Advertisement

Urban Ecosystems

, Volume 21, Issue 4, pp 707–719 | Cite as

Urbanization-related distribution patterns and habitat-use by the marine mesopredator, giant Pacific octopus (Enteroctopus dofleini)

  • Eliza C. Heery
  • Amy Y. Olsen
  • Blake E. Feist
  • Kenneth P. Sebens
Article

Abstract

Urbanization is a process that heavily alters marine and terrestrial environments, though terrestrial urban ecosystems have been studied far more intensively. Terrestrial studies suggest that urbanization can facilitate mesopredators by enhancing food and shelter resources and reducing predation pressure from apex consumers. This in turn has considerable consequences for ecological communities. We evaluated spatial distribution patterns and habitat-use of the marine mesopredator, giant Pacific octopus (Enteroctopus dofleini), relative to terrestrial urbanization intensity in Puget Sound, Washington, USA. Using field surveys and citizen-contributed data for E. dofleini, we examined whether: (1) Distribution was related to urbanization, (2) Abundance was related to the extent of benthic anthropogenic debris, and (3) Diet differed as a function of urbanization and den cover. Our results suggest that urbanization impacts may differ with depth. Mixed-effects logistic regression model estimates for the probability of occurrence increased with urbanization in deep-water (> 24 m), and decreased with urbanization in shallow water (< 18 m). Accompanying field surveys indicated that E. dofleini abundance was correlated with the number of benthic anthropogenic debris items, and that E. dofleini diets were not affected by urbanization intensity or den cover. Though E. dofleini may be synanthropic within certain urban environments, the mechanisms driving this pattern likely differ from those affecting common urban mesopredators on land, with den provisioning from man-made structures being more important than altered food resources.

Keywords

Urban ecology Ocean sprawl Citizen science Logistic regression Mixed effects model Rural-urban gradient 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Christy Pattengill-Semmens, the REEF program, and the many divers who made this study possible. Special thanks to Ed Gullekson and Rhoda Green for their invaluable support as advisors and research divers on the project, and to David Thoreson, for building field equipment, captaining, and elevating spirits in the field. We are grateful also to Gregory Jensen for providing guidance on midden identification, and to Megan Dethier, Tim Essington, William King, Jennifer Ruesink, and Stephani Wei for manuscript and/or modeling feedback. NOAA_OI_SST_V2 data was provided by the NOAA/OAR/ESRL PSD, Boulder, Colorado, USA, from their Web site at http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/. PDO data were provided by the NOAA/NESDIS/NCEI, Asheville, North Carolina, USA, from their website at https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/teleconnections/pdo/. Heery was funded by the National Science Foundation Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship (IGERT) Program on Ocean Change (NSF 1068839, T. Klinger PI, with K Sebens as co-PI). Financial support for this study was also provided by the Biology Department and the School of Aquatic and Fisheries Science at the University of Washington.

Supplementary material

11252_2018_742_MOESM1_ESM.docx (108 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 108 kb)

References

  1. Alberti M (2008) Advances in urban ecology: integrating humans and ecological processes in urban ecosystems. Springer, BostonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alberti M, Booth D, Hill K et al (2007) The impact of urban patterns on aquatic ecosystems: An empirical analysis in Puget lowland sub-basins. Landsc Urban Plan 80:345–361.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2006.08.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alberti M, Marzluff J, Hunt VM (2017) Urban driven phenotypic changes: empirical observations and theoretical implications for eco-evolutionary feedback. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 372:20160029.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2016.0029 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ambrose RF (1983) Midden formation by octopuses: The role of biotic and abiotic factors. Mar Behav Physiol 10:137–144.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10236248309378613 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Anderson RC (2003) A preliminary report on bioaccumulation in octopuses (Enteroctopus dofleini). In: Proceedings of the 2003 Georgia Basin/Puget Sound Research Conference, March 31-April 3, 2003. British Columbia, Vancouver, pp 1–5Google Scholar
  6. Anderson RC, Mather JA (2010) It’s all in the cues: octopuses (Enteroctopus dofleini) learn to open jars. Ferrantia 59:8–13Google Scholar
  7. André M, Solé M, Lenoir M et al (2011) Low-frequency sounds induce acoustic trauma in cephalopods. Front Ecol Environ 9:489–493.  https://doi.org/10.1890/100124 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Arce AM, Aguilar-Dávila W, Sosa-Cordero E, Caddy JF (1997) Artificial shelters (casitas) as habitats for juvenile spiny lobsters Panulirus argus in the Mexican Caribbean. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 158:217–224.  https://doi.org/10.3354/meps158217 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Aronson RB (1986) Life-History and Den Ecology of Octopus-Briareus Robson in a Marine Lake. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 95:37–56.  https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GB005260/full CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Aronson MFJ, La Sorte FA, Nilon CH et al (2014) A global analysis of the impacts of urbanization on bird and plant diversity reveals key anthropogenic drivers. Proc Biol Sci 281:20133330.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2013.3330 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Bateman PW, Fleming PA (2012) Big city life: Carnivores in urban environments. J Zool 287:1–23.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.2011.00887.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Beger M, Grantham HS, Pressey RL et al (2010) Conservation planning for connectivity across marine, freshwater, and terrestrial realms. Biol Conserv 143:565–575.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2009.11.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bishop MJ, Mayer-Pinto M, Airoldi L, Firth LB, Morris RL, Loke LH, Hawkins SJ, Naylor LA, Coleman RA, Chee SY, Dafforn KA (2017) Effects of ocean sprawl on ecological connectivity: impacts and solutions. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 492:7–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bolnick DI, Yang LH, Fordyce JA et al (2002) Measuring Individual-Level Resource Specialization. Ecology 83:2936–2941CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bolton D, Mayer-Pinto M, Clark GF et al (2017) Coastal urban lighting has ecological consequences for multiple trophic levels under the sea. Sci Total Environ 576:1–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.10.037 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Briones-Fourzàn P, Lozano-Álvarez E (2001) Effects of artificial shelters (Casitas) on the abundance and biomass of juvenile spiny lobsters Panulirus argus in a habitat-limited tropical reef lagoon. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 221:221–232.  https://doi.org/10.3354/meps221221 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bulleri F (2006) Is it time for urban ecology to include the marine realm? Trends Ecol Evol 21:658–659CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Bulleri F, Chapman M (2010) The introduction of coastal infrastructure as a driver of change in marine environments. J Appl Ecol 47:26–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cohen J (1960) A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales. Educ Psychol Meas 20:37–46.  https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000104 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cooper W (2014) Relative index of abundance from visual order-of-magnitude REEF surveys applied to Hogfish (Lachnolaimus maximus) in the Southeast US. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Fish and Wildlife Research Institute, St. Petersburg, p 29Google Scholar
  21. Crooks K, Soulé M (1999) Mesopredator release and avifaunal extinctions in a fragmented system. Nature 400:563–566.  https://doi.org/10.1038/23028 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dafforn KA, Glasby TM, Airoldi L et al (2015) Marine urbanization: An ecological framework for designing multifunctional artificial structures. Front Ecol Environ 13:82–90.  https://doi.org/10.1890/140050 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dafforn KA, Kelaher BP, Simpson SL et al (2013) Polychaete Richness and Abundance Enhanced in Anthropogenically Modified Estuaries Despite High Concentrations of Toxic Contaminants. PLoS One.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0077018
  24. Deng JS, Wang K, Hong Y, Qi JG (2009) Spatio-temporal dynamics and evolution of land use change and landscape pattern in response to rapid urbanization. Landsc Urban Plan 92:187–198.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2009.05.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dethier MN, Raymond WW, McBride AN et al (2016) Multiscale impacts of armoring on Salish Sea shorelines: Evidence for cumulative and threshold effects. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 175:106–117.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2016.03.033 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Dodge R, Scheel D (1999) Remains of the prey-Recognizing the midden piles of Octopus dofleini (Wulker). The Veliger 42:260–266Google Scholar
  27. Duduś L, Zalewski A, Kozioł O et al (2014) Habitat selection by two predators in an urban area: The stone marten and red fox in Wrocław (SW Poland). Mamm Biol 79:71–76.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mambio.2013.08.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Feist BE, Levin PS (2016) Novel Indicators of Anthropogenic Influence on Marine and Coastal Ecosystems. Front Mar Sci 3:1–13.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2016.00113 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fortin M-J, Dale MRT (2005) Spatial analysis : a guide for ecologists. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  30. Galgani F, Hanke G, Maes T (2015) Global Distribution, Composition, and Abundance of Marine Litter. In: Bergmann M, Gutow L, Klages M (eds) Marine anthropogenic litter. Springer, New York, pp 29–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Galgani F, Leaute JP, Moguedet P et al (2000) Litter on the sea floor along European coasts. Mar Pollut Bull 40:516–527.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0025-326X(99)00234-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gaston KJ, Davies TW, Bennie J, Hopkins J (2012) Reducing the ecological consequences of night-time light pollution: Options and developments. J Appl Ecol 49:1256–1266.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2012.02212.x CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. Gehrt SD, Riley SPD, Cypher BL (2010) Urban carnivores: ecology, conflict, and conservation. Johns Hopkins University Press, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  34. George SL, Crooks KR (2006) Recreation and large mammal activity in an urban nature reserve. Biol Conserv 133:107–117.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2006.05.024 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hartwick EB, Ambrose RF, Robinson SMC (1984) Dynamics of shallow-water populations of Octopus dofleini. Mar Biol 82:65–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Heery EC, Bishop MJ, Critchley LP et al (2017) Identifying the consequences of ocean sprawl for sedimentary habitats. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 492:31–48.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jembe.2017.01.020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Inglis GJ, Kross JE (2000) Evidence for systemic changes in the benthic fauna of tropical estuaries as a result of urbanization. Mar Pollut Bull 41:367–376.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0025-326X(00)00093-X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ioakeimidis C, Zeri C, Kaberi H et al (2014) A comparative study of marine litter on the seafloor of coastal areas in the Eastern Mediterranean and Black Seas. Mar Pollut Bull 89:296–304.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.09.044 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Katsanevakis S, Verriopoulos G (2004a) Den ecology of Octopus vulgaris Cuvier, 1797, on soft sediment: availability and types of shelter. Ecology 68:147–157.  https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.314.213 Google Scholar
  40. Katsanevakis S, Verriopoulos G (2004b) Abundance of Octopus vulgaris on soft sediment. Distribution 68:553–560.  https://doi.org/10.3989/scimar.2004.68n4553 Google Scholar
  41. Kelly RP, O’Donnell JL, Lowell NC et al (2016) Genetic signatures of ecological diversity along an urbanization gradient. PeerJ 4:e2444.  https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.2444 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. Krishnakumar PK, Casillas E, Varanasi U (1994) Effect of environmental contaminants on the health of Mytilus edulis from Puget Sound, Washington, USA. I. Cytochemical measures of lysosomal responses in the digestive cells using automatic image analysis. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 106:249–261.  https://doi.org/10.3354/meps106249 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kwon I, Kim T (2015) Growth and mortality of the juvenile common octopus (Octopus vulgaris) in pipe-and tire-type shelters placed in flow-through seawater tanks. J Kor Soc Fish Technol 51:1–8.  https://doi.org/10.3796/KSFT.2015.51.1.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Legendre P, Anderson MJ (1999) Distance-Based Redundancy Analysis: Testing Multispecies Responses in Multifactorial Ecological Experiments. Ecol Monogr 69:1–24. https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9615(1999)069[0001:DBRATM]2.0.CO;2Google Scholar
  45. Leite AS, Santos LL, Costa Y, Hatje V (2014) Influence of proximity to an urban center in the pattern of contamination by marine debris. Mar Pollut Bull 81:242–247.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.01.032 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Long ER, Chapman PM (1985) A Sediment Quality Triad: Measures of sediment contamination, toxicity and infaunal community composition in Puget Sound. Mar Pollut Bull 16:405–415.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0025-326X(85)90290-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Long ER, Dutch M, Weakland S et al (2013) Quantification of pharmaceuticals, personal care products, and perfluoroalkyl substances in the marine sediments of Puget Sound, Washington, USA. Environ Toxicol Chem 32:1701–1710.  https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.2281 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Luck M, Wu J (2002) A gradient analysis of urban landscape pattern: A case study from the Phoenix metropolitan region, Arizona, USA. Landsc Ecol 17:327–339.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020512723753 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Magle SB, Lehrer EW, Fidino M (2016) Urban mesopredator distribution: Examining the relative effects of landscape and socioeconomic factors. Anim Conserv 19:163–175.  https://doi.org/10.1111/acv.12231 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Magle SB, Simoni LS, Lehrer EW, Brown JS (2014) Urban predator-prey association: coyote and deer distributions in the Chicago metropolitan area. Urban Ecosyst:875–891.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-014-0389-5
  51. Mann T, Martin AW, French M (1988) Entry of pollutants from seawater into the spermatophore and spermatozoa of the giant octopus of the North Pacific. Mar Pollut Bull 19:669–671.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0025-326X(88)90387-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Mather JA (1994) “Home”choice and modification by juvenile Octopus vulgaris (Mollusca: Cephalopoda): specialized intelligence and tool use? J Zool 233:359–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. McClain CR, Balk MA, Benfield MC et al (2015) Sizing ocean giants: patterns of intraspecific size variation in marine megafauna. PeerJ 3:e715.  https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.715 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  54. McDonald PS, Essington TE, Davis JP et al (2015) Distribution, Abundance, and Habitat Associations of a Large Bivalve (Panopea Generosa) in a Eutrophic Fjord Estuary. J Shellfish Res 34:137–145.  https://doi.org/10.2983/035.034.0117 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. McKinney ML (2002) Urbanization, Biodiversity, and Conservation. Bioscience 52:883–890CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. McKinney ML (2006) Urbanization as a major cause of biotic homogenization. Biol Conserv 127:247–260.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2005.09.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Miller MA, Byrne BA, Jang SS et al (2010) Enteric bacterial pathogen detection in southern sea otters (Enhydra lutris nereis) is associated with coastal urbanization and freshwater runoff. Vet Res.  https://doi.org/10.1051/vetres/2009049
  58. Narvarte M, González RA, Storero L, Fernandez M (2013) Effects of competition and egg predation on shelter use by Octopus tehuelchus females. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 482:141–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Neumann B, Vafeidis AT, Zimmermann J, Nicholls RJ (2015) Future coastal population growth and exposure to sea-level rise and coastal flooding - A global assessment. PLoS One.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118571
  60. Prange S, Gehrt SD (2004) Changes in mesopredator-community structure in response to urbanization. Can J Zool 82:1804–1817.  https://doi.org/10.1139/z04-179 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Prange S, Gehrt SD, Wiggers EP (2003) Demographic Factors Contributing to High Raccoon Densities in Urban Landscapes. J Wildl Manag 67:324–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Prugh LR, Stoner CJ, Epps CW et al (2009) The rise of the mesopredator. Bioscience 59:779–791.  https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2009.59.9.9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. PSNERP (2010) Puget Sound Basin PSNERP Database. Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership, OlympiaGoogle Scholar
  64. Rhodes JR, Wiegand T, McAlpine CA et al (2006) Modeling species’ distributions to improve conservation in semiurban landscapes: Koala case study. Conserv Biol 20:449–459.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00330.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Riley SPD, Pollinger JP, Sauvajot RM et al (2006) A southern California freeway is a physical and social barrier to gene flow in carnivores. Mol Ecol 15:1733–1741.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2006.02907.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Riley SPD, Riley SPD, Bromley C et al (2007) Anticoagulant Exposure and Notoedric Mange in Bobcats and Mountain Lions in Urban Southern California. J Wildl Manag 71:1874–1884.  https://doi.org/10.2193/2005-615 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Rochman CM, Browne MA, Underwood AJ et al (2016) The ecological impacts of marine debris: unraveling the demonstrated evidence from what is perceived. Ecology 97:302–312.  https://doi.org/10.1890/07-1861.1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Savage C, Leavitt PR, Elmgren R (2010) Effects of land use, urbanization, and climate variability on coastal eutrophication in the Baltic Sea. Limnol Oceanogr 55:1033–1046.  https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.2010.55.3.1033 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Scheel D (2015) Sea-surface temperature used to predict the relative density of giant Pacific octopuses (Enteroctopus dofleini) in intertidal habitats of Prince William Sound, Alaska. Mar Freshw Res 66:866–876.  https://doi.org/10.1071/MF14197 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Scheel D, Anderson R (2012) Variability in the diet specialization of Enteroctopus dofleini (Cephalopoda: Octopodidae) in the eastern Pacific examined from midden contents. Am Malacol Bull 30:267–279.  https://doi.org/10.4003/006.030.0206 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Scheel D, Bisson L (2012) Movement patterns of giant Pacific octopuses, Enteroctopus dofleini (Wülker, 1910). J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 416–417:21–31.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jembe.2012.02.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Scheel D, Lauster A, Vincent TLS (2007) Habitat Ecology of Enteroctopus dofleini from Middens and Live Prey Surveys in Prince William Sound, Alaska. In: Landman NH, Davis RA, Mapes RH (eds) Cephalopods Present and Past: New Insights and Fresh Perspectives. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 434–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Schultz JA, Cloutier RN, Côté IM (2016) Evidence for a trophic cascade on rocky reefs following sea star mass mortality in British Columbia. PeerJ 4:e1980.  https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.1980 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  74. Semmens JM, Pecl GT, Gillanders BM et al (2007) Approaches to resolving cephalopod movement and migration patterns. Rev Fish Biol Fish 17:401–423.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-007-9048-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Shochat E, Warren PS, Faeth SH et al (2006) From patterns to emerging processes in mechanistic urban ecology. Trends Ecol Evol 21:186–191.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2005.11.019 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. Spirandelli DJ (2014) Examining the effects of wastewater infrastructure on Puget Sound near-shore water quality across a gradient of urbanization. Dissertation, University of WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  77. Storero LP, Narvarte MA, González RA (2013) Seasonal density and distribution of Octopus tehuelchus in the intertidal of north Patagonia. J Mar Biol Assoc United Kingdom 93:1895–1901.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025315413000416 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Thiel M, Hinojosa IA, Miranda L et al (2013) Anthropogenic marine debris in the coastal environment: A multi-year comparison between coastal waters and local shores. Mar Pollut Bull 71:307–316.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2013.01.005 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. Toft JD, Cordell JR, Simenstad CA, Stamatiou LA (2007) Fish Distribution, Abundance, and Behavior along City Shoreline Types in Puget Sound. North Am J Fish Manag 27:465–480.  https://doi.org/10.1577/m05-158.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Vargas-Fonseca E, Olds AD, Gilby BL et al (2016) Combined effects of urbanization and connectivity on iconic coastal fishes. Divers Distrib 22:1328–1341.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12495 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Williams R, Wright AJ, Ashe E et al (2015) Impacts of anthropogenic noise on marine life: Publication patterns, new discoveries, and future directions in research and management. Ocean Coast Manag 115:17–24.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.05.021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Wolfe JR, Pattengill-Semmens CV (2013) Estimating fish populations from REEF citizen science volunter diver order of magnitude surveys. CalCOFI Rep 54:127–140.  https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004 Google Scholar
  83. Yasuhara M, Hunt G, Breitburg D et al (2012) Human-induced marine ecological degradation: Micropaleontological perspectives. Ecol Evol 2:3242–3268.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.425 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  84. Zhou P, Huang C, Fang H et al (2011) The abundance, composition and sources of marine debris in coastal seawaters or beaches around the northern South China Sea (China). Mar Pollut Bull 62:1998–2007.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2011.06.018 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eliza C. Heery
    • 1
    • 2
  • Amy Y. Olsen
    • 3
  • Blake E. Feist
    • 4
  • Kenneth P. Sebens
    • 1
    • 5
    • 6
  1. 1.Department of BiologyUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA
  2. 2.Department of Biological SciencesNational University of SingaporeSingaporeSingapore
  3. 3.Seattle AquariumSeattleUSA
  4. 4.Conservation Biology Division, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries ServiceNOAASeattleUSA
  5. 5.Friday Harbor LaboratoriesUniversity of WashingtonFriday HarborUSA
  6. 6.School of Aquatic and Fisheries ScienceUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations