Amazon river dolphins 589
TABLE 2 Results of model runs. The values in the bottom three rows represent the number of years from the start of the model run when the stated condition was reached. For example, in Simulation 4 the model predicted that 1% of the starting population would remain after 50 years.
Annual survival rate (%)
Simulation 1 Simulation 2 Simulation 3 Simulation 4 Simulation 5 Simulation 6 89
88
Breeding depression at low numbers? No 5% of starting population size 1% of starting population size Probability of extinction = 95%
No
Year 45 Year 68
Year 38 Year 59
Year 165 Year 141
point at which 95%ofmodel iterations predicted extinction. This value is little affected by the estimated initial popula- tion size; in Simulation 1 (Table 2) it increases from year 165 to year 173 of the model run (a 5% difference) when ini- tial population size is doubled to 100,000. Because the current population size is not known, thresholds of low population levels were expressed as percentages of original population size (5 and 1%). Figure 2 illustrates the variation in predicted population
size over 120 years when the model is run 1,000 times. In this scenario, annual survival is set at 89% and no corrections are made for depressed breeding at low population levels (i.e. as represented in Simulation 1). Figure 3 shows the estimated mean and standard devi-
ation of population size over time in Simulations 1 and 3 (Table 2). The two curves illustrate the range of results obtained from the 6 simulation runs. The upper curve (Simulation 1) is based on published data from the Mamirauá study (Mintzer et al., 2013; Martin & da Silva, 2018) and shows the likely population trend if conditions for dolphins do not worsen with time.
Discussion
The annual rate of population decline predicted by the model with default input (Simulation 1) was 5.5%. This is similar to the average 5.48% annual decline of botos observed over 22 years (da Silva et al., 2018a). Our findings demonstrate that three independent data sources (standard- ized counts, estimates of survival of marked animals and estimates of reproductive parameters) lead to the same con- clusion. In this population, fewer botos are being recruited into the breeding population than are being removed from it, and the consequent decline is rapid and persistent (Figs 2 & 3). In each of the six simulation scenarios (Table 2), all of which make the optimistic and perhaps unrealistic assump- tion that environmental conditions will not become less suitable for this species, the initial population is reduced by at least 95%in ,50 years. Although the observed and predicted rates of population
change are consistent, and it is therefore reasonable to assume that the model is working with accurate input
FIG. 2 Predicted population size of the Amazon river dolphin Inia geoffrensis over 120 years when the starting population is 50,000, the survival and reproductive rates are as published by Mintzer et al. (2013) and Martin & da Silva (2018), and no corrections are made for depressed breeding at low population levels (as represented in Simulation 1). This graph illustrates the variation in predicted values generated by the Vortex package over 1,000 model runs.
86 No
Year 30 Year 46
89 Yes
Year 34 Year 50
Year 110 Year 121 88 Yes
Year 29 Year 46
86 Yes
Year 24 Year 38
Year 108 Year 88
FIG. 3 Predicted population size of the Amazon river dolphin over 100 years, with annual survival rates of 89% (Simulation 1, upper curve: Mintzer et al., 2013) and 86% (Simulation 3, lower curve). The mean values and standard deviation of 1,000 model runs are shown. The upper curve represents the same model runs as in Fig. 2. No allowance was made for possible breeding depression at low population numbers. For clarity, only two of the six model runs are shown here, but the remaining four are close to the curves shown.
parameters, the long-term predictions of population size may not be accurate because circumstances are likely to change. Most importantly, the number of people using
Oryx, 2022, 56(4), 587–591 © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605320001350
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164