Hello I would like to announce the recent publication of the following 3 papers in *NAMMCO Scientific Publications* Volume 7, North Atlantic Sightings Surveys: Counting whales in the North Atlantic, 1987-2001. The volume is available at www.nammco.no, and pdf reprints are available from me at kin...@gmail.com.
Regards, Daniel Pike. Pike, D.G., Víkingsson, G.A., Gunnlaugsson, Th. and Øien, N. 2009. A note on the distribution and abundance of blue whales (*Balaenoptera musculus*) in the Central and Northeast North Atlantic. *NAMMCO Sci. Publ*. 7:19-29. The distribution and abundance of blue whales (*Balaenoptera musculus*) was assessed from ship surveys conducted in the Central and Northeast Atlantic in 1987, 1989, 1995 and 2001. Blue whales were most commonly sighted off western Iceland, and to a lesser extent northeast of Iceland. They were very rare or absent in the Northeast Atlantic. Sightings were combined over all surveys to estimate the detection function using standard line transect methodology, with the addition of a covariate to account for differences between surveys. Total abundance was highest in 1995 (979, 95% CI 137-2,542)and lowest in 1987 (222, 95% CI 115-440). Uncertainty in species identity had little effect on estimates of abundance. There was a significant positive trend in abundance northeast of Iceland and in the total survey area. Pike, D.G., Gunnlaugsson, Th., Víkingsson, G.A., Desportes, G. and Bloch, D. 2009. Estimates of the abundance of minke whales (*Balaenoptera acutorostrata*) from Faroese and Icelandic NASS shipboard surveys. *NAMMCO Sci. Publ*. 7:81-93. North Atlantic Sightings Surveys for cetaceans were carried out Northeast and Central Atlantic in 1987, 1989, 1995 and 2001. Here we provide estimates of density and abundance for minke whales from the Faroese and Icelandic ship surveys. The estimates are not corrected for availability or perception biases. Double platform data collected in 2001 indicates that perception bias is likely considerable for this species. However comparison of corrected estimates of density from aerial surveys with a ship survey estimate from the same area suggests that ship surveys can be nearly unbiased under optimal survey conditions with high searching effort. There were some regional changes in density over the period but no overall changes in density and abundance. Given the recent catch history for minke whales in this area, we would not expect to see changes in abundance due to exploitation that would be detectable with these surveys. Pike, D.G., Paxton, C.G.M., Gunnlaugsson, Th. and Víkingsson, G.A. 2009. Trends in the distribution and abundance of cetaceans from aerial surveys in Icelandic coastal waters, 1986-2001. NAMMCO Sci. Publ. 7:117-142. Aerial surveys were carried out in coastal Icelandic waters 4 times between 1986 and 2001 as part of the North Atlantic Sightings Surveys. The surveys had nearly identical designs in 3 of the 4 years. The target species was the minke whale (*Balaenoptera acutorostrata*) but all species encountered were recorded. Sighting rate and density from line transect analysis were used as indices of relative abundance to monitor trends over the period, and abundance estimates corrected for perception biases were calculated for some species from the 2001 survey. More than 11 species were sighted, of which the most common were the minke whale, humpback whale (*Megaptera novaeangliae*), dolphins of genus *Lagenorhychus*, and the harbour porpoise (*Phocoena phocoena*). Minke whales and dolphins showed little change in distribution or abundance over the period. There were an estimated 31,653 (cv 0.30) dolphins in the survey area in 2001. Humpback whales increased rapidly at a rate of about 12%, with much of the increase occurring off eastern and northeastern Iceland. In 2001 there were an estimated 4,928 (cv 0.463) humpback whales in the survey area. The relative abundance of harbour porpoises decreased over the period, but estimates for this species were compromised by uncorrected perception biases and poor coverage. The ecological and historical significance of these findings with respect to previous whaling activities and present-day fisheries is discussed.
_______________________________________________ MARMAM mailing list MARMAM@lists.uvic.ca https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/marmam
