Marine Biology

, 165:92 | Cite as

Does interspecific competition drive patterns of habitat use and relative density in harbour porpoises?

  • Bruno Díaz López
  • Séverine Methion
Original paper


Determining the drivers that are responsible for the fine-scale distribution of cetacean species is fundamental to understand better how they respond to changes in their environment. We utilized information theoretic approach to carry out a comprehensive investigation of the key environmental and anthropogenic correlates of habitat use and relative density of harbour porpoises. In all, 273 daily boat surveys over a period of 38 months, between April 2014 and November 2017, were spent in the field monitoring 9417 km along the coastal and shelf waters of Northwest Spain. Throughout this period, there were 70 encounters with harbour porpoises and 712 encounters with common bottlenose dolphins. The observed unequal use of available habitat indicates that harbour porpoises present a fine-scale pattern of habitat selection along the study area, which is likely related to the variation in oceanographic variables and human disturbance mainly caused by marine traffic and fisheries. While differences in habitat use between harbour porpoises and bottlenose dolphins were observed, interspecific competition with bottlenose dolphins (as competitive exclusion hypotheses) did not appear to play an important role in the distribution and relative density of harbour porpoises. These findings highlight the importance of considering both environmental and anthropogenic variables in ecological studies, in addition to highlighting the importance of using a multi-species ecology approach in research and conservation management planning.



Field observations carried out during this work are part of a long-term study supported by funding from the Bottlenose Dolphin Research Institute (BDRI). We would like to thank Niki Karagouni, Victoria Hope, and Oriol Giralt Paradell who generously gave their time to help with field and laboratory work. Many thanks are also extended to the BDRI students and volunteers who assisted with fieldwork and data transcription. Authors thank the valuable comments of Daniel E. Crocker and three anonymous reviewers which helped to improve the quality of the manuscript. Data collection complies with the current laws of Spain, the country in which it was performed.

Author contributions

BDL and SM conceived, designed, and executed this study. BDL analysed the data and wrote the manuscript, and SM provided editorial advice.


This research did not receive any specific Grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors of this study declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Alvarez I, Decastro M, Gomez-Gesteira M, Prego R (2005) Inter- and intra-annual analysis of the salinity and temperature evolution in the Galician Rías Baixas–ocean boundary (northwest Spain). J Geophys Res Oceans 110(C04008):1–14Google Scholar
  2. Barton K (2011) MuMIn: multi-model inference. R package, version 1.0. 0. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  3. Bjørge A, Øien N (1995) Distribution and abundance of harbour porpoise, Phocoena phocoena, in Norwegian waters. Rep Int Whal Comm Special issue 16:89–98Google Scholar
  4. Booth CG, Embling C, Gordon J, Calderan SV, Hammond PS (2013) Habitat preferences and distribution of the harbour porpoise Phocoena phocoena west of Scotland. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 478:273–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach, 2nd edn. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  6. Dähne M, Gilles A, Lucke K, Peschko V, Adler S, Krügel K, Sundermeyer J, Siebert U (2013) Effects of pile-driving on harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) at the first offshore wind farm in Germany. Environ Res Lett 8(2):025002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Díaz López B (2011) Whistle characteristics in free-ranging bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) in the Mediterranean Sea: influence of behaviour. Mamm Biol 76:180–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Díaz López B (2017) Temporal variability in predator presence around a fin fish farm in the Northwestern Mediterranean Sea. Mar Ecol 38(1):e12378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Díaz López B, Methion S (2017) The impact of shellfish farming on common bottlenose dolphins’ use of habitat. Mar Biol 164:83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Díaz López B, López A, Methion S, Covelo P (2017) Infanticide attacks and associated epimeletic behaviour in free-ranging common bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus). J Marine Biol Assoc UK. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dormann CF, Elith J, Bacher S, Buchmann C, Carl G, Carré G, Marquéz JRG, Gruber B, Lafourcade B, Leitão PJ, Münkemüller T (2013) Collinearity: a review of methods to deal with it and a simulation study evaluating their performance. Ecography 36(1):27–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dyndo M, Wiśniewska DM, Rojano-Doñate L, Madsen PT (2015) Harbour porpoises react to low levels of high frequency vessel noise. Sci Rep 5:11083CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Edrén S, Wisz MS, Teilmann J, Dietz R, Söderkvist J (2010) Modelling spatial patterns in harbour porpoise satellite telemetry data using maximum entropy. Ecography 33(4):698–708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Embling CB, Gillibrand PA, Gordon J, Shrimpton J, Stevick PT, Hammond PS (2010) Using habitat models to identify suitable sites for marine protected areas for harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena). Biol Cons 143(2):267–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Farina AC, Freire J, González-Gurriarán E (1997) Demersal fish assemblages in the Galician continental shelf and upper slope (NW Spain): spatial structure and long-term changes. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 44(4):435–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fernández R, MacLeod CD, Pierce GJ, Covelo P, López A, Torres-Palenzuela J, Valavanis V, Santos MB (2013) Inter-specific and seasonal comparison of the niches occupied by small cetaceans off north–west Iberia. Cont Shelf Res 64:88–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fontaine MC, Roland K, Calves I, Austerlitz F, Palstra FP, Tolley KA, Ryan S, Ferreira M, Jauniaux T, Llavona A, Öztürk B (2014) Postglacial climate changes and rise of three ecotypes of harbour porpoises, Phocoena phocoena, in western Palearctic waters. Mol Ecol 23(13):3306–3321CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Forney KA (2000) Environmental models of cetacean abundance: reducing uncertainty in population trends. Conserv Biol 14(5):1271–1286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gaskin DE, Arnold PW, Blair BA (1974) Phocoena phocoena. Mamm Species 42:1–8Google Scholar
  20. Grueber CE, Nakagawa S, Laws RJ, Jamieson IG (2011) Multimodel inference in ecology and evolution: challenges and solutions. J Evol Biol 24(4):699–711CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Hammond PS, Berggren P, Benke H, Borchers DL, Collet A, Heide-Jørgensen MP, Heimlich S, Hiby AR, Leopold MF, Øien N (2002) Abundance of harbour porpoise and other cetaceans in the North Sea and adjacent waters. J Appl Ecol 39(2):361–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hammond PS, Macleod K, Berggren P, Borchers DL, Burt L, Cañadas A, Desportes G, Donovan GP, Gilles A, Gillespie D, Gordon J (2013) Cetacean abundance and distribution in European Atlantic shelf waters to inform conservation and management. Biol Cons 164:107–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hastie TJ, Tibshirani RJ (1990) Generalized additive models. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  24. Head JS, Robbins MM, Mundry R, Makaga L, Boesch C (2012) Remote video-camera traps measure habitat use and competitive exclusion among sympatric chimpanzee, gorilla and elephant in Loango National Park, Gabon. J Trop Ecol 28(6):571–583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Isojunno S, Matthiopoulos J, Evans PG (2012) Harbour porpoise habitat preferences: robust spatio-temporal inferences from opportunistic data. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 448:155–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Johnston DW (2002) The effect of acoustic harassment devices on harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) in the Bay of Fundy, Canada. Biol Conser 108 (1):113–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jepson PD, Baker JR (1998) Bottlenosed dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) as a possible cause of acute traumatic injuries in porpoises (Phocoena phocoena). Vet Rec 143:614CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Johnston DW, Westgate AJ, Read AJ (2005) Effects of fine-scale oceanographic features on the distribution and movements of harbour porpoises Phocoena phocoena in the Bay of Fundy. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 295:279–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lima SL, Dill LM (1990) Behavioral decisions made under the risk of predation: a review and prospectus. Can J Zool 68:619–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. López A, Rodríguez A (1995) Agresión de arroás (Tursiops truncatus) a toniña (Phocoena phocoena). Eubalaena 6:23–27Google Scholar
  31. López A, Pierce GJ, Valeiras X, Santos MB, Guerra A (2004) Distribution patterns of small cetaceans in Galician waters. J Marine Biol Assoc UK 84:283–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. MacLeod K, Simmonds MP, Murray E (2003) Summer distribution and relative abundance of cetacean populations off north–west Scotland. J Mar Biol Assoc UK 83(5):1187–1192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Marubini F, Gimona A, Evans PG, Wright PJ, Pierce GJ (2009) Habitat preferences and interannual variability in occurrence of the harbour porpoise Phocoena phocoena off northwest Scotland. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 381:297–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Méndez-Fernández P, Bustamante P, Bode A, Chouvelon T, Ferreira M, López A, Pierce GJ, Santos MB, Spitz J, Vingada JV, Caurant F (2012) Foraging ecology of five toothed whale species in the Northwest Iberian Peninsula, inferred using carbon and nitrogen isotope ratios. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 413:150–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nakagawa S, Freckleton RP (2011) Model averaging, missing data and multiple imputation: a case study for behavioural ecology. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 65(1):103–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Northridge SP, Tasker ML, Webb A, Williams JM (1995) Distribution and relative abundance of harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena L.), white-beaked dolphins (Lagenorhynchus albirostris Gray), and minke whales (Balaenoptera acutorostrata Lacepède) around the British Isles. ICES J Mar Sci 52(1):55–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Otani S, Naito Y, Kawamura A, Kawasaki M, Nishiwaki S, Kato A (1998) Diving behavior and performance of harbor porpoises, Phocoena phocoena, in Funka Bay, Hokkaido, Japan. Mar Mamm Sci 14(2):209–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Palka D (1996) Effects of Beaufort sea state on the sightability of harbor porpoises in the Gulf of Maine. Rep Int Whal Comm 46:575–582Google Scholar
  39. Palka DL, Hammond PS (2001) Accounting for responsive movement in line transect estimates of abundance. Can J Fish Aqua Sci 58:777–787CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pierce GJ, Caldas M, Cedeira J, Santos MB, Llavona A, Covelo P, Martinez G, Torres J, Sacau M, López A (2010) Trends in cetacean sightings along the Galician coast, north–west Spain, 2003–2007, and inferences about cetacean habitat preferences. J Mar Biol Assoc UK 90(Special issue 08):1547–1560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Prego R, del Carmen Barciela M, Varela M (1999) Nutrient dynamics in the Galician coastal area (Northwestern Iberian Peninsula): do the Rias Bajas receive more nutrient salts than the Rias Altas? Cont Shelf Res 19(3):317–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. R Development Core Team (2011) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0. URL
  43. Richards SA, Whittingham MJ, Stephens PA (2010) Model selection and model averaging in behavioural ecology: the utility of the IT-AIC framework. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 65:77–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ross HM, Wilson B (1996) Violent interactions between bottlenose dolphins and harbour porpoises. Proceed R Soc Lond B 263:283–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ross PS, Barlow J, Jefferson TA, Hickie BE, Lee T, MacFarquhar C, Parsons EC, Riehl KN, Rose NA, Slooten E, Tsai CY (2011) Ten guiding principles for the delineation of priority habitat for endangered small cetaceans. Mar Policy 35(4):483–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Santos MB, Pierce GJ (2003) The diet of harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) in the northeast Atlantic. Oceanogr Mar Biol Annu Rev 41:355–390Google Scholar
  47. Santos MB, Fernández R, López A, Martínez JA, Pierce GJ (2007) Variability in the diet of bottlenose dolphin, Tursiops truncatus, in the Galician waters, northwestern Spain, 1990–2005. J Mar Biol Assoc UK 87:231–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Santos F, Gómez-Gesteira M, DeCastro M, Álvarez I (2011) Upwelling along the western coast of the Iberian Peninsula: dependence of trends on fitting strategy. Clim Res 48(2/3):213–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Skov H, Thomsen F (2008) Resolving fine-scale spatio-temporal dynamics in the harbour porpoise Phocoena phocoena. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 373:173–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Spitz J, Rousseau Y, Ridoux V (2006) Diet overlap between harbour porpoise and bottlenose dolphin: an argument in favour of interference competition for food? Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 70(1):259–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sveegaard S, Teilmann J, Tougaard J, Dietz R, Mouritsen KN, Desportes G, Siebert U (2011) High-density areas for harbor porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) identified by satellite tracking. Mar Mamm Sci 27(1):230–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Thompson PM, Brookes KL, Graham IM, Barton TR, Needham K, Bradbury G, Merchant ND (2013) Short-term disturbance by a commercial two-dimensional seismic survey does not lead to long-term displacement of harbour porpoises. Proceed R Soc B 280(1771):20132001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Tittensor DP, Mora C, Jetz W, Lotze HK, Ricard D, Berghe EV, Worm B (2010) Global patterns and predictors of marine biodiversity across taxa. Nature 466(7310):1098–1101CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Vieites DR, Nieto-Román S, Palanca A, Ferrer X, Vences M (2004) European Atlantic: the hottest oil spill hotspot worldwide. Naturwissenschaften 91(11):535–538CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Westgate AJ, Read AJ, Berggren P, Koopman HN, Gaskin DE (1995) Diving behaviour of harbour porpoises, Phocoena phocoena. Can J Fish Aqua Sci 52:1064–1073CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wood SN (2006) Generalized additive models, an introduction with R. Chapman & Hall/CRC, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Zeileis A, Hothorn T (2002) Diagnostic checking in regression relationships. R News 2(3): 7–10. Accessed Jan 2018
  58. Zuur AF (2012) A beginner’s guide to generalised additive models with R. Highland Statistics Ltd., NewburghGoogle Scholar
  59. Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Elphick CS (2010) A protocol for data exploration to avoid common statistical problems. Methods Ecol Evol 1:3–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Bottlenose Dolphin Research Institute (BDRI)PontevedraSpain
  2. 2.Université Bordeaux, UMR CNRS 5805 EPOCPessac CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations