Advertisement

Marine Biology

, 166:106 | Cite as

Metabarcoding analysis of the Pacific harbor seal diet in Mexico

  • Elizabeth Brassea-Pérez
  • Yolanda Schramm
  • Gisela Heckel
  • Jennyfers Chong-Robles
  • Asunción Lago-LestónEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

Massive sequencing has improved the predator diet analysis, making it possible to identify taxa with low or no detectability via traditional scatological methods. In Mexico, the Pacific harbor seal (Phoca vitulina richardii) diet has been understudied, with the importance of invertebrates or cartilaginous fish as prey currently unknown. This study aims to characterize the harbor seal diet through metabarcoding and to compare results with those obtained via the analysis of the hard remains taken from the same samples. Samples were collected at four breeding colonies during the molting season. Libraries were constructed following an Illumina dual-indexed strategy using specific eukaryote (18S rRNA), chordate and cephalopod (16S mtDNA) primers to amplify the prey’s DNA, and blocking primers to avoid predator DNA amplification. Libraries were sequenced on the MiSeq® platform (Illumina), generating 848,411 reads. The quality control and taxonomic assignment for the sequences were performed in silico using bioinformatic tools. The present study, identified 49 prey (mostly bony fish), including 14 species of invertebrates, hagfish, and elasmobranchs, thus widening knowledge of the Pacific harbor seal’s diet. While 19 prey species were identified using both the hard remains and metabarcoding analysis, methods (with only four identified to genus level), lower prey richness was found in the hard remains. The main prey items around all islands were longfin sanddab (Citharichthys xanthostigma) and California lizardfish (Synodus lucioceps). Metabarcoding analysis is a new approach for studying the diet of key species in a highly productive and changing ecosystem, such as the California Current System.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by the Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologia (CONACyT or Mexican National Council for Science and Technology), through project 179451 (Basic Science 2012) and a scholarship number 339294 awarded to EBP. Permits were provided by the Mexican Ministry for Environment and Natural Resources (SEMARNAT, SGPA/DGVS/12269/13 and SGPA/DGVS/08370/14), the Ministry of the Interior (SEGOB, UG/211/0087/2014 and UG/211/01022/2014), and the El Vizcaino Biosphere Reserve (F00.DRPBCPN-000027 and F.00.1.DRPBCPN.00004/2014). We thank Axayácatl Rocha and Clara Galindo for their valuable comments, which helped to improve this study. We are grateful to the fishing cooperatives California de San Ignacio, Litoral, and Pacifico Aquaculture for providing logistical support during the surveys, and to all those who participated in the field work: Denise Lubinsky; Maricela Juárez; Claudia Tapia; Eva Fernández; Paulette Durazo; Alejandro Arias; and, Guadalupe Ruiz. We also thank Dr. Dante Magdaleno for his help and advice during data pre-processing and the professional copy editor Benjamin J. Stewart for the revision of this manuscript. Finally, we greatly appreciated the valuable comments and suggestions made by the reviewers to improve this paper.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All samples were collected without disturbing any animal or causing them any stress or harm.

Data accessibility

Accession Number PRJNA417449.

References

  1. Alamán-de-Regules R (2014) Hábitos Alimentarios de la foca de puerto, Phoca vitulina richardsi, en la Bahía Todos Santos, Baja California, México. MSc thesis, Universidad Autónoma de Baja California, Ensenada, Baja CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  2. Alberdi A, Aizpurua O, Bohmann K, Gopalakrishnan S, Lynggaard C, Nielsen M, Gilbert MTP (2019) Promises and pitfalls of using high-throughputsequencing for diet analysis. Mol Ecol Resour 19:327–348.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.12960 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Aljanabi SM, Martinez I (1997) Universal and rapid salt-extraction of high quality genomic DNA for PCR-based techniques. Nucleic Acids Res 25(22):4692–4693.  https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/25.22.4692 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Altschul SF, Gish W, Miller W, Myers EW, Lipman DJ (1990) Basic local alignment search tool. J Mol Biol 215:10.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-2836(05)80360-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Allen L, Pondella DJ II, Shane MA (2007) Fisheries independent assessment of a returning fishery: abundance of juvenile white seabass (Atractoscion nobilis) in the shallow nearshore waters of the Southern California Bight, 1995–2005. Fish Res 88:9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2007.07.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Andrews S (2010) FastQC: a quality control tool for high throughput sequence data. Babraham Institute Bioinformatics Web. http://www.bioinformatics.babraham.ac.uk/projects/fastqc. Accessed 30 July 2017
  7. Antonelis GA, Fiscus CH (1980) The pinnipeds of the California current. CalCOFI Rep 21:11Google Scholar
  8. Arias del Razo A (2016) Factores que determinan la preferencia de hábitat de los pinnípedos en las islas del Pacífico de Baja California. PhD Dissertation, Centro de Investigación Científica y Educación Superior de Ensenada, Ensenada, Baja California, MexicoGoogle Scholar
  9. Aronesty E (2011) Command-line tools for processing biological sequencing data. Expression Analysis, Durham, NC. ea-utils http://code.google.com/p/ea-utils
  10. Barlow J, Baird RW, Heyning JE, Wynne K, Manville AM, II L et al (1994) A review of cetacean and pinniped mortality in coastal fisheries along the west coast of the USA and Canada and the east coast of the Russian Federation. Rep Int Whal Comm Spec Issue 15:405–425Google Scholar
  11. Basch LV, Engle JM (1987) Biogeography of Hemisquilla ensigera californiensis (Crustacea: Stomatopoda) with emphasis on Southern California bight populations. In: Hochberg FG (ed) Third California Islands symposium. Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, Santa Barbara, pp 211–220Google Scholar
  12. Bowen WD (1997) Role of marine mammals in aquatic ecosystems. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 158:8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bowen WD, Boness DJ, Iverson SJ (1999) Diving behaviour of lactating harbour seals and their pups during maternal foraging trips. Can J Zool 77(6):978–988.  https://doi.org/10.1139/z99-065 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bowen WD, Iverson SJ (2013) Methods of estimating marine mammal diets: a review of validation experiments and sources of bias and uncertainty. Mar Mamm Sci 29:36.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.2012.00604.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Boyer S, Brown SD, Collins RA, Cruickshank RH, Lefort MC, Malumbres-Olarte J, Wratten SD (2012) Sliding window analyses for optimal selection of mini-barcodes, and application to 454-pyrosequencing for specimen identification from degraded DNA. PLoS One 7(5):e38215.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0038215 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Brown RF, Mate BR (1983) Abundance, movements, and feeding habits of harbor seals, Phoca vitulina, at Netarts and Tillamook Bays, Oregon. Fish Bull 81(2):291–301Google Scholar
  17. Brodeur RD, Barceló C, Robinson KL, Daly EA, Ruzicka JJ (2014) Spatial overlap between forage fishes and the large medusa Chrysaora fuscescens in the northern California Current region. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 510:15.  https://doi.org/10.3354/meps10810 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Browne P, Laake JL, DeLong RL (2002) Improving pinniped diet analyses through identification of multiple skeletal structures in fecal samples. Fish Bull 100:11Google Scholar
  19. Bowen WD, Harrison GD (1996) Comparison of harbour seal diets in two inshore habitats of Atlantic Canada. Can J Zool 74:125–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Burns JJ (2002) Harbor seal and spotted seal. In: Perrin WF, Würsig B, Thewissen JGM (eds) Enciclopedia of marine mammals. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 552–560Google Scholar
  21. Carmichael LE, Nagy JA, Larter NC, Strobeck C (2001) Prey specialization may influence patterns of gene flow in wolves of the Canadian Northwest. Mol Ecol 10(12):2787–2798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Colwell RK (2013) Estimates (statistical estimation of species richness and shared species from samples). Version 9.1.0. Viceroy The Colwell Lab Web Server. http://purl.oclc.org/estimates. Accessed 15 Sept 2016
  23. Cota-Villavicencio A, Romero-Martínez M, Troncoso-Gaytán R, Nevárez-Martínez MO (2010) Situación de la pesquería de pelágicos menores en la costa noroccidental de Baja California durante las temporadas de pesca 2007 y 2008. Cienc Pesq 18:14Google Scholar
  24. Cottrell PE, Miller EH, Trites AW (1996) Assessing the use of hard parts in faeces to identify harbour seal prey: results of captive-feeding trials. Can J Zool 74:6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Cunningham L, Baxter JM, Boyd IL, Duck CD, Lonergan M, Moss SE, McConnell B (2009) Harbour seal movements and haul-out patterns: implications for monitoring and management. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshw Ecosyst 19(4):398–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Da Silva J, Neilson JD (1985) Limitations of using otoliths recovered in scats to estimate prey consumption in seals. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 42(8):1439–1442.  https://doi.org/10.1139/f85-180 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Danemann GD, De La Cruz-Agüero J (1993) Ictiofauna de Laguna San Ignacio, Baja California Sur, México. Cienc Mar 19:9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. De la Cruz-Agüero J, Galvám-Magaña F, Abitia-Cárdenas LA, Rodríguez-Romero J, Gutiérrez-Sánchez FJ (1994) Lista sistemática de los peces marinos de bahía Magdalena, Baja California Sur, México. Cienc Mar 20:15Google Scholar
  29. Deagle BE, Thomas AC, McInnes JC, Clarke LJ, Vesterinen EJ, Clare EL, Kartzinel TR, Eveson JP (2019) Counting with DNA in metabarcoding studies: how should we convert sequence reads to dietary data? Mol Ecol 28:391–406.  https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.14734 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Deagle BE, Thomas AC, Shaffer AK, Trites AW, Jarman SN (2013a) Quantifying sequence proportions in a DNA-based diet study using Ion Torrent amplicon sequencing: which counts count? Mol Ecol Resour 13:620–633.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.12103 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Deagle BE, Kirkwood R, Jarman SN (2009) Analysis of Australian fur seal diet by pyrosequencing prey DNA in faeces. Mol Ecol 18:17.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2009.04158.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Deagle BE, Thomas AC, Shaffer AK, Trites AW, Jarman SN (2013b) Quantifying sequence proportions in a DNA-based diet study using Ion Torrent amplicon sequencing: which counts count? Mol Ecol Resour 13:14.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.12103 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Durazo-Rodríguez RP (2015) Variación espacio-temporal de los hábitos alimentarios de la foca de puerto (Phoca vitulina richardii) en México. MSc thesis, Universidad Autónoma de Baja California, Ensenada, Baja California, MexicoGoogle Scholar
  34. Eguchi T, Harvey JT (2005) Diving behavior of the Pacific Harbor seal (Phoca vitulina suggests richardii) in Monterey Bay, California. Mar Mamm Sci 21(2):283–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Elorriaga-Verplancken FR, Morales-Luna L, Moreno-Sánchez X, Mendoza-Salas I (2013) Inferences on the diet of the eastern Pacific harbor seal (Phoca vitulina richardii) at the southern end of its distribution: stable isotopes and scat analyses. Aquat Mamm 39:7.  https://doi.org/10.1578/AM.39.4.2013.415 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Encyclopedia of Life (2016)  EOL Website. http://www.eol.org. Accessed 1 Aug 2016
  37. Fernández Martín EM (2018) Fenología de los nacimientos, estado de salud de las crías y estructura genética poblacional de la Phoca vitulina richardii en México. PhD Dissertation, Universidad Autónoma de Baja California. Ensenada, Baja CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  38. Fernández-Martín EM, Heckel G, Schramm Y, García-Aguilar MC (2016) The timing of pupping and molting of the Pacific harbor seal, Phoca vitulina richardii, at Punta Banda Estuary, Baja California, Mexico. Cienc Mar 42(3):195–208.  https://doi.org/10.7773/cm.v42i3.2615 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Fernholm B (1998) Hagfish systematics. In: Jørgensen JM, Lomholt JP, Weber RE, Malte H (eds) The biology of hagfishes. Springer Science Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp 33–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Fraser CM (1939) Hydroids as a food supply. Trans R Soc Can 5:5Google Scholar
  41. Froese R, Pauly D (2016) FishBase. World Wide Web Electronic Publication. http://www.fishbase.org. Accessed 1 Aug 2016
  42. Frost KJ, Simpkins MA, Lowry LF (2001) Diving behavior of subadult and adult harbor seals in Prince William Sound, Alaska. Mar Mamm Sci 17(4):813–834.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.2001.tb01300.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Garcia-Rodriguez FJ, De la Cruz-Agüero J (2011) A comparison of indexes for prey importance inferred from otoliths and cephalopod beaks recovered from pinniped scats. J Fish Aquat Sci 6:8.  https://doi.org/10.3923/jfas.2011.186.193 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Gaydos JK, Vilchis LI, Lance MM, Jeffries SJ, Thomas A, Greenwood V, Harner P, Ziccardi MH (2012) Postrelease movement of rehabilitated harbor seal (Phoca vitulina richardii) pups compared with cohort-matched wild seal pups. Mar Mamm Sci 29(3):E282–E294.  https://doi.org/10.1111/mms.12002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Gibble CM (2011) Food habits of harbor seals (Phoca vitulina richardii) in San Francisco Bay, California. MSc thesis. San José State University, San José, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  46. Gibble CM, Harvey JT (2015) Food habits of harbor seals (Phoca vitulina richardii) as an indicator of invasive species in San Francisco Bay, California. Mar Mamm Sci 31:21.  https://doi.org/10.1111/mms.12214 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Gilbert JA, Jansson JK, Knight R (2014) The earth microbiome project: successes and aspirations. BMC Biol.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12915-014-0069-1 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  48. Grigg EK, Peter Klimley A, Allen SG, Green DE, Elliott-Fisk DL, Markowitz H (2009) Spatial and seasonal relationships between Pacific harbor seals (Phoca vitulina richardii) and their prey, at multiple scales. Fish Bull 107:14Google Scholar
  49. González-Suárez M, Flatz R, Aurioles-Gamboa D, Hedrick PW, Gerber LR (2009) Isolation by distance among California sea lion populations in Mexico: redefining management stocks. Mol Ecol 18:1088–1099.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2009.04093.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Hardy N, Berry T, Kelaher BP, Goldsworthy SD, Bunce M, Coleman MA, Gillanders BM, Connell SD, Blewitt M, Figueira W (2017) Assessing the trophic ecology of top predators across a recolonisation frontier using DNA metabarcoding of diets. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 573:237–254.  https://doi.org/10.3354/meps12165 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Härkonen T, Harding KC (2001) Spatial structure of harbour seal populations and the implication thereof. Can J Zool 79:13.  https://doi.org/10.1139/cjz-79-12-2115 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Harvey JT (1987) Population dynamics, annual food consumption, movements and dive behavior of harbor seals, Phoca vitulina richardsi in Oregon. PhD Dissertation, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, USGoogle Scholar
  53. Hernández de la Torre B, Aguirre-Gómez R, Gaxiola-Castro G, Álvarez-Borrego S, Rosete-Vergés F, Gallegos-García A, Bocco-Verdinelli G (2015) Marine ecological ordering in Mexican North Pacific: a methodological proposal. Hidrobiologica 25:13Google Scholar
  54. Herreman JK, Blundell GM, Ben-David M (2009) Evidence of bottom-up control of diet driven by top-down processes in a declining harbor seal Phoca vitulina richardsi population. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 374:14.  https://doi.org/10.3354/meps07719 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Hillis DM, Dixon MT (1991) Ribosomal DNA: molecular evolution and phylogenetic inference. Q Rev Biol 6:43Google Scholar
  56. Illumina (2014) Illumina 16S metagenomic sequencing protocol. Illumina Web Publication. http://www.illumina.com/content/dam/illumina-marketing/documents/applications/microbiology/microbial-sequencing-methods/faq_16S_2014-09-16.pdf. Accessed 11 Oct 2016
  57. Lance MM, Chang WY, Jefferies SJ, Pearson S, Acevedo-Gutiérrez A (2012) Harbor seal diet in northern puget sound: implications for the recovery of depressed fish stocks. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 464:15.  https://doi.org/10.3354/meps09880 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Langstroth L, Langstroth L, Newberry AT (2000) A living bay: the underwater world of Monterey Bay. University of California Press, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  59. Lubinsky D, Schramm Y, Heckel G (2017) The Pacific harbor seal’s (Phoca vitulina richardsi) breeding colonies in Mexico: abundance and distribution. Aquat Mamm 43:9.  https://doi.org/10.1578/AM.43.1.2017.73 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Lubinsky-Jinich D, Pardo MA, Heckel G, Schramm Y (2019) Temporal variations in terrestrial counts of Pacific harbor seals in the southern California Current System. Mar Mamm Sci 35(3):1173–1182.  https://doi.org/10.1111/mms.12579 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Luxa K, Acevedo-Gutiérrez A (2013) Food habits of harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) in two estuaries in the central Salish Sea. Aquat Mamm 39:13.  https://doi.org/10.1578/AM.39.1.2013.10 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. MacArthur R (1955) Fluctuations of animal populations and a measure of community stability. Ecology 36:4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Markussen NH, Nils RM, Øritsland A (1992) Metabolic rate and body composition of harbour seals, Phoca vitulina, during starvation and refeeding. Can J Zool 70:5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Meyer A, Todt C, Mikkelsen NT, Lieb B (2010) Fast evolving 18S rRNA sequences from Solenogastres (Mollusca) resist standard PCR amplification and give new insights into mollusk substitution rate heterogeneity. BMC Evol Biol.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2148-10-70 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  65. Monterroso P, Godinho R, Oliveira T, Ferreras P, Kelly MJ, Morin DJ, Waits LP, Alves PC, Mills LS (2018) Feeding ecological knowledge: the underutilised power of faecal DNA approaches for carnivore diet analysis. Mamm Rev.  https://doi.org/10.1111/mam.12144 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Moore SE (2008) Marine mammals as ecosystem sentinels. J Mamm 89:7.  https://doi.org/10.1644/07-MAMM-S-312R1.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Moreno CE (2001) Métodos para medir la biodiversidad, 1ra ed. M&T–Manuales y Tesis SEA, Zaragoza, EspañaGoogle Scholar
  68. Oxman DS (1995) Seasonal abundance, movements, and food habits of harbour seals (Phoca vitulina) in Elkhorn Slough, California. MSc thesis. California State University, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  69. Palomares MLD, Pauly D (2016) SeaLifeBase. World Wide Web Electronic Publication. http://www.sealifebase.org. Accessed 1 Aug 2016  
  70. Panmao Z, Rong Y, Yanjun G, Qingxiang L, Xuejuan R, Yaqiang W, Wenhui X, Yanju L, Yihui D (2016) The strong El Niño of 2015/16 and its dominant impacts on global and China’s climate. J Meteorol Res 30:15.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13-351-016-6101-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Peters KJ, Ophelkeller K, Bott NJ, Deagle BE, Jarman SN, Goldsworthy SD (2015) Fine-scale diet of the Australian sea lion (Neophoca cinerea) using DNA-based analysis of faeces. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 6:21.  https://doi.org/10.1111/maec.12145 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Phillips EM, Harvey JT (2009) A captive feeding study with the Pacific harbor seal (Phoca vitulina richardii): implications for scat analysis. Mar Mamm Sci 25(2):373–391.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.2008.00265.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Pitcher KW (1980) Stomach contents and feces as indicators of harbor seal, Phoca vitulina, foods in the gulf of Alaska. Fish Bull 78:2Google Scholar
  74. Pompanon F, Deagle BE, Symondson WC, Brown DS, Jarman SN, Taberlet P (2012) Who is eating what: diet assessment using next generation sequencing. Mol Ecol 21:20.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2011.05403.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. R Core Team (2017) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  76. Read AJ, Drinker P, Northridge S (2006) Bycatch of marine mammals in U.S. and global fisheries. Conserv Biol 20(1):163–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Rice P, Longden I, Bleasby A (2000) EMBOSS: the European molecular biology open software suite. Trends Genet 16:2.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-9525(00)02024-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Scheffer TH, Sperry CC (1931) Food habits of the Pacific harbor seal, Phoca richardii. J Mammal 12:13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Shehzad W, Riaz T, Nawaz MA, Miquel C, Poillot C, Shah SA, Pompanon F, Coissac E, Taberlet P (2012) Carnivore diet analysis based on next-generation sequencing: application to the leopard cat (Prionailurus bengalensis) in Pakistan. Mol Ecol 21:15.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2011.05424.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Staniland IJ (2002) Investigating the biases in the use of hard prey remains to identify diet composition using Antarctic fur seals (Arctocephalus gazella) in captive feeding trials. Mar Mamm Sci 18(1):224–243.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.2002.tb01030.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Stephens JS, Larson RJ, Pondella DJ (2006) Rocky Reefs and Kelp Beds. In: Allen LG, Pondella DJ, Horn MH (eds) The ecology of marine fishes: California and adjacent waters. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp 227–252Google Scholar
  82. Szoboszlai AI, Thayer JA, Wood SA, Sydeman WJ, Koehn LE (2015) Forage species in predator diets: synthesis of data from the California current. Ecol Inform 29:12.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2015.07.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Szteren D, Aurioles-Gamboa D (2011) Ecological regionalization of Zalophus californianus rookeries, as a tool for conservation in the Gulf of California. Cienc Mar 37(3):349–368.  https://doi.org/10.7773/cm.v37i3.1818 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Taberlet P, Coissac E, Hajibabaei M, Rieseberg LH (2012) Environmental DNA. Mol Ecol 21:5.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2012.05542.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Tapia-Harris C, Heckel G, Schramm Y, Fernández-Martín EM (2017) Molting phenology of the Pacific harbor seal (Phoca vitulina richardii) on two islands off the Baja California Peninsula, Mexico. Mar Mamm Sci 33:13.  https://doi.org/10.1111/mms.12400 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Thomas AC, Deagle BE, Eveson JP, Harsch CH, Trites AW (2015) Quantitative DNA metabarcoding: improved estimates of species proportional biomass using correction factors derived from control material. Mol Ecol Resour 16:13.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.12490 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Thomas AC, Jarman SN, Haman KH, Trites AW, Deagle BE (2014) Improving accuracy of DNA diet estimates using food tissue control materials and an evaluation of proxies for digestion bias. Mol Ecol 23:13.  https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.12523 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Tollit DJ, Black AD, Thompson PM, Mackay A, Corpe HM, Wilson B, Van Parijs SM, Grellier K, Parlane S (1998) Variations in harbour seal Phoca vitulina diet and divedepths in relation to foraging habitat. J Zool 244(2):209–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Tollit DJ, Steward 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. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 54:15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Uye SI (2011) Human forcing of the copepod–fish–jellyfish triangular trophic relationship. Hydrobiologia 666:13.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-010-0208-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Vestheim H, Jarman SN (2008) Blocking primers to enhance PCR amplification of rare sequences in mixed samples: a case study on prey DNA in Antarctic krill stomachs. Front Zool.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1742-9994-5-12 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  92. Ward EJ, Chirakkal H, González-Suárez M, Aurioles-Gamboa D, Holmes E, Gerber L (2010) Inferring spatial structure from time-series data: using multivariate statespace models to detect metapopulation structure of California sea lions in the Gulf of California, Mexico. J Appl Ecol 47:47–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Wood JB, Day C, O’Dor R (2016) CephBase, OBIS and standardization. The Cephalopod page. http://www.thecephalopodpage.org/cephbase.php. Accessed 1 Aug 2016
  94. Wright BE, Riemer SD, Brown RF, Ougzin AM, Bucklin KA (2007) Assessment of harbor seal predation on adult salmonids in a Pacific Northwest estuary. Ecol Appl 17(2):338–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Xu J (2006) Invited review: microbial ecology in the age of genomics and metagenomics: concepts, tools, and recent advances. Mol Ecol 15:19.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2006.02882.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centro de Investigación Científica y de Educación Superior de EnsenadaEnsenadaMexico
  2. 2.Universidad Autónoma de Baja CaliforniaEnsenadaMexico

Personalised recommendations