No abstract

We succinctly summarize population ID information for common bottlenose dolphins Tursiops truncatus of the Pacific coast of South America, covering four coastal range states. Phylogenetic uncertainties relate primarily to offshore vs. coastal (inshore) ecotypes and biogeographic borders between the five proposed populations (2 offshore, 3 coastal): Colombia-Ecuador Offshore stock (probably = ETP Offshore), Peru-Chile Offshore, Ecuador Coastal, Peru Coastal and an unique community (Pod-R) on the north-central coast of Chile. Main questions concern the extent of gene flow between the offshore stocks at one hand, and with -and between-the three coastal populations at the other hand. Seven cranial characters, four non-metric (separation of occipital condyles, pterygoid bone development, exostosis of periotic) and three metric (tooth width, antorbital process length, maximum width palatines), dorsal fin shape, body stockiness, mt-DNA (control region), habitat, prey composition, parasite load, behaviour and prevalence of some infectious diseases differentiate coastal from offshore forms. 'Pod-R' is the southernmost (29°15'S) and only confirmed coastal form community in Chilean waters, albeit with an offshore (falcate) dorsal fin. Bottlenose dolphins which regularly transit nearshore in the Lagos and Aysén regions (Chilean Patagonia) and occasionally enter deep fjords, present an offshore morphotype. We suggest that two other coastal areas in Chile where bottlenose dolphins have been documented over decades, one a ca. 60 km stretch of coastline centered at Valparaiso/Laguna Verde (33°10'S) in central Chile, and a 190 km coastline around the Mejillones Peninsula (23°10'S) in northern Chile, may not host coastal but offshore form animals. The continental border of the Atacama Trench off northern and northcentral Chile leaves an extremely narrow, steep shelf with nearshore deep water, locally with strong coastal upwelling and increased productivity. This habitat seems to attract oceanic cetaceans, including offshore T. truncatus, sperm whales, large balaenopterids, and other species. The southern distribution range of true coastal morphotype bottlenose dolphins in Pacific South America remains unknown but off Chile distance-to-shore may not be the reliable indicator of ecotype as it is further north in the study region.

Latitudinal preferences within the breeding range have been suggested for Breeding Stock G humpback whales that summer in different feeding areas of the eastern South Pacific. To address this hypothesis, humpback whales photo‐identified from the Antarctic Peninsula and the Fueguian Archipelago (southern Chile) were compared with whales photo‐identified from lower latitudes extending from northern Peru to Costa Rica. This comparison was performed over a time span that includes 18 austral seasons. A total of 238 whales identified from the Antarctic Peninsula and 25 whales from the Fueguian Archipelago were among those photo‐identified at the breeding grounds. Our findings showed that humpback whales from each feeding area were resighted unevenly across the breeding grounds, which suggests a degree of spatial structuring in the migratory pathway. Humpback whales that feed at the Antarctic Peninsula were more likely to migrate to the southern breeding range between northern Peru and Colombia, whereas whales that feed at the Fueguian Archipelago were more likely to be found in the northern range of the breeding ground off Panama. Further photo‐identification efforts and genetic sampling from poorly sampled or unsampled areas are recommended to confirm these reported connectivity patterns.

Southeastern Pacific humpback whales (Breeding Stock G) breed along the northwestern coast of South America and farther north up to CostaRica. Photo-identification surveys conducted aboard whalewatching vessels during the migration/breeding season from June to September between1991 and 2006 off the coast of Ecuador (2°S, 81°W) have produced a database of 1,511 individual whales. Comparisons of photographs produced190 between-year re-sightings of 155 individual whales. Closed and open capture-recapture models were used to estimate abundance and survival.The best estimate of abundance in 2006 with the Chapman modified-Petersen was 6,504 (95% CI: 4,270–9,907; CV = 0.21). Abundance estimatesfrom open population models were considerably lower due to heterogeneity in capture probability which produced a ‘transient’ effect. Our bestestimate of true survival was 0.919 (95% CI: 0.850–0.958). Heterogeneity most likely occurred from inter-annual variation in sampling and unknownstructure and variation in the migration timing and corridor. A more extensive collaborative effort including other wintering areas further north aswell as integrating breeding-feeding data will help to reduce heterogeneity and increase precision in abundance and survival estimates.

No abstract