Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Reply to ‘Clarifying the interpretation of Hamer et al. (2008) by Bilgmann et al. (2008)’

Reply to ‘Clarifying the interpretation of Hamer et al. (2008) by Bilgmann et al. (2008)’ In our recent study on the population genetic structure of short‐beaked common dolphins Delphinus delphis in southern Australia ( Bilgmann , 2008 ) we unequivocally showed a high level of genetic differentiation between the local common dolphin population in South Australia (SA) and the one in south‐eastern Tasmania. The differentiation found in short‐beaked common dolphins over this relatively small geographic scale of c . 1500 km is unusual for such a wide ranging and highly mobile species ( Bilgmann , 2008 ). The genetic subdivision and the very low migration rates between the populations reported in our study has important implications for the management of dolphin interactions with the purse‐seine fishery in SA; these interactions have lead to serious concerns over the long‐term viability of the local dolphin population in this area. Around the same time of publication of our paper, Hamer, Ward & McGarvey (2008) reported on the creation of the purse‐seine fishery Code of Practice (CoP) to reduce dolphin mortalities in SA. In Bilgmann (2008) , we referred to the dolphin bycatch rate before the implementation of the CoP. We commend the proactive industry approach to reduce dolphin bycatch. Moreover, we commend the industry for indirectly http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Animal Conservation Wiley

Reply to ‘Clarifying the interpretation of Hamer et al. (2008) by Bilgmann et al. (2008)’

Download PDF
2 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/reply-to-clarifying-the-interpretation-of-hamer-et-al-2008-by-bilgmann-srr8SwXw4E

References (9)

Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
© 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2009 The Zoological Society of London
ISSN
1367-9430
eISSN
1469-1795
DOI
10.1111/j.1469-1795.2009.00270.x
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

In our recent study on the population genetic structure of short‐beaked common dolphins Delphinus delphis in southern Australia ( Bilgmann , 2008 ) we unequivocally showed a high level of genetic differentiation between the local common dolphin population in South Australia (SA) and the one in south‐eastern Tasmania. The differentiation found in short‐beaked common dolphins over this relatively small geographic scale of c . 1500 km is unusual for such a wide ranging and highly mobile species ( Bilgmann , 2008 ). The genetic subdivision and the very low migration rates between the populations reported in our study has important implications for the management of dolphin interactions with the purse‐seine fishery in SA; these interactions have lead to serious concerns over the long‐term viability of the local dolphin population in this area. Around the same time of publication of our paper, Hamer, Ward & McGarvey (2008) reported on the creation of the purse‐seine fishery Code of Practice (CoP) to reduce dolphin mortalities in SA. In Bilgmann (2008) , we referred to the dolphin bycatch rate before the implementation of the CoP. We commend the proactive industry approach to reduce dolphin bycatch. Moreover, we commend the industry for indirectly

Journal

Animal Conservation – Wiley

Published: Aug 1, 2009

There are no references for this article.