Common bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) in California waters: Cranial differentiation of coastal and offshore ecotypes
Version of Record online: 29 DEC 2010
2010 by the Society for Marine Mammalogy Published 2010. This article is a US Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.
Marine Mammal Science
Volume 27, Issue 4, pages 769–792, October 2011
How to Cite
Perrin, W. F., Thieleking, J. L., Walker, W. A., Archer, F. I. and Robertson, K. M. (2011), Common bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) in California waters: Cranial differentiation of coastal and offshore ecotypes. Marine Mammal Science, 27: 769–792. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-7692.2010.00442.x
- Issue online: 7 OCT 2011
- Version of Record online: 29 DEC 2010
- Received: 22 June 2010, Accepted: 4 September 2010
- Random Forest;
- sexual dimorphism;
- functional morphology;
- principal components analysis
Coastal and offshore bottlenose dolphins in California waters are currently assessed and managed as separate stocks. Recent molecular studies (of mtDNA haplotypes and microsatellites) have shown the two populations to be genetically differentiated. This study investigated cranial osteological differentiation of the forms. The sample analyzed included 139 skulls from live captures, direct takes, fishery bycatch, and strandings; the skulls were assigned to form based on collection locality or mtDNA haplotype. The coastal form differs from the offshore form mainly in features associated with feeding: larger and fewer teeth, more robust rostrum, larger mandibular condyle, and larger temporal fossa. This suggests that it may feed on larger and tougher prey than the offshore form. Differences between the forms in other features of the skull may reflect differences in diving behavior and sound production. Approximately 86% of the stranded specimens were estimated to be of coastal origin; based on relative estimated sizes of the two populations and assuming similar mortality rates, this suggests that a coastal carcass is about 50 times more likely to beach than an offshore one. The morphological differences between the two ecotypes indicate evolutionary adaptation to different environments and emphasize the importance of conserving the relatively small coastal population and its habitat.