Coming of age: - Do female harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) from the North Sea and Baltic Sea have sufficient time to reproduce in a human influenced environment?

Tina Kesselring; Sacha Viquerat; Ralph Brehm; Ursula Siebert

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0186951

Abstract

The harbour porpoise is the only cetacean species native to German waters. Since human pressures are suggested to shorten their reproductive lifespan, basic knowledge on reproduction is strongly required. One parameter is the onset of sexual maturity in female harbour porpoises. Therefore, we investigated the first signs of sexual maturity for a period of almost two decades (1990–2016). Ovaries from 111 female harbour porpoises from the German North Sea and Baltic Sea were examined for the presence and morphological structure of follicles, corpora lutea and corpora albicantia. Based on the ovarian characteristics we performed the first model-based estimation of age at sexual maturity for harbour porpoises from German waters. Additionally, we produced a demographical age structure based on all female strandings and bycatches from German coasts. Our results showed that corpora lutea and corpora albicantia as signs of former ovulation could be found in individuals at an age of 4.95 (± 0.6) years. No significant differences between specimens from the North Sea and Baltic Sea were detected. However, the average age at death differed significantly with 5.70 (± 0.27) years for North Sea animals and 3.67 (± 0.30) years for those in the Baltic Sea. Growing evidence exists that the shortened lifespan of Baltic Sea harbour porpoises is linked to an anthropogenically influenced environment with rising bycatch mortalities due to local gillnet fisheries. Thus, our findings support the idea of local management plans based on a model-based detection of age at sexual maturity and considering the anthropogenic impacts on the population for effective protection of harbour porpoises and the North Sea and Baltic Sea.

Citation: Kesselring T, Viquerat S, Brehm R, Siebert U (2017) Coming of age: - Do female harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) from the North Sea and Baltic Sea have sufficient time to reproduce in a human influenced environment? PLoS ONE 12(10): e0186951. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0186951

Editor: Songhai Li, Institute of Deep-sea Science and Engineering, Chinese Academy of Sciences, CHINA

Received: June 29, 2017; Accepted: October 10, 2017; Published: October 20, 2017

Copyright: © 2017 Kesselring et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files (S1 & S2 Files).

Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

The harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) is one of the smallest cetacean species and common in shallow coastal waters of the Northern hemisphere [1–3]. The mating season is considered to occur between June and September, the birth period from June to August [4–6]. Since harbour porpoises give birth only once a year, they are considered as a slowly reproducing species [7] and therefore depend on successful mating seasons. The age of sexual maturity is an important parameter for estimating the reproductive cycle of a species and for assessing the reproductive potential in a population. In general, sexual maturity is reached when an individual is capable of taking part in reproduction. For female mammals, this coincides with the first ovulation event [8]. Female harbour porpoises from areas outside the German North Sea and Baltic Sea attain sexual maturity at the age of 3–6 years, depending on the methodology used and which sub-population was assessed [5, 9–14]. In harbour porpoises from Danish waters including the North Sea and Baltic Sea (1985–1991), sexual maturity was determined as starting at the age of 3.63 years [5]. Specimens from West Greenland (1988–1995) showed an average age at sexual maturity of 2.45 years [13], while porpoises from the Bay of Fundy, Canada (1985–1988) reach sexual maturity between the age of 3.15 and 3.44 years [11]. In Scottish waters (1992–2005), harbour porpoises were found to be sexually mature at 4.35 years [14]. In Dutch waters, early investigations (1955–1978) revealed that females are considered to be mature at an age of 6 years [9]. Examining follicular activity and the presence and consistency of structures found on the ovaries, such as corpora lutea and corpora albicantia, is the most recommended way to monitor the individual status of reproduction and sexual maturity [8, 15]. Mammalian ovaries contain large numbers of follicles, which undergo a maturing process and release the oocyte [16, 17]. If not followed by ovulation, a follicle can regress and form a corpus atreticum. For other odontocetes, like Globalicephalus macrorhynchus, Physeter macrocephalus and Stenella attenuata, it is known that corpora atretica occur regularly at every stage of the oestrus cycle [8]. After ovulation has occurred, a corpus luteum is formed from residual cells of the Graafian follicle and functions as an endocrinal gland for the production of oestrogen and progesterone [18]. The corpus luteum is a distinct feature on the surface of the ovary that signals an ovulation event and thus sexual maturity [8]. After full efflorescence, a corpus luteum rearranges into a smaller structure on the ovarian surface and persists as a corpus albicans. Finally, after regressing almost completely, a small flat scar on the surface of the ovary may remain discernible for an unknown time [15, 18–21]. For other odontocetes, the attainment of the age at sexual maturity ranges according to their longevity between 2–3 years (franciscana dolphin), 7 years (bottlenose dolphin), 6–9 years (hectors dolphin) and 7–12 years (short-finned pilot whale) [22–25]. Although the harbour porpoise is the most abundant cetacean found along the beaches of the German North Sea and Baltic Sea [2], only a few studies have analysed the reproduction of females so far [2, 5, 26] and none of these undertook long-term data collections, but only carried out investigations of 3–5 year intervals [11, 13, 26]. In other species, changes in the onset of sexual maturity have been identified as possible results of shifts caused by natural or anthropogenic effects [27–30]. One major anthropogenic threat is the increasing bycatch rate in the Baltic Sea, which is suspected of reducing the living stocks of the harbour porpoise in this area [31–33]. Furthermore, toxic influx into the oceans through human activities are suspected drivers of reproductive failure [34–38] and have the potential to reduce the time span of reproduction in a species. Another aspect that is considered to be related to fetal loss and reduced fecundity (at least in other areas) is the incidence of infectious diseases such as infections with Brucella ceti [39]. This present study provides the first model-based estimationof age of sexual maturity of female harbour porpoises in the German North Sea and Baltic Sea considering mortalities attributable to anthropogenic causes to estimate the total number of females contributing to the reproductively active population.

Materials and methods

Sample collection

For determining the demographical age of subpopulations a dataset of 526 female harbour porpoises was utilised. Specimens were collected within the German stranding network, which conducts work (collect and hold carcasses and samples from European protected species) on German strandings following appropriate licenses from the relevant authorities (Ministry of Energy, Agriculture, the Environment, Nature and Digitalization, Ministry of Agriculture, Environment and Rural areas). Most of the animals were found stranded along the coast of Schleswig Holstein of the North Sea and western Baltic Sea between 1990 and 2016, only a small number of animals have been identified as bycatch (n = 159 between 1990 and 2014). All specimens were sampled during necropsies at the Institute for Terrestrial and Aquatic Wildlife Research (ITAW) in Büsum, Germany. Specimens were either dissected upon arrival or stored at -20°C prior to necropsy. All necropsies followed standardised protocols for harbour porpoises [40].

Age assessment

The extraction, preparation, processing and age assessment followed a standard protocol [41]. At least two different readers made three independent assessments of 15 different tooth sections per individual, resulting in over 30 independent age determinations per individual (Growth Layer Groups, hereafter referred to as GLG). All readings were averaged and approximated to the nearest whole year (Fig 1).

Download:

Fig 1.

Mid-longitudinal section of a tooth from a neonate (A) and an adult (B) harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0186951.g001

Ovarian examination

The reproductive tract of 111 animals was extracted, weighed and measured. A 4% phosphate-buffered formalin solution was used for fixating the samples. The ovaries were sliced into 1mm thick sections and all corpora and ovarian scars were counted and measured under a microscope (magnification: 4x) to the nearest 0.01mm using digital callipers. The formalin–fixed ovaries were transferred to 70% ethanol, dissected and embedded in paraffin wax using standard techniques. Sections of 5 μm thickness were stained with hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) and assessed under a light microscope. A Masson´s trichrome staining was performed for identifying connective tissue in potential corpora albicantia. A specimen was assumed to be sexually mature when at least one corpus could be detected on the ovaries. All examinations adhered to the procedures and terminology as recommended by the International Whaling Commission [8].

Data analysis

In a first step, the information on the number of corpora per individual was translated into a binomial response value (b_corpora), indicating the presence or absence of corpora in each specimen. This was irrespective of the actual number of corpora, enabling us to identify the age at which we expected more than 50% of the animals to exhibit corpora within the ovaries (and thus, according to the above definition, to have entered the reproductive cycle).

Assuming a functional relationship between the specimen’s age and the binomial response variable b_corpora, we utilised a logistic regression model (formula 1) using a logit link (formula 2) testing for an effect of the North Sea and Baltic Sea specimen on the intercept in R 3.2.2 [42]: (formula 1) where L denotes the likelihood that the predicted probabilities of the link function μ_i results in a success and 1_yi denotes the indicator function taking the value 1 if y_i occurs and 0 otherwise. In order to incorporate age as a covariate, we used the logit link function (formula 2): (formula 2) where M denotes the maximum of the sigmoid, k the steepness of the sigmoid, x₀ the x-value of the sigmoid midpoint and x the observed sample values.

In a second step, we used all available data on female specimens collected between 1990 and 2016 that had undergone GLG age estimation in order to assess a demographical structure of the harbour porpoise within the study area. After grouping into age classes, we calculated the estimated proportion of animals that is part of the reproductive population at any given time, applying the result of the binomial regression model in the previous step as a threshold value. Using this model approach, covariates such as tooth age and area can be included, which would not be as trivial in an ANOVA environment e.g. due to the error distribution of the binomial response variable.

Results

We evaluated a demographic age structure based on stranding records of 526 female harbour porpoises that had had their age assessed by means of GLG (of which 311 had been found along the German North Sea shore and 215 on the German Baltic Sea shore between 1990 and 2016). The age structure ranged between 0 and 22 years, with an estimated mean age of 4.87 ± 0.20 years (Table 1). The distribution of age classes is given in Table 1 and in more detail in Fig 2. The average age at death of German North Sea specimens was 5.70 (± 0.27) years for North Sea animals and 3.67 (± 0.30) years for specimens from the German Baltic Sea, respectively.

Download:

Fig 2. Population structure of female harbour porpoises of the North Sea (green bars) and Baltic Sea (red bars).

Proportion of animals indicates the proportion of animals relative to the total number of animals within a given age bracket. Round brackets indicate exclusive values, square brackets indicate inclusive values.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0186951.g002

Download:

Table 1. Quartile age distribution of harbour porpoises from the German North Sea and Baltic Sea between 1996 and 2017.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0186951.t001

Ovaries from 111 specimens were analysed in this study (Fig 3). Of these, 69 were found along the North Sea shore (41 of which displayed at least one corpus luteum or albicans) and 42 were found along the Baltic Sea shore, of which 18 specimens providing at least one corpus luteum or albicans (Table 2). Age determination was available for all 111 animals through GLG.

Download:

Fig 3. Ovary of an adult female harbour porpoise showing signs of former ovulation and tertiary follicles.

(A): Corpus luteum (asterisk) and corpus albicans (arrow). (B): Corpus luteum as a protuberance on the ovarian surface (C), (D): Histological section through a Corpus luteum showing luteal cells. Staining: H&E. (E): Histological section showing the Cumulus oophorus with the oocyte surrounded by the Zona pelucida and Corona radiata. Asterisk: Antrum folliculare. Staining: H&E. (F): Histological section through a Corpus albicans showing an increased amount of connective tissue (asterisk). Staining: Masson´s Trichrome.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0186951.g003

Download:

Table 2. Overview of analysed specimens.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0186951.t002

Using model c2 (Table 3), we predicted the threshold age at which more than 50% of the specimensdisplayed one corpusor more as a sign of formerovulation. The threshold was determined at 4.95 years or higher (95% CI: 4.2–4.8 years, Fig 4).

Download:

Fig 4. Binomial regression model showing the functional relationship between the presence of corpora (purple polygon) in female harbour porpoises from the German North Sea and Baltic Sea in relation to their age as determined by GLG.

The filled area indicates the 95% confidence interval of predicted values. The red line within that area indicates the predicted average probability of finding corpora within specimens at the given age; the blue dashed line marks a probability of 50%, with the red solid line indicating the corresponding age based on the intersection of the blue dashed line with the x-axis; samples are indicated as dark grey dots; a purple circle around data points indicates animals below the age threshold showing at least one corpus, an orange circle indicates animals above the threshold showing no corpora; background histogram (orange) shows number of animals (secondary y-axis) across tooth age classes (at 1-year intervals).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0186951.g004

Download:

Table 3. Model diagnostics for the binomial regression model of the probability of detecting corpora (models c1 and c2).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0186951.t003

Assuming that the animals enter their reproductive cycle at 4.95 years of age (as indicated by the previous analysis step), we estimated a total of 45.34% of female harbour porpoises in the North Sea and 72.56% in the Baltic Sea to participate in reproduction (Table 4).

Download:

Table 4. Percentile of all animals found between 1990 and 2017 that were older than the estimated threshold age of reaching sexual maturity of the population.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0186951.t004

Discussion

This study presents the first model-based estimation of sexual maturity using ovarian characteristics from female harbour porpoises collected from the German North Sea and Baltic Sea. Using a model approach, we identified the threshold at which more than 50% of all specimens qualify as mature without setting an arbitrary threshold that is biased by the observer. While data from stranding networks do not necessarily reflect the status of the entire population, these estimates have to be regarded as best available estimates rather than an absolute representation of the population. Using necropsy data from an unknown proportion of animals is always connected with a degree of uncertainty. We do not assume that animals found dead on the beaches represent the average population individual, nor that these stranded animals are spatially correlated to all population members and therefore might only represent a small fraction of the actual population. The onset of sexual maturity is very likely to be quite robust throughout individuals from stranding events across 20 years (as shown in the modelling step) and we therefore assume that the result is true for at least the proportion of animals that were found along the beaches. A data set spanning two decades is more susceptible to long term effects such as pollutants and individual life history events, which we aim to address once more data on GLG age estimates are collected. However, this is the best data set currently available and we must therefore assume that our results provide information on the average harbor porpoise (be they in perfect condition or under influence of pathological changes). The age of specimen ranged from 0 to 22 years, with a mean age of sexual maturity of 4.95 years. We could not detect any significant differences between specimens found in the Baltic Sea and those from the North Sea. It appears that specimens from the German Baltic Sea shore are slightly younger when reaching sexual maturity. Considering regional differences such as the magnitude of anthropogenic impacts, environmental settings and distinct prey availability, life parameters such as threshold age of sexual maturity, birth rates and calving intervals cannot be generalised for all harbour porpoises across (sub-) populations. It has been observed in other mammalian species that a good nutritional status can relate to an earlier onset of sexual maturity due to physiological features [43, 44]. Anthropogenic factors such as underwater noise, disturbance, bycatch, increasing amounts of marine debris and chemical pollution trigger changes in marine mammal physiology and manifest in an increased stress hormone level [45–47]. It has been shown that high stress levels are directly connected to the function of the hypothalamo-pituitary axis of the reproductive system of other mammals like humans, pigs and rats [48–52] and earlier onset of sexual maturity [53–55]. The direct effects on the reproductive hormonal system evoke amodified synthesis and secretion of Gonadotropin-releasing-hormone and affected responsiveness of the gonadotrophs to Gonadotropin-releasing-hormone. Furthermore, stress hormones are suspected of affecting the feedback mechanisms of steroid hormones in the hypothalamus and the pituitary gland [55]. These stress-induced effects on the reproductive system might be an evolutional value for the adaption to unfavourable environmental conditions. On the one hand, resources can be focussed on survival or improvement of an overall health status and, on the other hand, young females that might not have the potential to survive too long can be capable of producing offspring [54]. As first evidence is given on how the hormonal systems of harbour porpoises respond to stressors and in which way they might be influenced [47], a correlation between stress hormone levels and reproductive parameters in the future is strongly required in order to see whether existing knowledge from other mammals can be aligned with that of harbour porpoises. Furthermore, high levels of stress hormones are known to suppress the immune system [55], leading to an increased risk of viral and bacteriological infections [56]. These infections often cause high levels of inflammatory proteins such as cytokines that suppress fertility [57–58].

Growing evidence is given that besides the hormonal system of reproduction, also the immue system is susceptible to endocrine disrupters [59–61]. Chemical toxicants such as pesticides and plasticisers are major anthropogenic drivers of changes in the reproductive cycle of marine mammals, in particular the onset of sexual maturity [35]. PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) accumulating in the blubber of harbour porpoises from the North Sea could act as estrogenic as well as anti—estrogenic agents since they are capable of interacting with different hormonal mechanisms [60]. As an example, pituitary cells of laboratory rats exposed to contaminants show enhanced gonadotropin responses to GnRH and estrogens [62], or they are able to bind to estrogen receptors and thus inhibit or modify the cell response [63]. As such, it cannot be ruled out that changes in the onset of sexual maturity might depend on the spatial and temporal concentration of chemical pollutants within a local food web and might include a generation bias. Subsequent studies using larger datasets with additional information on potential factors that might influence reproductive parameters such as toxicant load, endocrine disruptors or marine debris findings would support a more explicit and spatial analysis of our findings. Regarding the poor availability of estimations for the age at sexual maturity in the study region, we consider the estimated mean age of sexual maturity to be a valid baseline for future investigations. This issue could support the calculation of reproductive lifespan, pregnancy rate and calving interval as indicators for the reproductive status of a population. Although our findings are in accordance with the range of observations reported from harbour porpoises from the North Atlantic, the age at sexual maturity appears to occur slighly later in the study area than in most of the other investigated regions. If we apply our age estimate of first signs of sexual maturity to the age structure of specimens found in the same region, we conclude that about 45% of animals in the North Sea and up to 73% of animals in the Baltic Sea might belong to the reproductively active part of the populations. Population estimates from the National German Monitoring Programme for harbour porpoises reveal that the population in the German North Sea contains about 50,000 animals [64] and that in the German Baltic Sea about 3,000 animals [personal communication with Sacha Viquerat]. Based on necropsy data, the sex ratio was assumed to be roughly 46% females. We infer that at peak population size in summer the total number of females belonging to the reproductive population amounted to 10,350 females in the German North Sea and only 1,007 females in the German Baltic Sea. Although the Baltic Sea reaches a higher percentage of reproductively active individuals and therefore might be capable of a faster regenaration of the population size, this value is still very low compared to other harbour porpoise populations and might be more vulnerable to environmental factors that shorten the reproductive lifespan. The low number of the Baltic Sea (sub-) populations could be caused by a variety of anthropogenic factors, especially increasing bycatches in the Baltic Sea [33]. Of the 4006 individuals, 159 were directly handed over by fishermen and classified as bycatch (~3% of all animals). 159 of 548 dissected animals were suspected to be bycaught based on pathological findings (~30% of all animals). The German stranding data showed that most of the 159 recorded bycaught porpoises between the years 1990–2014 were reported from bottom-set gillnet fisheries or stranded with characteristic net marks [46, 65]. Bycatches might affect the (sub-) populational development since female adult harbour porpoises are often bycaught due to their distribution near the shore during the reproductive period and their distinct foraging behaviours during lactation [66, 67] as well as juvenile harbour porpoises that show unestablished foraging habits.

In this study, the significantly lower age at death of individuals from the Baltic Sea compared to North Sea specimens supports the proposal to reduce the magnitude of bycatches to meet the conservation issue for harbour porpoises [33].We also observed a decline in the number of corpora in animals older than 8 years in samples from the German North Sea shore (but not in specimens from the German Baltic Sea, which we attribute mainly to the overall lower age of 3.67 years in Baltic Sea specimens). This decline might show, that more older signs of ovulation on the ovaries disappear than new ones develop as a potential sign of sexual senescence. This could indicate, that animals beyond that age do not succesfully mate regularly at least once a year after the age of 8 has been reached and thus, that the lifespan of full reproductive activity amounts to only about 3 years. This is a sensitive parameter with repect to human influences that might even shorten this timeframe that is essential for maintaining a constant population size. For future studies it is paramount that more data on the individual health condition and pathological findings of the investigated animals are included in the analyses to minimise this possible bias. Despite the fact that our data were too scarce to be able to conduct an elaborate analysis of the different observations in the NorthSea and Baltic Sea, it might be crucial for future investigations to consider the age at sexual maturity and corpus counts. Furthermore, other reproductive parameters such as pregnancy rate, birth rate, ovulation rate and even pathological findings in the reproductive tracts aswell as toxicological analyses to gain a complete overview of the reproductive status of a population are essential. Comprehensive long-term data including geographical information could support the analysis on a smaller spatial scale. Such datasets have been initiated for collecting from all HELCOM and OSPAR countries. Combining demographical data from specimens and population census data to estimate the proportion of sexually active animals of a population would be a key tool for any population viability study and a decisive concept to be applied in management plans. We reiterate the need for monitoring the age of sexual maturity at least bi-annually to identify any potentially serious changes in the reproductive potential of the (sub-)populations and thereby to conduct a retrospective trend analysis of data. Reporting bi-annual estimates of sexual maturity per (sub) population would be a valuable contribution to understanding population dynamics in harbour porpoises and to providing guidelines for swift policy decisions.

Supporting information

S1 File. Findings in the ovaries of female harbour porpoises.

Dataset includes the origin and individual data of the carcasses and the corresponding findings on the ovaries.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0186951.s001

(XLSX)

S2 File. Age distribution of female harbour porpoises.

Dataset includes individual data of the carcasses and their corresponding tooth age.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0186951.s002

(XLSX)

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank all personnel who helped during the necropsies at the ITAW Büsum. Special thanks go to our lab technicians at the ITAW Büsum aswell as staff at the Institute of Anatomy in Hannover, who helped us tremendously with the acquisition of samples, their handling and their age determination. We are especially grateful to Marion Langeheine for her expertise in professional histology. We would also like to thank Christina Lockyer for her great effort in helping us with the age determination technique. Furthermore, we would like to thank everyone involved in the stranding network who regularly collect, pass on specimens and report to the ITAW. We thank two anonymous referees for their comments on a previous draft of the paper and also Frances Sherwood-Brock for proofreading the article.

References

1. Kinze CC. On the harbour porpoise in Danish waters in Danish waters: Distribution, breeding areas, and threats. Fauna Flora 1990; 85 (3–4): 114–121.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
2. Benke H, Siebert U, Lick R, Bandomir B, Weiss R. The current status of harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) in German waters. Archive of Fishery and Marine Research 1998; 46: 97–123.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
3. Addink MJ, Smeenk C. The harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) in Dutch coastal waters: analysis of stranding records for the period 1920–1994. Lutra 1999; 41(1–2): 55–80.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
4. Sørensen TB, Kinze C. Reproduction and reproductive seasonality in Danish harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena). Ophelia, 1994; 39 (3), 159–176.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
5. Lockyer C. Harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) in the North Atlantic: Biological parameters. NAMMCO Scientific Publications 2003; 5: 71–89.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
6. Hasselmeier I, Abt KF, Adelung D, Siebert U. Stranding patterns of Harbour Porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) in the North and Baltic Seas: when does the birth period occur? Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 2004; 6 (3): 259–263.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
7. Fisher HD, Harrison RJ. Reproduction in the Common porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) of the North Atlantic. Journal of Zoology London 1970; 161: 471–486.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
8. Perrin WF, Reilly SB. Reproductive parameters of dolphins and small whales of the family delphinidae. Report of the Workshop. Report of the International Whaling Commission 1984: Special Issue 6: 97–133.
9. Van Utrecht WL. Age and growth in Phocoena phocoena Linnaeus, 1758 (Cetacea, Odontoceti) from the North Sea. Bijdragen tot de Dierkunde 1978; 48: 16–26.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
10. Gaskin DE, Smith GJD, Watson AP, Yasui WY, Yurick DB. Reproduction in porpoises (Phocoenidae): implications for management. Report of the International Whaling Commission 1984: (Special Issue 6): 135–148.
11. Read AJ, Hohn AA. Life in the fast lane: the life history of harbour porpoises from the Gulf of Maine. Marine Mammal Science 1995: 11: 423–440.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
12. Karakosta C, Jepson P, Ohira H, Moore A, Bennett P, Holt W. Testicular and ovarian development in the harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena). Journal of Zoology, London 1999; 249: 111–121.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
13. Lockyer C, Heide-Jørgensen M, Jensen J, Kinze C, Sørensen T. Age, length and reproductive parameters of harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) from West Greenland. ICES Journal of Marine Science 2001; 58: 154–162. 13
- View Article
- Google Scholar
14. Learmonth JA. Life history of harbor porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) in Scottish (UK) waters. Marine Mammal Science 2014: 30 (4): 1427–1455.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
15. Perrin WF, Brownell RL Jr, DeMaster DP. Reproduction in Whales, Dolphins and Porpoises. Report of the Workshop. Report of the International Whaling Commission 1984: Special Issue 6: 1–24.
16. Smollich A and Michel G. Mikroskopische Anatomie der Haustiere. 1992; 2: 283–292.
17. Eckert R. Tierphysiologie. 1993 2nd Edition: p. 358–359. ISBN 3–13–664002–0
18. Halldórsson SD, Víkingsson GA. Analysis of seasonal changes in reproductive organs from Icelandic harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena). NAMMCO Science Publications 2001; 5: 121–142.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
19. Lockyer C. A review of factors involved in zonation in odontocete teeth, and an investigation of the likely impact of environmental factors and major life events on harbour porpoise tooth structure. Rep. Mtg Int. Whal. Commn 1995: special issue 16: 511–529
- View Article
- Google Scholar
20. Ólafsdóttir D, Víkingsson GA, Halldórsson DS, Sigurjónsson J. Growth and reproduction in harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) in Icelandic waters. NAMMCO Scientific Publications 2002; 5, 121–142.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
21. Takahashi Y, Ohwada S, Watanabe K, Ropert-Coudert Y, Zenitani R, Naito Y et al. Does elastin contribute to the persistence of corpora albicantia in the ovary of the common dolphin (Delphinus delphis)? Marine Mammal Science 2006; 22: 819–830.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
22. Kasuya T, Brownell RL. Age determination, reproduction and growth of the Franziscana dolphin, Pontoporia blainvillei. Nōgyō Doboku Shikenjō gihō. F, Sōgō 1965
23. Slooten E. Age, growth, and reproduction in Hector's dolphins. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 1999; 69(6): 1689–1700
- View Article
- Google Scholar
24. March H, Kasuya T. Changes in the ovaries of the Short-Finned Pilot Whale, Globicepha macrorhynchus with Age and Reproductivet activity, Rep.Int.Whal.Commn. 1984 (special issue 6)
25. Sergeant DE, Caldwell DK, Caldwell MC. Age, Growth, and Maturity of Bottlenosed Dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) from Northeast Florida. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada, 1973; 30(7): 1009–1011
- View Article
- Google Scholar
26. Bandomir B, Chavez-Lisambart L, Siebert U. Reproduction In Harbour Porpoises (Phocoena Phocoena), From German Waters. Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Conference of the European Cetacean Society. 1998. 2pp
27. Lockyer C. The age at sexual maturity of the southern fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus) using annual layer counts in the ear plug. Journal du Conseil International d´Exploration de Mer. 1972; 34(2): 276–294.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
28. Ohsumi S. Yearly change in age and body length at sexual maturity of a fin whale stock in the eastern north pacific. Scientific Reports of the Whale Research Institute 1986; No. 37: 1–16 28
- View Article
- Google Scholar
29. Bando T, Kishiro T, Kato H. Yearly trend in the age at sexual maturity of Antarctic minke whales examined by transition phase in earplugs collected during JARPA and JARPAII surveys. Scientific paper submitted to the JARPAII review meeting called by the IWC 2014. F14/J8 2014. 29
30. Hohn A, Ewing RY, Zaias J. Reproduction in: Debra Lee Miller. Relation to conservation and commercial exploitation. In: Reproductive Biology and Phylogeny of Cetacea: Whales, Porpoises and Dolphins 2007: 7th edition: chapter 14
31. Berggren P. Bycatches of the Harbour Porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) in the Swedish Skagerrak, Kattegat and Baltic Seas 1973–1993. Reports of the International Whaling Commission 1994: Spec Issue 15:211–215
32. Berggren P, Wade PR, Carlström J, Read AJ. Potential limits to anthropogenic mortality for harbour porpoises in the Baltic region. Biological Conservation 2002; 103: 313–322 32
- View Article
- Google Scholar
33. Koschinski S, Pfander A. By-catch of harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) in the Baltic coastal waters of Angeln and Schwansen (Schleswig-Holstein, Germany). 16th ASCOBANS Advisory Committee Meeting Document 2009: AC16/Doc.60. Dist. 8
34. Jepson PD, Deaville R, Barber JL, Aguilar A, Borrell A, Murphy S et al. PCB pollution continues to impact populations of orcas and other dolphins in European waters. Scientific Reports 2016; 6: doi: 10.1038.34
- View Article
- Google Scholar
35. Murphy S, Barber JL, Learmonth JA, Read FL, Deaville R et al. Reproductive Failure in UK Harbour Porpoises Phocoena phocoena: Legacy of Pollutant Exposure? PLoS ONE 2015; 10 (7): doi: 10.1371
- View Article
- Google Scholar
36. Addison RF. Organochlorines and marine mammal reproduction. Canadian Journal of Fishery and Aquatic Science 1989; 46 (2): 360–368
- View Article
- Google Scholar
37. Aguilar A, Borrell A: Pollution and harbour porpoises in the eastern North Atlantic: A review. Reports of the International Whaling Commission 1995: special issue 16: 231–242,
38. Reijnders PJH. Reproductive failure in common seals feeding on fish from polluted coastal waters. Nature, London 1986; 324: 556–557
- View Article
- Google Scholar
39. Jauniaux T, Brenez C, Fretin D, Godfroid J, Haelters J, Jacques T, et al. Brucella ceti Infection in Harbor Porpoise (Phocoena phocoena). Emerg Infect Dis. 2010 16(12): 1966–1968 pmid:21122233
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
40. Siebert U, Wünschmann A, Weiss R, Frank H, Benke H and Frese K. Post-mortem Findings in Harbour Porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) from the German North and Baltic Seas. Journal of Comparative Pathology 2001; 124: 102–114. pmid:11222006
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
41. Lockyer C. A review of factors involved in zonation in odontocete teeth, and an investigation of the likely impact of environmental factors and major life events on harbour porpoise tooth structure. Rep. Mtg Int. Whal. Commn 1995b: special issue 16: 511–529.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
42. Akaike H. Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. 2nd International Symposium on Information Theory 1974; 267–281.
43. Baker ER. Body Weight and the Initiation of Puberty. Clinical Obstetrics & Gynecology 1985; 28 (3): 573–579.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
44. Kaplowitz PB. Link Between Body Fat and the Timing of Puberty. Pediatrics 2008; 121: 208–217.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
45. Romano TA, Keogh MJ, Kelly C and Finneran JJ. Anthropogenic sound and marine mammal health: Measures of the nervous and immune systems before and after intense sound exposure. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2004; 61 (7): 1124–1134.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
46. Unger B, Herr H, Benke H, Böhmert M, Burkhardt-Holm P, Dähne M, et al. Marine debris in harbour porpoises and seals from German waters. Marine Environmental research 2017. doi: 10.1016
- View Article
- Google Scholar
47. Müller S, Lehnert K, Seibel H, Driver J, Ronnenberg K, Teilmann J, et al. Evaluation of immune and stress status in harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena): can hormones and mRNA expression levels serve as indicators to assess stress? BMC Veterinary Research 2013 (9): 145.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
48. Hennessy DP, Williamson P. The effects of stress and of ACTH administration in hormone profiles, oestrus ans ovulation in pigs. Theriogenology 1983; 20 (1): 13–26. pmid:16725827
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
49. Rivier C, Vale W. Cytokines Act within the Brain to Inhibit Luteinizing Hormone Secretion and Ovulation in the Rat. Endocrinology 2016; 127 (2): 849–856.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
50. Roozendaal MM, Swarts HJM, Wiegant VM and Mattheij JAM. Effect of restraint stress on the preovulatory luteinizing hormone profile and ovulation in the rat. European Journal of Endocrinology 1995; 133: 347–353. pmid:7581953
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
51. Nakamura K, Sheps S, Clara Arck P. Stress and reproductive failure: past notions, present insights and future directions. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 2008; 25 (2–3): 47–62. pmid:18274890
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
52. Tilbrook AJ, Turner AI, Clarke IJ. Effects of stress on reproduction in non-rodent mammals: The role of glucocorticoids and sex differences. Reviews of Reproduction 2000; 5:105–113 pmid:10864855
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
53. Ellis BJ, Essex MJ. Family Environments, Adrenarche, and Sexual Maturation: A Longitudinal Test of a Life History Model, Child Development 2007; 78(6):1799–817 pmid:17988322
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
54. Ellis BJ. Timing of pubertal maturation in girls: an integrated life history approach., Psychol Bull. 2004; 130(6):920–58. pmid:15535743
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
55. Glaser D, Kiecolt-Glaser JK. Stress-induced immune dysfunction: implications for health. Nature Reviews Immunology 2005; 5: 243–251 pmid:15738954
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
56. Siebert U and Weiss R. Regional differences in bacteria flora in harbour porpoises from the North Atlantic: environmental effects. Journal of Applied Microbiology 2009; 106: 329–337 pmid:19120613
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
57. Mikuni M. Effect of interleukin-2 and interleukin-6 on ovary in the ovulatory period—establishment of the new ovarian perfusion system and influence of interleukins on ovulation rate and steroid secretion. The Hokkaido Journal of Medical Science 1995; 70 (4): 561–572 pmid:7590603
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
58. Ahmed SA. The immune system as a potential target for environmental estrogens (endocrine disrupters): a new emerging field. Toxicology 2000; 150 (1–3): 191–216. pmid:10996675
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
59. Beineke A, Siebert U, MacLachlan M, Bruhn R, Thron K, Failing K et al. Investigations of the potential influence of environmental contaminants on the thymus and spleen of harbor porpoises (Phocoena phocoena). Environmental Science and Technology 2005; 39: 3933–3938. pmid:15984767
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
60. Das K, Vossen A, Tolley K, Vikingsson G, Thron K, Müller G. Interfollicular fibrosis on the thyroid glands of the harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena): An endocrine disruption? Archive of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 2006; 51: 720–729
- View Article
- Google Scholar
61. Imazaki PH, Brose F, Jauniaux T, Das K, Muller M, Scippo ML. Estrogenic Evaluation and Organochlorine Identification in Blubber of North Sea Harbour Porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) Stranded on the North Sea Coast. BioMed Research International 2015. pmid:26075240
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
62. Jansen HT, Cooke PS, Porcelli J, Liu TC, Hansen LG. Estrogenic and antiestrogenenic actions of PCBs in the female rat: In vitro and in vivo studies. Reproductive Toxicology. 1993; 7, pp. 237–248
- View Article
- Google Scholar
63. Lind PM, Eriksen EF, Sahlin L, Edlund M, Orberg J. Effects of the Antiestrogenic Environmental Pollutant 3,39,4,49,5-Pentachlorobiphenyl (PCB #126) in Rat Bone and Uterus: Diverging Effects in Ovariectomized and Intact Animals.Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 1999; 154: 236–244 pmid:9931283
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
64. Gilles A, Scheidat M, Siebert U. Seasonal distribution of harbour porpoises and possible interference of offshore wind farms in the German North Sea. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2009;383:295–307
- View Article
- Google Scholar
65. Siebert U, Tolley K, Vikingsson GA, Baumgärtner W. Pathological Findings in Harbour Porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) from Norwegian and Icelandic Waters. Journal of Comparative Pathology 2006; 134(2–3):134–42 pmid:16527299
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
66. Yasui WY and Gaskin DE. Energy budget of a small Cetacean, the harbour Porpoise, Phocoena Phocoena. Ophelia 1986; 25(3): 183–197
- View Article
- Google Scholar
67. Sveegaard S, Teilmann J, Tougaard J, Dietz R, Mouritsen KN, Desportes G et al. High-density areas for harbor porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) identified by satellite tracking. Marine Mammals Science 2010; 27(1): 230–246.
- View Article
- Google Scholar

[ref1] 1. Kinze CC. On the harbour porpoise in Danish waters in Danish waters: Distribution, breeding areas, and threats. Fauna Flora 1990; 85 (3–4): 114–121.
View Article
Google Scholar

[2] View Article

[3] Google Scholar

[ref2] 2. Benke H, Siebert U, Lick R, Bandomir B, Weiss R. The current status of harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) in German waters. Archive of Fishery and Marine Research 1998; 46: 97–123.
View Article
Google Scholar

[5] View Article

[6] Google Scholar

[ref3] 3. Addink MJ, Smeenk C. The harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) in Dutch coastal waters: analysis of stranding records for the period 1920–1994. Lutra 1999; 41(1–2): 55–80.
View Article
Google Scholar

[8] View Article

[9] Google Scholar

[ref4] 4. Sørensen TB, Kinze C. Reproduction and reproductive seasonality in Danish harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena). Ophelia, 1994; 39 (3), 159–176.
View Article
Google Scholar

[11] View Article

[12] Google Scholar

[ref5] 5. Lockyer C. Harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) in the North Atlantic: Biological parameters. NAMMCO Scientific Publications 2003; 5: 71–89.
View Article
Google Scholar

[14] View Article

[15] Google Scholar

[ref6] 6. Hasselmeier I, Abt KF, Adelung D, Siebert U. Stranding patterns of Harbour Porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) in the North and Baltic Seas: when does the birth period occur? Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 2004; 6 (3): 259–263.
View Article
Google Scholar

[17] View Article

[18] Google Scholar

[ref7] 7. Fisher HD, Harrison RJ. Reproduction in the Common porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) of the North Atlantic. Journal of Zoology London 1970; 161: 471–486.
View Article
Google Scholar

[20] View Article

[21] Google Scholar

[ref8] 8. Perrin WF, Reilly SB. Reproductive parameters of dolphins and small whales of the family delphinidae. Report of the Workshop. Report of the International Whaling Commission 1984: Special Issue 6: 97–133.

[ref9] 9. Van Utrecht WL. Age and growth in Phocoena phocoena Linnaeus, 1758 (Cetacea, Odontoceti) from the North Sea. Bijdragen tot de Dierkunde 1978; 48: 16–26.
View Article
Google Scholar

[24] View Article

[25] Google Scholar

[ref10] 10. Gaskin DE, Smith GJD, Watson AP, Yasui WY, Yurick DB. Reproduction in porpoises (Phocoenidae): implications for management. Report of the International Whaling Commission 1984: (Special Issue 6): 135–148.

[ref11] 11. Read AJ, Hohn AA. Life in the fast lane: the life history of harbour porpoises from the Gulf of Maine. Marine Mammal Science 1995: 11: 423–440.
View Article
Google Scholar

[28] View Article

[29] Google Scholar

[ref12] 12. Karakosta C, Jepson P, Ohira H, Moore A, Bennett P, Holt W. Testicular and ovarian development in the harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena). Journal of Zoology, London 1999; 249: 111–121.
View Article
Google Scholar

[31] View Article

[32] Google Scholar

[ref13] 13. Lockyer C, Heide-Jørgensen M, Jensen J, Kinze C, Sørensen T. Age, length and reproductive parameters of harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) from West Greenland. ICES Journal of Marine Science 2001; 58: 154–162. 13
View Article
Google Scholar

[34] View Article

[35] Google Scholar

[ref14] 14. Learmonth JA. Life history of harbor porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) in Scottish (UK) waters. Marine Mammal Science 2014: 30 (4): 1427–1455.
View Article
Google Scholar

[37] View Article

[38] Google Scholar

[ref15] 15. Perrin WF, Brownell RL Jr, DeMaster DP. Reproduction in Whales, Dolphins and Porpoises. Report of the Workshop. Report of the International Whaling Commission 1984: Special Issue 6: 1–24.

[ref16] 16. Smollich A and Michel G. Mikroskopische Anatomie der Haustiere. 1992; 2: 283–292.

[ref17] 17. Eckert R. Tierphysiologie. 1993 2nd Edition: p. 358–359. ISBN 3–13–664002–0

[ref18] 18. Halldórsson SD, Víkingsson GA. Analysis of seasonal changes in reproductive organs from Icelandic harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena). NAMMCO Science Publications 2001; 5: 121–142.
View Article
Google Scholar

[43] View Article

[44] Google Scholar

[ref19] 19. Lockyer C. A review of factors involved in zonation in odontocete teeth, and an investigation of the likely impact of environmental factors and major life events on harbour porpoise tooth structure. Rep. Mtg Int. Whal. Commn 1995: special issue 16: 511–529
View Article
Google Scholar

[46] View Article

[47] Google Scholar

[ref20] 20. Ólafsdóttir D, Víkingsson GA, Halldórsson DS, Sigurjónsson J. Growth and reproduction in harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) in Icelandic waters. NAMMCO Scientific Publications 2002; 5, 121–142.
View Article
Google Scholar

[49] View Article

[50] Google Scholar

[ref21] 21. Takahashi Y, Ohwada S, Watanabe K, Ropert-Coudert Y, Zenitani R, Naito Y et al. Does elastin contribute to the persistence of corpora albicantia in the ovary of the common dolphin (Delphinus delphis)? Marine Mammal Science 2006; 22: 819–830.
View Article
Google Scholar

[52] View Article

[53] Google Scholar

[ref22] 22. Kasuya T, Brownell RL. Age determination, reproduction and growth of the Franziscana dolphin, Pontoporia blainvillei. Nōgyō Doboku Shikenjō gihō. F, Sōgō 1965

[ref23] 23. Slooten E. Age, growth, and reproduction in Hector's dolphins. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 1999; 69(6): 1689–1700
View Article
Google Scholar

[56] View Article

[57] Google Scholar

[ref24] 24. March H, Kasuya T. Changes in the ovaries of the Short-Finned Pilot Whale, Globicepha macrorhynchus with Age and Reproductivet activity, Rep.Int.Whal.Commn. 1984 (special issue 6)

[ref25] 25. Sergeant DE, Caldwell DK, Caldwell MC. Age, Growth, and Maturity of Bottlenosed Dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) from Northeast Florida. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada, 1973; 30(7): 1009–1011
View Article
Google Scholar

[60] View Article

[61] Google Scholar

[ref26] 26. Bandomir B, Chavez-Lisambart L, Siebert U. Reproduction In Harbour Porpoises (Phocoena Phocoena), From German Waters. Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Conference of the European Cetacean Society. 1998. 2pp

[ref27] 27. Lockyer C. The age at sexual maturity of the southern fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus) using annual layer counts in the ear plug. Journal du Conseil International d´Exploration de Mer. 1972; 34(2): 276–294.
View Article
Google Scholar

[64] View Article

[65] Google Scholar

[ref28] 28. Ohsumi S. Yearly change in age and body length at sexual maturity of a fin whale stock in the eastern north pacific. Scientific Reports of the Whale Research Institute 1986; No. 37: 1–16 28
View Article
Google Scholar

[67] View Article

[68] Google Scholar

[ref29] 29. Bando T, Kishiro T, Kato H. Yearly trend in the age at sexual maturity of Antarctic minke whales examined by transition phase in earplugs collected during JARPA and JARPAII surveys. Scientific paper submitted to the JARPAII review meeting called by the IWC 2014. F14/J8 2014. 29

[ref30] 30. Hohn A, Ewing RY, Zaias J. Reproduction in: Debra Lee Miller. Relation to conservation and commercial exploitation. In: Reproductive Biology and Phylogeny of Cetacea: Whales, Porpoises and Dolphins 2007: 7th edition: chapter 14

[ref31] 31. Berggren P. Bycatches of the Harbour Porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) in the Swedish Skagerrak, Kattegat and Baltic Seas 1973–1993. Reports of the International Whaling Commission 1994: Spec Issue 15:211–215

[ref32] 32. Berggren P, Wade PR, Carlström J, Read AJ. Potential limits to anthropogenic mortality for harbour porpoises in the Baltic region. Biological Conservation 2002; 103: 313–322 32
View Article
Google Scholar

[73] View Article

[74] Google Scholar

[ref33] 33. Koschinski S, Pfander A. By-catch of harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) in the Baltic coastal waters of Angeln and Schwansen (Schleswig-Holstein, Germany). 16th ASCOBANS Advisory Committee Meeting Document 2009: AC16/Doc.60. Dist. 8

[ref34] 34. Jepson PD, Deaville R, Barber JL, Aguilar A, Borrell A, Murphy S et al. PCB pollution continues to impact populations of orcas and other dolphins in European waters. Scientific Reports 2016; 6: doi: 10.1038.34
View Article
Google Scholar

[77] View Article

[78] Google Scholar

[ref35] 35. Murphy S, Barber JL, Learmonth JA, Read FL, Deaville R et al. Reproductive Failure in UK Harbour Porpoises Phocoena phocoena: Legacy of Pollutant Exposure? PLoS ONE 2015; 10 (7): doi: 10.1371
View Article
Google Scholar

[80] View Article

[81] Google Scholar

[ref36] 36. Addison RF. Organochlorines and marine mammal reproduction. Canadian Journal of Fishery and Aquatic Science 1989; 46 (2): 360–368
View Article
Google Scholar

[83] View Article

[84] Google Scholar

[ref37] 37. Aguilar A, Borrell A: Pollution and harbour porpoises in the eastern North Atlantic: A review. Reports of the International Whaling Commission 1995: special issue 16: 231–242,

[ref38] 38. Reijnders PJH. Reproductive failure in common seals feeding on fish from polluted coastal waters. Nature, London 1986; 324: 556–557
View Article
Google Scholar

[87] View Article

[88] Google Scholar

[ref39] 39. Jauniaux T, Brenez C, Fretin D, Godfroid J, Haelters J, Jacques T, et al. Brucella ceti Infection in Harbor Porpoise (Phocoena phocoena). Emerg Infect Dis. 2010 16(12): 1966–1968 pmid:21122233
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[90] View Article

[91] PubMed/NCBI

[92] Google Scholar

[ref40] 40. Siebert U, Wünschmann A, Weiss R, Frank H, Benke H and Frese K. Post-mortem Findings in Harbour Porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) from the German North and Baltic Seas. Journal of Comparative Pathology 2001; 124: 102–114. pmid:11222006
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[94] View Article

[95] PubMed/NCBI

[96] Google Scholar

[ref41] 41. Lockyer C. A review of factors involved in zonation in odontocete teeth, and an investigation of the likely impact of environmental factors and major life events on harbour porpoise tooth structure. Rep. Mtg Int. Whal. Commn 1995b: special issue 16: 511–529.
View Article
Google Scholar

[98] View Article

[99] Google Scholar

[ref42] 42. Akaike H. Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. 2nd International Symposium on Information Theory 1974; 267–281.

[ref43] 43. Baker ER. Body Weight and the Initiation of Puberty. Clinical Obstetrics & Gynecology 1985; 28 (3): 573–579.
View Article
Google Scholar

[102] View Article

[103] Google Scholar

[ref44] 44. Kaplowitz PB. Link Between Body Fat and the Timing of Puberty. Pediatrics 2008; 121: 208–217.
View Article
Google Scholar

[105] View Article

[106] Google Scholar

[ref45] 45. Romano TA, Keogh MJ, Kelly C and Finneran JJ. Anthropogenic sound and marine mammal health: Measures of the nervous and immune systems before and after intense sound exposure. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2004; 61 (7): 1124–1134.
View Article
Google Scholar

[108] View Article

[109] Google Scholar

[ref46] 46. Unger B, Herr H, Benke H, Böhmert M, Burkhardt-Holm P, Dähne M, et al. Marine debris in harbour porpoises and seals from German waters. Marine Environmental research 2017. doi: 10.1016
View Article
Google Scholar

[111] View Article

[112] Google Scholar

[ref47] 47. Müller S, Lehnert K, Seibel H, Driver J, Ronnenberg K, Teilmann J, et al. Evaluation of immune and stress status in harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena): can hormones and mRNA expression levels serve as indicators to assess stress? BMC Veterinary Research 2013 (9): 145.
View Article
Google Scholar

[114] View Article

[115] Google Scholar

[ref48] 48. Hennessy DP, Williamson P. The effects of stress and of ACTH administration in hormone profiles, oestrus ans ovulation in pigs. Theriogenology 1983; 20 (1): 13–26. pmid:16725827
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[117] View Article

[118] PubMed/NCBI

[119] Google Scholar

[ref49] 49. Rivier C, Vale W. Cytokines Act within the Brain to Inhibit Luteinizing Hormone Secretion and Ovulation in the Rat. Endocrinology 2016; 127 (2): 849–856.
View Article
Google Scholar

[121] View Article

[122] Google Scholar

[ref50] 50. Roozendaal MM, Swarts HJM, Wiegant VM and Mattheij JAM. Effect of restraint stress on the preovulatory luteinizing hormone profile and ovulation in the rat. European Journal of Endocrinology 1995; 133: 347–353. pmid:7581953
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[124] View Article

[125] PubMed/NCBI

[126] Google Scholar

[ref51] 51. Nakamura K, Sheps S, Clara Arck P. Stress and reproductive failure: past notions, present insights and future directions. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 2008; 25 (2–3): 47–62. pmid:18274890
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[128] View Article

[129] PubMed/NCBI

[130] Google Scholar

[ref52] 52. Tilbrook AJ, Turner AI, Clarke IJ. Effects of stress on reproduction in non-rodent mammals: The role of glucocorticoids and sex differences. Reviews of Reproduction 2000; 5:105–113 pmid:10864855
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[132] View Article

[133] PubMed/NCBI

[134] Google Scholar

[ref53] 53. Ellis BJ, Essex MJ. Family Environments, Adrenarche, and Sexual Maturation: A Longitudinal Test of a Life History Model, Child Development 2007; 78(6):1799–817 pmid:17988322
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[136] View Article

[137] PubMed/NCBI

[138] Google Scholar

[ref54] 54. Ellis BJ. Timing of pubertal maturation in girls: an integrated life history approach., Psychol Bull. 2004; 130(6):920–58. pmid:15535743
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[140] View Article

[141] PubMed/NCBI

[142] Google Scholar

[ref55] 55. Glaser D, Kiecolt-Glaser JK. Stress-induced immune dysfunction: implications for health. Nature Reviews Immunology 2005; 5: 243–251 pmid:15738954
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[144] View Article

[145] PubMed/NCBI

[146] Google Scholar

[ref56] 56. Siebert U and Weiss R. Regional differences in bacteria flora in harbour porpoises from the North Atlantic: environmental effects. Journal of Applied Microbiology 2009; 106: 329–337 pmid:19120613
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[148] View Article

[149] PubMed/NCBI

[150] Google Scholar

[ref57] 57. Mikuni M. Effect of interleukin-2 and interleukin-6 on ovary in the ovulatory period—establishment of the new ovarian perfusion system and influence of interleukins on ovulation rate and steroid secretion. The Hokkaido Journal of Medical Science 1995; 70 (4): 561–572 pmid:7590603
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[152] View Article

[153] PubMed/NCBI

[154] Google Scholar

[ref58] 58. Ahmed SA. The immune system as a potential target for environmental estrogens (endocrine disrupters): a new emerging field. Toxicology 2000; 150 (1–3): 191–216. pmid:10996675
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[156] View Article

[157] PubMed/NCBI

[158] Google Scholar

[ref59] 59. Beineke A, Siebert U, MacLachlan M, Bruhn R, Thron K, Failing K et al. Investigations of the potential influence of environmental contaminants on the thymus and spleen of harbor porpoises (Phocoena phocoena). Environmental Science and Technology 2005; 39: 3933–3938. pmid:15984767
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[160] View Article

[161] PubMed/NCBI

[162] Google Scholar

[ref60] 60. Das K, Vossen A, Tolley K, Vikingsson G, Thron K, Müller G. Interfollicular fibrosis on the thyroid glands of the harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena): An endocrine disruption? Archive of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 2006; 51: 720–729
View Article
Google Scholar

[164] View Article

[165] Google Scholar

[ref61] 61. Imazaki PH, Brose F, Jauniaux T, Das K, Muller M, Scippo ML. Estrogenic Evaluation and Organochlorine Identification in Blubber of North Sea Harbour Porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) Stranded on the North Sea Coast. BioMed Research International 2015. pmid:26075240
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[167] View Article

[168] PubMed/NCBI

[169] Google Scholar

[ref62] 62. Jansen HT, Cooke PS, Porcelli J, Liu TC, Hansen LG. Estrogenic and antiestrogenenic actions of PCBs in the female rat: In vitro and in vivo studies. Reproductive Toxicology. 1993; 7, pp. 237–248
View Article
Google Scholar

[171] View Article

[172] Google Scholar

[ref63] 63. Lind PM, Eriksen EF, Sahlin L, Edlund M, Orberg J. Effects of the Antiestrogenic Environmental Pollutant 3,39,4,49,5-Pentachlorobiphenyl (PCB #126) in Rat Bone and Uterus: Diverging Effects in Ovariectomized and Intact Animals.Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 1999; 154: 236–244 pmid:9931283
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[174] View Article

[175] PubMed/NCBI

[176] Google Scholar

[ref64] 64. Gilles A, Scheidat M, Siebert U. Seasonal distribution of harbour porpoises and possible interference of offshore wind farms in the German North Sea. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2009;383:295–307
View Article
Google Scholar

[178] View Article

[179] Google Scholar

[ref65] 65. Siebert U, Tolley K, Vikingsson GA, Baumgärtner W. Pathological Findings in Harbour Porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) from Norwegian and Icelandic Waters. Journal of Comparative Pathology 2006; 134(2–3):134–42 pmid:16527299
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[181] View Article

[182] PubMed/NCBI

[183] Google Scholar

[ref66] 66. Yasui WY and Gaskin DE. Energy budget of a small Cetacean, the harbour Porpoise, Phocoena Phocoena. Ophelia 1986; 25(3): 183–197
View Article
Google Scholar

[185] View Article

[186] Google Scholar

[ref67] 67. Sveegaard S, Teilmann J, Tougaard J, Dietz R, Mouritsen KN, Desportes G et al. High-density areas for harbor porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) identified by satellite tracking. Marine Mammals Science 2010; 27(1): 230–246.
View Article
Google Scholar

[188] View Article

[189] Google Scholar

Coming of age: - Do female harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) from the North Sea and Baltic Sea have sufficient time to reproduce in a human influenced environment?

Coming of age: - Do female harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) from the North Sea and Baltic Sea have sufficient time to reproduce in a human influenced environment?

Correction

Figures

Abstract

Introduction

Materials and methods

Sample collection

Age assessment

Ovarian examination

Data analysis

Results

Discussion

Supporting information

S1 File. Findings in the ovaries of female harbour porpoises.

S2 File. Age distribution of female harbour porpoises.

Acknowledgments

References