{999A9551-D701-4CF5-9373-131D3DD8D969}2005051219291400FALSE20060710171619002006081512091700Golfo DulceCosta RicaEastern PacificCentral Americamarinesighting surveydry seasonwhalesdolphinssea turtlesPlatformVesselsSightingsMicrosoft Windows 2000 Version 5.0 (Build 2195) Service Pack 4; ESRI ArcCatalog 9.1.0.722enDuring the months of January and February 2010, 30 daily marine fauna sighting surveys were systematically conducted across the waters of Golfo Dulce, a tropical fiord-like embayment in the South Pacific region of Costa Rica. Special focus was placed on cetaceans, chelonids, whale sharks and pelagic sea snakes. Within the 233 logged observation hours, 234 first-hand sightings were recorded from a small panga; photo-identification was collected for 76% of those sightings. Dozens of marine species were documented during the survey period, but those that played most prominently in the survey were Humpback whales (<i>Megaptera novaengiae</i>), bottlenose dolphins (<i>Turciops truncatus</i>), pantropical spotted dolphins (<i>Stenella attenuata</i>), green/black sea turtles (<i>Chelonia mydas agassizii</i>), olive ridley sea turtles (<i>Lepidochelys olivacea</i>), hawksbill sea turtles (<i>Eretmochelys imbricata</i>), and pelagic sea snakes (<i>Pelamis platurus</i>). The study was marked by a lack of sightings for whale sharks (<i>Rhinocodon typus</i>), a species expected inside Golfo Dulce at the time of study.This pilot project was designed to collect baseline data regarding the marine species that enter or reside in Golfo Dulce during the dry season months of January and February, and to determine spatialdistribution for species seen during the study period. <br><br> Sighting coordinates are based on the display of a handheld Garmin handheld GPS III. Measure accuracy is untested. Several other data attributes were also collected during our survey, including: Geographical area, distinctive markings, initial distance from boat, closest approach distance, swim direction, behavior, associated fauna, and environmental conditions (bi-daily).The best estimate recorded was used as the obs_count; when it was blank, the minimum estimated number of animals was used; when it was blank, too, the sum of the number of adults and young was used.Bessesen, B2011https://doi.org/10.82144/211d93afOBIS-SEAMAP708http://seamap.env.duke.edu/dataset/708OBIS-SEAMAPVersion 1.0.0ground condition2010-01-132010-02-24CompleteNone planned-83.4824-83.1135338.7290178.340317-83.4824-83.1135338.3403178.729017Open public unless otherwise noted. See Use Constraints for details.1. Not to use data obtained from OBIS-SEAMAP in any publication, product, or commercial application without proper attribution to the original data provider(s) and OBIS-SEAMAP unless the datasets are explicitly shown under the CC0 policy. Citations or credits are suggested as attribution. If the data you downloaded come from multiple datasets, a citation or credit to each of the datasets is required. Suggested citation for this dataset Bessesen, B. 2011. Multi-species marine sighting survey in Golfo Dulce, Costa Rica, Jan-Feb 2010. Data downloaded from OBIS-SEAMAP (http://seamap.env.duke.edu/dataset/708) on yyyy-mm-dd. Suggested citation for OBIS-SEAMAP: Halpin, P.N., A.J. Read, E. Fujioka, B.D. Best, B. Donnelly, L.J. Hazen, C. Kot, K. Urian, E. LaBrecque, A. Dimatteo, J. Cleary, C. Good, L.B. Crowder, and K.D. Hyrenbach. 2009. OBIS-SEAMAP: The world data center for marine mammal, sea bird, and sea turtle distributions. Oceanography 22(2):104-115 2. To forward the citation of any publication / report that made use of the data / tools provided by OBIS-SEAMAP for inclusion in our list of references. 3. Not to hold OBIS-SEAMAP or the original data providers liable for errors in the data. While we have made every effort to ensure the quality of the database, we cannot guarantee the accuracy of these datasets. 4. The burden for determining fitness for use of the downloaded data for any analyses lies entirely with the user. OBIS-SEAMAP or the original data providers do not support outcomes of your analyses that used the data you downloaded from OBIS-SEAMAP. 5. To consider inclusion of the accompanying transect (effort) dataset if available into the methodology of your analyses. 6. Not to redistribute the data you downloaded from OBIS-SEAMAP through any media without contect from OBIS-SEAMAP and the original data providers unless the datasets are explicitly shown under the CC0 policy.ShapefileBrooke BessesenPhoenix Zoomailing and physical addressbrooke@brookebessesen.com Brooke BessesenBessesen, B.L.2010http://www.osaconservation.org/ScienceReports/2010_Bessesen_Marine_Survey.pdf26 pp.Integrated Taxonomic Information Systemhttp://www.itis.usda.gov/Downloaded April, 2004Refer to the contact information of the datasetKingdomAnimalia202423PhylumChordata158852SubphylumVertebrata331030ClassReptilia173747OrderTestudines173749FamilyCheloniidae173828GenusChelonia173832SpeciesChelonia mydas173833GenusEretmochelys173835SpeciesEretmochelys imbricata173836GenusLepidochelys173838SpeciesLepidochelys olivacea173840ClassMammalia179913SubclassTheria179916InfraclassEutheria179925OrderCetacea180403SuborderOdontoceti180404FamilyDelphinidae180415GenusStenella180428SpeciesStenella attenuata180430GenusTursiops180425SpeciesTursiops truncatus180426SuborderMysticeti552298FamilyBalaenopteridae180522GenusMegaptera180529SpeciesMegaptera novaeangliae180530Halpin, P.N., A.J. Read, E. Fujioka, B.D. Best, B. Donnelly, L.J. Hazen, C. Kot, K. Urian, E. LaBrecque, A. Dimatteo, J. Cleary, C. Good, L.B. Crowder, and K.D. Hyrenbach2009Oceanography22(2):104-115http://www.tos.org/oceanography/article/obis-seamap-the-world-data-center-for-marine-mammal-sea-bird-and-sea-turtle enFGDC Content Standards for Digital Geospatial MetadataFGDC-STD-001-1998local timeConnie KotDuke Universitymailing and physical address

135 Duke Marine Lab Road

BeaufortNC28516USA252-504-7640connie.kot@duke.eduhttp://www.nbii.gov/Biological Data Profilehttp://www.esri.com/metadata/esriprof80.htmlESRI Metadata Profile2011-01-13ISO 19115 Geographic Information - MetadataDIS_ESRI1.0datasetDownloadable Data0.0210.021zipzipped shapefilehttp://seamap.env.duke.edu/dataset/708FreeGo to the OBIS-SEAMAP web siteOBIS-SEAMAPNicholas School of Environment, Duke Universitymailing and physical address

A328, LSRC

DurhamNC27708USA919-613-8021seamap-contact@duke.eduNot to hold OBIS-SEAMAP liable for errors in the data. While we have made every effort to ensure the quality of the database, we cannot guarantee the accuracy of these datasets. Also please refer to Use Constraints. 002 Local Area Network 0.021 Shapefile Vector GCS_WGS_1984Decimal degrees0.0001670.000167D_WGS_1984WGS_19846378137.000000298.257224GCS_WGS_1984 This section explains attributes included in the original dataset. OBIS-SEAMAP restricts the attributes available to the public to date/time, lat/lon and species names/counts only. Should you need other attributes described here, you are encouraged to contact the data provider.Brooke BessesenoidUnique ID number (generated by SEAMAP)sightingSighting numberobs_dateObserved dateobs_timeObserved timelatitudeLatitude of observationlongitudeLongitude of observationsp_obsSpecies observedsp_tsnSpecies ITIS TSNidrelID reliability codebestestBest estimated number of animalsminnumMinimum number of animalsmaxnumMaximum number of animalsadultsNumber of adultsyoungNumber of youngobs_countObserved count20060815 The collection instrument were two human observers and all sightings were confirmed by both. The observers’ previous experience and species identification cards supported ID reliability. Geographical area was noted using a published marine map and known landmarks. Location coordinates were taken from a handheld GPS unit (Garmin handheld GPS III displaying digital coordinate format). Data were recorded into a field notebook and later transcribed onto Excel data sheets. Plotted coordinates appeared in accord with map-based field notes.GPS coordinates were taken from the observation vessel at the closest approach distance and may not represent the exact location of the animal(s) observed. Distance from boat data were recorded at every sighting. A line transect methodology was not used and this data set does not allow reliable population abundance estimates.