Pup production and distribution of the Australian fur seal, Arctocephalus pusillus doriferus, in Tasmania

1994 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 341 ◽  
Author(s):  
D Pemberton ◽  
RJ Kirkwood
Keyword(s):  
Aerial Photography ◽  
The South ◽  
Mark Recapture ◽  
South Eastern ◽  
Fur Seals ◽  
Fur Seal ◽  
Production And Distribution ◽  
Breeding Seasons ◽  
Pup Mortality

In Tasmanian waters Australian fur seals, Arctocephalus pusillus doriferus, breed on five islands in Bass Strait with non-breeding haul-out sites situated in Bass Strait and along the south-eastern and southern Tasmanian coastline. Estimates of pup production were obtained over four breeding seasons between 1989 and 1993 by aerial photography, ground counts and mark-recapture censuses. Pupping commences in late October, with 90% of pups born between 2 and 20 December. Pup mortality is estimated at 15% by early January, when ground censusing was conducted. Pup production of breeding colonies in Tasmanian waters was highest in 1991, with 5130 pups estimated to have been born.

Changes in the abundance of New Zealand fur seals, Arctocephalus forsteri, on the Neptune Islands, South Australia

1996 ◽  
Vol 23 (6) ◽  
pp. 697 ◽  
Author(s):  
PD Shaughnessy ◽  
I Stirling ◽  
TE Dennis
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
South Australia ◽  
Breeding Population ◽  
The South ◽  
Mark Recapture ◽  
The North ◽  
Fur Seals ◽  
Fur Seal ◽  
New Zealand Fur Seal ◽  
Breeding Seasons

The South Neptune Island group is a well-known site for the New Zealand fur seal, Arctocephalus forsteri. A survey of seals in South Australia and Western Australia in the 1989-90 summer indicated that colonies on the South Neptunes and the adjacent North Neptunes group contained half of the breeding population in Australia. The abundance of pups at the South Neptune group was determined in four breeding seasons: 1969-70, 1988-89, 1989-90 and 1992-93. The population on Main Island increased at an exponential rate of r = 0.053 (equivalent to 5.4% per annum) between the first two surveys: counts of pups increased from 487 to 1333, and the breeding area expanded to include several new colonies. Mark-recapture estimates of pup numbers in the two largest colonies in 1989-90 and 1992-93 did not differ statistically. Rates of increase in individual colonies over the 19 or 20 years from 1970 ranged from r = 0.031 (3.1%) to r = 0.256 (29.2%). On the South Neptune Islands, the estimate of pup abundance in the most recent survey (1992-93) was 1916, on the basis of mark-recapture in most colonies and of counting in a few small ones. On the North Neptune Islands, the estimate of pup abundance in 1992-93 was 2756, on the basis of mark-recapture in most colonies. By applying a multiplier of 4.9 to convert pup numbers to an estimate of abundance of the whole population, estimates of 9400 and 13500 fur seals were obtained for the South Neptune and North Neptune Islands in 1992-93, respectively. These estimates provide a firm foundation for comparisons in future years.

Australian fur seals at Seal Rocks, Victoria: pup abundance by mark - recapture estimation shows continued increase

2000 ◽  
Vol 27 (6) ◽  
pp. 629 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. D. Shaughnessy ◽  
S. K. Troy ◽  
R. Kirkwood ◽  
A. O. Nicholls
Keyword(s):  
Confidence Intervals ◽  
Arithmetic Mean ◽  
Rapid Rate ◽  
Exponential Rate ◽  
Guard Hair ◽  
Mark Recapture ◽  
Fur Seals ◽  
Fur Seal ◽  
Rate Of Increase ◽  
Breeding Seasons

The abundance of Australian fur seal pups was determined at Seal Rocks, Westernport, Victoria in late December 1997 using a mark–recapture procedure with repeated recapture sessions. Pups (n = 1291) were marked by clipping the black guard hair on the head to reveal lighter underfur. Recaptures from the whole colony were made on eight occasions 1–3 days later. In the recapture sessions, a mean of 32% of sighted pups had been marked. Estimates of pup numbers over the eight recapture sessions were calculated using the Petersen estimate and then combined by taking their arithmetic mean. The combined estimate was 4024 (95% confidence range 3908–4141). In 1991–92, a similar procedure led to an estimate of pup numbers of 2817 (95% confidence range 2703–2930). For both breeding seasons, estimates of pup numbers from each recapture session were also combined assuming a joint hypergeometric distribution; there was little difference in the results from the two procedures, although the confidence intervals for the hypergeometric mean were smaller than those for the arithmetic mean. From 1991–92 to 1997–98, pup numbers increased by 43%, at an exponential rate of 0.059 (95% confidence range 0.0526–0.0664), equivalent to 6.1% per annum (5.4–6.9%). This is greater than the rate of increase of pups at the colony between 1968–69 and 1991–92, which was 0.023 (95% confidence range 0.0198–0.0268), equivalent to 2.4% per annum (2.0–2.7%). Because of the rapid rate of increase of the Australian fur seal colony at Seal Rocks and the importance of the locality for tourism, we recommend that the abundance of pups there be determined every 3–5 years using a mark–recapture technique.

Changes in the abundance of New Zealand fur seals, Arctocephalus forsteri, on Kangaroo Island, South Australia

1995 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 201 ◽  
Author(s):  
PD Shaughnessy ◽  
SD Goldsworthy ◽  
JA Libke
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
South Australia ◽  
Early Years ◽  
Mark Recapture ◽  
Fur Seals ◽  
Fur Seal ◽  
Rate Of Increase ◽  
New Zealand Fur Seal ◽  
Breeding Seasons ◽  
Made In

Kangaroo Island was an important seal-harvesting site during the early years of European colonisation of Australia. A recent survey of the New Zealand fur seal, Arctocephalus forsteri, in South and Western Australia indicates that Kangaroo I. is still an important centre for the species. In order to determine changes in the abundance of the population, numbers of pups were determined at four colonies on Kangaroo Island by mark-recapture in up to five breeding seasons from 1988-89 to 1992-93. Clipping was the preferred technique for mark-recapture estimation of pups because it was quick, easy and effective. Recaptures were conducted visually; they were repeated several times in each season to improve precision of the estimates. No pups were marked between recaptures in order to minimise disturbance. Assumptions made in estimating population size by the mark-recapture technique pertinent to this study are reviewed. Pup numbers increased at three colonies: at Cape Gantheaume, from 458 to 867 over five years (with exponential rate of increase r = 0.16, n = 5); at Nautilus North, from 182 to 376 over five years (at r = 0.19, n = 4); and at North Casuarina Islet, from 442 to 503 over four years (at r = 0.043, n = 2). Rates of increase in the first two colonies are similar to those at the most rapidly increasing fur seal populations in the Southern Hemisphere. The Kangaroo I. population is estimated to be 10000 animals in 1992-93. It is likely to be at the recolonisation phase of growth, with high rates of increase at individual colonies (or parts of colonies) resulting from local immigration. As space does not appear to be limiting expansion in these colonies, fur seal numbers may continue to increase there.

Maternal aggression in the South American fur seal in Peru

1992 ◽  
Vol 70 (2) ◽  
pp. 320-325 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Harcourt
Keyword(s):  
Post Partum ◽  
Female Aggression ◽  
South American ◽  
The South ◽  
Maternal Aggression ◽  
Sea Lions ◽  
Fur Seals ◽  
Fur Seal ◽  
Maternal Defense ◽  
Pup Mortality

Maternal aggression was examined with regard to its role in maternal defense of offspring in the South American fur seal (Arctocephalus australis) at Punta San Juan, Peru (15°22′S, 75°12′W). Female fur seals' responses to conspecifics and to predatory southern sea lions (Otaria byronia) were examined pre- and post-partum. Although the defense of offspring from predators may be expected to be a major component of maternal care, mothers rarely defended their offspring from raiding sea lions, possibly due to the high risks involved in attacking a large and potentially very dangerous predator. The costs of defending the pup from sea lions appeared to outweigh the potential benefit of increased survival of the pup, due to the already high pup mortality at the site. Maternal defense from conspecifics may also be a possible function of female aggression. Females with newborn pups were more aggressive towards other females than were females without pups, particularly during the perinatal attendance period. They threatened a higher proportion of approaching females and won more aggressive encounters postpartum. However, mothers of surviving pups did not appear to be any more aggressive, their pups did not receive any fewer threats from unrelated females, nor did they reside in areas of less aggression, than mothers whose pups died. Aggression towards male conspecifics appeared to serve a further purpose, as females threatened approaching adult and subadult males regardless of whether the females had a pup. Unlike colonially breeding phocid pinnipeds, there seems to be no correlation between increased maternal aggression and neonate survival in the South American fur seal. This may be because females have to leave their offspring to forage when the offspring are still vulnerable to attack by unrelated conspecifics. Alternatively, maternal aggression may have been subjected to such intense selection that although it is responsible for increased pup mortality at the site, there is insufficient variability to measure differential consequences.

scholarly journals Behavioral responses of Australian fur seals to boat approaches at a breeding colony

2018 ◽  
Vol 31 ◽  
pp. 35-52 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julia J. Back ◽  
Andrew J. Hoskins ◽  
Roger Kirkwood ◽  
John P.Y. Arnould
Keyword(s):  
Time Of Day ◽  
Species Variation ◽  
Strong Response ◽  
Approach Distance ◽  
Fur Seals ◽  
Increase Energy Expenditure ◽  
Fur Seal ◽  
Steep Decline ◽  
Breeding Seasons ◽  
Resting Behavior

In Australia, a multi-million-dollar industry is based on viewing the Australian fur seal (Arctocephaluspusillusdoriferus), predominantly through boat visits to breeding colonies. Regulation of boat approaches varies by site and no systematic investigations have been performed to inform management guidelines. To investigate possible effects of disturbance, experimental boat approaches were made to a colony at Kanowna Island in northern Bass Strait and seal responses were monitored using instantaneous scan sampling. Colony attendance (individuals remaining ashore) was found to be influenced by approach distance and time of day, but was not affected by environmental variables or season, whereas onshore resting behavior was influenced by approach distance, time of day, ambient temperature and wind direction. Onshore resting behavior decreased following experimental boat approaches to 75 m, but changes in abundance of individuals ashore were not observed at this distance. In contrast, approaches to 25 m elicited a strong response, with a steep decline in the number of individuals ashore. This response was strongest when approaches occurred in the morning, with a decline of approximately 47% of individuals, compared to a decline of 21% during afternoon approaches. With regard to onshore resting behavior, afternoon approaches to 75 m led to minimal response. The remaining three combinations of approach distance and time of day had a similar pattern of reductions in the proportion of individuals engaging in onshore resting behavior. The strongest response was again seen during approaches to 25 m conducted in the morning. These behavior changes suggest that unrestricted boat-based ecotourism at Australian fur seal colonies has the potential to increase energy expenditure and reduce the number of seals ashore. Increasing minimum approach distances to ≥75 m and/or restricting visits to afternoons may minimize these impacts at Kanowna Island during the post-molt and non-breeding seasons. As several studies have demonstrated considerable intra-species variation in seal responses to boat approaches, research at other colonies is needed before these findings can be generalized to the remainder of the Australian fur seal population.

Records of vagrant fur seals (family Otariidae) in South Australia

2014 ◽  
Vol 36 (2) ◽  
pp. 154 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter D. Shaughnessy ◽  
Catherine M. Kemper ◽  
David Stemmer ◽  
Jane McKenzie
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
South Australia ◽  
The South ◽  
South Indian Ocean ◽  
Fur Seals ◽  
South Indian ◽  
Fur Seal ◽  
New Zealand Fur Seal ◽  
The Antarctic ◽  
Subantarctic Fur Seals

Two fur seal species breed on the southern coast of Australia: the Australian fur seal (Arctocephalus pusillus doriferus) and the New Zealand fur seal (A. forsteri). Two other species are vagrants: the subantarctic fur seal (A. tropicalis) and the Antarctic fur seal (A. gazella). We document records of vagrant fur seals in South Australia from 1982 to 2012 based primarily on records from the South Australian Museum. There were 86 subantarctic fur seals: 49 specimens and 37 sightings. Most (77%) were recorded from July to October and 83% of all records were juveniles. All but two specimens were collected between July and November. Sightings were prevalent during the same period, but there were also nine sightings during summer (December–February), several of healthy-looking adults. Notable concentrations were near Victor Harbor, on Kangaroo Island and Eyre Peninsula. Likely sources of subantarctic fur seals seen in South Australia are Macquarie and Amsterdam Islands in the South Indian Ocean, ~2700 km south-east and 5200 km west of SA, respectively. There were two sightings of Antarctic fur seals, both of adults, on Kangaroo Island at New Zealand fur seal breeding colonies. Records of this species for continental Australia and nearby islands are infrequent.

A painter in the Bering Sea: Henry Wood Elliott and the northern fur seal

Polar Record ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 50 (3) ◽  
pp. 311-318
Author(s):  
Robert McCracken Peck
Keyword(s):  
Abundant Species ◽  
Historical Record ◽  
Fur Seals ◽  
Commercial Harvest ◽  
Dramatic Decline ◽  
Fur Seal ◽  
Pribilof Islands ◽  
Breeding Seasons ◽  
The U.S

ABSTRACTHenry Wood Elliott (1846–1930), a U.S. Treasury official assigned to monitor the harvest of northern fur seals on the Pribilof Islands in the 1870s, became a self-taught expert on, and defender of, the species. His careful documentation of the seals’ breeding behaviour, and of their commercial harvest, complemented by hundreds of detailed and evocative watercolours, provides a unique record of this once abundant species and the lucrative industry that revolved around it. Elliott's outspoken lobbying on behalf of the seals’ protection is often credited with saving the species from extinction. His paintings of the seals, the seal harvest, and life on the Pribilof Islands in the second half of the nineteenth century constitute an unmatched historical record of this remote region.Elliott was able to witness two full breeding seasons (and harvesting) of the fur seals during his initial stay on the Pribilofs from April 1872 to October 1873. He returned to the islands to conduct a follow-up census of the seals, on behalf of the U.S. Government, in the summer of 1874. He traveled there unofficially and at his own expense in 1876. His fourth trip to the Pribilofs was in the spring of 1890 (again on behalf of the U.S. Department of the Treasury), in response to news of a dramatic decline of the seal populations. In April, 1891, because of his public revelation of mismanagement of the fur seal harvest, Elliott was fired by the Treasury. He continued his tireless lobbying on behalf of the fur seals as a private citizen for the rest of his life. He visited the Pribilofs for the last time on behalf of the House Committee on Expenditures in the Department of Commerce and Labor in the summer of 1913. Born in Cleveland Ohio on November 13, 1846, Elliott died in Seattle Washington on May 25, 1930.

Trends in abundance of New Zealand fur seals, Arctocephalus forsteri, at the Neptune Islands, South Australia

2002 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 363 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. D. Shaughnessy ◽  
A. McKeown
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
South Australia ◽  
The South ◽  
The North ◽  
Fur Seals ◽  
Fur Seal ◽  
Seal Population ◽  
Island Group ◽  
Direct Counting ◽  
New Zealand Fur Seal

At the Neptune Islands in early February 2000 at the end of the 1999–2000 pupping season, the abundance of New Zealand fur seal pups was determined using a mark–recapture technique in large colonies and by direct counting in small ones. Pups (n = 2355) were marked by clipping hair on the head to reveal light-coloured underfur. At the North Neptune group, there were 4221 pups and at the South Neptune group 1767 pups, making a total of 5988 pups for the Neptune Island group as a whole. At the North Neptune Islands, pup numbers increased by 53% since February 1993, from 2756 to 4221. For the South Neptune group, pup numbers decreased by 6.7%, from 1893 to 1767. The decrease was spread over most colonies on the island. The large increase in pup numbers at the North Neptune group indicates that the population there is in the recolonisation phase of growth; at the South Neptune group, the fur seal population is likely to be in the maturity phase, with fluctuations in size expected in the future. The Neptune Island group supports the largest aggregation of pinnipeds in Australia.

Increasing abundance of pups of the long-nosed fur seal (Arctocephalus forsteri) on Kangaroo Island, South Australia, over 26 breeding seasons to 2013–14

2015 ◽  
Vol 42 (8) ◽  
pp. 619 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter D. Shaughnessy ◽  
Simon D. Goldsworthy
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
South Australia ◽  
Breeding Habitat ◽  
Early Nineteenth Century ◽  
Fur Seals ◽  
Fur Seal ◽  
Rate Of Increase ◽  
Subantarctic Islands ◽  
Direct Counting ◽  
Breeding Seasons

Context Long-nosed (or New Zealand) fur seals breed on the southern coast of Australia, in New Zealand and on its subantarctic islands. They are recovering from over-harvesting that occurred in the early nineteenth century. Aims We estimated the rate of increase of the population at two colonies on Kangaroo Island, South Australia: Cape Gantheaume and Cape du Couedic. Methods From 1988–89 to 2013–14, pup abundance was estimated using a mark–resight procedure with multiple resights in large aggregations of pups and by direct counting in small aggregations. Key results At Cape Gantheaume, pup numbers increased by a factor of 10.7 from 457 to 5333 over 26 breeding seasons and the exponential rate of increase averaged 10.0% per annum (p.a.). Between 1988–89 and 1997–98, the population increased at 17.3% p.a., after which the increase was 7.2% p.a. At Cape du Couedic, pup numbers increased by a factor of 12.8 from 295 to 4070 over 21 breeding seasons at 11.4% p.a. Between 1988–89 and 1997–98, the increase averaged 14.2% p.a., after which it was 9.6% p.a. These increases have been accompanied by expansion in sub-colonies that existed in January 1989 and establishment of several new sub-colonies. Increases are likely to continue on Kangaroo Island. Conclusions There are few examples of increasing population levels for Australian native mammals and this is one of the best documented. It demonstrates that fur seal populations can recover from uncontrolled harvesting provided breeding habitat ashore is protected. Implications Fur seals interfere with fishers, disturb farmed tuna in aquaculture pens, and prey on little penguins.

Separation of foraging habitat among breeding sites of a colonial marine predator, the northern fur seal (Callorhinus ursinus)

2004 ◽  
Vol 82 (1) ◽  
pp. 20-29 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bruce W Robson ◽  
Michael E Goebel ◽  
Jason D Baker ◽  
Rolf R Ream ◽  
Thomas R Loughlin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breeding Site ◽  
Callorhinus Ursinus ◽  
Northern Fur Seal ◽  
Breeding Sites ◽  
Marine Predator ◽  
Fur Seals ◽  
Geographical Separation ◽  
Fur Seal ◽  
Satellite Transmitters ◽  
Breeding Seasons

This study examines whether lactating northern fur seals (Callorhinus ursinus) from different breeding sites on the Pribilof Islands in the eastern Bering Sea forage in separate areas. Satellite transmitters were attached to 97 northern fur seal females from nine breeding areas for 119 complete foraging trips during the 1995 and 1996 breeding seasons. Females from St. Paul and St. George islands tended to travel in different directions relative to their breeding site in both years of the study. St. Paul Island females dispersed in all directions except to the southeast, where St. George Island females foraged. Habitat separation was also observed among breeding areas on northeastern and southwestern St. Paul Island and to a lesser degree on northern and southern St. George Island. Although foraging direction led to geographical separation among sites, the maximum distance traveled and the duration of foraging trips did not differ significantly among islands in either year. The results of this study document that lactating fur seals from the same site share a common foraging area and that females from different breeding sites tend to forage in separate areas and hydrographic domains.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document