Abondance et répartition du grand dauphin côtier
D1 - Diversité Biologique
D1.1 - Répartition des espèces
D1.2 - Taille des populations
D4.3 - Abondance/répartition des groupes trophiques/espèces clés
Les populations du grand dauphin côtier ont décliné au cours des XIXe et XXe siècles et sont demeurées faibles mais stables au cours du XXIe siècle. La population dans l’estuaire du Sado (Portugal) a cependant décliné depuis le début de la surveillance (années 1980). L’abondance et la répartition du grand dauphin (en sa qualité de prédateur supérieur) est indicative de l’état écologique de l’environnement.
Les cétacés sont un composant important de la biodiversité marine. Dans les eaux européennes, il existe une très grande population de grands dauphins du large, dont l’aire de répartition est étendue, et plusieurs populations côtières beaucoup plus petites (Figures 1-3).
Cette évaluation se penche sur les modifications de l’abondance et de la répartition des populations côtières de grands dauphins; les grands dauphins du large sont pris en compte dans l’évaluation de l’abondance et de la répartition des cétacés.
Les populations côtières de grands dauphins résident dans des zones relativement petites à proximité du littoral. Ils peuvent potentiellement être exposés à un plus haut niveau d’activités humaines étant donné qu’ils se trouvent à proximité d’êtres humains et qu’ils résident dans une zone de petite taille.
Le grand dauphin est un prédateur supérieur longévive qui est très sensible à toute modification de son environnement. Les modifications de l’abondance et de la répartition fournissent des informations importantes sur l’état des populations. Plusieurs populations de grands dauphins côtiers sont surveillées depuis des décennies alors que la surveillance de la plupart des dauphins est relativement récente (dix dernières années) et se limite à des informations anecdotiques.
Le grand dauphin est vulnérable à l’accumulation de polluants par l’intermédiaire de la chaîne trophique et aux perturbations locales provenant de la navigation, du tourisme, du développement industriel et des captures accessoires dans les engins de pêche. Les bruits sous-marins peuvent avoir des effets à long et court terme sur les cétacés (tels que perte auditive ou déplacement d’une zone) mais la mesure dans laquelle le grand dauphin côtier est affecté ne semble pas évidente. L’état de conservation du grand dauphin est évalué dans le cadre de la Directive habitats de l’union européenne (Directive du Conseil 92/43/CEE).
Bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) are long-lived top predators, and are among the most iconic and recognisable of the cetacean species. Their abundance and distribution are indicative of specific aspects of the status of the marine environment, such as food web integrity and pollutant load.
Bottlenose dolphins occur in coastal waters of Spain, Portugal, north-west France, west and south Ireland (including a genetically distinct population in the Shannon Estuary and a more wide-ranging coastal population that moves along the west coast), north-east Scotland (particularly the Moray Firth south to the Firth of Forth), west Scotland, north and west Wales (including all of Cardigan Bay), and parts of the English Channel. In past centuries, the species appears to have regularly occupied the southern North Sea and a number of estuaries within the study area. However populations in these locations are no longer common.
While high mobility of the species facilitates interaction and gene flow over great distances (Hoelzel, 1998; Quérouil et al., 2007), bottlenose dolphins can also display fine-scale genetic population structure resulting from localised adaptations over small spatial scales (Ansmann et al., 2012). Genetic differentiation between neighbouring populations regularly occurs and may be related to habitat borders (Natoli et al., 2005; Bilgmann et al., 2007; Wiszniewski et al., 2009), sex-biased linked dispersal (Möller and Beheregaray, 2004; Bilgmann et al., 2007; Wiszniewski et al., 2010), niche specialisation (Louis et al., 2014a), human activities (Chilvers and Corkeron, 2001), and through isolation by distance without apparent boundaries separating populations (Krützen et al., 2004; Rosel et al., 2009). Consequently, bottlenose dolphins are sub-divided into small discrete coastal populations residing relatively close to shore and a much larger wide-ranging offshore population. This is reflected in the relatively large number of AUs for this species (Figure a). The relationships both within and between those coastal and offshore populations remain unclear (Rosel et al., 2009; Toth et al., 2012; Richards et al., 2013; Louis et al., 2014b). This report covers coastal populations, while the offshore population is considered in the assessment of Abundance and distribution of cetaceans. The reason for addressing the same species in two assessments reflects the differing threats to which each population is exposed (at the coast and offshore), and the differing methodologies used to assess each population. The coastal populations are potentially exposed to a greater level of human activity due to their proximity to humans. Since the 19th century a number of coastal bottlenose dolphin populations have declined or disappeared altogether.
ICES (2015c) reviewed and prioritised the key human pressures on coastal bottlenose dolphin in the OSPAR Maritime Area. Pressures from human activities may affect bottlenose dolphins directly (Table a) or indirectly by changing the food web structure and thus prey availability. In coastal areas human disturbance is mainly from recreational activities (including commercial dolphin watching), with both short- and long-term impacts noted around the world (Bejder and Samuels, 2003; Bejder et al., 2006) including west Wales (Feingold and Evans, 2014a; Norrman et al., 2015) and east Scotland (Pirotta et al., 2014, 2015). Incidental bycatch of bottlenose dolphins through entanglement in fishing gear also occurs (mainly through gillnets and pelagic trawls) (ICES, 2015a,b). Within the OSPAR Maritime Area, bottlenose dolphin incidental bycatch appears to be highest (and potentially unsustainable) off the coasts of northern Spain (Galicia, Asturias, Cantabria, Basque Country), west Portugal, and south-west Spain (Andalucia) (López et al., 2003, 2012; Goetz et al., 2014; Vázquez et al., 2014; Vélez, 2014; ICES, 2015a). Fishing activities may also indirectly affect populations through depletion of the prey resource (ICES, 2015c). Habitat disturbance through fishing activities causing damage to the seabed and its benthic fauna has been suggested as a human pressure in some areas, although this remains to be supported by evidence (Feingold and Evans, 2014a; Norrman et al., 2015). Habitat loss has also been shown to affect coastal populations (Camphuysen and Peet, 2006; Camphuysen and Smeenk, 2016). Research has shown that high pollutant loads, in most of the investigated coastal bottlenose dolphin populations, can lead to health issues and reproductive failure (Jepson et al., 2013, 2016). Exposure to high pollutant levels has also been suggested as a reason for past declines and the disappearance of some populations (Jepson et al., 2013, 2016). Climate change may also affect bottlenose dolphins (positively and negatively) by altering human activities and thus pressures or by influencing the stock sizes and distribution of their prey. Increased underwater noise may also have negative effects (Bailey et al., 2010).
The pressures listed in Table a represent those considered to have most relevance for marine mammals (OSPAR, 2012; ICES, 2015c). The risks associated with the identified pressures are classified as high, medium or low using the following criteria:
- High: evidence or strong likelihood of negative population effects mediated through effects on individual mortality, health and / or reproduction;
- Medium: evidence or strong likelihood of impact at individual level on survival, health or reproduction. Effect at population level is not clear;
- Low: potential negative impact on individuals but evidence is weak and / or occurrences are infrequent; and
- No Information: cases where there was little or no information on the impact on coastal bottlenose dolphins and cases where the threat was absent or irrelevant for this species.
|Pollution & other chemical changes||Contaminants||High|
|Physical loss||Habitat loss||No information|
|Physical damage||Habitat degradation||Low|
|Other physical pressures||Litter (including microplastics and discarded fishing gear)||Low|
|Barrier to species movement (offshore windfarm, wave or tidal device arrays)||Low|
|Underwater noise changes||Military sonar||Medium|
|Death or injury by collision||Death or injury by collision (with ships)||Medium|
|Death or injury by collision (with tidal devices)||No information|
|Biological pressures||Introduction of microbial pathogens||Low|
|Removal of target and non-target species (prey depletion)||Low|
|Removal of non-target species (bycatch)||Low|
|Disturbance (e.g. wildlife watching)||Medium|
|Deliberate killing and hunting||No information|
The indicator is based on the trend in abundance per Assessment Unit (AU). As bottlenose dolphins are long-lived animals, with an estimated generation time of 23 years (Taylor et al., 2007), assessments of a temporal trend in the population should be carried out over a relatively long period (e.g. Thompson et al., 2004; Englund et al., 2007). Assessments based on very short time series may give misleading results. In small resident populations, local movement may account for apparent changes in abundance over short time scales. It is recommended to base assessment of trends in the population on a time series covering at least the last ten years, with a minimum of four counts during that period (ICES, 2015c).
Monitoring in several populations has been ongoing for long enough to enable an assessment of trends, while in others there are currently too few data available over a suitable time period. Current estimates of numbers of animals in a population are usually obtained by photo-ID (either mark-recapture or in the case of small populations, by direct census), although in their absence, abundance estimates are derived from line-transect surveys. Where possible, annual data on the estimated number of animals by population are provided in this assessment. Consideration is also given to populations known to have disappeared from their former range.
Although the baseline should derive from historical data, these data are not available for any cetacean species. Historical abundance and distribution are therefore unknown. Even if numbers are suspected to have declined, they could probably not realistically be restored because today’s marine environment is very different, in part due to climate change and human impact. Consequently, a recent baseline must be used, which should then be assessed as a normal situation, or one that is already known to be degraded. In this assessment, the start of the data time series for each AU has been used as the baseline, with trends identified as a deviation from that baseline value.
Abundance estimates typically have wide confidence values, therefore they may not have the statistical power to detect even relatively strong shifts. Bottlenose dolphins are a long-lived and slow reproducing species, which means there may be significant time lags before impacts on reproductive success can be detected. As such, abundance data should always be considered separately for each AU, along with any associated data on changes in distribution, causes of death in stranded animals, and possible links to human activities.
Quality Status Report 2010
No comparable quantitative assessment of the distribution and abundance of common bottlenose dolphin was included in the OSPAR Quality Status Report (QSR) 2010. The report highlighted human pressures on marine mammals more generally, such as through bycatch, increased shipping and bioaccumulation of persistent hazardous substances.
The conservation status of bottlenose dolphins is also assessed under the European Union Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC), Article 17 reporting in 2013 (EU, 2013).
Assessment units (AUs) for coastal bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) have been determined on the basis of a combination of spatial separation, lack of photo-ID matches and genetic differences (Evans and Teilmann, 2009; ICES, 2013) as outlined by ICES (2014) (Figure a).
The abundance for coastal bottlenose dolphin populations has been calculated for each assessment unit where sufficient data exist. Abundance estimates were made largely using Photo-ID capture-recapture methods, and an indication is given about the trend in the population since the start of monitoring: stable, declining, increasing or unknown. At least four abundance estimates from different years should be available before the population trend was assessed. On occasion, pooled estimates have been calculated from a period of years. Some small discrete populations of coastal bottlenose dolphin were assessed by a full census of individuals.
Records of sightings and strandings were used to identify where populations of coastal bottlenose dolphins existed historically.
No assessment value has been applied in this assessment.
Definition of Trends
Declining is defined as a decreasing trend of ≥5% over ten years (significance level p<0.05)
Increasing is defined as an increasing trend of ≥5% over ten years (significance level p<0.05)
Stable is defined as population changes of <5% over ten years
This percentage (i.e. 5%) is derived from the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) criterion to detect a 30% decline over three generations for a species, which equates to slightly less than 0.5% per year for Odontocetes.
Des grands dauphins côtiers sont présents le long de la côte atlantique d’Europe, s’étendant de l’Ecosse au nord, à l’Espagne au sud. L’ensemble de la population du grand dauphin côtier compte entre 3000 et 4000 individus dans les régions de la mer du Nord au sens large, des mers Celtiques et du golfe de Gascogne et de la côte ibérique. Peu de sites sont surveillés tous les ans. L’évaluation la plus exhaustive a été réalisée pour la population de l’estuaire du Sado au Portugal (depuis 1986) et elle indique un déclin. Les estimations annuelles de la population par marquage-recapture sur la côte orientale de l’Ecosse (Royaume-Uni: observations relevées depuis 1990), indiquent que la population est stable et pourrait montrer des signes d’une augmentation. Les estimations pour la baie de Cardigan au sens large (Royaume-Uni: observations relevées depuis 2002), le golfe de St Malo, comprenant les îles anglo-normandes (France, Royaume-Uni: observations relevées depuis 2010), l’île de Sein (France: observations relevées depuis 1992) et l’estuaire du Shannon (Irlande: observations relevées depuis 1997) indiquent dans l’ensemble que les populations sont stables. La tendance a cependant été évaluée à partir de moins de quatre points de données dans plusieurs de ses sites. Le Tableau 1 comporte un récapitulatif des données disponibles et des tendances des populations.
Des populations dont on ne connaît pas la taille ont disparu de l’estuaire de la Severn (Royaume-Uni) et des estuaires de l’est de l’Angleterre (Royaume-Uni) ainsi que des estuaires de l’Elbe et de la Weser en Allemagne vers la fin du XIXe siècle. Plus récemment une population de la mer du Nord méridionale, qui s’étendait du nord de la côte française au nord de la côte néerlandaise, a disparu vers la fin des années 1960. D’autres populations distinctes, telles que celles d’Arcachon (France) et de l’estuaire du Tage (Portugal) ont également disparu au cours des dernières décennies.
Des charges élevées de polluant dans les individus, entraînant des problèmes de santé et un échec de la reproduction, pourraient avoir contribué à la disparition de certaines populations de grands dauphins côtiers et au déclin du nombre des grands dauphins en général.
La méthode utilisée pour cette évaluation inspire une confiance faible et la disponibilité des données inspire une confiance faible/modérée.
|Unité d’évaluation (AU)||Exigences de la surveillance permettant une évaluation||Tendances des populations|
|Série temporelle ≥10 ans||≥4 Evaluations de l’abondance|
|Côte occidentale de l’Ecosse||Non||Non||Aucune évaluation|
|Côte orientale de l’Ecosse||Oui||Oui||Eventuellement à la hausse / stables|
|Zone côtière du Pays de Galles||Oui||Oui||Stables|
|Zone côtière de l’Irlande||Oui||Oui||Stables|
|Zone côtière du sud-ouest de l’Angleterre||Non||Non||Aucune évaluation|
|Zone côtière de Normandie et de Bretagne||Non||Oui||A la hausse / stables (indicatives)|
|Espagne septentrionale||Non||Non||Aucune évaluation|
|Rias galiciennes méridionales (Espagne)||Non||Non||Aucune évaluation|
|Zone côtière du Portugal||Non||Non||Aucune évaluation|
|Zone côtière du Portugal (Estuaire du Sado)||Oui||Oui||Déclin|
|Golfe de Cadix||Non||Non||Aucune évaluation|
Il convient de noter que l’on considère la population de l’estuaire du Sado comme une AU distincte de celle du Portugal côtier. La longueur des séries temporelles indique si les exigences de la surveillance ont été satisfaites. Aucune évaluation n’a été entreprise si la série temporelle est inférieure à dix ans et comporte moins de quatre ans d’estimation de l’abondance. Les tendances de la population indiquent le résultat de l’évaluation (si elle est entreprise).
There is estimated to be a minimum of 2700 coastal bottlenose dolphins Tursiops truncatus in the area assessed, with the overall population most likely to be between 3000 and 4000. However, separating coastal bottlenose dolphins from offshore populations remains a challenge in some areas. Recent population estimates and trends for coastal populations are summarised by Assessment Unit (AU) as follows:
West Coast Scotland (United Kingdom)
A small resident bottlenose dolphin population of around 15 animals inhabits the vicinity of the Sound of Barra in the Outer Hebrides (Grellier and Wilson, 2003; Cheney et al., 2013) while an estimated 30 bottlenose dolphins range around the Inner Hebrides spending time around Islay, the Small Isles, Skye, and occasionally the Minch north of Skye (Cheney et al., 2013). There are too few data to determine population trends, although numbers appear to have been stable over the past two decades.
East Coast Scotland (United Kingdom)
Monitoring of bottlenose dolphins in the inner Moray Firth began in 1990, and was later extended to cover a wider part of the Firth. Even though bottlenose dolphins ranged all along the north and south coasts of the Moray Firth during the 1990s, it was not until the mid-1990s that the species began to extend its range around the Grampian coast (Evans et al., 2003; Wilson et al., 2004). It is now regularly seen particularly off Aberdeen, the coast of Fife and in St Andrews Bay (Weir and Stockin, 2001; Cheney et al., 2013). Bottlenose dolphins, some of which have been photo-identified as belonging to the Moray Firth population, are now seen annually along the coast of north-east England as far south as Yorkshire (Sea Watch Foundation, unpubl. data).
Analysis of mark-recapture studies using a Bayesian approach estimates the population on the east coast of Scotland at 87–208 animals, with the latest estimate (2014) being 170 (95% Highest Posterior Density interval: 139–200). Despite interannual variability, the population is considered to be stable and may be showing signs of increase (Figure b: Cheney et al., 2014).
Although bottlenose dolphins are occasionally recorded offshore in the North Sea and in coastal waters off south-east England, northern France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany, there is no evidence that these are anything other than transient animals, probably from the east coast of Scotland population or further afield (Evans et al., 2003; Camphuysen and Peet, 2006; Evans and Teilmann, 2009; ICES, 2013).
Coastal Wales (United Kingdom)
Annual monitoring of bottlenose dolphins in Cardigan Bay Special Area of Conservation (SAC), west Wales (United Kingdom), began in 2001. This was extended to incorporate the wider Cardigan Bay area from 2005. In addition, since 2007, there have been opportunistic photo-ID surveys in the coastal waters of north Wales, and occasionally around the Isle of Man and in Liverpool Bay (Pesante et al., 2008; Feingold and Evans, 2014a; Norrman et al., 2015). A proportion of the population inhabiting Cardigan Bay in summer ranges more widely between November and April, occurring in particular off the north coast of Anglesey, the mainland coast of north Wales and further north around the Isle of Man (Feingold and Evans, 2014b). Summer mark-recapture estimates for Cardigan Bay SAC vary from 116 to 260 animals. The latest estimate (2015) is 159 animals (95% confidence interval (CI): 130–228). For the wider Cardigan Bay, summer mark-recapture estimates vary from 152 to 342 animals, with the 2015 estimate being 222 animals (95% CI: 184–300). The coastal Wales population is considered to be stable (Figure c). It should be noted that between 2013 and 2015, the population estimates have been among the lowest recorded but due to variability in the estimates it is too early to determine whether this indicates a decline.
Bottlenose dolphins are regularly recorded in several bays along the west coast of Ireland, notably Kenmare River and Brandon Bay (County Kerry), Clew Bay and adjacent coastal areas of Connemara (County Galway), Broadhaven Bay (County Mayo), and Donegal Bay (County Donegal) (Ingram et al., 2001, 2003; Evans et al., 2003; Ó Cadhla et al., 2003). They have also been recorded all along the south coast of Ireland, with sightings mainly around Cork Harbour (County Cork) and Rosslare Harbour (County Wexford) (Evans et al., 2003; O’Brien et al., 2009). Photo-ID matches indicate that individual animals may range all around the coast of Ireland, and although there is a more or less continuous distribution from inshore to offshore, there is both photo-ID and genetic evidence for an offshore ecotype west of Ireland (O’Brien et al., 2009; Mirimin et al., 2011; Oudejans et al., 2015). There are a number of mark-recapture population estimates for animals using the west coast of Ireland, but at different spatial scales. One estimate for north-west Connemara is 171 individuals (95% CI: 100–294) in 2009 (Ingram et al., 2009) and a second estimate for a much larger area, including Connemara, Mayo and Donegal, of 151 (95% CI: 140–190) individuals in 2014 (Nykanen et al., 2015). This mobile population appears to range widely, with seasonal and patchy habitat use. There is not enough information to indicate population trends. Additional data not used for this assessment were used by Ireland for the 2013 European Union Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC) Article 17 reporting.
Bottlenose dolphins inhabit the Shannon Estuary all year round, and genetic studies indicate that they form a discrete population separate from those occurring elsewhere along the west coast of Ireland (Mirimin et al., 2011). Six mark-recapture population estimates produced between 1997 and 2015 range from 107 to 140 individuals (Ingram, 2000; Ingram et al., 2008; Berrow et al., 2012). The latest population estimate (2015) is 114 (95% CI: 90–143) (Rogan et al., 2015) indicating that the population is probably stable (Figure e).
Coastal South-West England (United Kingdom)
Bottlenose dolphins have regularly inhabited the south and south-west coasts of England since the 1990s, being most common around Cornwall but rare east of Dorset (Williams et al., 1997 Evans et al., 2003; Brereton et al., 2017). No systematic photo-ID surveys have been undertaken, but Brereton et al. (2017) have reported maximum abundance estimates for south-west England coastal waters, using two mark-recapture methods, ranging between 102 and 113 individuals (95% CI: 87–142) over the period 2008–2013. There are insufficient data to assess trends.
Coastal Normandy and Brittany (France / United Kingdom)
A resident population of bottlenose dolphins inhabits the Gulf of St Malo, ranging between the French coast of Normandy and the Channel Islands (Couet et al., 2015a,b; Louis et al., 2015). Mark-recapture estimates of this population in 2010 showed it numbering between 372 (95% CI: 347–405) and 319 (95% CI: 310–327) individuals, with a 2014 estimate of 340 (95% CI: 290–380) (Couet et al., 2015a,b; Louis et al., 2015), thus indicating no significant difference (Figure f).
Two small populations, which appear to be distinct, exist in the Iroise Sea, which is an OSPAR Marine Protected Area (MPA). One population is located around Ile de Sein and the other is located around the Molène Archeplago. Photo-ID surveys have been undertaken in the vicinity of Ile de Sein since 2001, ranging from 20 (2001) to 29 (2014) individuals. The earliest estimate for this population was 14 (1992), thus indicating a steady increase (Figure g) (Liret, 2001; Liret et al., 2006).
Around the Molène Archipelago, a mark-recapture estimate of 29 individuals (95% CI: 28–42) was produced from photographs taken between 1999 and 2001 (Le Berre and Liret, 2004; Liret et al., 2006; Louis and Ridoux, 2015). A new photo-ID analysis is currently being undertaken (V. Ridoux, CNRS, France, pers. comm.). It is currently not possible to assess trends in this Molène Archipelago population.
In northern Spanish waters, only model-based abundance estimates exist, derived from line-transect surveys conducted between 2003 and 2011. These encompass both coastal and offshore animals (López et al., 2013). The annual uncorrected abundance estimate in the study area is 10,687 individuals (95% CI: 4,094–18,132). Abundance estimates for the different areas are: Euskadi (1,931 individuals), Cantabria (744), Asturias (1,214), Galicia (703), Galician Bank (108) and Aviles (234).
Although the distribution is homogeneous throughout the northern peninsula, there is a clear gradient in density, this being higher in eastern areas of the Bay of Biscay where the largest groups have been recorded (López et al., 2013). There are insufficient data to assess trends.
Southern Galician Rias (north-west Spain)
Photo-ID surveys were conducted along the Galician coast between 2006 and 2009, resulting in the identification of 255 individuals (García et al., 2011). A third of these (76 individuals) were considered to form the resident population inhabiting the Southern Galician Rias, as revealed by recapture histories, genetic studies and stable isotope analysis (Fernández et al., 2011a,b; García et al., 2011). Movements of individuals were recorded between Galicia and Euskadi in the Bay of Biscay (García et al., 2011). It is not currently possible to assess trends in this population.
Bottlenose dolphins occur widely along the coast of Portugal as well as further offshore. Photo-ID surveys undertaken over two periods have been used to derive mark-recapture population estimates of bottlenose dolphins in coastal Setúbal Bay (Martinho, 2012; Martinho et al., 2015). Bottlenose dolphins identified between 1998 and 2001 were considered a closed and more cohesive group than those identified between 2007 and 2011, with stable associations and an abundance of 106 individuals (95% CI: 69–192). The more recent animals sampled seemed to comprise an open group of 108 individuals (95% CI: 83–177), with a migration rate of 19% per year and low association values.
A wider-scale analysis of animals photographed in central west coastal Portugal from Nazaré and Setúbal Bay between 2008 and 2014 resulted in an estimate of 352 individuals (95% CI: 294–437) (Martinho, 2012; Martinho et al., 2015).
There have been a number of line-transect surveys by both ship and plane undertaken off west Portugal between 2010 and 2014, covering the region between the coast and 50 nautical miles offshore. The estimated abundance for 2010–2014 from aerial surveys was 2,306 animals (34.7% coefficient of variation, CV), and 3,798 animals (87.6% CV) for 2011 using vessel surveys (Araújo et al., 2014). It is not possible to distinguish between the coastal population of the coast of Portugal AU and the offshore population.
The longest sequence of counts for a coastal bottlenose dolphin population in Europe is associated with the resident population in the Sado Estuary, where an annual census has been undertaken since 1986 (Gaspar, 2003; Lacey, 2015). Over this period, the population has shown a long-term decline from 39 individuals in 1986 to 28 individuals in 2014 (Figure h) (Lacey, 2015), with pollution of the estuary proposed as a possible cause (Van Bressem et al., 2003).
Gulf of Cadiz (Spain)
Mark-recapture estimates for bottlenose dolphins in the coastal Gulf of Cadiz have been determined for two periods: 2005–2006 and 2009–2010 (MAGRAMA, 2012). These gave estimates of 347 individuals (95% CI: 264–503) for 2005–2006 and 397 individuals (95% CI: 300–562) for 2009–2010, suggesting no significant difference. A much larger population appears to occupy the offshore Gulf of Cadiz, estimated at 4391 individuals (95% CI: 2373–8356) for 2009–2010 (MAGRAMA, 2012). It is not possible to assess trends.
A bottlenose dolphin population also inhabits the area around the Strait of Gibraltar, on the edge of the Bay of Biscay and Iberian Coast. Photo-ID surveys in 2010 resulted in a mark-recapture population estimate of 297 individuals (95% CI: 276–332) (Portillo et al., 2011). This estimate can be used as a baseline for an assessment of trends.
Historic population losses of bottlenose dolphin
Since the 19th century several coastal bottlenose dolphin populations have declined or disappeared altogether, such as the decline that occurred until the end of the 1960s in the Southern North Sea, along the shores of northern France to the north of the Netherlands. This population appears to have used some coastal areas, such as the Marsdiep area, for only limited periods of time. The species was recorded regularly in the Marsdiep area and the area east of Texel (the Netherlands), and in relatively large numbers (up to 30 to 40 individuals at a time), between 1933 and 1939 by Verwey (1975), mainly between February and May, coinciding with the migration and spawning period of the Zuiderzee herring. After the closure of Zuiderzee Bay in 1932, the Zuiderzee herring gradually disappeared from the area, and in the late 1930s the regular occurrence of relatively large numbers of bottlenose dolphins ceased. Observations outside the Marsdiep area between the 1930s and 1970 are anecdotal, but the species was regarded as common in all Dutch waters and estuaries, second only to harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) (Camphuysen and Peet, 2006; Camphuysen and Smeenk, 2016). After 1970, the species became scarce in Dutch waters, with strandings also declining rapidly (Figure i) (Kompanje, 2001; Camphuysen and Peet, 2006; Camphuysen and Smeenk, 2016). This occurred at a similar time to the reduction in strandings recorded in south-east and south-west England (Evans, 1980; Tregenza, 1992).
Earlier status changes are difficult to ascertain but historical accounts indicate that bottlenose dolphins occurred in the Severn, Thames and Humber estuaries of England, and in the Firth of Forth in Scotland until the late 19th century (Evans and Scanlan, 1990; Nichols et al., 2007). Along the coast of Germany, bottlenose dolphins occurred in the Elbe (Goethe, 1983) and Weser estuaries (Mohr, 1935; Goethe, 1983; Kölmel and Wurche, 1998) until the late 19th century. Further south, in Portuguese waters, a resident group of bottlenose dolphins was reported in the Tagus Estuary until 1960 (Teixeira, 1979).
Bottlenose dolphins appear to have formed ephemeral populations, using some coastal areas for limited periods. For example, a group of dolphins inhabited the Noirmourtier area (France) in the 1950s and 1960s, with similar reports made for the Quiberon-Houat-Hoedic area (France). It is unclear whether these were truly resident coastal populations or offshore visitors that remained in the areas for a limited period. A coastal group persisted at Arcachon (France) between the late 1980s until it disappeared in the early 2000s, and a group of six individuals occurred at Pertuis Charentais (France), between Ile de Ré and Ile d’Oléron and the French mainland, for a period in the late 1990s (V. Ridoux, CNRS, France; O. van Canneyt, and W. Dabin, Université de La Rochelle-CNRS, France pers comm.).
The assessment is undertaken using limited data with poor spatial coverage within the area assessed. Some of the methods used in the assessment are well-established. However, there are uncertainties over the delineation of assessment units. Therefore, there is low confidence in the method for this assessment and low / moderate confidence in data availability.
La plupart des populations de grands dauphins côtiers dans les zones évaluées sont relativement petites. Dans de nombreuses zones côtières de l’Atlantique du Nord-Est, les populations ont décliné ou disparu complètement au cours des XIXe et XXe siècles. Lorsque des tendances ont pu être évaluées, les populations restantes révèlent peu de modifications à long terme, à l’exception de la population en déclin de l’estuaire du Sado au Portugal. On ne connaît pas les raisons du déclin dans l’estuaire du Sado mais il pourrait être dû à la pollution estuarienne.
Le grand dauphin est vulnérable aux effets des polluants organiques persistants, la présence de niveaux élevés étant due à la bioaccumulation qui empêche potentiellement la reproduction. Les perturbations dues aux activités récréatives, telles que l’observation des baleines, les bruits sous-marins, la collision avec les navires et la pêche commerciale sont également considérées comme des pressions exercées sur le grand dauphin.
The current bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) population occupying coastal waters of western Europe is estimated at 3,000 to 4,000 individuals. The majority of populations for which there are sufficient data to estimate trends show little change, with the exception of the Sado Estuary population in Portugal, which continues to decline. Several estuaries and enclosed bays that were historically inhabited by bottlenose dolphin populations are no longer inhabited by this species. Some of these losses occurred over a century ago, while others are more recent. Coastal bottlenose dolphins disappeared from the Southern North Sea around the late 1960s.
Some local populations comprise 200 to 400 individuals, although some have less than 50. The Sado Estuary population is particularly vulnerable to local extinction given both its small population size and steady decline.
The consequences of human activities, particularly fisheries bycatch, prey depletion, habitat deterioration (including pollutants), and disturbance from recreational activities (including commercial dolphin watching) on these populations are unclear. Coastal bottlenose dolphin populations can have an ephemeral nature, potentially related to prey availability. The consequences of habitat alterations due to climate change on coastal bottlenose dolphin populations are unknown.
Lacunes des connaissances
Les données historiques sur l’abondance et la répartition du grand dauphin côtier sont rares ou absentes. Il n’a donc été possible de réaliser l’évaluation que pour cinq populations de grands dauphins côtiers, une évaluation indicative étant fournie pour une autre population. Les séries temporelles des données de la surveillance sont trop courtes pour permettre d’entreprendre une évaluation des populations restantes. La connectivité entre les grands dauphins côtiers et les populations dont l’aire de répartition est plus étendue et qui se trouvent au large n’est toujours pas claire. Il faudra étudier les impacts des activités humaines sur ces populations. Certaines populations côtières pourraient être éphémères.
Information on historical distribution and, in particular, abundance is scarce or lacking. There are some published accounts, but much of the information is based on anecdotal accounts. Although historical reviews are currently being undertaken in some areas, it is unlikely that such information will become available in sufficient detail to qualify as a baseline.
Assessments can only be made for five coastal populations of bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) as the monitoring in many assessment units (AUs) has not been undertaken for a sufficiently long period of time (i.e. at least ten years, with a minimum of four assessments during that period) (Table 1). An indicative assessment was made for another population where there had been four abundance estimates, but over a period of less than ten years.
Defining AUs at an appropriate scale for bottlenose dolphin is challenging. While the bottlenose dolphin was subdivided into two groups for the Intermediate Assessment (coastal and offshore) in future assessments the species could be divided into three groups related to their patterns of mobility and habitat use: truly resident in a small area; coastal - ranging over a larger area; and oceanic or offshore.
The connectivity between the different groups is poorly understood, although they are considered to be distinct populations. As a result, within the AUs identified for coastal bottlenose dolphins, the smaller resident populations have often been included. In addition, where coastal and offshore populations mix, it is often difficult to identify which population has been surveyed.
Human activities have potential to affect coastal bottlenose dolphins. However, the relationship between human activities (e.g. disturbance, pollutant loads, overfishing, habitat alteration) and their impact on bottlenose dolphin populations requires further study.
Ansmann, I.C., Parra, G. J., Lanyon, J. M. and Seddon, J. M. (2012). Fine-scale genetic population structure in a mobile marine mammal: inshore bottlenose dolphins in Moreton Bay, Australia. Molecular Ecology, 21: 4472–4485.
Araújo, H., Santos, J., Rodrigues, P., Vingada, J., Eira, C., Raínho, A., Arriegas, I., Leonardo, T., Nunes, M., and Sequeira, M. (2014). First technical proposal of new SCI sites dedicated to the conservation of cetaceans in Portugal for inclusion in the National List of Sites. Annex to the 2014 Report of project LIFE MArPro NAT/PT/00038.
Bailey, H., Senior, B., Simmons, D., Rusin, J., Picken, G. and Thompson, P.M., 2010. Assessing underwater noise levels during pile-driving at an offshore windfarm and its potential effects on marine mammals. Marine Pollution Bulletin 60: 888–897.
Bejder, L. and Samuels, A. (2003). Evaluating the effects of nature based tourism on cetaceans. In: Gales, N., Hindell, M., and Kirkwood, R. (eds.) Marine Mammals and Humans: Towards a Sustainable Balance. Collingwood, Australia: CSIRO Publishing, pp. 229-256.
Bejder, L., Samuels, A., Whitehead, H., Gales, N., Mann, J., Connor, R.C., Heithaus, M.R., Watson-Capps, J., Flaherty, C., and Krutzen, M. (2006). Decline in relative abundance of bottlenose dolphins exposed to long-term disturbance. Conservation Biology, 20: 1791-1798.
Bilgmann, K, Möller, L.M., Harcourt, R.G., Gibbs, S.E., and Beheregaray, L.B. (2007). Genetic differentiation in bottlenose dolphins from South Australia: association with local ocean-ography and coastal geography. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 341: 265–276.
Brereton, T., Jones, D., Leeves, K., Lewis, K., Davies, R., and Russell, T. (2017) Population structure, mobility and conservation of Common Bottlenose Dolphin off southwest England from photo-identification studies. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom.
Camphuysen C.J. and G. Peet (2006). Whales and dolphins in the North Sea. Fontaine Uitgevers, Kortenhoef, The Netherlands.
Camphuysen, C.J. and Smeenk, C. (2016). Tuimelaar Tursiops truncatus. In: S. Broekhuizen, J.B.M. Thissen, K.J. Canters and J.C. Buys (eds). Atlas van de Nederlandse zoogdieren. – Natuur van Nederland 12. Naturalis Biodiversity Center / European Invertebrate Survey, Leiden.
Cheney, B.J., Thompson, P.M., Ingram, S.N., Hammond, P.S., Stevick, P.T., Durban, J.W., Culloch, R.M., Elwen, S.H., Mandleberg, L., Janik, V.M., Quick, N.J., Islas-Villanueva, V., Robinson, K.P., Costa, M., Eisfeld, S.M., Walters, A., Philips, C., Weir, C.R., Evans, P.G.H., Anderwald, P., Reid, R.J., Reid, J.B., and Wilson, B. (2013). Integrating multiple data sources to assess the distribution and abundance of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) in Scottish waters. Mammal Review, 43: 71-88.
Cheney, B., Corkrey, R., Durban, J.W., Grellier, K., Hammond, P.S., Islas-Villanueva, V., Janik, V.M., Lusseau, S.M., Parsons, K.M., Quick, N.J., Wilson, B. and Thompson, P.M. (2014). Long-term trends in the use of a protected area by small cetaceans in relation to changes in population status. Global Ecology and Conservation, 2: 118-128.
Chilvers, B.L., and Corkeron, P.J. (2001). Trawling and bottlenose dolphins’ social structure. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B 268: 1901–1905.
Couet, P. (2015a). From identification to models: reassessment of usual methods for populations monitoring. The case of bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) inhabiting the English Channel. Poster presented at the international Workshop « Bottlenose dolphin conservation and monitoring in the North-western Mediterranean Sea » in Marseille, France.
Couet, P. (2015b). De l’identification des animaux aux modèles mathématiques: une remise en question des méthodes usuelles de suivi des populations. Le cas de la population de grands dauphins (Tursiops truncatus) en mer de la Manche. MSc thesis, Centre d’Ecologie Functionnelle and Evolutive.
Englund, A., Ingram, S. and Rogan, E. 2007. Population status report for bottlenose dolphins using the Lower River Shannon SAC, 2006–2007. Final report to the National Parks and Wildlife Service.
EU (2013) Habitat Directive reporting Article 17 reporting progress portal http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/knowledge/rep_habitats/index_en.htm Accessed 21 September 2016
Evans, P.G.H. (1980). Cetaceans in British Waters. Mammal Review, 10: 1-52.
Evans, P.G.H. and Scanlan, G. (1990). Historical Status Changes of Cetaceans in British and Irish waters. European Research on Cetaceans, 3: 51-57.
Evans, P.G.H., Anderwald, P., and Baines, M.E. (2003). UK Cetacean Status Review
Report to English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales. Sea Watch Foundation, Oxford. 160pp.
Evans, P.G.H. and Teilmann, J. (editors) (2009). Report of ASCOBANS/HELCOM Small Cetacean Population Structure Workshop. ASCOBANS/UNEP Secretariat, Bonn, Germany. 140 pp.
Feingold, D. and Evans, P.G.H. (2014a). Bottlenose Dolphin and Harbour Porpoise Monitoring in Cardigan Bay and Pen Llyn a’r Sarnau Special Areas of Conservation 2011-2013. Natural Resources Wales Evidence Report Series No. 4. 124pp.
Feingold, D. and Evans, P.G.H. (2014b) Connectivity of Bottlenose Dolphins in Welsh Waters: North Wales Photo-Monitoring Report. Natural Resources Wales Research Report. 15pp.
Fernández, R., Santos, M.B., Pierce, G.J., Llavona, A., López, A., Silva, M.A., Ferreira, M., Carrillo, M., Cermeño, P., Lens, S., and Piertney, S.B. (2011a). Fine-scale genetic structure of bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops truncatus, in Atlantic coastal waters f the Iberian Peninsula. Hydrobiologica (2011) 670: 111-125.
Fernández, R., Garcia-Tiscar, S., Santos, M.B., López, A., Martinez-Cedeira, J.A., Newton, J., and Pierce, G.J. (2011b). Stable isotope analysis in two sympatric populations of bottlenose dolphins Tursiops truncatus: evidence of resource partitioning? Marine Biology, 158: 1043-1055.
García, N., Caldas, M., Palacios, G., Moldes, M., Leal, A., and López, A. (2011). Photo-identification and population movements of bottlenose dolphins Tursiops truncatus, along the Galician coast, NW Iberia. Poster, 25th Annual Conference of the European Cetacean Society, 21-23 March 2011, Cadiz, Spain.
Gaspar, R. (2003). Status of the Resident Bottlenose Dolphin Population in the Sado Estuary: Past, Present and Future. Doctoral Thesis. University of St. Andrews, Scotland. 194pp.
Goethe, F. (1983). Wale und Delphine in niedersächsischen Küstengewässern und Flüssen, Drosea, '83: 49-68.
Goetz, S., Read, F.L., Santos, M.B., Pita, C., and Pierce, G.J. (2014). Cetacean-fishery interactions in Galicia (NW Spain): results and management implications of a face-to-face interview survey of local fishers. ICES Journal of Marine Science 71(3): 604-617.
Grellier, K. and Wilson, B. (2003). Bottlenose dolphins using the Sound of Barra Scotland. Aquatic Mammals 29: 378–382.
Hoelzel, A.R. (1998). Genetic structure of cetacean populations in sympatry, parapatry and mixed assemblages; implications for conservation policy. Journal of Heredity 89: 451–458.
ICES, 2013. Report of the Working Group on Marine Mammal Ecology (WGMME), 4-7 February 2013, Paris, France. ICES CM 2013/ACOM:26. 117 pp.
ICES, 2014. OSPAR request on implementation of MSFD for marine mammals. Special request. In: Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2014. ICES Advice 2014, Book 1, Section 18.104.22.168.
ICES, 2015a. Bycatch of small cetaceans and and other marine animals – Review of national reports under Council Regulation (EC) 812/2004 and other published documents. In: Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2015. ICES Advice 2015, Book 1, Section 22.214.171.124.
ICES, 2015b. Report of the Working Group on Bycatch of Protected Species (WGBYC), 2-6 February 2015, ICES Headquarters, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2015\ACOM:26. 82 pp.
ICES. 2015c. Report of the Working Group on Marine Mammal Ecology (WGMME), 9–12 February 2015, London, UK. ICES CM 2015/ACOM: 25. 114 pp.
Ingram, S.N. (2000). The ecology and conservation of bottlenose dolphins in the Shannon Estuary, Ireland. PhD thesis, University College Cork, Ireland. 213pp.
Ingram, S.N., Englund, A., and Rogan, E. (2001). An extensive survey of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) on the west coast of Ireland. Heritage Council Report no. WLD/2001/42 17pp.
Ingram, S.N., Englund, A., and Rogan, E. (2003). Habitat use, abundance and site-fidelity of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) in Connemara coastal waters, Co. Galway. Heritage Council Wildlife Grant #12314. 27pp.
Ingram, S., Kavanagh, A., Englund, A., and Rogan, E. (2009). Site assessment of the waters of northwest Connemara. A survey of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus). Report to the National Parks and Wildlife Service, 1-33.
Jepson, P.D., Deaville, R., Barnett, J., Davison, N.I., Paterson, I.A.P., Penrose, R.S., Perkins, M.P., Reid, R.J., and Law, R.J. (2013). Persistent organic pollutants in UK stranded cetaceans (1990-2008): linking exposure with toxic effects. In: P.G.H. Evans (ed.) Chemical Pollution and Marine Mammals. European Cetacean Society Special Publication 55: 18-24.
Jepson, P.D., Deaville, R., Barber, J.L., Aguilar, A., Borrell, A., Murphy, S., Barry, J., Brownlow, A., Barnett, J., Berrow, S., Cunningham, A.A., Davison, N.J., ten Doeschate, M., Esteban, R., Ferreira, M., Foote, A.D., Genov, T., Giménez, J., Loveridge, J., Llavona, A., Martin, V., Maxwell, D.L., Papachlimitzou, A., Penrose, R., Perkins, M.W., Smith, B., de Stephanis, R., Tregenza, N., Verborgh, P., Fernandez, A., and Law, R.J. (2016). PCB pollution continues to impact populations of orcas and other dolphins in European waters. Nature Scientific Reports. | 6:18573 | DOI: 10.1038/srep18573.
Kölmel, R. and Wurche, B. (1998). Wale aus der Elbe: Die Arten und ihre Fund- und Fangberichte. Schriftenreihe Natureum Niederelbe, 2: 10-35.
Kompanje, E.J.O. (2001). Review of strandings and catches of Tursiops truncatus (Mammalia: Cetacea, Odontoceti) in the Netherlands between 1754 and 2000. Deinsea, 1(8): 169-224
Krützen, M., Sherwin, W.B., Berggren, P. and Gales, N. (2004). Population structure in an inshore cetacean revealed by microsatellite and mtDNA analysis: bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops sp.) in Shark Bay, Western Australia. Marine Mammal Science, 20: 28–47.
Lacey, C. (2015). Current status of the resident bottlenose dolphin population in the Sado Estuary, Portugal. Unpublished MSc dissertation, University of Edinburgh.
Le Berre, N., and Liret, C. 2004. Capture-Recapture method to assess population size: the bottlenose dolphins of the Molene Archipelago. European Research on Cetaceans, 15: 431.
Liret, C. (2001). Domaine vital, utilization de l’espace et des ressources: les grands dauphins, Tursiops truncatus, de l’île de Sein. Thèse de doctorat de l’Université de Bretagne Occidentale, Brest. 155pp.
Liret, C., Baines, M.E., Evans, P.G.H., Hammond, P.S. and Wilson, B. (2006). Atlantic bottlenose dolphins: conservation and management. Oceanopolis, Brest, France. 56pp.
López, A., Pierce, G.J., Santos, M.B., Gracia, J., and Guerra, A. (2003). Fishery bycatches of marine mammals in Galician waters: results from on-board observations and an interview survey of fishermen. Biological Conservation, 111: 25-40.
López, A., Veacquez, J.A., Martínez-Cedeira, J.A., Marcos-Ipiña, E., Laria, L., Maestre, I., Carbo, A., Llanova, A., Fernández, M., Díaz, J.L., Santos, L., Ruano, A., Fernández, R., y Méndez, P. (2012). Bases para el desarrollo de los planes de conservación de las espaceies de cétaceos protegidas en la Demarcación Marina Noratlantica. Volumen 2 Impactos. Ministerio de Agricultura, Alimentacíon y Medio Ambiente-Fundación Biodiversidad.
López, A., Vázquez, J. A., Martínez, J., Cañadas, A., Marcos, E., Maestre, I., Ruano, A., Laria, L., Llanova, A., Macleod, K. and Evans, P. (2013). New abundance estimates for harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) and bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) in Northern Spanish Cantabrian and adjacent waters of Bay of Biscay (2003–2011). Poster presented at the 27th European Cetacean Society Annual Conference, 8th–10th April, 2013, Setúbal, Portugal.
Louis, M., Fontaine, M.C., Spitz, J., Schlund, E., Dabin, W., Deaville, R., Caurant, F., Cherel, Y., Guinet, C. and Simon-Bouhet, B. (2014b) Ecological opportunities and specializations shaped genetic divergence in a highly mobile marine top predator. Proc. R. Soc. B 281: 20141558. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2014.1558
Louis, M., Gally, F., Barbraud, C., Béesau, J., Tixier, P., Simon-Bouhet, B., Le Rest, K., and Guinet, C. (2015). Social structure and abundance of coastal bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops truncatus, in the Normano-Breton Gulf, English Channel. Journal of Mammalogy, DOI:10.1093/jmamma/gyv053.
Louis, M. and Ridoux, V. (2015). Suivi des grands dauphins et des petits cétacés dans le Parc naturel marin d’Iroise. Rapport Convention n° 920/UMS 3462/PNMI.
Louis, M., Viricel, A., Lucas, T., Peltier, H., Alfonsi, E., Berrow, S., Brownlow, A., Covelo, P., Dabin, W., Deaville, R., de Stephanis, R., Gally, F., Gauffier, P., Penrose, R., Silva, M. A., Guinet, C. and Simon-Bouhet, B. (2014b). Habitat-driven population structure of bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops truncatus, in the North-East Atlantic. Molecular Ecology; 23, 857–874.
MAGRAMA (2012). Estrategias Marinas. Grupo Mamíferos Marinos. Evaluación inicial y buen estado ambiental. Technical report.
Martinho F. (2012). Residency and behavioural patterns of coastal bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) in the Arrábida and Tróia shores (Portugal). MSc thesis, Faculdade de Ciências da Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal. 80pp.
Martinho, F., Pereira, A., Brito, C., Gaspar, R., and Carvalho, I. (2015). Structure and abundance of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) in coastal Setúbal Bay, Portugal. Marine Biology Research, 11(2): 144-156 (DOI: 10.1080/ 17451000.2014.894244).
Mirimin, L., Miller, R., Dillane, E., Berrow, S.D., Ingram, S., Cross, T.F., and Rogan, E. (2011). Fine-scale population genetic structuring of bottlenose dolphins in Irish coastal waters. Animal Conservation, 14: 342-353.
Möller, L.M, and Beheregaray, L.B. (2004). Genetic evidence for sex-biased dispersal in resident bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops aduncus). Molecular Ecology, 13: 1607–1612.
Mohr, E. (1935). Historisch-zoologische Walfischstudien. Nordelbingen, 11: 335-393.
Natoli, A., Birkun, A., Aguilar, A., López, A., and Hoelzel, A.R. (2005). Habitat structure and the dispersal of male and female bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus). Proceedings of the Royal Society B - Biological Sciences, 272: 1217–1226.
Norrman, E.B., Dussan-Duque, S., and Evans, P.G.H. (2015). Bottlenose dolphins in Wales: Systematic mark-recapture surveys in Welsh waters. Natural Resources Wales Evidence Report Series No. 85. Natural Resources Wales, Bangor. 83pp.
Nichols, C., Herman, J., Gaggiotti, O.E., Dobney, K.M., Parsons, K. and Hoelzel, A.R., 2007. Genetic isolation of a now extinct population of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus). Proceedings of the royal Society B, 274. DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2007.0176
Nykanen, M., Ingram, S.D., and Rogan, E. (2015). West coast dolphins (Tursiops truncatus): abundance, distribution, ranging patterns and habitat use. Report to the National Parks and Wildlife Service, pp. 1- 33.
O’Brien, J.M., Berrow, S.D., Ryan, C., McGrath, D., O’Connor, I., Pesante, G., Burrows, G., Massett, N., Klötzer, V., and Whooley, P. (2009). A note on long-distance matches of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) around the Irish coast using photo-identification. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management, 11: 69–74.
Ó Cadhla, O., Englund, A., Philpott, E., Mackey, M. and Ingram, S.N. (2003). Marine mammal monitoring in the waters of Broadhaven Bay and Northwest Mayo: 2001-2002. Report to Enterprise Energy Ireland Ltd, 74pp.
OSPAR, 2012. MSFD Advice Manual and Background Document on Biodiversity A living document - Version 3.2 of 5 March 2012. http://www.ospar.org/documents/dbase/publications/p00581/p00581_advice%20document %20d1_d2_d4_d6_biodiversity.pdf
Oudejans, M., Visser, F., Englund, A., Rogan, E., and Ingram, S.N. (2015). Evidence for Distinct Coastal and Offshore Communities of Bottlenose Dolphins in the North-East Atlantic. PLOS One, DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0122668.
Pesante, G., Evans, P.G.H., Baines, M.E., and McMath, M. (2008). Abundance and Life History Parameters of Bottlenose Dolphin in Cardigan Bay: Monitoring 2005-2007. CCW Marine Monitoring Report No. 61: 75pp.
Pirotta, E., Thompson, P.M., Cheney, B., Donovan, C.R., and Lusseau, D. (2014). Estimating spatial, temporal and individual variability in dolphin cumulative exposure to boat traffic using spatially explicit capture–recapture methods. Animal Conservation, DOI: 10.1111/acv.12132.
Pirotta, E., Merchant, N.D., Thompson, P.M., Barton, T.R., and Lusseau, D. (2015). Quantifying the effect of boat disturbance on bottlenose dolphin foraging activity. Biological Conservation, 181: 82-89.
Portillo, C., Jiménez-Torres, C., Pérez, S.,Verborgh, P., Gauffier, P., Esteban, R., Giménez, J.,Santos-Vegas, M., Cazalla, E., and de Stephanis, R. (2011). Survival rate, abundance and residency of bottlenose dolphins in the Strait of Gibraltar. Poster. 25th Conference of the European Cetacean Society, 21-23 March 2011, Cádiz. Spain.
Quérouil, S., Silva, M.A., Freitas, L., Prieto, R., Magalhães, S., Dinis, A., Alves, F., Matos, J.A., Mendonça, D., Hammond, P., and Santos, R.S. (2007). High gene flow in oceanic bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) of the North Atlantic. Conservation Genetics, 8: 1405–1419.
Richards, V.P., Greig, T.W., Fair, P.A., McCulloch, S.D., Politz, P., Natoli, A., Driscoll, C.A. Hoelzel, A.R., David, V., Bossart, G.D., and Lopez, J.V. (2013). Patterns of population structure for inshore bottlenose dolphins along the eastern United States. Journal of Heredity, 104(6): 765-778.
Rogan, E., Nykanen, M. Gkaragkouni, M., and Ingram, S.N. (2015). Bottlenose dolphin survey in the lower River Shannon SAC, 2015. Report to the National Parks and Wildlife Service, pp. 1 – 21.
Rosel, P.E., Hansen, L., and Hohn, A.A. (2009). Restricted dispersal in a continuously distributed marine species: common bottlenose dolphins Tursiops truncatus in coastal waters of the western North Atlantic. Molecular Ecology, 18: 5030–5045.
Taylor, B., Chivers, S. J., Larese, J. and Perrin, B. 2007. Generation length and percent mature estimates for IUCN assessments of cetaceans. Southwest Fisheries Science Center. Admin- istrative report LJ-07-01, 18 pp.
Teixeira, A.M.A.P. (1979). Marine mammals of the Portuguese coast. Z. Säugetierkunde, 44: 221-238.
Thompson, P. M., Lusseau, D., Corkrey, R. and Hammond, P. S. 2004. Moray Firth bottlenose dolphin monitoring strategy options. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 079 (ROAME No. F02AA409).
Toth, J.L. Hohn, A.A. Able, K.W., and Gorgone, A.M. (2012). Defining bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) stocks based on environmental, physical, and behavioral characteristics. Marine Mammal Science, 28(3): 461-478.
Tregenza, N.J.C. (1992). Fifty years of cetacean sightings from the Cornish coast, SW England. Biological Conservation, 59: 65-70.
Van Bressem, M.F., Gaspar, R. and Aznar, F.J., 2003. Epidemiology of tattoo skin disease in bottlenose dolphins Tursiops truncatus from the Sado estuary, Portugal. Dis Aquat Organ. 2003 Sep 24;56(2):171-9.
Vázquez, J.A., Cañadas, A., Martínez-Cedeira, J., López, A., Tejedor, M., Gauffier, P., Gazo, M., and Brotons, J.M. (2014). Docuemento técnico sobre la incidencia de la captura accidental de especies de cetáceo amenazadas en artes de pesca. Informe realizado para el Ministerio de Agricultura, Alimentacíon y Medio Ambiente. 95pp.
Vélez, M. (2014). Interacciones entre cetáceos, Tortugas y pesquerías en el Golfo de Cádiz. MSc Thesis, University of Cádiz. 65pp.
Verwey, J. (1975). The cetaceans Phocoena phocoena and Tursiops truncatus in the Marsdiep area (Dutch Waddensea) in the years 1931-1973. Nederlands Instituut voor Onderzoek der Zee, 17a, b: 1-153.
Weir, C.R. and Stockin, K.A. (2001) The occurrence and distribution of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncates) and other cetacean species in the coastal waters of Aberdeenshire, Scotland. Sea Watch Foundation, Aberdeen. 68pp.
Williams, A.D., Williams, R., Heimlich-Boran., J.R., Evans, P.G.H., Tregenza, N.J.C., Ridoux, V. Liret, C., and Savage, S. (1997). A preliminary report on an investigation into bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) of the English Channel: a collaborative approach. European Research on Cetaceans, 10: 217-220.
Wilson, B., Reid, R.J., Grellier, K., Thompson, P.M., and Hammond, P.S. (2004) Considering the temporal when managing the spatial: a population range expansion impacts protected areas-based management for bottlenose dolphins. Animal Conservation, 7: 331-338.
Wiszniewski, J., Allen, S.J., and Moeller, L.M. 2009. Social cohesion in a hierarchically structured embayment population of Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphins. Animal Behaviour, 77: 1449–1457.
Wiszniewski, J., Beheregaray, L.B, Allen, S.J,, and Möller, L.M. (2010). Environmental and social influences on the genetic structure of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops aduncus) in Southeastern Australia. Conservation Genetics. 11:1405–1419.