08.04.2013 Views

Part I: Seals teeth and whales ears - Scott Polar Research Institute ...

Part I: Seals teeth and whales ears - Scott Polar Research Institute ...

Part I: Seals teeth and whales ears - Scott Polar Research Institute ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

population – the initial cohort – was calculated from this smoothed curve, the<br />

estimated pregnancy rate <strong>and</strong> the sex ratio at birth. The survival was completed by<br />

interpolation so that annual mortality in the first two y<strong>ears</strong> was 40% <strong>and</strong> 20%<br />

respectively. To draw up an approximate female life table the initial cohort was<br />

taken to be 46,920 female pups (46% of 102,000).<br />

In drawing up a male life table the initial cohort was taken to be 55,080 (54% of<br />

102,000), <strong>and</strong> it was assumed that due to exploitation there was no escapement above<br />

14 y<strong>ears</strong>, since no older males were found. The samples from the catch showed a<br />

uniform total annual male mortality of 65% from 8 y<strong>ears</strong> upwards. A survival curve<br />

was initially constructed by working back from 14 y<strong>ears</strong> age, assuming similar<br />

annual mortality rates as for the female. However even in those days it was generally<br />

thought that male natural mortality rates are higher than in females, so I adjusted the<br />

life table accordingly.<br />

A potential natural life table for males was drawn up using these initial rates,<br />

extended to a maximum age of 20 y<strong>ears</strong>.<br />

As a check on the accuracy of the estimate for the total annual recruitment, I<br />

applied the provisional natural mortality rates to the estimated recruitment for<br />

divisions I <strong>and</strong> II separately, taking into account the size of the annual catch <strong>and</strong> its<br />

age composition in each of these divisions. For division I my calculations showed no<br />

escapement beyond 14 y<strong>ears</strong>, so the life table fitted that parameter. For division II a<br />

1.4% downward adjustment of estimated recruitment gave the same result. This<br />

check suggested that the accuracy of the estimate of pups born annually in all<br />

divisions is about the same as the estimates for divisions I <strong>and</strong> II, which were based<br />

on adjusted counts of pups.<br />

These very crude life tables suggested that the size of the herd in the 1950 s was<br />

about 370,000 animals, but this maximum figure was never actually attained. The<br />

average mid-year population is probably about 310,000. The potential life tables for<br />

an unexploited herd suggested that the corresponding figures should be about 390,00<br />

<strong>and</strong> 330,000, that is about 3.8 or 3.2 times (mean 3.5) the number of pups. These<br />

factors could be used to obtain an estimate of the total size of unexploited<br />

populations for which pup counts are available.<br />

Biomass estimates for the herd. At the time I did this work there were very few records<br />

of the weights of elephant seals <strong>and</strong> this is a property that is subject to large seasonal<br />

fluctuations during the annual cycle. I estimated a weight/length relationship from<br />

the limited elephant seal data, which suggested a similar slope <strong>and</strong> intercept to the<br />

linear regressions obtained for two Arctic species. Comparison with the elephant seal<br />

data suggested that a bull elephant seal of maximum length (7.9 m) in average<br />

condition would weigh about 5000kg. An average full-grown male (length 4.8 m)<br />

would weight about of 2032 kg. (Original calculations in ft. <strong>and</strong> lbs. pounds are here<br />

converted to m. <strong>and</strong> kg). Because of the paucity of data, to calculate the biomass of<br />

the herd I assumed that such a linear relationship represented the weight-length<br />

relationship of both sexes, but this may have given a slightly higher estimated female<br />

biomass than real. The biomass of each age group for each sex was calculated by<br />

converting length at age data to weights <strong>and</strong> multiplying by the numbers in the life<br />

tables age classes for the two sexes.<br />

423

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!