Estimating size of opalfish from otoliths: implications for analyses of New Zealand sea lion diet

References

• Bowen WD 2000. Reconstruction of pinniped diets: accounting for complete digestion of otoliths and cephalopod beaks. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 57: 898–905. 10.1139/f00-032
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Breen PA, Gilbert DJ, Starr PJ 2012. Comment on sea lion population viability analysis. Polar Biology 35: 1617–1618. 10.1007/s00300-012-1218-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caspar RM, Gales NJ, Hindell MA, Robinson SM 2006. Diet estimation based on an integrated mixed prey feeding experiment using Arctocephalus seals. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 328: 228–239. 10.1016/j.jembe.2005.07.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Childerhouse S, Dix B, Gales N 2001. Diet of New Zealand sea lions (Phocarctos hookeri) at the Auckland Islands. Wildlife Research 28: 291–298. 10.1071/WR00063
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chilvers BL 2008. New Zealand sea lion Phocarctos hookeri and squid trawl fisheries: bycatch problems and management options. Endangered Species Research 5: 193–204. 10.3354/esr00086
   Google Scholar
• Chilvers BL, Amey JM, Huckstadt LA, Costa DP 2011. Investigating foraging utilization distribution of female New Zealand sea lions, Auckland Islands. Polar Biology 34: 565–574. 10.1007/s00300-010-0915-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chilvers BL 2012a. Population viability analysis of New Zealand sea lions, Auckland Islands, New Zealand's sub-Antarctics: assessing relative impacts and uncertainty. Polar Biology 35: 1607–1615. 10.1007/s00300-011-1143-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chilvers BL 2012b. Using life-history traits of New Zealand sea lions, Auckland Islands to clarify potential causes of decline. Journal of Zoology (London) 287: 240–249. 10.1111/j.1469-7998.2012.00910.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chilvers BL 2012c. Mortality rates clarified: reply to Breen et al. (2012). Polar Biology 35: 1619–1620. 10.1007/s00300-012-1219-y
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fablet R, Chessel A, Carbini S, Benzinou A, de Pontual H 2009. Reconstructing individual shape histories of fish otoliths: A new image-based tool for otolith growth analysis and modeling. Fisheries Research 96: 148–159. 10.1016/j.fishres.2008.10.011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fea N, Harcourt R 1997. Assessing the use of faecal and regurgitate analysis as a means of determining the diet of New Zealand Fur Seals. In: Hindell MA, Kemper CM eds. Marine mammal research in the southern hemisphere volume 1: status, ecology and medicine. Chipping Norton, Surrey Beatty & Sons. Pp. 143–150.
   Google Scholar
• Francis M 1996. Coastal fishes of New Zealand. 2nd edition. Auckland, Reed Books.
   Google Scholar
• Gales NJ, Cheal AJ 1992. Estimating diet composition of the Australian sea-lion (Neophoca cinerea) from scat analysis: an unreliable technique. Wildlife Research 19: 447–456. 10.1071/WR9920447
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gauldie RW, Coote G, Mulligan KP, West IF, Merrett NR 1991. Otoliths of deep water fishes: structure, chemistry and chemically-coded life histories. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology 100A: 1–31. 10.1016/0300-9629(91)90179-G
   Google Scholar
• Harvey JT 1989. Assessment of errors associated with harbour seal (Phoca vitulina) faecal sampling. Journal of Zoology (London) 219: 101–111. 10.1111/j.1469-7998.1989.tb02569.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jobling M, Breiby A 1986. The use and abuse of fish otoliths in studies of feeding habits of marine piscivores. Sarsia 71: 265–274.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kemp J, Swearer SE, Jenkins GP, Robertson S 2011. Otolith chemistry is more accurate than otolith shape in identifying cod species (genus Pseudophycis) in the diet of Australian fur seals (Arctocephalus pusillus doriferus). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 68: 1732–1743. 10.1139/f2011-088
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leung ES, Chilvers BL, Nakagawa S, Moore AB, Robertson BC 2012. Sexual segregation in juvenile New Zealand sea lion foraging ranges: implications for intraspecific competition, population dynamics and conservation. PLoS ONE 7: 1–9.
   Google Scholar
• Meynier L, Mackenzie DDS, Duignan PJ, Chilvers BL, Morel PCH 2009. Variability in the diet of New Zealand sea lion (Phocarctos hookeri) at the Auckland Islands, New Zealand. Marine Mammal Science 25: 302–326. 10.1111/j.1748-7692.2008.00252.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meynier L, Morel PCH, Chilvers BL, Mackenzie DDS, Duignan PJ 2010. Quantitative fatty acid signature analysis on New Zealand sea lions: model sensitivity and diet estimates. Journal of Mammalogy 91: 1484–1495. 10.1644/09-MAMM-A-299.1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nelson JS 1979. Revision of the fishes of the New Zealand genus Hemerocoetes (Perciformes: Percophididae), with descriptions of two new species. New Zealand Journal of Zoology 6: 587–599. 10.1080/03014223.1979.10428401
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Orr AJ, Harvey JT 2001. Quantifying errors associated with using fecal samples to determine the diet of the California sea lion (Zalophus californianus). Canadian Journal of Zoology 79: 1080–1087.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paulin C, Stewart A, Roberts C, McMillan P 2001. New Zealand fish: a complete guide. Wellington, Te Papa Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pierce GJ, Boyle PR 1991. A review of methods for the diet analysis in piscivorous marine mammals. Oceanography and Marine Biology 29: 409–486.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Riet-Sapriza, FG, Duignan PJ, Chilvers BL, Wilkinson IS, Lopez-Villalobos N, Mackenzie DDS, MacGibbon A, Costa DP, Gales N 2012. Interannual and individual variation in milk composition of New Zealand sea lions (Phocarctos hookeri). Journal of Mammalogy 93: 1006–1016. 10.1644/11-MAMM-A-220.2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robertson B, Chilvers BL 2011. The population decline of the New Zealand sea lion Phocarctos hookeri: a review of possible causes. Mammal Review 41: 253–275. 10.1111/j.1365-2907.2011.00186.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwarzhans W 1984. Fish otoliths from the New Zealand Tertiary. New Zealand Geological Survey Report 113:1–269.
   Google Scholar
• Smale MJ, Watson G, Hecht T 1995. Otolith atlas of southern African marine fishes. Ichthyological Monographs of the J.L.B. Smith Institute of Ichthyology 1: 1–253.
   Google Scholar
• Sweeney JM, Harvey JT 2011. Diet estimation in California sea lions, Zalophus californianus. Marine Mammal Science 27: E279–E301. 10.1111/j.1748-7692.2010.00459.x
   Google Scholar
• Tollit DJ, Stewart MJ, Thompson PM, Pierce GJ, Santos MB, Hughes S 1997. Species and size differences in the digestion of otoliths and beaks: implications for estimates of pinniped diet composition. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 54: 105–119. 10.1139/f96-264
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tollit DJ, Heaslip SG, Barrick RL, Trites AW 2007. Impact of diet-index selection and the digestion of prey hard remains on determining the diet of the Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus). Canadian Journal of Zoology 85: 1–15. 10.1139/z06-174
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tollit D, Heaslip S, Deagle B, Iverson S, Joy R, Rosen D, Trites A 2006. Estimating diet composition in sea lions: which technique to use? In: Trites AW, Atkinson SK, DeMaster DP, Fritz LW, Gelatt TS, Rea LD, Wynne KM eds. Sea lions of the world. Fairbanks, Alaska Sea Grant College Program, University of Alaska Fairbanks. Pp. 293–307.
   Google Scholar
• Zar JH 1999. Biostatistical analysis. 4th edition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar