Population biology of the Florida manatee: An overview

Thomas J. O'Shea; B.B. Ackerman

Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · 70164315

Population biology of the Florida manatee: An overview

Thomas J. O'Shea·B.B. Ackerman

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

In the following overview we discuss progress toward meeting the three objectives of the 1992 workshop: to provide a synthesis of existing information about manatee population biology; to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of current data sets and approaches to research on manatee population biology; and to provide recommendations for research. We discuss progress in six topics that were assigned to working groups at the workshop: aerial survey and estimation of population size, reproduction, age structure, mortality, photoidentification and estimation of survival, and integration and modeling of population data. The overview includes recommendations by working group participants (*2 0'Shea et al. 1992). This workshop on manatee population biology was the most recent conference on the topic since 1978 (*BrowneIl and Rails 1981). Partly as a result of recommendations made at the 1978 workshop, several long-term population-related research projects were established. Therefore, we also measure progress in relation to knowledge available at the time of the earlier workshop. Finally, we provide a brief synopsis of pertinent new information on manatee population biology that became available between the 1992 workshop and publication of the proceedings and our conclusions about the status of the Florida manatee.

Explore related subjects

Information and Technology Report Report

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Thomas J. O'Shea, B.B. Ackerman. 1995. Population biology of the Florida manatee: An overview. https://pubs.usgs.gov/publication/70164315

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2004

Mute swans and their Chesapeake Bay habitats: proceedings of a symposium

The symposium 'Mute Swans and their Chesapeake Bay Habitats,' held on June 7, 2001, provided a forum for biologists and managers to share research findings and management ideas concerning the exotic and invasive mute swan (Cygnus olar). This species has been increasing in population size and is considered by many to be a problem in regard to natural food resources in the Bay that are used by native waterfowl during the winter months. Other persons, however, feel that resource managers are attempting to create a problem to justify more killing of waterfowl by hunters. Some persons also believe that managers should focus on the larger issues causing the decline of native food resources, such as the unabated human population increase in the Bay watershed and in the immediate coastal areas of the Bay. The symposium, sponsored by the Wildfowl Trust of North America and the U.S. Geological Survey, provided the atmosphere for presentation of mute swan data and opinions in a collegial setting where discussion was welcomed and was often informative and enthusiastic. An interesting historic review of the swan in regard to the history of mankind was presented, followed by a discussion on the positive and negative effects of invasive species. Biologists from different parts of the continent discussed the population status of the species in several states in the east and in the Great Lakes area. Data on the food habits of this species were presented in regard to submerged aquatic vegetation, and an interesting discussion on the role that the food habits of Canada geese in regard to native vegetation was presented. Findings and recommendations of the Mute Swan Task Force were presented. Finally, a representative of the Friends of Animals gave a thought-provoking presentation in defense of the mute swan. The presentations, in general, provided the necessary information and recommendations to allow managers to proceed with management of this controversial species with new and valuable perspectives.

Maryland, Virginia↗

USGS2003

Aquatic synthesis for Voyageurs National Park

Voyageurs National Park (VOYA), which was established in 1975, contains significant aquatic resources with about 50% of its total area of 883 km 2 (341 mi 2 ) consisting of aquatic habitats. In addition to the Park's 30 named lakes, there are numerous wetlands including hundreds of beaver ponds. Due to the Park's size and location in the drainage basin, aquatic resources within the Park are particularly susceptible to activities and developments that occur outside its' boundary. This is particularly true in regard to the water quality and aquatic communities in the four large lakes that comprise 96% of the Park's total lake area of 34,400 ha (133 mi 2 ). Because most Park activities center on the lakes, particularly the large lakes, resource managers need to have knowledge and understanding of VOYA's aquatic resources to effectively preserve, in an unimpaired condition, the ecological processed, biological and cultural diversity, and history of the northwoods, lakecountry border shared with Canada.

Minnesota, Ontario↗

USGS2003

Evaluating sources of job satisfaction: A survey of U.S. Fish and Wildlife refuge managers and biologists

The following summary consists of revised excerpts from the thesis study that was conducted in 2000-2002 by Ayeisha Brinson, Colorado State University (Brinson, 2002). The purpose of this report is to provide the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) with additional finding related to sources of job satisfaction. Because this is a report of additional findings from a length study, the information in this report is condensed and represented without references from the original research. The literature review, methodology, and discussion from the original thesis are not presented in this report. Any questions concerning the thesis should be directed to Ayeisha Brinson, who may be reached by e-mail. The purpose of the report is to examine differences and similarities between National Wildlife Refuge managers and biologists on a selection of independent variable related to job satisfaction occupation status (being either a manager or a biologist): are managers more satisfied with their jobs than biologist? If so, what are the components of that satisfaction? What are the sources of dissatisfaction? a?|

Information and Technology Report↗