Information on movements and connectivity among populations of animals is important for the delineation of units to conserve, so that demographic parameters, such as abundance, fecundity and mortality, can be placed in an appropriate population and conservation context. Common bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) are often considered relatively ‘resident’ and demonstrating strong site fidelity to specific areas. However, this perception may partly be an artefact of the distribution and ‘habitat use’ of cetacean researchers, rather than animals themselves, and bottlenose dolphins have been shown to be capable of substantial movements, often in relatively short periods of time. Here, we report on two long-distance movements of a common bottlenose dolphin within the Mediterranean Sea, across the Tyrrhenian, Ionian and Adriatic Seas, and subsequently back across all three seas to Ligurian Sea, making these the two longest recorded movement for this species in the Mediterranean Sea to date and some of the longest in the world. We also review published records of long-distance movements in this species worldwide. This study highlights the utility of photo-identification and the importance of regional data sharing. We argue that photo-identification comparisons are always worthwhile and the results are informative regardless of the presence or absence of matches, especially with the ongoing advances in automated matching software.
Common bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus, hereafter ‘bottlenose dolphins’) are often considered relatively ‘resident’ and demonstrating strong site fidelity to specific areas. In the Mediterranean Sea, this is largely supported by both photo-identification evidence (Gonzalvo et al. 2014; Bearzi et al. 2016; Carnabuci et al. 2016; Pleslić et al. 2019) and genetic studies (Natoli et al. 2005; Gaspari et al. 2015b). This generally also appears to be true for populations of this species elsewhere in Europe (Cheney et al. 2013; Giménez et al. 2018; Nykänen et al. 2019), as well as globally (Silva et al. 2008; Currey et al. 2009; Rosel et al. 2009). However, this perception may, at least in part, be an artefact of the distribution and ‘habitat use’ of cetacean researchers, rather than animals themselves. The majority of detailed and long-term studies of bottlenose dolphins via photo-identification (hereafter ‘photo-ID’) are typically relatively restricted geographically, potentially biasing the overall picture. In some areas, low site fidelity, large proportion of transients or substantial movements have been reported (Defran and Weller 1999; Silva et al. 2008; Defran et al. 2015; Papale et al. 2017; Dinis et al. 2021). In fact, despite the general pattern of some degree of residency in most studied populations in the Mediterranean Sea, bottlenose dolphins in this region have been shown to be capable of substantial movements, often in relatively short periods of time (Bearzi et al. 2011; Gnone et al. 2011; Genov et al. 2016). Moreover, long-term field studies almost inevitably focus on relatively coastal local populations, whereas potentially pelagic populations or individuals, for which there is now also some evidence in the Mediterranean Sea (Gaspari et al. 2015b), may remain overlooked.
Information on movements and connectivity among local populations is important for the understanding of population structure and delineation of units to conserve (Taylor et al. 2010), so that demographic parameters, such as abundance, fecundity and mortality, can be placed in an appropriate population and conservation context. Here, we report on two long-distance movements of a single bottlenose dolphin, first across the Tyrrhenian, Ionian and Adriatic Seas, and subsequently back across the Adriatic, Ionian, Tyrrhenian and Ligurian Seas, making these the longest recorded movements for this species in the Mediterranean Sea to date and among the longest in the world.
A local population of bottlenose dolphins in the Gulf of Trieste and adjacent waters in the northern Adriatic Sea (Fig. 1) has been studied since 2002 (Genov et al. 2008), with genetic and photo-ID data suggesting it is a distinct unit within the Adriatic Sea (Genov et al. 2009; Gaspari et al. 2015b). Based on mark-recapture models, the total annual abundance during 2013–2018 was estimated to range between 161 (95% CI = 153–170) and 245 (95% CI = 219–273) dolphins (Genov 2021). The population is structured into distinct social clusters, which differ in their temporal use of the study area, as well as their interactions with trawl fisheries (Genov et al. 2019).
A local population of bottlenose dolphins in the Aeolian archipelago in the southern Tyrrhenian Sea (Fig. 1) has been studied since 2005 (Blasi and Boitani 2012) and is thought to consist of about 40 individuals with relatively high site fidelity (Blasi and Boitani 2014; Blasi et al. 2020), although no estimates of absolute abundance are currently available. The population is composed of two main social units that show different association patterns, group sizes and degree of interaction with trammel nets (Blasi and Boitani 2014).
A local population of bottlenose dolphins along the Italian coast of the western Ligurian Sea (Fig. 1) has been studied since 2018 (Ascheri et al. In Press). A total of 123 individuals have been identified, with the majority observed only sporadically and about 20% displaying stronger, year-round site fidelity. Individuals inhabiting the study area are thought to be part of a larger population, with an abundance of the latter estimated at 248 (95% CI = 217–284) individuals (Ascheri et al. In Press).
A photographic match of an adult male bottlenose dolphin was discovered opportunistically between the three study areas, using multiple identification features, including the shape of the dorsal fin, the nicks and notches on the dorsal fin, as well as scars and tooth rake markings on the body (Figs. 2, 3). The matched dolphin (depicted with ID code PHD18 in Blasi and Boitani 2014 and nicknamed ‘Lino’) was first photo-identified in the Aeolian archipelago in June 2006. Lino was subsequently observed in all years during 2006–2017, except 2008, in a total of 30 sightings. His number of sightings ranged between 1 and 7 in any given year during this time. The animal was determined to be a male based on photographs of its genital area and was largely solitary or only occasionally associated with a few other males (Blasi and Boitani 2014). He was last observed on 16th July 2017 off the island of Filicudi (Italy, Fig. 1) and has not been observed in the Aeolian archipelago since.
On 8th February 2020 Lino was photographed off the town of Piran (Slovenia) in the Gulf of Trieste, northern Adriatic Sea (Fig. 1), where it had not been seen previously. Throughout the sighting, he was accompanied by a resident male, known since 2008 and sighted in the Gulf of Trieste regularly but mostly on his own (depicted as NEV in Genov et al. 2019). On 10th March 2020, Lino was seen again, this time alone, about 50–100 m from cape Madona, Piran (Fig. 1), where he engaged in surface feeding activities. Since then, he has not been seen again in the Gulf of Trieste to date (but NEV continued to be sighted regularly).
On 3rd September 2020, Lino was photographed off Imperia (Italy) in the western Ligurian Sea (Fig. 1), where he had not been recorded previously. He was encountered twice during the same day, first in a group of four individuals and subsequently about 3 h later in a group of 29 individuals, 11 km from the first location. Both groups contained calves and consisted of dolphins considered resident in the area. Lino has not been seen since in any of the three study areas.
Even though the dorsal fin underwent some changes throughout the dolphin’s sighting history (some of them already between sightings in the Aeolian archipelago, Fig. 2), the highly distinctive dorsal fin, as well as other subtle markings on the dorsal fin and body, confirmed the match across the three study areas beyond doubt (Fig. 3). The match was also suggested by the finFindR package (Thompson et al. 2022) for program R (R Core Team 2020). To determine if any other matches existed between the three study areas, catalogues (consisting of 396, 42 and 123 individuals for the Gulf of Trieste, the Aeolian archipelago, and the western Ligurian Sea, respectively) were compared. To ensure independence, each research group independently examined the catalogue of the other research groups. In addition, the finFindR package was used to investigate the presence of potential matches, but no other matches were found between the study areas.
To estimate the distance travelled by Lino, we considered several potential scenarios (Fig. 1, Table 1). For the first movement, we primarily assumed (A) the shortest straight-line path across water (depicted by the green dashed lines in Fig. 1), with two sub-options: (A-1) Lino moving through the very narrow Strait of Messina between the island of Sicily and the Italian mainland (3.1 km at the narrowest part), or (A-2) moving around Sicily instead. We also considered the possibility that (B) Lino did not travel across very deep areas in the Gulf of Taranto in the Ionian Sea or the southern Adriatic Sea and instead generally followed the coastline, given that the species typically inhabits relatively shallow continental shelf waters or areas around oceanic islands (Bearzi et al. 2009). The same two sub-options were considered here: (B-1) movement through the Strait of Messina or (B-2) around Sicily. Finally, for each of the latter two sub-options, we further considered two alternatives: (B-1-i, B-2-i) the most ‘coastal’ route along the western Adriatic coast (Fig. 1, red lines) or (B-1-ii, B-2-ii) Lino initially following the coast, crossing the Otranto Strait and then travelling along the eastern Adriatic coast (Fig. 1, red lines). The latter travel route would be in the direction of the predominant Adriatic current, which moves in an anti-clockwise fashion, moving northward along the eastern shores of the basin (Mauri and Poulain 2001). For the return trip, we considered the same routes back to the (C-1) Strait of Messina or (C-2) the western tip of Sicily, followed by the shortest path from each (Fig. 1, orange lines), with the addition of a (D) coastal route along the west coast of Italy (Fig. 1, purple line) as a continuation of previous coastal alternatives. Note that multiple other alternatives exist, including avoiding deep areas but then travelling directly across the relatively shallow central and northern Adriatic Sea, or passing along the islands of Sardinia and Corsica. Not all of these were explored and the presented scenarios are simply a generic representation of potential paths undertaken by the dolphin and are not meant to indicate known or the only viable trajectories. Mapping and distance calculation was carried out using QGIS 3.18.2-Zürich (QGIS Development Team 2021).
Given the sighting locations, Lino first had to travel a minimum of 1251 km across the Tyrrhenian, Ionian and Adriatic Seas (Fig. 1, Table 1). This movement (A-1) assumes travelling through the narrow Strait of Messina, across deep waters of the Gulf of Otranto and across deep waters of the southern Adriatic Sea (Fig. 1). On the other hand, if he travelled around Sicily instead (A-2), he would have to travel a minimum of 1743 km (Table 1). Travel distances of other alternative scenarios are shown in Table 1. Lino then had to travel a minimum of 2053 km back across the Adriatic, Ionian and Tyrrhenian Seas, as well as the Ligurian Sea (Fig. 1, Table 1), nearly doubling the distance of the previous movement. This shortest-path movement (C-1) assumes the shortest possible route back to Messina Strait, and then a straight line across the deep part of the Tyrrhenian Sea to the northern tip of Corsica, and across the deep waters of the Ligurian Sea (Fig. 1). The shortest path involving a trip around Sicily (C-2) would amount to 2307 km. Other alternatives to the second movement are provided in Table 1.
Published records of long-distance (≥ 100 km) movements by bottlenose dolphins worldwide are shown in Appendix, Table A1. While it is possible that some were missed, Table A1 likely represents a rather comprehensive overview of relevant published records. This extensive review suggests that both trips reported in our study qualify as the longest recorded movement for this species in the Mediterranean Sea to date, and the second trip is the second longest movement reported worldwide. As inferred from Table A1, most of the recorded ‘extremely’ long-distance (≥ 1000 km) movements were performed by solitary-sociable dolphins (Nunny and Simmonds 2019), and by the offshore ecotype of this species (Wells et al. 1999). There is no evidence to suggest that Lino is a solitary-sociable dolphin, given his re-sighting history in the Aeolian archipelago, the two sightings in the Gulf of Trieste, as well as the two sightings in the western Ligurian Sea. He was observed interacting with conspecifics in an apparently normal fashion in all three areas and did not display unusual behaviour consistent with that of solitary-sociable dolphins (Nunny and Simmonds 2019). Moreover, it can reasonably be assumed that Lino belongs to the coastal or inshore ecotype. There is currently limited evidence for the presence of a pelagic or offshore ecotype in the Mediterranean Sea (Bearzi et al. 2009; Gaspari et al. 2015b) and there is no reason to believe Lino belonged to such an ecotype.
The only documented movement of free-ranging, non-solitary-sociable, ‘coastal’ ecotype bottlenose dolphins comparable to the one reported here, is one by Robinson et al. (2012), of one individual (among eight reported by the study) re-sighted 1277 km apart, between Scotland and Ireland. All other documented movements in Europe were substantially shorter, with the exception of oceanic movements of up to 1000 km between Macaronesian archipelagos in the eastern North Atlantic Ocean (Dinis et al. 2021). The first movement reported here (1251 km) exceeds the existing longest recorded movements by this species in the Mediterranean Sea by more than twice, whereas the second one (2053 km) exceeds it by more than 4x (Appendix, Table A1). Moreover, the second movement, between the northern Adriatic Sea and the western Ligurian Sea, appears to be the second longest documented movement for any individual of this species worldwide, and the longest reported for any coastal or inshore bottlenose dolphin (Appendix, Table A1). The only documented movement longer than the one reported here was one of a satellite-tagged offshore ecotype bottlenose dolphin in the western North Atlantic Ocean, following a live stranding event and subsequent rehabilitation in captivity lasting 39 days (4200 km, Wells et al. 1999). Another movement reported from the same study, of 2050 km, was of a satellite-tagged ‘intermediate’ form (intermediate between inshore and offshore ecotype), also following a live stranding event and subsequent rehabilitation of 85 days (Wells et al. 1999). Since both of those individuals were satellite-tagged, their paths were tracked in nearly real time. The live stranding event and the subsequent rehabilitation, handling and tagging may or may not have affected their behaviour and movements (Wells et al. 1999). In the case presented here, however, the distances of 1251 and 2053 km are based on the shortest possible path and it is possible (or even likely) that Lino made substantially longer trips than that (Table 1), whereas its movements can be considered independent of any human care.
The causes of the movements reported here can only be speculated upon. Whether Lino left his former home due to decreased quality or carrying capacity of the local habitat (Grant 1978), or due to other reasons, such as competition for mates (Dobson 1982; Lawson Handley and Perrin 2007), remains unknown. Encounter rates in the Aeolian archipelago have declined between 2005 and 2011, suggesting a decline in overall abundance across the study area (Blasi and Boitani 2012). Encounter rates were also found to correlate with the presence of trammel nets (Blasi et al. 2015), which may lead to injuries resulting from retaliation by fishermen or entanglement in this fishing gear (Leone et al. 2019; Bruno et al. 2021).
The fact that Lino has been determined to be a male is consistent with the general notion that males tend to be the dispersing sex, both in this genus (Krützen et al. 2004; Möller and Beheregaray 2004; Bearzi et al. 2011) and in mammals generally (Greenwood 1980; Dobson 1982; Lawson Handley and Perrin 2007), although genetic evidence from the Mediterranean Sea and the North Atlantic Ocean has suggested that female bottlenose dolphins may be equally important (Natoli et al. 2005; Rosel et al. 2009) or potentially even more important (Gaspari et al. 2015a) in promoting gene flow. Kin cooperation and familiarity with the natal area, particularly in relation to potential foraging specialisation, may oppose sex-biased dispersal and promote natal philopatry (Lawson Handley and Perrin 2007; Rosel et al. 2009). On the other hand, the potentially diminished quality of local habitat in the Aeolian archipelago and the declining dolphin abundance there (Blasi and Boitani 2012) due to fishing pressures or other reasons (Bruno et al. 2021) may have promoted dispersal, particularly if the individual was largely solitary. The tendency of being largely solitary or only interacting with males for short periods of time in the Aeolian archipelago (Blasi and Boitani 2014) is interesting to note. During his first sighting in the Gulf of Trieste Lino was also observed with a local male bottlenose dolphin, who tends to be rather solitary himself (Genov et al. 2019), and subsequently observed alone. In the western Ligurian Sea, however, Lino was seen in a rather large group including females with calves.
It is unknown how long Lino stayed in the Gulf of Trieste, but he was not seen again after his last sighting in March 2020. Roughly 200 bottlenose dolphin sightings were recorded in the Gulf of Trieste since then, with group sizes up to 45 individuals (Morigenos, unpublished data), but Lino was not among them. Likewise, he has not been observed in any of the three study areas since his last sighting in the western Ligurian Sea.
The existing evidence from photo-ID, genetics and ecological markers such as stable isotopes largely suggests that most local populations or subpopulations of bottlenose dolphins in the Mediterranean Sea are largely discrete or at least somewhat well-defined units (Natoli et al. 2005; Genov et al. 2009; Gnone et al. 2011; Gaspari et al. 2015a, 2015b; Gonzalvo et al. 2016; Giménez et al. 2018; Pleslić et al. 2019). However, bottlenose dolphins in the region have also been documented undertaking movements over substantial distances (Bearzi et al. 2011; Gnone et al. 2011; Genov et al. 2016). Such movements, and particularly the two extreme cases presented in this paper, challenge the traditional view of such relatively discrete units, especially considering the short time frame of the second movement. This may partly explain some of the patterns observed through population genetics, such as apparent close genetic relatedness among some individuals from distant locations within the Mediterranean Sea (Gaspari et al., unpublished), and may help place the results of genetic analyses into proper context. While the natal philopatry and site fidelity appear to be a marked feature of most populations, it may be that bottlenose dolphins make substantial movements more often than currently recognised, and such movements are likely to promote gene flow. Their perceived absence, or rather the paucity of reports indicating long-distance movements, may be due to the lack of consistent sharing of photo-ID catalogues. While this type of collaboration is generally encouraged, it seldom happens in practice. There may be reluctance because the process can be tedious or due to concerns about confidentiality and data ownership. Arguably, exchange may not happen simply due to the expectation that matches among distant areas are unlikely. However, such attempts are worthwhile. For instance, a sighting of a common dolphin (Delphinus delphis) in the northern Adriatic Sea, a region where the species had become extremely rare (Bearzi et al. 2004; Genov et al. 2021), prompted image comparison with the Ionian Sea (Bearzi et al. 2008), resulting in the longest movement reported for this species worldwide (Genov et al. 2012). Other examples include matches of humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) between ocean basins (Robbins et al. 2011; Stevick et al. 2011, 2013; Acevedo et al. 2022). Ideally, various approaches, including photo-ID and population genetics, should be combined as much as possible to infer movement rates and connectivity of bottlenose dolphins and other species in the Mediterranean Sea and elsewhere. The existing and ongoing advances in automated matching software (such as the finFindR package used here) may facilitate the exchange and matching of catalogues in the future. Photo-ID matching is a labour-intensive and time-consuming endeavour, but automated approaches (see Karczmarski et al. 2022 for several examples) can potentially eliminate some of the common obstacles to efficient data sharing by making the process easier and more time-efficient.
It remains to be seen if Lino is sighted again in any of the three study areas or elsewhere in the future. Regional photo-ID comparisons may provide further insights into the movements of this and other dolphins and will be helpful in improving our understanding of movements of bottlenose dolphins and other cetaceans across the region and worldwide (Carpinelli et al. 2014). This in turn may be relevant to the Conservation Management Plan for the Mediterranean Sea bottlenose dolphin and other species, currently being developed in the framework of the Agreement on the Conservation of Cetaceans of the Black Sea, Mediterranean Sea and contiguous Atlantic Area (ACCOBAMS).
This study further demonstrates the utility of photo-ID to study marine mammal movements. It also shows that our understanding of the behaviour and movement patterns of these animals is still limited, and highlights the importance of regional data sharing in understanding cetacean ranging patterns, connectivity and population structure. We hope it will serve as a simple yet valuable example and encouragement for a more frequent collaborative effort in field studies, especially if they take place in relative geographic proximity.
Acevedo J, Aguayo-Lobo A, Beeman P, Cheeseman T, Olavarría C (2022) From the Antarctic Peninsula to eastern Australia: the longest migration of a humpback whale through the South Pacific Ocean. Mamm Biol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42991-021-00195-2
Ascheri D, Fontanesi E, Ballardini M, Nani B, Alessi J. Occurrence, site fidelity, and abundance of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) in the Western Ligurian Sea. J Cetacean Res Manage (in press)
Bearzi G, Holcer D, Notarbartolo di Sciara G (2004) The role of historical dolphin takes and habitat degradation in shaping the present status of northern Adriatic cetaceans. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshwat Ecosyst 14:363–379. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.626
Bearzi G, Agazzi S, Gonzalvo J, Costa M, Bonizzoni S, Politi E, Piroddi C, Reeves RR (2008) Overfishing and the disappearance of short-beaked common dolphins from western Greece. Endanger Species Res 5:1–12. https://doi.org/10.3354/esr00103
Bearzi G, Fortuna CM, Reeves RR (2009) Ecology and conservation of common bottlenose dolphins Tursiops truncatus in the Mediterranean Sea. Mammal Rev 39:92–123. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2907.2008.00133.x
Bearzi G, Bonizzoni S, Gonzalvo J (2011) Mid-distance movements of common bottlenose dolphins in the coastal waters of Greece. J Ethol 29:369–374. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10164-010-0245-x
Bearzi G, Bonizzoni S, Santostasi N, Furey N, Eddy L, Valavanis V, Gimenez O (2016) Dolphins in a scaled-down Mediterranean: the Gulf of Corinth's odontocetes. In: Notarbartolo Sciara G de, Podestà M, Curry BE (eds), Elsevier, p 297–331
Blasi MF, Boitani L (2012) Modelling fine-scale distribution of the bottlenose dolphin Tursiops truncatus using physiographic features on Filicudi (southern Thyrrenian Sea, Italy). Endanger Species Res 17:269–288. https://doi.org/10.3354/esr00422
Blasi MF, Boitani L (2014) Complex social structure of an endangered population of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) in the Aeolian Archipelago (Italy). PLoS ONE 9:e114849. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0114849
Blasi MF, Giuliani A, Boitani L (2015) Influence of trammel nets on the behaviour and spatial distribution of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) in the Aeolian Archipelago, southern Italy. Aquat Mamm 41:295–310. https://doi.org/10.1578/AM.41.3.2015.295
Blasi MF, Bruno C, Boitani L (2020) Female reproductive output in a Mediterranean bottlenose dolphin Tursiops truncatus population. Aquat Biol 29:123–136. https://doi.org/10.3354/ab00732
Bruno C, Caserta V, Salzeri P, Bonanno Ferraro G, Pecoraro F, Lucchetti A, Boitani L, Blasi MF (2021) Acoustic deterrent devices as mitigation tool to prevent dolphin-fishery interactions in the Aeolian Archipelago (Southern Tyrrhenian Sea, Italy). Mediterr Mar Scie 22:408–421. https://doi.org/10.12681/mms.23129
Camphuysen CJ, Peet G (2006) Walvissen en dolfijnen in de Noordzee. Fontaine Uitgevers, Kortenhoef
Carnabuci M, Schiavon G, Bellingeri M, Fossa F, Paoli C, Vassallo P, Gnone G (2016) Connectivity in the network macrostructure of Tursiops truncatus in the Pelagos Sanctuary (NW Mediterranean Sea): does landscape matter? Popul Ecol 58:249–264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10144-016-0540-7
Carpinelli E, Gauffier P, Verborgh P, Airoldi S, David L, Di-Méglio N, Cañadas A, Frantzis A, Rendell L, Lewis T, Mussi B, Pace DS, De Stephanis R (2014) Assessing sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus) movements within the western Mediterranean Sea through photo-identification. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshwat Ecosyst 24:23–30. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2446
Cheney B, Thompson PM, Ingram SN, Hammond PS, Stevick PT, Durban JW, Culloch RM, Elwen SH, Mandleberg L, Janik VM, Quick NJ, Islas-Villanueva V, Robinson KP, Costa M, Eisfeld S, Walters A, Phillips C, Weir CR, Evans PGH, Anderwald P, Reid RJ, Reid JB, Wilson B (2013) Integrating multiple data sources to assess the distribution and abundance of bottlenose dolphins Tursiops truncatus in Scottish waters. Mammal Rev 43:71–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2907.2011.00208.x
Corkeron PJ, Martin AR (2004) Ranging and diving behaviour of two ‘offshore’ bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops sp., off eastern Australia. J Mar Biol Assoc UK 84:465–468. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025315404009464h
Currey RJ, Dawson SM, Slooten E, Schneider K, Lusseau D, Boisseau OJ, Haase P, Williams JA (2009) Survival rates for a declining population of bottlenose dolphins in Doubtful Sound, New Zealand: an information theoretic approach to assessing the role of human impacts. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshwat Ecosyst 19:658–670. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.1015
Defran R, Weller DW (1999) Occurrence, distribution, site fidelity, and school size of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) off San Diego, California. Mar Mamm Sci 15:366–380. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.1999.tb00807.x
Defran R, Weller DW, Kelly DL, Espinosa MA (1999) Range characteristics of Pacific coast bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) in the Southern California Bight. Mar Mamm Sci 15:381–393. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.1999.tb00808.x
Defran RH, Caldwell M, Morteo E, Lang AR, Rice MG, Weller DW (2015) Possible stock structure of coastal bottlenose dolphins off Baja California and California revealed by photo-identification research. Bull South Calif Acad Sci 114:1–11. https://doi.org/10.3160/0038-3872-114.1.1
Dhermain F, Ripoll T, Bompar J, David L, Di Meglio N (1999) First evidence of the movement of a bottlenose dolphin Tursiops truncatus between Corsica and Hyeres Archipelago, southeastern France. Eur Res Cetaceans 13:306–311
Dinis A, Molina C, Tobeña M, Sambolino A, Hartman K, Fernandez M, Magalhães S, Dos Santos RP, Ritter F, Martín V, Aguilar de Soto N, Alves F (2021) Large-scale movements of common bottlenose dolphins in the Atlantic: dolphins with an international courtyard. PeerJ 9:e11069. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.11069
Doak W (1995) Friends in the Sea. Solo dolphins in New Zealand and Australia. Hodder Moa Becket Publishers Limited, Auckland, New Zealand
Dobson FS (1982) Competition for mates and predominant juvenile male dispersal in mammals. Anim Behav 30:1183–1192. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-3472(82)80209-1
Gaspari S, Holcer D, Mackelworth P, Fortuna C, Frantzis A, Genov T, Vighi M, Natali C, Rako N, Banchi E, Chelazzi G, Ciofi C (2015a) Population genetic structure of common bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) in the Adriatic Sea and contiguous regions: implications for international conservation. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshwat Ecosyst 25:212–222. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2415
Gaspari S, Scheinin A, Holcer D, Fortuna C, Natali C, Genov T, Frantzis A, Chelazzi G, Moura AE (2015b) Drivers of population structure of the bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea. Evol Biol 42:177–190. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11692-015-9309-8
Gaspari S, Dooley C, Shreves K, Silva CS, Chapman N, Genov T, Gonzalvo J, Holcer D, Moura AE. Connectivity patterns of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) in the north-east Mediterranean: implications for local conservation (Unpublished manuscript)
Gauffier P, Verborgh P, Murcia JL, García P, Morata A, Esteban R, Masski H, Giménez J, de Stephanis R (2017) Desde Ceuta hasta Saidia, movimientos de delfines mulares en el sur de Alborán. Almoraima Revista De Estudios Campogibraltareños 47:7–11
Genov T, Kotnjek P, Lesjak J, Hace A, Fortuna CM (2008) Bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) in Slovenian and adjacent waters (northern Adriatic Sea). Annales, Series Historia Naturalis 18:227–244
Genov T, Wiemann A, Fortuna CM (2009) Towards identification of the bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) population structure in the north-eastern Adriatic Sea: preliminary results. Varstvo Narave 22:73–80
Genov T, Bearzi G, Bonizzoni S, Tempesta M (2012) Long-distance movement of a lone short-beaked common dolphin Delphinus delphis in the central Mediterranean Sea. Mar Biodivers Rec 5:e9. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755267211001163
Genov T, Angelini V, Hace A, Palmisano G, Petelin B, Malačič V, Pari S, Mazzariol S (2016) Mid-distance re-sighting of a common bottlenose dolphin in the northern Adriatic Sea: insight into regional movement patterns. J Mar Biol Assoc UK 96:909–914. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025315415001241
Genov T, Centrih T, Kotnjek P, Hace A (2019) Behavioural and temporal partitioning of dolphin social groups in the northern Adriatic Sea. Mar Biol 166:11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-018-3450-8
Genov T, Kotnjek P, Centrih T (2021) Occurrence of common dolphins (Delphinus delphis) in the Gulf of Trieste and the northern Adriatic Sea. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshwat Ecosyst 31:69–75. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.3407
Genov T (2021) Population ecology, behaviour and conservation status of common bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) in the Gulf of Trieste and adjacent waters of the northern Adriatic Sea. PhD thesis, University of St Andrews, 220
Giménez J, Louis M, Barón E, Ramírez F, Verborgh P, Gauffier P, Esteban R, Eljarrat E, Barceló D, Forero MG, de Stephanis R (2018) Towards the identification of ecological management units: a multidisciplinary approach for the effective management of bottlenose dolphins in the southern Iberian Peninsula. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshwat Ecosyst 28:205–215. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2814
Gladilina E, Shpak O, Serbin V, Kryukova A, Glazov D, Gol’din P (2018) Individual movements between local coastal populations of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) in the northern and eastern Black Sea. J Mar Biol Assoc UK 98:223–229. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025315416001296
Gnone G, Bellingeri M, Dhermain F, Dupraz F, Nuti S, Bedocchi D, Moulins A, Rosso M, Alessi J, McCrea R, Azzellino A, Airoldi S, Portunato N, Laran S, David L, Di Meglio N, Bonelli P, Montesi G, Trucchi R, Fossa F, Wurtz M (2011) Distribution, abundance, and movements of the bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) in the Pelagos Sanctuary MPA (north-west Mediterranean Sea). Aquat Conserv Mar Freshwat Ecosyst 21:372–388. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.1191
Gonzalvo J, Forcada J, Grau E, Aguilar A (2014) Strong site-fidelity increases vulnerability of common bottlenose dolphins Tursiops truncatus in a mass tourism destination in the western Mediterranean Sea. J Mar Biol Assoc UK 94:1227–1235. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025315413000866
Gonzalvo J, Lauriano G, Hammond PS, Viaud-Martinez KA, Fossi MC, Natoli A, Marsili L (2016) The Gulf of Ambracia’s common bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops truncatus: a highly dense and yet threatened population. Adv Mar Biol 75:259–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.amb.2016.07.002
Gonzalvo J, Agazzi S (2018) A finless common bottlenose dolphin successfully coping with its twist of fate.in 32nd Annual Conference of the European Cetacean Society. European Cetacean Society, La Spezia, Italy
Gonzalvo J, Notarbartolo di Sciara G, Airoldi S, Azzellino A, Bellingeri M, Bittau L, De Santis V, Gnone G, Labach H, Lanfredi C, Nuti S, Simon-Bouhet B (2018) Dolphins Without Borders. Final report. Prince Albert II of Monaco Foundation and Pelagos Secretariat Convention No. 2018–09. 57
Grant PR (1978) Dispersal in relation to carrying capacity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 75:2854–2858. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.75.6.2854
Greenwood PJ (1980) Mating systems, philopatry and dispersal in birds and mammals. Anim Behav 28:140–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-3472(80)80103-5
Gruber JA (1981) Ecology of the Atlantic bottlenosed dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) in the Pass Cavallo area of Matagorda Bay. Texas. Texas A&M University, College Station
Hoekendijk JP, Leopold MF, Cheney BJ (2021) Bottlenose dolphins in the Netherlands come from two sides: across the North Sea and through the English Channel. J Mar Biol Ass u.k. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025315421000679
IJsseldijk LL, van Schalkwijk L, van den Berg A, ten Doeschate MT, Everaarts E, Keijl GO, Kuijpers N, Bravo Rebolledo EL, Veraa S, Kik MJ, Leopold MF (2020) Fatal attraction: the death of a solitary-sociable bottlenose dolphin due to anthropogenic trauma in the Netherlands. Lutra 63:17–32
Jones SCI (1991) Movements of bottlenose dolphins between inlets along the Texas coast. Abstracts of the 9th biennial conference on the biology of marine mammals, Chicago, IL
Karczmarski L, Chan SCY, Rubenstein DI, Chui SYS, Cameron EZ (2022) Individual identification and photographic techniques in mammalian ecological and behavioural research – Part 1: Methods and concepts. Mamm Biol (Special Issue) 102(3). https://link.springer.com/journal/42991/volumes-and-issues/102-3
Krützen M, Sherwin WB, Berggren P, Gales N (2004) Population structure in an inshore cetacean revealed by microsatellite and mtDNA analysis: bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops sp.) in Shark Bay Western Australia. Mar Mammal Sci 20:28–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.2004.tb01139.x
Lawson Handley L, Perrin N (2007) Advances in our understanding of mammalian sex-biased dispersal. Mol Ecol 16:1559–1578. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2006.03152.x
Leone AB, Bonanno Ferraro G, Boitani L, Blasi MF (2019) Skin marks in bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) interacting with artisanal fishery in the central Mediterranean Sea. PLoS ONE 14:e0211767. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211767
Lockyer C (1978) The history and behaviour of a solitary wild, but sociable, bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) on the west coast of England and Wales. J Nat Hist 12:513–528. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222937800770371
Lockyer C, Müller M (2003) Solitary, yet sociable. In: Frohoff T, Peterson B (eds) Between species: celebrating the dolphin-human bond. Sierra Club Books, San Francisco, CA, pp 138–150
Lodi L, Wedekin LL, Rossi-Santos MR, Marcondes MC (2008) Movements of the bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) in the Rio de Janeiro State, southeastern Brazil. Biota Neotropic 8:205–209. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1676-06032008000400020
Lynn SK, Würsig B (2002) Summer movement patterns of bottlenose dolphins in a Texas bay. Gulf of Mexico Sci 20:25–37. https://doi.org/10.1875/goms.2001.03
Mate BR, Rossbach KA, Nieukirk SL, Wells RS, Irvine AB, Scott MD, Read AJ (1995) Satellite-monitored movements and dive behavior of a bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) in Tampa Bay, Florida. Mar Mamm Sci 11:452–463
Mauri E, Poulain P-M (2001) Northern Adriatic sea surface circulation and temperature/pigment fields in september and october 1997. J Mar Syst 29:51–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0924-7963(01)00009-4
Möller LM, Beheregaray LB (2004) Genetic evidence for sex-biased dispersal in resident bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops aduncus). Mol Ecol 13:1607–1612. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2004.02137.x
Müller M, Battersby M, Buurman D, Bossley M, Doak W (1998) Range and sociability of a solitary bottlenose dolphin Tursiops truncatus in New Zealand. Aquat Mamm 24:93–104
Natoli A, Birkun A, Aguilar A, Lopez A, Hoelzel AR (2005) Habitat structure and the dispersal of male and female bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus). Proc Royal Soc B: Biol Sci 272:1217–1226. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2005.3076
Nunny L, Simmonds MP (2019) A global reassessment of solitary-sociable dolphins. Front Vet Sci 5:331. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2018.00331
Nykänen M, Louis M, Dillane E, Alfonsi E, Berrow S, O’Brien J, Brownlow A, Covelo P, Dabin W, Deaville R, de Stephanis R, Gally F, Gauffier P, Ingram SN, Lucas T, Mirimin L, Penrose R, Rogan E, Silva MA, Simon-Bouhet B, Gaggiotti OE (2019) Fine-scale population structure and connectivity of bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops truncatus, in European waters and implications for conservation. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshwat Ecosyst 29:197–211. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.3139
Nykänen M, Oudejans MG, Rogan E, Durban JW, Ingram S (2020) Challenges in monitoring mobile populations: applying bayesian multi-site mark–recapture abundance estimation to the monitoring of a highly mobile coastal population of bottlenose dolphins. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshwat Ecosyst 30:1674–1688. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.3355
O’Brien JM, Berrow S, Ryan C, McGrath D, O’Connor I, Pesante G, Burrows G, Masset N, Klötzer V, Whooley P (2010) A note on long-distance matches of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) around the Irish coast using photo-identification. J Cetac Res Manage 11:69–74
Papale E, Ceraulo M, Giardino G, Buffa G, Filiciotto F, Grammauta R, Maccarrone V, Mazzola S, Buscaino G (2017) Association patterns and population dynamics of bottlenose dolphins in the strait of sicily (Central Mediterranean Sea): implication for management. Popul Ecol 59:55–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10144-016-0566-x
Pleslić G, Rako-Gospić N, Miočić-Stošić J, BlazinićVučur T, Radulović M, Mackelworth P, Frleta-Valić M, Holcer D (2019) Social structure and spatial distribution of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) along the Croatian Adriatic coast. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshwat Ecosyst 29:2116–2132. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.3213
QGIS Development Team (2021) QGIS Geographic Information System. Open Source Geospatial Foundation Project. http://qgis.osgeo.org.
R Core Team (2020) R: A language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL https://www.R-project.org/.
Robbins J, Dalla Rosa L, Allen JM, Mattila DK, Secchi ER, Friedlaender AS, Stevick PT, Nowacek DP, Steel D (2011) Return movement of a humpback whale between the Antarctic Peninsula and American Samoa: a seasonal migration record. Endanger Species Res 13:117–121. https://doi.org/10.3354/esr00328
Robinson KP, O’Brien JM, Berrow SD, Cheney B, Costa M, Eisfeld SM, Haberlin D, Mandleberg L, O’Donovan M, Oudejans MG, Ryan C, Stevick PT, Thompson PM, Whooley P (2012) Discrete or not so discrete: long distance movements by coastal bottlenose dolphins in UK and Irish waters. J Cetac Res Manage 12:365–371
Rosel P, Hansen L, Hohn A (2009) Restricted dispersal in a continuously distributed marine species: common bottlenose dolphins Tursiops truncatus in coastal waters of the western North Atlantic. Mol Ecol 18:5030–5045. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2009.04413.x
Silva MA, Prieto R, Magalhães S, Seabra MI, Santos RS, Hammond PS (2008) Ranging patterns of bottlenose dolphins living in oceanic waters: implications for population structure. Mar Biol 156:179–192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-008-1075-z
Stevick PT, Neves MC, Johansen F, Engel MH, Allen J, Marcondes MC, Carlson C (2011) A quarter of a world away: female humpback whale moves 10 000 km between breeding areas. Biol Let 7:299–302. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2010.0717
Stevick PT, Allen JM, Engel MH, Félix F, Haase B, Neves MC (2013) Inter-oceanic movement of an adult female humpback whale between Pacific and Atlantic breeding grounds off South America. J Cetac Res Manage 13:159–162
Tanaka S (1987) Satellite radio tracking of bottlenose dolphins Tursiops truncatus. Nippon Suisan Gakkaishi 53:1327–1338. https://doi.org/10.2331/suisan.53.1327
Taylor BL, Martien K, Morin P (2010) Identifying units to conserve using genetic data. In: IL Boyd, Bowen WD, Iverson S (eds). Marine mammal ecology and conservation: a handbook of techniques. Oxford University Press, p 306–324
Thompson JW, Zero VH, Schwacke LH, Speakman TR, Quigley BM, Morey JS, McDonald TL (2022) finFindR: Automated recognition and identification of marine mammal dorsal fins using residual convolutional neural networks. Mar Mamm Sci 38:139–150. https://doi.org/10.1111/mms.12849
Tobeña M, Escánez A, Rodríguez Y, López C, Ritter F, Aguilar N (2014) Inter-island movements of common bottlenose dolphins Tursiops truncatus among the Canary Islands: online catalogues and implications for conservation and management. Afr J Mar Sci 36:137–141. https://doi.org/10.2989/1814232X.2013.873738
Wells RS, Hansen LJ, Baldridge A, Dohl TP, Kelly DL, Defran RH (1990) Northward extension of the range of bottlenose dolphins along the California coast. In: Leatherwood S, Reeves RR (eds) The Bottlenose Dolphin. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 421–431
Wells RS, Rhinehart HL, Cunningham P, Whaley J, Baran M, Koberna C, Costa D (1999) Long distance offshore movements of bottlenose dolphins. Mar Mamm Sci 15:1098–1114. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.1999.tb00879.x
Wilson B, Thompson PM, Hammond PS (1997) Habitat use by bottlenose dolphins: seasonal distribution and stratified movement patterns in the Moray Firth, Scotland. J Appl Ecol 34:1365–1374. https://doi.org/10.2307/2405254
Wilson B, Reid RJ, Grellier K, Thompson PM, Hammond PS (2004) Considering the temporal when managing the spatial: a population range expansion impacts protected areas-based management for bottlenose dolphins. Anim Conserv 7:331–338. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1367943004001581
Wood C (1998) Movement of bottlenose dolphins around the south-west coast of Britain. J Zool (Lond). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.1998.tb00144.x
Würsig B (1978) Occurrence and group organization of Atlantic bottlenose porpoises (Tursiops truncatus) in an Argentine bay. Biol Bull 154:348–359. https://doi.org/10.2307/1541132
The match reported in this manuscript was discovered via unconventional means, which we thought was interesting and worthwhile to share here. In February 2021, the 1st meeting of the Joint Bycatch Working Group of ACCOBAMS (Agreement on the Conservation of Cetaceans of the Black Sea, Mediterranean Sea and contiguous Atlantic Area) and ASCOBANS (Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans of the Baltic, North East Atlantic, Irish and North Sea) was organised virtually, where TG and MFB both presented their work. TG recognised one of the dorsal fins in MFB’s presentation, contacted her, and subsequently confirmed the match with other authors. TG, JŽ, CB and MFB presented this online at the 33rd conference of the European Cetacean Society, where DA and EF recognised the same individual from their own study area and contacted the original authors. We thank all the Morigenos team members who participated in the fieldwork that resulted in the two sightings of this dolphin in the Gulf of Trieste, especially Danijel Mrvoš, Sašo Gorjanc, Polona Kotnjek and Natalija Žlavs. We also thank the local fisherman Rok Domnik for reporting his dolphin sighting to Morigenos, which allowed an immediate response and led to the second sighting of this individual in the area. We thank all volunteers of Filicudi WildLife Conservation that assisted with the field data collection and analyses that led to the available information about this individual in the Aeolian archipelago. We thank all the Delfini del Ponente team members and volunteers who participated in the field work and sorting of the photographs involved in this matching, in particular Enrico Carta. MFB’s participation at the meeting of the ACCOBAMS-ASCOBANS Joint Bycatch Working Group was in the framework of the Life DELFI project, co-financed by the European Community under the LIFE programme. We thank Laetitia Nunny for providing a difficult to find piece of literature. The authors would also like to thank ACCOBAMS and ASCOBANS Secretariats, in particular Jenny Renell, as well as the co-chairs of the ACCOBAMS-ASCOBANS Joint Bycatch Working Group, Ayaka Amaha Öztürk and Peter Evans, for organising the online meeting that eventually led to the findings reported here. Finally, we thank the Editors Leszek Karczmarski and Stephen C.Y. Chan, and one anonymous reviewer, for constructive comments that helped improve the manuscript.
Conflict of interest
Authors declare no competing interests.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Handling editors: Leszek Karczmarski and Stephen C.Y. Chan.
This article is a contribution to the special issue on “Individual Identification and Photographic Techniques in Mammalian Ecological and Behavioural Research – Part 2: Field Studies and Applications” — Editors: Leszek Karczmarski, Stephen C.Y. Chan, Scott Y.S. Chui and Elissa Z. Cameron.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
See Appendix Table A1. Only values larger than 100 km are listed, even if some animals from the study populations performed shorter movements. When distances were not provided directly in the published papers, they were derived from Google Earth based on geographical locations and descriptions in the text and are therefore approximate. In cases of solitary-sociable dolphins where multiple movements were performed, only maximum distances are reported. ‘Photo-ID’ is listed as the method for both ‘standard’ photo-ID studies as well as cases of solitary-sociable dolphins, as it was assumed that some form of photo-ID or visual identification had to be carried out for the latter.
Note that the study by Mate et al. 1995 has been cited in some of the existing literature as an example of long-distance movements. However, that study reported cumulative distance of multi-directional movements of a tagged dolphin within Tampa Bay (Florida), which therefore does not constitute a long-distance movement.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Genov, T., Železnik, J., Bruno, C. et al. The longest recorded movement of an inshore common bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus). Mamm Biol (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42991-022-00316-5
- Bottlenose dolphin
- Long-distance movements
- Mediterranean Sea
- Tursiops truncatus