Search

Humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) exhibit maternally driven fidelity to feeding grounds, and yet occasionally occupy new areas. Humpback whale sightings and mortalities in the New York Bight apex (NYBA) have been increasing over the last decade, providing an opportunity to study this phenomenon in an urban habitat. Whales in this area overlap with human activities, including busy shipping traffic leading into the Port of New York and New Jersey. The site fidelity, population composition and demographics of individual whales were analysed to better inform management in this high-risk area. Whale watching and other opportunistic data collections were used to identify 101 individual humpback whales in the NYBA from spring through autumn, 2012–2018. Although mean occurrence was low (2.5 days), mean occupancy was 37.6 days, and 31.3% of whales returned from one year to the next. Individuals compared with other regional and ocean-basin-wide photo-identification catalogues (N = 52) were primarily resighted at other sites along the US East Coast, including the Gulf of Maine feeding ground. Sightings of mother-calf pairs were rare in the NYBA, suggesting that maternally directed fidelity may not be responsible for the presence of young whales in this area. Other factors including shifts in prey species distribution or changes in population structure more broadly should be investigated.

Wildlife managers and others charged with resolving human-coyote conflict in urban and suburban areas cannot focus solely on ecology and coyote behavior. The perceptions of the people living in the affected communities play a significant role in the resolution of human-coyote conflict. In this study, we explore how residents of two communities in suburban Denver, CO, USA, mentally processed, made sense of, and acted upon human–coyote interactions in the face of conflict. By conducting interviews and using qualitative content analysis to explore existing documents, we examined how the use of language reflected and exacerbated the conflict over coyote management. Themes of violence, crime and war ran throughout our data. Anger and accusations of extremism were prevalent. Closely tied to the violent language and imagery used was a discussion of tolerance and intolerance, taking what is generally human-centric language and using it with wildlife. In addition, labeling coyotes as not belonging in an area (although they are a native species) further increased the urge to protect family and pets from the perception of the threat against ‘the other’, sometimes expressed in inflammatory language. Political and other messaging can either enhance or reduce a sense of threat, and we found that the language used in this debate enhanced the perceived threat of both coyotes and policy opponents. Finding ways to defuse this language could be a step toward a greater understanding of how to live with local wildlife in a way that minimizes harm to people and to the animals.

The ‘shifting baseline syndrome’ has received much attention and acceptance within the conservation science community. In this study, the ‘shifting baseline syndrome’ based on which each generation of fisheries scientists accepts the stock size and species composition extant in the beginning of their careers as the normal baseline, as proposed by Pauly in 1995, was tested. It was hypothesized that Florida Keys reef scientists use the reef conditions at the beginning of their careers as the baseline for the evaluation of change. A cohort of these scientists was used as a study group to test this hypothesis and explore expert opinions on reef baselines. Snowball sampling led to a total of 54 interviews of Florida Keys Reef-experienced scientists. Among all contacts, 48% responded and were interviewed for a total of 37.6 h. Correlation statistics were used to analyse the respondent’s age and experience and their correlations with the reported baselines. Ninety-six percent of the interviewees were professional scientists. Baselines for the Florida Keys bank reef ecosystem were established based on the respondents’ testimonies. Independent of the age, experience, or affiliation, the respondents agreed that the baselines for the Florida Keys bank reef are a coral cover of ~33% and 44 years before present (1972). Seventy percent of the respondents who were under the age of 40 stated that they never witnessed an Acropora sp.-dominated reef, whereas 96% of the experts over the age of 60 stated the opposite. This demonstrates the dramatic change in the interaction with the coral reef from one generation of experts to the next; however, the consensus regarding the baselines is high. Our results indicate the general consensus regarding reef baselines among scientists, which may inform the management practices of a wide range of stakeholders. This study provides evidence that Florida Keys reef scientists are not subject to the shifting baseline syndrome, highlighting that education and experience may counter potential baseline shifting. These results can be used as references for the establishment of unified restoration goals in coral restoration programs. Appropriate coral baselines have been debated for decades, with little understanding of the community consensus.

One of the goals of the UN Oceans Decade is “an inspiring and engaging ocean where society understands and values the ocean in relation to human well-being and sustainable development.” The UN Ocean Decade also calls for promoting diversity in ocean science, engaging multiple stakeholders, including industries and the wider public, as well as promoting ocean science literacy. The FANTASeas project aims to do this.One major source of inspiration for the general public for millennia has been art and literature. Over the past century, key sources of public inspiration when it comes to science include science fiction and fantasy in books, movies, TV shows, comics and, recently, computer games. Most famously, the TV show Star Trek inspired a generation of space scientists.The idea behind this project is to promote and facilitate the production of popular artistic and literary projects that incorporate ocean science to enhance both ocean literacy and to create more inspirational ocean-related projects.It is proposed that a series of international workshops be organized to connect ocean scientists with novelists, writers, and designers from the: (a) computer gaming; (b) tabletop gaming; (c) TV and movie; and (d) comic and graphic novel industries.

One barrier to establishing catch limits to help protect shark populations is a lack of accurate species-specific extraction rates. This is due to many species looking similar, distinguishing characteristics (fins and head) of sharks commonly being removed, or sharks being grouped together in fisheries data. For this study, we collected elasmobranch (shark and ray) tissue samples from the central markets in San Jose (10 fish vendors or pescadarias) and Heredia (5 pescadarias) from June 2013 to September 2014. We used DNA barcoding techniques to amplify approximately 1050 bp of the NADH dehydrogenase subunit 2 (NADH2) gene (n = 833). We found that at least nine species of shark (Alopias pelagicus, Carcharhinus falciformis, C. limbatus, C. obscurus, Mustelus lunulatus, Nasolamia velox, Rhizoprionodon longurio, Sphyrna lewini, S. zygaena) and one ray (Dasyatis longa) are being sold in local markets, with C. falciformis representing 87.3% of shark samples tested (n = 637) and D. longa representing 100% of ray samples tested (n = 85). Our results suggest that C. falciformis continues to be under intense fishing pressure in the waters around Costa Rica despite recent concern over continued population declines. Although the number of Endangered S. lewini (4%) being sold in the markets is much less than for C. falciformis (87.3%), the numbers are still concerning given their current conservation status.

Congress passed the Animal Welfare Act1 1 7 U.S.C. § 2131. (AWA) in order “to ensure the humane care and treatment of various animals used in research or for exhibition or kept as pets.22 Animal Le...

Many shark populations have experienced severe declines in the past few decades due to increased demand for their products. As fisheries managers, conservation biologists, and other invested groups move to develop new conservation measures to better protect sharks it will be important to understand the potential reactions (behaviors) local fishermen will have to new regulations. To determine the potential behaviors local artisanal fishermen in Costa Rica would have toward new conservation measures for sharks a structured survey (n=72) was distributed to several fishing communities along Costa Rica's Pacific coast. Overall, 89% of fishermen felt that protecting sharks was important with 97% stating a willingness to support shark conservation. However, support dropped to 67% if they would have to change some of their fishing practices. Almost all fishermen surveyed (93%) were in support of the formation of marine protected areas (MPAs). Although, if MPAs restricted their current fishing practices support dropped to between 6% and 65% depending on the restrictiveness of regulations implemented in the MPA. The majority (86%) of the fishermen surveyed also indicated they would be more likely to support new legislative measures to protect sharks if they were included in the decision making process. The results suggest that artisanal fishermen in Costa Rica are willing to protect sharks, but only if their current fishing practices are minimally impacted. It is therefore important that mangers work with these communities to develop management plans that will provide the best protection possible for sharks while also garnering local support to ensure continued compliance.

In recent years there has been significant interest in modelling cumulative effects and the population consequences of individual changes in cetacean behaviour and physiology due to disturbance. One potential source of disturbance that has garnered particular interest is whale-watching. Though perceived as 'green' or eco-friendly tourism, there is evidence that whale-watching can result in statistically significant and biologically meaningful changes in cetacean behaviour, raising the question whether whale-watching is in fact a long term sustainable activity. However, an assessment of the impacts of whale-watching on cetaceans requires an understanding of the potential behavioural and physiological effects, data to effectively address the question and suitable modelling techniques. Here, we review the current state of knowledge on the viability of long-term whale-watching, as well as logistical limitations and potential opportunities. We conclude that an integrated, coordinated approach will be needed to further understanding of the possible effects of whale-watching on cetaceans. Publisher PDF

There is often a basic tension at the boundary between science and policy – the former seeks unbiased, objective descriptions of reality, while the latter must incorporate various factors in its development, including values, ideologies, economics, biases, and emotions. Problems may arise if, and when, marine scientists who enter the policy arena fail to understand these differing priorities, and we describe some common pitfalls. Various strategies are presented for marine conservation scientists to consider in order to avoid or minimize misunderstandings, especially with the media. Conflict of interest issues and public perception of bias are also addressed, as is misuse of research results and whether scientists have an obligation to correct misrepresentation of their research. Finally, we consider how marine scientists should address the inherent uncertainty in their results when those results are used to develop policy, including the importance of incorporating the Precautionary Principle when making science-based policy.

Gaining support for shark conservation has been extremely difficult due to the negative preconceived notions the general public holds toward sharks. In order to achieve public support for conservation initiatives the factors that will change an individual’s attitude and behavior toward sharks must first be determined. Using structured questionnaire interviews ( n =186), indices were created that rated an individual’s knowledge, attitude, and potential behavior toward sharks and shark conservation. Generally public knowledge levels about sharks were low. However, people with more knowledge pertaining specifically about sharks had potential behaviors more supportive of their conservation. Therefore, it would seem that increases in public knowledge on sharks would help gain support for shark conservation. Males, members of environmental groups, and viewers of shark documentaries and “Shark Week” all showed significantly higher levels of knowledge about sharks. The media (such as “Shark Week” ) can play a significant role in promoting conservation, but unfortunately media coverage of sharks has been controversial recently with the airing of several non-factual, fake documentaries. To promote shark conservation the media’s message has to be unbiased, non-sensationalized, and accurate to ensure people are receiving the information necessary to build strong pro-shark conservation behaviors.

Importance An oral treatment for neovascular age-related macular degeneration would be less burdensome than repeated intravitreous injections. X-82 is an oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor active against vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and platelet-derived growth factor. Objective To undertake safety testing of oral X-82 administered for the treatment of neovascular AMD. Design, Setting, and Participants Phase 1, open-label, uncontrolled, dose-escalation study at 5 US retinal clinics between November 2012 and March 2015 (Retina-Vitreous Associates Medical Group, Beverly Hills, California; Blanton Eye Institute, Houston Methodist Hospital, Retina Consultants of Houston, Houston, Texas; New England Retina Associates, Guilford, Connecticut; Elman Retina Group, Baltimore, Maryland; and Retina Research Institute of Texas, Abilene). Thirty-five participants with neovascular age-related macular degeneration, 7 of whom were treatment naive. Interventions Participants received oral X-82 for 24 weeks at 50 mg alternate days (n = 3), 50 mg daily (n = 8), 100 mg alternate days (n = 4), 100 mg daily (n = 10), 200 mg daily (n = 7), and 300 mg daily (n = 3), with intravitreous anti-VEGF therapy using predefined retreatment criteria. Every 4 weeks, participants underwent best-corrected visual acuity measurement, fundus examination, and spectral-domain optical coherence tomography. Main Outcomes and Measures The main outcome was adverse events. Other outcomes included visual acuity, central subfield retinal thickness, and number of anti-VEGF injections. Results Of the 35 participants, the mean age was 76.8 years, 16 were men and 19 were women, and 33 were white and 2 were nonwhite. Of 25 participants (71%) who completed the 24 weeks of X-82 treatment, all except 1 maintained or improved their visual acuity (mean [SD], +3.8 [9.6] letters). Fifteen participants (60%) required no anti-VEGF injections (mean, 0.68). Mean [SD] central subfield thickness reduced by −50 [97] μm, with 8 participants (all receiving at least 100 mg daily) demonstrating sustained reductions despite no anti-VEGF injections. The most common adverse events attributed to X-82 were diarrhea (n = 6), nausea (n = 5), fatigue (n = 5), and transaminase elevation (n = 4). A dose relationship to the transaminase elevations was not identified; all normalized when X-82 was discontinued. All but 1 were asymptomatic. Ten participants withdrew consent or discontinued prematurely, 6 owing to adverse events attributed to X-82 including leg cramps (n = 2), elevated alanine aminotransferase (n = 2), diarrhea (n = 1), and nausea/anorexia (n = 1). Conclusions and Relevance X-82 can be associated with reversible, elevated liver enzymes; hence, liver function testing is needed to identify those unsuited to treatment. Although 17% of participants discontinued X-82 owing to AEs, those who completed the study had lower than expected anti-VEGF injection rates. Further studies appear justified, with a phase 2 randomized clinical study under way.

Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) are designed to evaluate all reasonably foreseeable environmental consequences of human activities. Appropriate governmental scientists traditionally produced EIAs for management agencies in many countries. However, many EIAs are now contracted out, often to the lowest bidder without due consideration of expertise. Others suffer from limited agency resources. Consequently, many EIAs have become insufficiently researched documents that draw heavily from previous EIAs while being rushed to completion to meet legislative deadlines or avoid delaying projects. Habitual treatment of topics often ignores recent scientific literature, perpetuating previous misconceptions and analytical flaws. Common problems in EIAs discussing wildlife include: a focus on lethal takes, with little consideration of non-lethal impacts or habitat degradation; a general dismissal of the possibility that non-significant (to the resource) impacts can, when combined, become significant; and the assumption that behavioral habituation in animals represents an end of impact. Incentive to break the cycle is somewhat lacking in this now often commercially competitive environment, where contracts are increasingly awarded by industry, generating potential conflict of interest. We believe investment in thorough, impartially written, scientifically-based and up-to-date EIAs is important for appropriately representing and managing ecosystems and their resources and avoiding potentially expensive litigation.

Whether scientists should be advocates for conservation has been amatter of debate in the scientific community and literature (Brussard and Tull, 2007; Lackey, 2007; Noss, 2007; Chan, 2008; Nelson and Vucetich, 2009; Scott and Rachlow, 2010; Parsons, 2013; Rose and Parsons, 2015). Some are set against it, such as Lackey (2007), who considers that while scientists should be involved in the policy process, they should not show any preferences for conservation policies, nor even use valueladen terms in their work, such as good, healthy, or degradation. On the other side of the spectrum, Noss (2007) argues that everyone has opinions and values and, when it comes to making policy recommendations, who better to do so than scientists, who are closest to the facts? However, Noss (2007) also highlights that there is a style of advocacy appropriate for scientists and another for environmental activists. Hixon (2000) adds that scientists are citizens, like everyone else, and as such have an obligation to engage in political debate and policy, because if they do not (as Noss, 2007 alluded to), decisions are made by those who are less familiar with the scientific method, and do not have as good a grasp of the facts as scientists do. In some sectors of the marine conservation field, advocacy is being seen as increasingly important. For example, Shiffman and Hammerschlag (2016a) found that 75% of shark biologists they surveyed said that shark scientists should advocate, and 53% said that policy statements should be included in their papers. However, for many scientists, advocacy is still almost a “dirty word” and they are staunch in their belief that scientists should remain in the ivory tower and remain “pure” (Rose and Parsons, 2015), and that scientists who engage in advocacy are not being objective and/or are no longer a “real” scientists (Parsons, 2013). But what exactly is advocacy? Also, what is the difference between advocacy and activist, and why in particular is activism often viewed so negatively? This paper discusses some of these issues.

We identified 100 scientific questions that, if answered, would have the greatest impact on conservation practice and policy. Representatives from 21 international organizations, regional sections and working groups of the Society for Conservation Biology, and 12 academics, from all continents except Antarctica, compiled 2291 questions of relevance to conservation of biological diversity worldwide. The questions were gathered from 761 individuals through workshops, email requests, and discussions. Voting by email to short-list questions, followed by a 2-day workshop, was used to derive the final list of 100 questions. Most of the final questions were derived through a process of modification and combination as the workshop progressed. The questions are divided into 12 sections: ecosystem functions and services, climate change, technological change, protected areas, ecosystem management and restoration, terrestrial ecosystems, marine ecosystems, freshwater ecosystems, species management, organizational systems and processes, societal context and change, and impacts of conservation interventions. We anticipate that these questions will help identify new directions for researchers and assist funders in directing funds.

According to Stejneger [[1][1]], it is most likely that the last of the great northern sea cows went extinct around 1768. Many Steller's sea cow ( Hydrodamalis gigas ) bones have been located on the Commander and Aleutian Islands to date [[2][2],[3][3]]. However, no verified H. gigas bones have ever

The use of science in policy-making has declined dramatically around the world. One of the most obvious examples of scientific neglect is the refusal of many U.S. politicians to accept anthropogenic climate change despite overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary. While over 97% of scientists recognize the global threat posed by human climate forcing (Oreskes, 2004a; Doran and Zimmerman, 2009; Anderegg et al., 2010; Cook et al., 2013), 72% of Republican Senators in 2014 were climate change deniers (Schulman, 2015). Senator Jim Inhofe, the chair of the US Congressional Environment and Public Works Committee is an infamous climate change denier who even published a book called “The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future” (Inhofe, 2012). Such science contrarians among politicians are not uncommon, but when directly confronted on the issue two notable climate change deniers completely sidestepped it, stating “I’m not a scientist” (Senator Mitch McConnell) and “I’m not qualified to debate the science over climate change” (past House Speaker John A. Boehner; Davenport, 2014). Another problem is the treatment of information provided by the best available science as “just another opinion” at the table, to be negotiated and compromised (e.g., Schneider, 2009; Wright, 2010). Here, we seek to shine a global spotlight on the alarming disregard for science in policy decisions affecting biodiversity conservation, mainly of relevance to marine scientists. We also suggest ways for scientific societies to speak out professionally in defense of conservation science.

Addressing impacts from human activities requires the change of current practices. However, reaching a\ud target audience about conservation issues and influencing their behaviour is not easy in a world where\ud people are continually bombarded with information, and distractions are permanently available.\ud Although not typically considered to be part of the conservation science toolbox, marketing techniques\ud were designed in the commercial sector to identify and influence human preferences and behaviour by\ud placing target audiences at the core of the marketing process. It thus seems reasonable that the same\ud marketing principles and tools could and should be used to address pressing conservation issues. In this\ud manuscript, we provide an introduction to the main objectives of marketing and illustrate how these can\ud be applied to conservation and animal welfare issues. To that end we offer two examples: Project Ocean,\ud where a major UK retailer joined forces with the Zoological Society of London to influence consumer\ud behaviour around seafood; and Blackfish, which coupled social media with an award-winning documentary\ud to create a discussion around the welfare of large cetaceans in captivity. Without the ability to\ud influence human behaviour, a conservationists' role will likely be limited to that of describing the loss of\ud biodiversity and the decline of the environment. We thus hope that conservation practitioners can\ud embrace marketing as a fundamental component of the conservation toolbox.

Publication of this article was funded in part by the George Mason University Libraries Open Access Publishing Fund.

Itisacommonoccurrenceamongenvironmentalscienceandconservation biology students or researchers; after spendingyears studying environmental issues and collecting data onharmful pollutants or declining species, they want to dosomething about it. They want to stop extinction or warnthepublicaboutthesurvivalthreatstheyhaveidentified.Buttoo frequently, the academic community insists that re-searchers must simply publish their research and then standback and let others use it for advocacy.It has been suggested that the average readership of azoological paper is fewer than half a dozen people (Wagnerand Walker 2005), and this is the average. Many papers willbe read by fewer people than that. The most frequently citedrecentpaperinthejournalConservationBiology(Sutherlandet al. 2009) had an average of 22 citations a year, which isapparently 50 % higher than the next most frequently citedpaper for that journal (and in turn, the journal ConservationBiologyhasthehighestimpactfactorinitsfield).So,ifjustacouple dozen citations are considered to be high readershipand high impact within the academic community (let alonethe public), how is your study going to get to the ears of thepeople who count?Basically,youhavetogetoutthereandsellityourself.Noone else will do it. You have to advocate for your view.Certainly, those causing conservation problems are advocat-ing theirs—the logging or oil companies destroying forestsand the chemical companies leaching toxins have lobbyists“on the Hill” or media consultants and PR companiesemployed to spread their message.However, there is a significant debate as to whetherenvironmental/conservation scientists should also be advocates(Shrader-Frechette 1996;Lackey2007;Chan2008;NelsonandVucetich 2009). For many scientists, the term “advocate” con-jures up images of the more extreme and sensationalist NGOs,such as PETA, Sea Shepherd, or Greenpeace. For many scien-tists, advocacy is a dirty word, implying that by stepping out ofthe ivory tower, you are somehow lowering and sullying your-self, are throwing away your objectivity, or are no longer a“real” scientist. But as Noss (2007) notes, there are sloppyscientists, and there are advocates, and they are two entirelydifferentthings.Butstill,manyscientistsfeelthattobeinvolvedin advocacy is somehow unethical or “against the code.” Con-versely, especially if you are involved in the environmentalfield, to stand on the sidelines and not get involved is arguablyunethical. To quote Edmund Burke: “Allthatisnecessaryforthe triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. ”Inthebestsense,advocatingforconservation/environmentalscience simply means ensuring its results get into the hands ofrelevant people in a format that is clearly understandable. Thatis not sacrificing your objectivity or integrity or being a poorscientist. It is simply communicating science to a wide andappropriateaudience.Assuch,environmentalandconservationscientistsshouldnotbeafraid,asChan(2008)neatlyphrasesit,to “advocate for advocacy.”So if you want to become more engaged in trying to getyourresearchtotherightearsandtoturnyourstudyfindingsintorealenvironmentalaction,whatshouldyoudo?Herearesome suggestions:1. Get helpThere are lots of environmental NGOs out there; theyare involved in advocacy full time. Make the most oftheir experience to identify whom to contact and how tocontact them. They may even be interested in your workand help promote it. You need not act alone.2. Learn to communicateYou need to get your research to the people whocount, and often, this may be a busy policy maker, who

Sightings of minke whales Balaenoptera acutorostrata were recorded in waters off the Isle of Mull between March and November each year from 1992 to 1999. Survey effort amounted to 42 342.5 km, and 850 minke whale encounters were recorded. Data were analysed in relation to undersea topography and seabed sediment type using multiple logistic regression. The effect of potential minke whale prey distribution was inferred from maps predicting suitable habitats for the lesser sandeel Ammodytes marinus and herring Clupea harengus constructed using a Geographical Information System (GIS). Whale distribution changed with season, and this may be a response to a shift in prey preferences. In spring, sediment type was a significant predictor of whale presence and sightings predominated over mixtures of gravel/sand seabed sediments. This distribution closely matched that of the sandeel, which is dependent on suitable winter settlement grounds. Throughout summer, the distribution of the minke whale underwent considerable change. In June, minke whales were predominately distributed over the sandeel habitat, but in July they dispersed to the predicted pre-spawning herring habitat, clustering in that area by August. In the waters around Mull, shifts in prey distribution and abundance occur between March and November and are the most likely factor governing the distribution and abundance of the minke whale.

Limited resources and increasing environmental concerns have prompted calls to identify the critical questions that most need to be answered to advance conservation, thereby providing an agenda for scientific research priorities. Cetaceans are often keystone indicator species but also high profile, charismatic flagship taxa that capture public and media attention as well as political interest. A dedicated workshop was held at the conference of the Society for Marine Mammalogy (December 2013, New Zealand) to identify where lack of data was hindering cetacean conservation and which questions need to be addressed most urgently. This paper summarizes 15 themes and component questions prioritized during the workshop. We hope this list will encourage cetacean conservation-orientated research and help agencies and policy makers to prioritize funding and future activities. This will ultimately remove some of the current obstacles to science-based cetacean conservation.

The waters around the Isle of Mull, Scotland are home to minke whales, basking sharks, common and bottlenose dolphins, harbor porpoises, and many fish and marine invertebrates. This talk describes the soundscape of this region, measured as part of a study on minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) acoustic habitat use, conducted June–September 2016. The study area consists of shallow (

The Kommandorskiye Islands population of Steller's sea cow ( Hydrodamalis gigas ) was extirpated ca 1768 CE. Until now, Steller's sea cow was thought to be restricted in historic times to Bering and Copper Islands, Russia, with other records in the last millennium from the western Aleutian Islands. However, Steller's sea cow bone has been obtained by the authors from St Lawrence Island, Alaska, which is significantly further north. Bone identity was verified using analysis of mitochondrial DNA. The nitrogen-15 (δ 15 N)/carbon-13 (δ 13 C) values for bone samples from St Lawrence Island were significantly ( p ≤ 0.05) different from Bering Island samples, indicating a second population. Bone samples were dated to between 1030 and 1150 BP (approx. 800–920 CE). The samples date from close to the beginning of the mediaeval warm period, which could indicate that the population at St Lawrence Island was driven to extinction by climate change. A warming of the climate in the area may have changed the availability of kelp; alternatively or in addition, the animals may have been driven to extinction by the expansion of the Inuit from the Bering Strait region, possibly due to opening waterways, maybe following bowhead whales ( Balaena mysticetus ), or searching for iron and copper. This study provides evidence for a previously unknown population of sea cows in the North Pacific within the past 1000 years and a second Steller's sea cow extirpation event in recent history.

Stranded cetaceans reported from the territorial waters of Hong Kong during the period May 1993 to March 1998 were examined to establish factors that may have contributed to their death. During the current study, 28 Indo-Pacific hump-backed dolphins (Sousa chinensis), 32 finless porpoises (Neophocaena phocaenoides), and four bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) were necropsied. Bacteria (15 species) were isolated from nine animals. Of these bacteria, 47% were of possible fecal origin reflecting the high level of sewage contamination in Hong Kong's waters. One finless porpoise displayed wounds caused by a shark attack, and two female finless porpoises presented prolapsed uteri. At least 10 finless porpoises showed evidence of moderate to heavy lungworm infections (Halocercus pingi), and this appears to have been a factor contributing to death in at least six animals. Evidence suggesting blunt traumatic injury (probably caused by boat collisions) was found in six cetaceans (three finless porpoises and three hump-backed dolphins). Signs of fishery-related mortality were detected in at least nine animals (six hump-backed dolphins, two finless porpoises, and one bottlenose dolphin). Of these two human-caused mortality types, pre-existing disease or bacterial infection were detected in 29% of cases. Results indicate that human factors may have played a significant role in the death of at least 15 animals (32% of hump-backed dolphins, 15% of finless porpoises, and 25% of bottlenose dolphins).

Seventy-six fish specimens were collected from 10 trawl stations in heavily polluted North Lantau waters. Whole fish were homogenized and analysed for 11 trace elements. Concentrations of some metals were high, notably mercury (up to 66 μg g −1 dry weight) and lead (up to 180 μg g −1 dry weight). These levels may represent a health hazard to the local population of Indo-Pacific hump-backed dolphins (Sousa chinensis) inhabiting these waters.

The ocean provides food, economic activity, and cultural value for a large proportion of humanity. Our knowledge of marine ecosystems lags behind that of terrestrial ecosystems, limiting effective protection of marine resources. We describe the outcome of 2 workshops in 2011 and 2012 to establish a list of important questions, which, if answered, would substantially improve our ability to conserve and manage the world’s marine resources. Participants included individuals from academia, government, and nongovernment organizations with broad experience across disciplines, marine ecosystems, and countries that vary in levels of development. Contributors from the fields of science, conservation, industry, and government submitted questions to our workshops, which we distilled into a list of priority research questions. Through this process, we identified 71 key questions. We grouped these into 8 subject categories, each pertaining to a broad component of marine conservation: fisheries, climate change, other anthropogenic threats, ecosystems, marine citizenship, policy, societal and cultural considerations, and scientific enterprise. Our questions address many issues that are specific to marine conservation, and will serve as a road map to funders and researchers to develop programs that can greatly benefit marine conservation. Setenta y Un Preguntas Importantes para la Conservación de la Biodiversidad Marina Resumen Los océanos proporcionan alimento, actividad económica y valor cultural para una gran porción de la humanidad. Nuestro conocimiento de los ecosistemas marinos está atrasado con respecto al que tenemos de los ecosistemas terrestres, lo que limita la protección efectiva de los recursos naturales. Describimos el resultado de dos talleres en 2011 y 2012 para establecer una lista de preguntas importantes, las cuales al ser respondidas, mejorarían sustancialmente nuestra habilidad de conservar y manejar los recursos marinos del mundo. Entre los participantes se incluyeron a individuos de la docencia, el gobierno y organizaciones no-gubernamentales, con una amplia experiencia que atraviesa disciplinas, ecosistemas marinos y países que varían en el nivel de desarrollo. Los contribuyentes de los campos de la ciencia, la conservación, la industria y el gobierno, presentaron preguntas a nuestros talleres, las cuales separamos en una lista de preguntas de investigación prioritarias. Por medio de este proceso, identificamos 71 preguntas clave. Las agrupamos en ocho categorías temáticas, cada una perteneciente a un componente amplio de la conservación marina: pesquerías, cambio climático, otras amenazas antropogénicas, ecosistemas, ciudadanía marina, política, consideraciones sociales y culturales, y la iniciativa científica. Nuestras preguntas se dirigen a muchas cuestiones que son específicas de la conservación marina, y servirán como una ruta a seguir para patrocinadores e investigadores que busquen desarrollar programas que puedan beneficiar ampliamente a la conservación marina.

Whale watching is an international industry worth more than US$2 billion globally and is currently the greatest economic activity reliant upon cetaceans. However, there is concern that whale watching is detrimental to the target species. Numerous studies have shown that cetaceans exhibit behavioral changes in response to whale-watching boat traffic. Some of these behavioral changes involve inhibiting biologically important behaviors such as feeding and resting. There is convincing evidence for some species that these can translate into population-level effects such as reduced reproductive rates. Whale watching can also cause direct mortality through collisions between vessels and animals. The introduction of guidelines or regulations for whale watching has been the most common method of trying to mitigate the impacts of boat-based whale watching. However, there is great variety in the comprehensiveness of guidelines, and even if operators have guidelines, compliance with them can be poor. Compliance might be improved if guidelines have legal under-pinnings, with monitoring and enforcement or via pressure to comply by other operators and whale-watching tourists. Simple guidelines may be more easily complied with that ones requiring specialist knowledge. Likewise undertaking simple measures, such as establishing temporal or spatial “refuges” protecting biologically important areas (e.g., feeding grounds) where whale-watching activity is prohibited, could be an appropriate mitigation strategy.

A number of international treaties address the conservation of marine resources. The declining state of the world's oceans suggests that these treaties are not succeeding and could use improvement. The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) is increasingly embracing the conserva- tion of marine species. We examine the evolution of marine species protection under CITES and illuminate some of the mechanisms used and challenges faced in implementing CITES protection. We found that clar- ification is needed on when and where CITES applies and how CITES should work with other treaties and institutions. The Society for Conservation Biology (SCB) can contribute to increased effectiveness of CITES for marine conservation. Foremost, the SCB community could foster dialogue on creating a broad vision of how CITES should apply to marine species and how it can synergistically interact with other important marine- conservation treaties and institutions. More specific contributions could focus on defining listing criteria for marine species, improving the science behind the nondetriment finding, and offering technical guidance on species proposals. A future role for SCB could be to contribute to the enhanced effectiveness of other marine conservation agreements such as the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals, the International Whaling Commission, and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

The Amigos de los Delfines made four sightings of humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) during surveys for dolphins near the Parque Nacional del Este (Eastern National Park), on the south-eastern coast of the Dominican Republic in March 2005. A number of behaviours were documented, including breaching apparently in response to harassment by local tour boats. The northern waters of the country are well known breeding sites for humpback whales, which led to the creation of the Silver Bank Marine Mammal Sanctuary. The information obtained during these sightings has led to a number of management efforts to reduce the impacts of human activities on the whales beyond the borders of the Sanctuary.

Beaked whales are not a commonly encountered species, but Cuvier's beaked whale, Ziphiuscavirostris, is the most cosmopolitan. Nonetheless, little is known of its distribution in the north-eastern Indian Ocean, particularly along the coasts of India, Pakistan and Iran. Here we present the first confirmed record of the species for Pakistan from a stranded specimen that was found during a routine beach survey. None have been seen during inshore boat surveys to date. Considering the level of naval activity and seismic surveys in the waters off Pakistan, incorporation of mitigating measures and monitoring surveys are suggested to avoid potential beaked whale mortality. This is the first confirmed record of Z. cavirostris on the Pakistani coast and is an important finding for the Pakistan Biodiversity Action Plan and their National Conservation Strategy for marine mammals.