The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Decline in Relative Abundance of Bottlenose Dolphins Exposed to Long‐Term Disturbance
Abstract
Abstract: Studies evaluating effects of human activity on wildlife typically emphasize short‐term behavioral responses from which it is difficult to infer biological significance or formulate plans to mitigate harmful impacts. Based on decades of detailed behavioral records, we evaluated long‐term impacts of vessel activity on bottlenose dolphins ( Tursiops sp.) in Shark Bay, Australia. We compared dolphin abundance within adjacent 36‐km 2 tourism and control sites, over three consecutive 4.5‐year periods wherein research activity was relatively constant but tourism levels increased from zero, to one, to two dolphin‐watching operators. A nonlinear logistic model demonstrated that there was no difference in dolphin abundance between periods with no tourism and periods in which one operator offered tours. As the number of tour operators increased to two, there was a significant average decline in dolphin abundance (14.9%; 95% CI =−20.8 to −8.23), approximating a decline of one per seven individuals. Concurrently, within the control site, the average increase in dolphin abundance was not significant (8.5%; 95% CI =−4.0 to +16.7). Given the substantially greater presence and proximity of tour vessels to dolphins relative to research vessels, tour‐vessel activity contributed more to declining dolphin numbers within the tourism site than research vessels. Although this trend may not jeopardize the large, genetically diverse dolphin population of Shark Bay, the decline is unlikely to be sustainable for local dolphin tourism. A similar decline would be devastating for small, closed, resident, or endangered cetacean populations. The substantial effect of tour vessels on dolphin abundance in a region of low‐level tourism calls into question the presumption that dolphin‐watching tourism is benign.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Human disturbance: people as predation‐free predators?
Beale, C. M., & Monaghan, P. (2004) · Journal of Applied Ecology · doi:10.1111/j.0021-8901.2004.00900.x · Cited by 449
Cited by
Responses of cetaceans to anthropogenic noise
NOWACEK, D. P., THORNE, L. H., JOHNSTON, D. W., & TYACK, P. L. (2007) · Mammal Review · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2907.2007.00104.x · Cited by 623
Ecological impacts of human‐induced animal behaviour change
Wilson, M. W., Ridlon, A. D., Gaynor, K. M., Gaines, S. D., Stier, A. C., & Halpern, B. S. (2020) · Ecology Letters · doi:10.1111/ele.13571 · Cited by 281
Tourism and wildlife habituation: Reduced population fitness or cessation of impact?
Higham, J. E. S., & Shelton, E. J. (2011) · Tourism Management · doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2010.12.006 · Cited by 105
Metadata
- Authors
- BEJDER, L., SAMUELS, A., WHITEHEAD, H., GALES, N., MANN, J., CONNOR, R., HEITHAUS, M., WATSON‐CAPPS, J., FLAHERTY, C., & KRÜTZEN, M.
- Venue
- Conservation Biology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2006-08-09
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1791-1798
- ISSN
- 0888-8892 (ISSN-L)
- 1523-1739
- OpenAlex
- W2132750032
- Cited by
- 658
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 23.94
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Decline in Relative Abundance of Bottlenose Dolphins Exposed to Long‐Term Disturbance. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00540.x
- The paper
- BEJDER, L., SAMUELS, A., WHITEHEAD, H., GALES, N., MANN, J., CONNOR, R., HEITHAUS, M., WATSON‐CAPPS, J., FLAHERTY, C., & KRÜTZEN, M. (2006). Decline in Relative Abundance of Bottlenose Dolphins Exposed to Long‐Term Disturbance. Conservation Biology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00540.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.