter regulations should exist in these regions. While such detailed observations of entanglement are rare, they offer a glimpse into the costs of entanglement for dolphins and whales.

    Limitationslink

    This study is comprised of one individual, so we cannot draw population or species level conclusions. Because these data were collected opportunistically and the entanglement period was brief, we have a limited amount of data during entanglement. Although entanglement of marine animals is not a rare event, systematic data of this nature for an entangled individual are quite rare.

    Methodslink

    Study Site

    The study site is a 300 km2 area in the eastern gulf of Shark Bay, Western Australia off a tourist site called Monkey Mia (25° 47’ S, 113° 43’ E). Shark Bay is a UNESCO World Heritage Site where human impacts are minimal. Since 1984, the Shark Bay Dolphin Research Project has collected demographic, behavioral, genetic, ecological, and life history data on over 1,600 individual dolphins using photo-identification methods[31]. Sexes are assigned based on views of the genital area or association with a calf[32]. Birthdates are estimated based on last sighting date of the mother without a calf and first sighting date with a calf, in addition to physical features of the calf[33].

    Monkey Mia, the launch site for our study, is also home to a long-term provisioning program, attracting more than 100,000 visitors to Shark Bay per year[34]. Five adult dolphins, from three matrilines, are offered up to three handouts of fish per day through a program managed by the Department of Parks and Wildlife in a small protected shallow water area of the shoreline[35]. This provisioning area is in close proximity to two jetties, two boat ramps, and a mooring area for two commercial catamarans and a number of recreational boats. Fishing commonly occurs from the Monkey Mia shoreline and near shore from small boats.

    Study Subject

    EDE, the focal individual in this study is a well-known and frequently sighted female dolphin born 19 November, 2003, who has been followed for 53.9 h since weaning in 2007. She has 8 living maternal kin. EDE’s mother and grandmother are provisioned, and while EDE regularly visits the provisioning area, she does not receive fish handouts.

    Data Collection

    Data for this study were collected during focal follows[36] conducted 2010–2015. Focal follows are systematic boat-based observations on an individual’s behavior and group composition using one-minute point sampling. Behavioral states include foraging, resting, socializing, traveling, and other (for definitions see Karniski et al. 2014). Some behavioral events were continuously recorded (frequency and/or duration, see Fig. 1B). Group composition was determined using the 10 m chain rule, such that individuals within 10 m of another are considered to be in the same group. Each follow had to be greater than 30 mins to be included in this analysis.

    Three different time periods were compared: ‘before’ EDE became entangled (1854 mins; September 2010–May 2015), ‘during’ the entanglement (276 mins; June 16–18, 2015), and ‘after’ she freed herself from the fishing line (749 mins; June 27, 2015 –October 2015). In order to equalize sample size across periods, we randomly subsampled 276 mins from each the ‘before’ period and the ‘after’ period for 1,000 iterations. Subsamples produced the same results as the full dataset. EDE’s entanglement occurred on June 15. Summary statistics are presented since the sample size is one.

    Funding Statementlink

    The study was funded by the National Science Foundation (grants 0941487, 0918308, 0316800), Department of Parks and Wildlife (DPaW) of Western Australia, and Georgetown University.

    Acknowledgementslink

    We thank all members of the Shark Bay Dolphin Research Project and are grateful to the Department of Parks and Wildlife (DPaW) of Western Australia and the Monkey Mia Dolphin Resort for logistical field support.

    Conflict of interestlink

    The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

    Ethics Statementlink

    This work was approved by the Georgetown University Animal Care and Use Committee (permits 07-041, 10-023, 13-069), DPaW (permits SF009311, SF008076, SF009876) and The University of Western Australia (animal ethics permit 600-37).

    No fraudulence is committed in performing these experiments or during processing of the data. We understand that in the case of fraudulence, the study can be retracted by ScienceMatters.

    Referenceslink
    1. Derraik José G.B
      The pollution of the marine environment by plastic debris: a review
      Marine Pollution Bulletin, 44/2002, pages 842-852 DOI: 10.1016/s0025-326x(02)00220-5chrome_reader_mode
    2. Eriksen Marcus, Lebreton Laurent C. M., Carson Henry S.,more_horiz, Reisser Julia
      Plastic Pollution in the World's Oceans: More than 5 Trillion Plastic Pieces Weighing over 250,000 Tons Afloat at Sea
    3. Jambeck J. R., Geyer R., Wilcox C.,more_horiz, Law K. L.
      Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean
      Science, 347/2015, pages 768-771 DOI: 10.1126/science.1260352chrome_reader_mode
    4. David W. Laist
      Impacts of marine debris: entanglement of marine life in marine debris including a comprehensive list of species with entanglement and ingestion records
      Marine Debris, 1997, pages 99-139 chrome_reader_mode
    5. Colmenero Ana I., Barría Claudio, Broglio Elisabetta, García-Barcelona Salvador
      Plastic debris straps on threatened blue shark Prionace glauca
      Marine Pollution Bulletin, 115/2017, pages 436-438 DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.01.011chrome_reader_mode
    6. Moore Emma, Lyday Shannon, Roletto Jan,more_horiz, Kell Shelagh
      Entanglements of marine mammals and seabirds in central California and the north-west coast of the United States 2001–2005
      Marine Pollution Bulletin, 58/2009, pages 1045-1051 DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2009.02.006chrome_reader_mode
    7. Stelfox Martin, Hudgins Jillian, Sweet Michael
      A review of ghost gear entanglement amongst marine mammals, reptiles and elasmobranchs
      Marine Pollution Bulletin, 111/2016, pages 6-17 DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.06.034chrome_reader_mode
    8. Iwc
      Entanglement in fishing gear
      https://iwc.int/entanglement, 2016 chrome_reader_mode
    9. Tudela Sergi, Kai Kai Abdelouahed, Maynou Francesc,more_horiz, Guglielmi Paolo
      Driftnet fishing and biodiversity conservation: the case study of the large-scale Moroccan driftnet fleet operating in the Alboran Sea (SW Mediterranean)
      Biological Conservation, 121/2005, pages 65-78 DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2004.04.010chrome_reader_mode
    10. Neilson Janet L., Straley Janice M., Gabriele Christine M., Hills Susan
      Non-lethal entanglement of humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) in fishing gear in northern Southeast Alaska
      Journal of Biogeography, 36/2009, pages 452-464 DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2699.2007.01820.xchrome_reader_mode
    11. van der Hoop Julie M., Moore Michael J., Barco Susan G.,more_horiz, Solow Andrew R.
      Assessment of Management to Mitigate Anthropogenic Effects on Large Whales
      Conservation Biology, 27/2012, pages 121-133 DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2012.01934.xchrome_reader_mode
    12. Karamanlidis Aa, Androukaki E, Adamantopoulou S,more_horiz, Dendrinos P
      Assessing accidental entanglement as a threat to the Mediterranean monk seal Monachus monachus
      Endangered Species Research, 5/2008, pages 205-213 DOI: 10.3354/esr00092chrome_reader_mode
    13. Jaramillo-Legorreta Armando, Rojas-Bracho Lorenzo, Brownell Robert L.,more_horiz, Taylor Barbara L.
      Saving the Vaquita: Immediate Action, Not More Data
      Conservation Biology, 21/2007, pages 1653-1655 DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00825.xchrome_reader_mode
    14. Cirva-8
      Report of the Eighth Meeting of the International Committee for the Recovery of the Vaquita. La Jolla, California, USA, 29-30 November 2016
      Unpublished Report, 2016, pages 1-69 chrome_reader_mode
    15. Randall S. Wells, Suzanne Hofmann, Tristen L. Moors
      Entanglement and mortality of bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops truncatus, in recreational fishing gear in Florida
      Fishery Bulletin, 96/1998, pages 647-650 chrome_reader_mode
    16. Wells Randall S., Allen Jason B., Hofmann Suzanne,more_horiz, Scott Michael D.
      Consequences of injuries on survival and reproduction of common bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) along the west coast of Florida
      Marine Mammal Science, 24/2008, pages 774-794 DOI: 10.1111/j.1748-7692.2008.00212.xchrome_reader_mode
    17. Mann Janet, Smolker Rachel A., Smuts Barbara B.
      RESPONSES TO CALF ENTANGLEMENT IN FREE-RANGING BOTTLENOSE DOLPHINS
      Marine Mammal Science, 11/1995, pages 100-106 DOI: 10.1111/j.1748-7692.1995.tb00280.xchrome_reader_mode
    18. van der Hoop Julie, Moore Michael, Fahlman Andreas,more_horiz, Zoodsma Barb
      Behavioral impacts of disentanglement of a right whale under sedation and the energetic cost of entanglement
      Marine Mammal Science, 30/2013, pages 282-307 DOI: 10.1111/mms.12042chrome_reader_mode
    19. van der Hoop Julie M., Corkeron Peter, Henry Allison G.,more_horiz, Moore Michael J.
      Predicting lethal entanglements as a consequence of drag from fishing gear
      Marine Pollution Bulletin, 115/2017, pages 91-104 DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.11.060chrome_reader_mode
    20. van der Hoop Julie M., Corkeron Peter, Kenney John,more_horiz, Moore Michael J.
      Drag from fishing gear entangling North Atlantic right whales
      Marine Mammal Science, 32/2015, pages 619-642 DOI: 10.1111/mms.12292chrome_reader_mode
    21. Weinrich Mason
      ABANDONMENT OF AN ENTANGLED CONSPECIFIC BY ATLANTIC WHITE-SIDED DOLPHINS (LAGENORHYNCHUS ACUTUS)
      Marine Mammal Science, 12/1996, pages 293-296 DOI: 10.1111/j.1748-7692.1996.tb00579.xchrome_reader_mode
    22. V. G. Cockcroft, W. Sauer
      Observed and inferred epimeletic (nurturant) behaviour in bottlenose dolphins.
      Aquatic Mammals, 16.1/1990, pages 31-32 chrome_reader_mode
    23. Dudzinski K. M., Sakai M., Masaki K.,more_horiz, Kurimoto M.
      Behavioural observations of bottlenose dolphins towards two dead conspecifics
      Aquatic Mammals, 29/2003, pages 108-116 DOI: 10.1578/016754203101023951chrome_reader_mode
    24. Mann J., Barnett H.
      LETHAL TIGER SHARK (GALEOCERDO CUVIER) ATTACK ON BOTTLENOSE DOLPHIN (TURSIOPS SP.) CALF: DEFENSE AND REACTIONS BY THE MOTHER
      Marine Mammal Science, 15/1999, pages 568-575 DOI: 10.1111/j.1748-7692.1999.tb00823.xchrome_reader_mode
    25. Gibson Quincy Anne
      NON-LETHAL SHARK ATTACK ON A BOTTLENOSE DOLPHIN (TURSIOPS SP.) CALF
      Marine Mammal Science, 22/2006, pages 190-197 DOI: 10.1111/j.1748-7692.2006.00012.xchrome_reader_mode
    26. Behringer Donald C., Butler Mark J., Shields Jeffrey D.
      Ecology: Avoidance of disease by social lobsters
      Nature, 441/2006, pages 421-421 DOI: 10.1038/441421achrome_reader_mode
    27. Dines James P., Mesnick Sarah L., Ralls Katherine,more_horiz, Dean Matthew D.
      A trade-off between precopulatory and postcopulatory trait investment in male cetaceans
      Evolution, 69/2015, pages 1560-1572 DOI: 10.1111/evo.12676chrome_reader_mode
    28. Richard C. Connor, Randall Wells, Janet Mann, Andrew Read
      The bottlenose dolphin: social relationships in a fission-fusion society.
      Cetacean Societies: Field Studies of Dolphins and Whales, 2000, pages 91-126 chrome_reader_mode
    29. Baulch Sarah, Perry Clare
      Evaluating the impacts of marine debris on cetaceans
      Marine Pollution Bulletin, 80/2014, pages 210-221 DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2013.12.050chrome_reader_mode
    30. Gall S.C., Thompson R.C.
      The impact of debris on marine life
      Marine Pollution Bulletin, 92/2015, pages 170-179 DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.12.041chrome_reader_mode
    31. Janet Mann
      Unraveling the dynamics of social life: Long-term studies and observational methods
      Cetacean Societies: Field Studies of Dolphins and Whales, 2000, pages 91-126 chrome_reader_mode
    32. Smolker Rachel A., Richards Andrew F., Pepper John W., Connor Richard C.
      Sex Differences in Patterns of Association Among Indian Ocean Bottlenose Dolphins
      Behaviour, 123/1992, pages 38-69 DOI: 10.1163/156853992x00101chrome_reader_mode
    33. Mann, Janet, Connor, Richard C., Barre, Lynne M., Heithaus, Michael R.
      Female reproductive success in bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops sp.): life history, habitat, provisioning, and group-size effects
      Behavioral Ecology, 11/2000, pages 210-219 DOI: 10.1093/beheco/11.2.210chrome_reader_mode
    34. Natalie Stoeckl, Amanda Smith, David Newsome, Diane Lee
      Regional economic dependence on iconic wildlife tourism: case studies of Monkey Mia and Hervey Bay
      Journal of Tourism Studies, 16/2005, pages 69-81 chrome_reader_mode
    35. Foroughirad Vivienne, Mann Janet
      Long-term impacts of fish provisioning on the behavior and survival of wild bottlenose dolphins
      Biological Conservation, 160/2013, pages 242-249 DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2013.01.001chrome_reader_mode
    36. Karniski Caitlin, Patterson Eric M., Krzyszczyk Ewa,more_horiz, Mann Janet
      A comparison of survey and focal follow methods for estimating individual activity budgets of cetaceans
      Marine Mammal Science, 31/2014, pages 839-852 DOI: 10.1111/mms.12198chrome_reader_mode
    Commentslink

    Create a Matters account to leave a comment.