Journal of Marine Animals and Their Ecology Vol 2, No1, 2009

Copyright © 2008 Oceanographic Environmental Research Society Printed in Canada

The short-term impact of dolphin-watching on the behaviour of bottlenose

dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) in western Australia.
Antonella Arcangeli 1,2 and Roberto Crosti 3
1
Accademia del Leviatano, Rome, Italy
2
ISPRA, Dipartimento Difesa della Natura, Rome, Italy
3
School of Environmental Science, Murdoch University, Perth, Western Australia

Abstract mal behaviour changes in response to these interactions.

This paper presents the research findings of interactions be- Changes in behavioural pattern can be used as an early indica-
tween bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) and a dolphin- tor of the impact of human activities and can help wildlife man-
watching Tour Boat in Bunbury (Western Australia). Sixty- agement to adopt appropriate conservation measures to re-
four hours of surface behaviour observations were collected duce the consequences of disturbance and population vulner-
with "focal group sampling" assessed over three minute inter- ability.
vals. The study compared behaviour patterns both with and Studies on small cetaceans in the presence of tour vessels
without the presence of the Tour Boat. The results show that have documented short-term changes in animal activity includ-
ing: breathing rates in Tursiops truncatus (T.t.) (25, 34); swim-
the presence of the Tour Boat can influence the duration (time
ming directions in Stenella spp., Orcinus orca and Tursiops
spent) and frequency (number of occurrences) of behavioural
aduncus (7, 45, 27) and speed in Orcinus orca and T.t. (26;
states and also the structure of the population. The time spent 34); diving times in T.t. and Sousa chinensis (20; 33); phona-
resting (P<0.05) and feeding (P<0.01) decreased, whereas tion rates in T.t. (39, 14); specific behavioural states such as
travelling (P<0.01) increased. The frequency of all the behav- travelling (27) and feeding (2), behavioural state patterns (28,
ioural states increased, in particular travelling, resting (P<0.01) 17) and synchrony (23), in T.t.. Furthermore, Bejder et al. (12)
and feeding (P<0.05). The group structure was also influenced evaluated changes in relative abundance due to long-term dis-
(χ2 =11.44; P<0.01), as dolphins tend to spread in more groups turbance in bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops sp.). Other studies
of fewer animals in the presence of the Tour Boat. The behav- have focused on the interactions between dolphins (T.t.) and
iour analysis of the direct reaction of animals in close contact “swim-with” activities (38).
by the Tour Boat showed that dolphins displayed attraction in However, due to the massive growth of this new anthropo-
20% of cases and were deterred in 28% of cases; for the rest, genic activity, more information is needed to better understand
the response was neutral. The short-term changes in behaviour the impact of these interactions on wildlife and to be able to
pattern can be used as an early indicator of potential halt to properly manage the industry and improve the protection
animal vulnerability in order to assess and recommend appro- guidelines that safeguard the watched populations.
priate management and conservation strategies especially in In the Mediterranean Sea, for example, bottlenose dolphin
regions, such as the Mediterranean Sea, where, for the combi- populations (T.t.) are scattered (5, 31) and animals are declin-
ing in number (36). As a consequence, the impact of a human
nation of many disturbance factors, cetacean populations are
activities such as dolphin-watching can have a harmful effect
vulnerable. [JMATE. 2009;2(1):3-9]
on conservation of local populations. On the other hand, sight-
ings are considered more an event then a state and it is very
Keywords: Behavioural state, bottlenose, dolphin-watching, difficult to have enough records of surface behaviour, both
indicator, MPA management, Tursiops. with and without the presence of a Tour Boat, to be able to
—————————————————————————————————— statistically compare differences.
In Australia and New Zealand, by contrast, where marine
Introduction mammals are far more abundant and cetacean tourist activity
Dolphin and whale watching has become a popular eco- is at present more common, data on dolphin behaviour pat-
tourism activity, more than ever during the past 10 years. In terns are easier to collect and statistically meaningful conclu-
some areas, such as the Mediterranean Sea, where dolphin- sions can be drawn. For these reasons a study was undertaken
fishery trophic competition is common (15, 19), it has been on the interactions between bottlenose dolphins (T.t.) and a
even suggested to convert in part the fishing industry into dol- dolphin-watching Tour Boat in Bunbury (Western Australia).
phin-watching in order to transform existing competition into a The study analyses the short-term impact on all the surface
more sustainable activity, especially in Marine Protected Areas. behavioural states (40) and, due to specific conditions that
However, the impact of such activity on marine mammals is excluded any uncertainty from other ‘treatments’ (37, 11), the
still not well known and there is growing concern over the ef- trial was divided into a 'control' (‘without’ the Tour Boat and
fects of this industry on dolphin behaviour and conservation. only the presence of the investigator boat) and an
In order to prevent negative impacts on the animals by 'exposed' (only ‘with’ the Tour Boat and the investigator boat
cetacean watching, relevant conservation authorities have al- present).
ready published reports (9, 24) and observation guidelines (4, The aim of the research was to compare the behaviour of
1). More studies are however needed to better understand and bottlenose dolphins in the absence (‘without’) and presence
verify the effects of this interaction. (‘with’) of a Tour Boat, in order to better understand what
Dolphins deal with anthropogenic activities at sea and ani- kinds of dolphin behaviour were more subject to changes and,

Received July 6, 2008; Accepted January 24, 2009.

Correspondance: Antonella Arcangeli, Accademia del Leviatano, and ISPRA,
Dipartimento Difesa della Natura, Rome, Italy email:
[email protected]
 Short-term impact of dolphin-watching on dolphins

knowing the biology of the species, to suggest appropriate

strategies for approaching the animals and/or reducing, where
necessary, interaction with the wildlife.

Materials and Methods

The area
Bunbury is located approx. 200km south of Perth (Western
Australia). Within Koombana Bay the study site is located at
the right side of the "Cut" of the Leschenault estuary
(33o18.07'S 115o40.20'E) north of the city of Bunbury (Fig. 1).
The study area was chosen because the protected and shallow
waters are home to an already established and structured dol-
phin population. Furthermore many dolphins were already
photo-identified by the Bunbury Dolphin Discovery Centre,
which also assisted the research with trained volunteers. Good
weather conditions during the summer season allowed for ex-
cellent and lasting viewing conditions. The dolphins usually
spend their time in the area around the "Cut". Their behaviour
patterns are of relatively long duration with prolonged se- Figure 1: Map of the study area.
quences of activities. This allowed for long time sampling with
the motor of the investigator inflatable often being turned off. breathing rates less than 30 sec.,
Two or three times a day a Tour Boat interacted with the ani- sometimes with few changes of di-
mals for dolphin watching activity. rection (travelling around), dorsal fin
as superficial behaviour.
Data collection Socialising (S) Physical contact, rubbing, bowing,
A total of 64 hours of sampling of surface behaviours with arching, bonding, sometime with tail
and without the ‘dolphin watching’ Tour Boat were recorded by slapping of some individuals. Many
the same investigator. clicks and whistles. This includes
Behaviour was recorded by scan sampling of the focal playing, which involves chasing or
school with the recording of the predominant group activity, displays of calve or surf on waves.
subsequent to a scan on the individuals within the school, and Resting (R) Slow travel, (<2mph), frequent
assessed over a 3 minutes sampling interval (3, 30). floating at surface, frequent direc-
A school was defined as individuals in apparent association, tion changes.
moving in the same direction, engaged in the same activity Milling (M) No consistent movement (<2mph).
(40) and within 10m of one another (43). Feeding (F) Long dive with rapid surfacing, fre-
The investigator recorded the number of schools visible quent direction changes, fast swim,
from the investigator boat, the number of dolphins and the fish chase, with or without bird div-
surface behaviour in the nearest school. When more than one ing, many clicks and echo-location
school was present, or if two merged or one split, only the sounds.
behaviour of the closest school was recorded together with the Diving (D) Dive longer than 3 min.
number of animals. Data were only collected in good weather
and sea conditions (Beaufort 2 or less). Furthermore, conduct of direct reaction of animals in ‘close
The observation area was considered approximately 350m contact’ by the Tour Boat was recorded in three different cate-
in each direction from the investigator boat, which was ma- gories:
noeuvred as far as possible to minimise effects on the school of
dolphins. Most of the time the engine was turned off and, if the Attracted Bow riding, approaching or follow-
school needed to be followed, the boat moved at approxi- ing the boat, begging.
mately 50m distance, in parallel to the animal’s directions and Neutral Swimming around and underneath
matching the same speed of the school. the boat.
To minimise the effect of the investigator boat as a distur- Deterred Escaping from boat, tail slapping
bance factor, the investigator boat always maintained the same close to the boat, blowing, long dive
procedure with or without the presence of the Tour Boat. The (>3 minutes).
study was undertaken in weekdays and there were rarely other
boats, however, when another boat came within 350m of the The ‘without’ behaviour was recorded in the absence of any
animals, data were not recorded. other vessel, except for the investigator boat, within a distance
The predominant group activity, or behavioural state, was of approximately 350m. The ‘with’ behaviour started from
deduced at the end of the three minute sampling and on the when the Tour Boat was approximately less than 150m from
basis of various objective and discrete factors such as: group the dolphins. Data records of when the Tour Boat was within
type and dimension, association, distance, direction, breathing the 350 and 150m zone, were not used in the analysis. Se-
rates, speed, progress, prey, acoustic and superficial behav- quences ended when the focal school was lost (usually during
iour. The behavioural states were divided into six categories, travelling) or when observation was not possible (bad weather
reciprocally exclusive, such as: condition or day end).
Travelling (T) Straight movement (>2 mph), Uncertain behaviours were uncommon and so have not
 Short-term impact of dolphin-watching on dolphins

been considered in the analysis, together with the first three increased concern for an appropriate management of this in-
sample intervals taken after the arrival of the investigator. dustry. The results of this study will be useful also to test long-
The statistical sample unit was the sequence of the 3 min. term responses to the behaviour pattern due to this specific
sampling interval of the focal school scan sampling. Only se- disturbance factor.
quences longer than 36 min. (12 sampling intervals) were used
to assess differences in behavioural state. Each sequence was Results
separated by the following by a minimum of 45 minutes. Of the 1278 3 minute behavioural sample intervals col-
‘Close contact’ data records (n=36) were analysed sepa- lected, 1028 were used in the analysis: of these 781 were re-
rately and were not used to evaluate the ‘without’ versus the corded without any type of boat present except that of the
‘with’ behavioural state differences. investigator, while 247 were also recorded with the commercial
Tour Boat present.
Data analysis For the ‘without treatment’ the average sequence length
This study compared the states ‘without’ versus ‘with’ the was 69 ± 19.6 minutes; the dolphins tended to associate in
‘dolphin watching’ Tour Boat for the following parameters: schools of a mean group size of 6.93 ± CI 0.65 (St. Dev. 1.74)
a) numbers of school detectable from the investigator boat; and a median of 6. A mean of 1.25 ± CI 0.19 (St. Dev. 0.52)
b) number of dolphins in the school of which the superficial schools were detected (Table 1) and in more than 75% of the
behaviour was recorded; records only one school was sighted (Fig. 2).
c) duration, expressed as relative percentage of time spent For the “with treatment”, the average length of the se-
performing a behavioural state (32); quence was 46.8 ± 4.5 minutes, the mean group size was 6.11
d) frequency, measured as the number of occurrences of a ± CI 0.64 (St. Dev. 1.53) and the median was 6. A mean of
behavioural state per unit of time-30 minutes (32). 1.59 ± CI 0.36 (St. Dev. 0.85) schools of dolphins were de-
Figures are expressed as mean ± standard error. tected (Table 1) and in 40% of the records more than one
Sequences used in the analysis lasted from 36 to 210 minutes school was sighted (Fig. 2).
(mean 63 ± 9 minutes). The duration in the presence of the Tour Boat of travelling,
A total of 28 sequences taken without and 18 sequences taken milling and diving increased, while resting, socialising and feed-
with the Tour Boat (for a total of 51.4 hours) were unpaired ing decreased. Significant difference in the duration of behav-
compared with the Mann-Whitney U-Test to assess differences iour was shown for travelling (P<0.01), feeding (P<0.01) and
in the duration and frequency of behavioural states. resting (P<0.05) (Table 1) (Fig. 3).
The Chi-square Test was used to test the association between The frequency in the presence of the Tour Boat showed an
two treatments and the frequency of: increase in all behaviours (Fig. 4) with a statistically significant
a) numbers of detected schools; difference for travelling (P<0.01), resting (P<0.01) and feeding
b) number of 3 minute sampling intervals spent performing (P<0.05) (Table 1). In most of the cases, dolphins changed
a behavioural state (duration); their behaviour pattern between the first and the third sample
The null hypothesis was that the proportion of number of interval after the arrival (<150 m from the dolphins) of the
detected schools/sampling interval in each of the categories of Tour Boat.
number/behavioural states, was the same without and with the The group structure was also influenced (Table 1, Fig. 2),
presence of the Tour Boat. as dolphins in the presence of the Tour Boat tended to spread
Data were gathered in the summer of 2000 and the deduc- out into more groups with fewer animals. In presence of the
tions are particularly relevant as, with the rising popularity of Tour Boat, in fact, the mean number of detected schools in-
Bunbury as a location for dolphin watching activities, there is creased by 27% while mean group size decreased by 12%; the

Mean number Mean

Close
Duration % Frequency of dolphins Median number of
contact %
per school detected school

Behavioral
T S R M F D T S R M F D
state
Without 27.4 16.0 30.6 3.2 20.0 2.9 0.8 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.1 6.93 6 1.25
With 46.1 12.8 20.1 6.0 7.6 7.5 1.8 0.6 0.8 0.3 0.5 0.4 6.11 6 1.59

Mann-Whitney
U-Test ** * ** ** *

Chi-Square *** **

Attracted 20
Neutral 52
Deterred 28

Table 1: Comparison of states without and with the Tour Boat. Percentage of conduct of close contact by the Tour Boat. Mann-
Whitney U test to assess differences in the duration and frequency of behavioural states. Chi Square to test respectively the associa-
tion between number of sampling interval in each category of behavioural states and the quantity of detected school in each of the
numerical categories, both without and with the Tour Boat. P<0.05=*; P<0.01=**; P<0.001=***. T=Travelling; S=Socializing;
R=Resting; M=Milling; F=Feeding; D=Diving.
 Short-term impact of dolphin-watching on dolphins

without ‘Close contact’ of the animals by the Tour Boat was re-
90
with corded 36 times. Dolphins were attracted in 20% of cases and
80
deterred in 28% of cases; for the rest, the conduct was neutral
70 (Table 1).
60
Relative %

50 Discussion
40 The results show that the presence of the Tour Boat affects
30 the frequency and the duration of the main behaviours and can
20
change the structure of the groups.
Travelling, resting and feeding were the behavioural states
10
more affected by the presence of the Tour Boat.
0
Changes in travelling, resting and feeding due to the pres-
1 2 3 >3
ence of the tourist vessel have already been shown in other
Number of school detected by the investigator studies.
However, the impact on the resident population may differ
Figure 2: Relative percentage of number of schools of dolphins detected according to the changed behavioural state. Changes in travel-
by the investigator boat, without and with the Tour Boat. ling duration and frequency, for example, could not have an
impact on dolphin population vulnerability, as it is not such a
60
without crucial activity as socialising, resting or feeding.
with In Lemon et al. (27) it was shown experimentally that with
50 the Tour Boats approaching, Indian Ocean bottlenose dolphins
(Tursiops aduncus) changed their behaviour from travelling to
40
milling nine times out of twelve. However, most of the time
Relative %

30 after departure from the area of the Tour Boats, the animals
returned to their original behavioural state. In Doubtful Sound,
20 in New Zealand, in the presence of Tour Boats, changing from
socializing, milling and resting to travelling almost doubled in
10
T.t. (28).
0 In Bunbury, in the presence of the Tour Boat, the duration
T S R M F D of resting was reduced by one-third and frequency increased
Behavioural state by more than 100%. Lusseau (28), in Doubtful Sound, ob-
served that in the presence of Tour Boats the probability of
bottlenose dolphins (T.t.) to stay in a resting state decreased.
Figure 3: Mean duration of the different behaviours, expressed as per-
A similar response to the presence of Tour Boats was observed
centage of time spent performing a behavioural states ± Standard Error,
without and with the Tour Boat. T=Travelling; S=Socialising; R=Resting;
by Constantine et al. (17), still in New Zealand, with resting
M=Milling; F=Feeding; D=Diving. being the most affected behavioural state. This may have a
great impact particularly on dolphins that rest in shallow waters
without to recover energy. Spinner dolphins (Stenella longirostris), for
2,5 example, visit near-shore waters during the day for resting
# of occurences each 30 min.

with
purposes after feeding offshore and can be negatively effected
2,0 by an intense dolphin watching, as in the Mauritius Islands
(MMCS pers. comm.), or in Hawaii where Delfour (18) demon-
1,5 strated the vulnerability of this species to coastal human activi-
ties in resting areas. Similarly for Risso’s dolphins (Grampus
1,0 griseus) that were sighted resting in near-shore waters in Sar-
dinia (6) and in California (42).
0,5 In our study, in the presence of the Tour Boat, the feeding
behavioural state significantly changed in duration and fre-
0,0 quency. Most of the time feeding was manifested in “pushing
T S R M F D the fish towards the shoreline shallow water”. In Florida, for
Behavioural state Allen and Read (2), the density of boat traffic influenced in
different ways feeding behaviour and, according to Nowacek et
Fig. 4 Mean frequency of the different behaviours, measured as number al. (34), the approaches of boats to dolphins (T.t.) in shallow
of occurrences of the behavioural states per unit of time ± Standard Error, water increased the possibility of change in behaviour.
without and with the Tour Boat. T=Travelling; S=Socialising; R=Resting; For group feeding, school cohesion is important and distur-
M=Milling; F=Feeding; D=Diving. bance, due to boat presence or noise, can affect vulnerability,
especially in areas with reduced food availability; low group
Mann-Whitney test, however, showed no significant difference cohesion can diminish feeding success, while increasing energy
between group size for the two ‘treatments’. requirements (44).
The Chi-square test showed that the presence of the Tour As observed in other studies for bottlenose dolphin (T.t.)
Boat had some association with the number of schools re- and humpbacked dolphins (Sousa chinensis) (20,34,33) diving
corded (χ2 =11.44; P<0.01; DF=3) as well as the duration of times changed in the presence of Tour Boats. In our study
the behavioural states (χ2 =16.186; P<0.001; DF=5). both duration and frequency of diving increased though, com-
 Short-term impact of dolphin-watching on dolphins

pared to the control, the difference was not statistically signifi- (still within the continental shelf) and, for this reason, the po-
cant. tential impact of dolphin-watching must be even more carefully
In our study, when the Tour Boat was in close contact, the considered, especially on particular and susceptible behavioural
animals displayed neutral conduct in 56% of cases. In the Ba- states. Outcomes of this study in Western Australia could be,
hamas, Ransom (35) found that bottlenose dolphins (T.t.) consequently, useful to properly manage this activity which is
changed their behaviour in 59% of approaches, with negative rapidly increasing in many regions including the Mediterranean.
responses predominating (i.e. dolphins typically avoided the Management of Tour Boat activities must take into account
boat). Interestingly, in the same study, striped dolphins several aspects from a small to large scale such as: the status
(Stenella coeruleoalba) were also reported to change their be- of the local cetacean population, the number of vessels and
haviour 68% of the time when a boat approached, but positive tours per area, the specific response of the species in a par-
responses predominated (i.e. dolphins often approached the ticular behaviour state (i.e. resting or feeding), the seasonal
boat). In Wales, Gregory and Rowden (22) observed that most behaviour (i.e. breeding season), the type of group ap-
of the bottlenose dolphins (T.t.) displayed neutral conduct proached, etc. Proper adaptive management must include a
around boats and were deterred by kayaks; however dolphins strict assessment of the initial and ongoing situation in order to
displayed attraction to dolphin-watching boats. None of these control the number of licences issued and the maximum num-
changes can be deduced from the tourist boat and, further- ber of tours per vessel per day under specific circumstances.
more, speculation, or misjudging, could be made on the con- Experts should always be on board to assess if the type of per-
duct of the dolphins towards the Tour Boat by not properly formed behaviour is compatible with the boat approach. Inde-
trained tourist operators. pendent periodic reports should also be issued to monitor over
In Bunbury, at the time of the arrival of the Tour Boat, the time the impact of the eco-tourist activity on the observed ce-
animals tended to reduce significantly the activities that were tacean population
not compatible with the vessel's presence, such as feeding and Even if not directly correlated to a decline in population, the
resting; and by contrast increasing their travelling and ten- study of behavioural changes in the presence of the tourist
dency to spread out into more schools with fewer animals in activity could be a good indicator to detect ‘early signs of
each school. stress’ that could result in a later decline of the local population
Many studies confirm that the impact of vessels on dolphin and could help in the proper management of the activities of
is directly related to the number of boats approaching the ani- dolphin watching or swimming with dolphins, especially if pro-
mals (17, 12), probably linked to the increase in noise (10) and moted as a sustainable alternative to fishing.
the possibility for the animals “to easily and comfortably es-
cape” a possible threat scenario (46) through increased dive Acknowledgements
duration or changing swimming speed and direction (27). We would like to thank Dr. Ian McLean for his friendly supervi-
Goodwin et al. (21), however, associated the aversive behav- sion; the staff of the Bunbury Discovery Centre for their hospi-
iour more to the classes of boat in motion (i.e. speed boat and tality and use of the inflatable boat, all the volunteers of the
jet skis) than to the number of boats per se. BDC for their enthusiastic help. We are grateful to Antonio
Moreover, stress for the animals can vary in relation to the (Tony) Scalzo and Hugs (Ugo) Finn for the always useful ex-
biological conditions and can result in an increased risk for peo- change of thoughts. We are also thankful to the anonymous
ple approaching the wild animals. In Bunbury, where there was referees and to the editor for constructive suggestions that
a low intensity of disturbance, as only one Tour Boat ap- improved the manuscript.
proached the dolphins twice a day, dolphins could have easily
avoid the interaction. Nevertheless, during our research, adult References
males displaying breeding activities upon the arrival of the 1. ACCOBAMS Guidelines for Commercial Cetacean-Watching
boat, showed aggressive behaviour (i.e. tail slap) toward the Activities in the Black Sea, the Mediterranean Sea and
Tour Boat, demonstrating that, even in controlled situation, a Contiguous Atlantic Area. 2004, p. 30.
low risk of aggression still remains and it must always be re- 2. Allen MC, Read AJ. Habitat selection of foraging bottlenose
membered that approaching wild cetacean or, even worst, dolphins in relation to boat density near Clearwater, Flor-
swimming with them, can be potentially dangerous (41, 16). ida. Marine Mammal Science 16:815-824. 2000.
Although short-term impact on behaviour does not neces- 3. Altmann J. Observational study of behaviour: sampling
sary affect the survival of the resident populations and behav- methods. Behaviour 49:227-262. 1974.
ioural changes due to eco-tourism are not necessarily bad for 4. ANZECC Australian and New Zealand Environment and
bottlenose dolphins (T.t.) (29) or animals under observation Conservation Council Australian National guidelines for
(13), the results of this study highlight the importance of quan- cetacean observation. 2000.
titative and qualitative monitoring on any potential impact of 5. Arcangeli A. Behaviour of Tursiops truncatus along North-
this human activity. In Shark Bay (Australia), Bejder et al. (12) eastern coastline of Sardinia (Italy) (Cetacea–delphinidae),
found that vessels activities, when more than one tour vessel is Honours thesis, Zoology Department “La Sapienza” Univer-
operating, lead to a “decline in relative abundance of bottle- sity Rome. 1993.
nose dolphins exposed to the long-term disturbance” and that 6. Arcangeli A., Marini L. Contributo alla conoscenza di Gram-
a similar decline “would be devastating for small, closed, resi- pus griseus presso le coste sud orientali della Sardegna.
dent, or endangered cetacean populations”. In the Mediterra- Natura - Soc. It. Sci. Nat. Museo Civ. Stor. Nat Milano, 90
nean Sea the impact on the marine ecosystem due to human (2):171-174. 2001.
population is high in terms of overexploitation, pollution, ferry 7. Au D, Perryman W. Movement and speed of dolphin
and boat traffic and impact of recreational activities. The result schools responding to an approaching ship. Fish. Bull.
of these circumstances is that populations of bottlenose dol- 80:371-379. 1982.
phins are generally smaller and scattered also in the open sea 8. Bearzi G, Notarbartolo di Sciara G, Politi E. Social ecology
 Short-term impact of dolphin-watching on dolphins

of bottlenose dolphins in the Kvarneric (northern Adriatic 24. IWC Report of the Workshop on the Science for Sustain-
Sea). Marine Mammal Science 13(4):650-668. 1997. able Whale Watching, Capetown, South Africa. Report of
9. Beaubrun PC. Disturbance to Mediterranean cetaceans the IWC. 2004. p. 29.
caused by whale watching. In: G. Notarbartolo di Sciara 25. Janik VM. Thompson P. Changes in surfacing patterns of
(Ed.), Cetaceans of the Mediterranean and Black Seas: bottlenose dolphin in response to boat traffic. Marine
state of knowledge and conservation strategies. A report Mammal Science 12(4):597-602. 1996.
to the ACCOBAMS Secretariat, Monaco, 2002, Section 12, 26. Kruse S. The interactions between killer whales and boats
p. 26. in Johnstone Strait, B.C. pp. 149-59. In: K. Pryor and K.N.
10. Bejder L, Dawson S. Harraway, J. Responses by Hector's Norris (eds.) Dolphin Societies, Discoveries and Puzzles.
dolphins to boats and swimmers in Porpoise Bay, New California, USA. 1991.
Zealand. Marine Mammal Science 15(3):738-750. 1999. 27. Lemon M, Lynch T, Cato DH, Harcourt RG. Response of
11. Bejder L, Samuels A. Evaluating impacts of nature-based travelling bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops aduncus) to ex-
tourism on cetaceans. In: N. Gales, M. Hindell, R. Kirk- perimental approaches by a powerboat in Jervis Bay, New
wood (eds.) pp. 229-256. Marine Mammals: Fisheries, South Wales, Australia. Biological Conservation 127(4):363
Tourism and Management Issues. CSIRO Publishing. P. -372.2006.
480. 2003. 28. Lusseau D. The effects of tour boats on the behaviour of
12. Bejder L, Samuels A, Whitehead H, Gales N, Mann J, Con- bottlenose dolphins: Using Markov chains to model anthro-
nor R, Heithaus M, Watson-Capps J, Flaherty C, Krützen M. pogenic impacts. Conservation Biology 17(6):1785-1793.
Decline in relative abundance of bottlenose dolphins 2003.
(Tursiops sp) exposed to long-term anthropogenic distur- 29. Lusseau D. The short-term behavioural reactions of bottle-
bance. Conservation Biology 20(6):1791-1798. 2006. nose dolphins to interactions with boats in Doubtful Sound,
13. Buchholz R. Behavioural biology: an effective and relevant New Zealand. Marine Mammal Science 22(4):802-818.
conservation tool. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 22(8):401 2006.
-407. 2007. 30. Mann J. Behavioral sampling methods for cetaceans: a
14. Buckstaff KC. Effects of watercraft noise on the acoustic review and critique. Marine mammal science 15(1):102-
behavior of bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops truncatus, in 122. 1999.
Sarasota Bay, Florida. Marine Mammal Science 20:709- 31. Marini L, Consiglio C, Arcangeli A, Torchio A, Casale M,
725. 2004. Cristo B, Nannarelli S. Socio-ecology of Tursiops truncatus
15. Consiglio C, Marini L, Arcangeli A, Cristo B, Torchio A. In- along North-eastern coast of Sardinia (Italy): preliminary
teractions between Tursiops truncatus and fisheries along results. Proceedings of the European Research on Cetace-
north-eastern coast of Sardinia (Italy). Proceedings of the ans. P.H.G. Evans Ed. 9:139-141. 1995.
European Research on cetaceans P.H.G. Evans Ed. 6:35- 32. Martin P, Bateson P. Measuring behaviour: an introductory
36. 1992. guide. Second edition. Cambridge University Press, Cam-
16. Constantine R. Increased avoidance of swimmers by wild bridge, UK. 1993.
bottlenose dolphins due to long-term exposure to swim- 33. Ng SL, Leung S. Behavioral response of Indo-Pacific hump-
with-dolphin tourism. Marine Mammal Science 17:689-702. back dolphin (Sousa chinensis) to vessel traffic. Marine
2001. Environmental Research 56:555-567. 2003.
17. Constantine R, Brunton DH, Dennis T. Dolphin-Watching 34. Nowacek SM, Wells RS, Solow AR. Short-term effects of
Tour Boats Change Bottlenose Dolphin (Tursiops trunca- boat traffic on bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops truncatus, in
tus) Behaviour. Biological Conservation 117:299-307. Sarasota Bay, Florida. Marine Mammal Science 17:673–
2004. 688. 2001.
18. Delfour F. Hawaiian spinner dolphins and the growing dol- 35. Ransom AB. Vessel and human impact monitoring of the
phin watching activity in Oahu. Journal of Marine Biol. Ass. dolphins of Little Bahama Bank. Pages 108. Master thesis.
U.K 87:109-112. 2007. San Francisco State University, San Francisco, California.
19. Díaz López B. Interactions between Mediterranean bottle- 1998.
nose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) and gillnets off Sar- 36. Reeves R, Notarbartolo di Sciara G. Cetaceans in the Black
dinia. Journal of Marine Science 63:944-951. 2006. sea and Mediterranean Sea. IUCN. Workshop report,
20. Evans PGH, Canwell PJ, Lewis EJ. An experimental study of Monaco 5-7 March 2006.
the effects of pleasure craft noise upon bottle-nosed dol- 37. Richardson WJ, Greene CR, Malme CI, Thomson DH. Ma-
phins in Cardigan Bay, West Wales. Proceedings of the rine mammals and noise. Academic Press, San Diego, CA.
European Research on Cetaceans. P.H.G. Evans Ed. 6:43- 1995. p. 576.
46. 1992. 38. Samuels A, Bejder L. Chronic Interaction Between Humans
21. Goodwin L, Cotton PA. Effects of boat traffic on the behav- and Free- Ranging Bottlenose Dolphins Near Panama City
iour of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus). Aquatic Beach, Florida, USA. Journal of Cetacean Research and
Mammals 30:279–283. 2004. Management 6(1):69-77. 2004.
22. Gregory PR, Rowden AA. Behaviour patterns of bottlenose 39. Scarpaci C, Bigger SW, Corkeron PJ, Nugegoda D. Bottle-
dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) relative to tidal state, time-of nose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) increase whistling in
-day, and boat traffic in Cardigan Bay, West Wales. the presence ‘swim-with-dolphin’ tour operations. Journal
Aquatic Mammals 27:105-113. 2001. of Cetacean Research and Management 2:183–185. 2000.
23. Hastie GD, Wilson B, Tufft LH, Thompson PM. Bottlenose 40. Shane SH. Behavior and ecology of the bottlenose dolphin
dolphins increase breathing synchrony in response to boat at Sanibel Island, Florida. in S. Leatherwood and R.R.
traffic. Marine Mammal Science 19:74–84. 2003. Reeves (Eds.). The bottlenose dolphin. Academic Press,
San Diego. 1990. p. 245-265.
 Short-term impact of dolphin-watching on dolphins

41. Shane SH, Tepley L, Costello L. Life-threatening contact

between a woman and a pilot whale captured on film.
Marine Mammal Science 9:331-336. 1993.
42. Shane SH. Behavior patterns of pilot whales and Risso’s
dolphins off Santa Catalina Island, California. Aquatic
Mammals 21(3):195–197. 1995.
43. Smolker RA, Richards AF, Connor RC, Pepper JW. Sex dif-
ferences in patterns of association among Indian Ocean
bottlenose dolphins. Behaviour 123:38-69. 1992.
44. Wells RS. 1993. The marine mammals of Sarasota Bay.
Chapter 9. Sarasota Bay: Framework for Action P. Roat, C.
Ciciccolella, H. Smith and D. Tomasko Ed. 9.1-9.23. Sara-
sota Bay National Estuary Program, Sarasota, Florida.
1992.
45. Williams R, Bain DE, Ford JKB, Trites AW. Behavioural re-
sponses of male killer whales to a ‘leapfrogging’ vessel.
Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 4:305–
310. 2002.
46. Würsig B. Swim-with-dolphin activities in nature: weighing
the pros and con. Whalewatcher 30:11-15. 1996.

J MATE