DOCSLIB.ORG

Standard Operating Procedures: How to Prepare an “Ecological Risk Screening Summary”

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Standard Operating Procedures: How to Prepare an “Ecological Risk Screening Summary” Standard Operating Procedures: How to prepare an “Ecological Risk Screening Summary” U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service September 2016 Updated February 2020 A-1 SOP for Ecological Risk Screening Summaries USFWS, February 2020 Important Notes Regarding This Document This Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) is intended to explain the purpose of the Ecological Risk Screening Summary (ERSS) and provide rigorous, repeatable steps necessary to obtain and synthesize the species data to complete an ERSS. Several important points regarding this document must be clearly noted: • The ERSS SOP is intended for use by people with a background in the taxa or species being assessed or (at the least) a background in biology, ecology, or invasive species and that have been trained in preparing ERSSs. It was originally titled ‘Standard Operating Procedures for the Rapid Screening of Species’ Risk of Establishment and Impact in the United States’. • The ERSS process is designed to be useful for terrestrial and freshwater animal and plant taxa. The process is not currently applicable to exclusively marine species as current climate matching tools were not developed with consideration of marine environments and climate variables. See Appendix F for how to address estuarine species or species where only a portion of their lifecycle is in marine environments. The process has not been tested on pathogens. • The draft version of the ERSS SOP underwent peer review without constraint on taxonomic groups to which the process could be applied. The process for the peer review followed U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) procedures, and the Office of Management and Budget’s criteria of peer review for influential scientific information. Five independent expert reviewers, with expertise in invasive species biology, invasive species risk assessment, decision-support modeling, aquatic species biology, aquaculture, and fisheries, participated in the peer review process. Peer reviews were conducted individually, all comments were considered, and the process was revised where necessary. All peer review comments and the Service’s response to those comments are available to the public on the Service’s website (www.fws.gov/science/peer_review_agenda.html). • As part of the peer review, several reviewers commented on the need for a separate background and justification document for the ERSS process. That document will be available in the future online at the Service’s Fish and Aquatic Conservation website (https://www.fws.gov/fisheries/ANS/prevention.html). The document describes the history of the ERSS development and provides justification for the use of climate matching and history of invasiveness as a basis for preventative risk assessment. It is a companion to this SOP and is titled “Background and Justification for Ecological Risk Screening Summaries.” i SOP for Ecological Risk Screening Summaries USFWS, February 2020 • All examples and technical directions are given with reference to Microsoft Office 2016, Google Chrome, and ArcGIS Desktop 10.6 software. Earlier or later versions may have different functionality. Mention of commercial products does not necessarily entail endorsement by the U.S. Federal Government. Table of Contents Important Notes Regarding This Document ................................................................................................ i Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................................... ii PART 1: INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 1 Background ................................................................................................................................................ 1 Purpose ...................................................................................................................................................... 2 How the ERSS Process Works .................................................................................................................. 2 Link to the FISRAM .................................................................................................................................. 2 Using the ERSS Reports ............................................................................................................................ 3 PART 2: GUIDELINES FOR CONDUCTING AN ECOLOGICAL RISK SCREENING SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................................... 5 Assessor Qualifications .............................................................................................................................. 5 Development Process ................................................................................................................................. 5 Data Quality Standards .............................................................................................................................. 6 How Much is Enough? .............................................................................................................................. 6 General Notes ............................................................................................................................................ 7 Creating an Administrative Record............................................................................................................ 9 PART 3: STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES FOR ECOLOGICAL RISK SCREENING SUMMARIES .............................................................................................................................................. 10 General Guidelines .................................................................................................................................. 10 3A: ERSS Title Page Header Information ............................................................................................... 10 3B: ERSS Section 1 - Native Range and Status in the United States ...................................................... 14 3C: ERSS Section 2 - Biology and Ecology ............................................................................................ 16 3D: ERSS Section 3 - Impacts of Introductions....................................................................................... 19 3E: ERSS Section 4 – History of Invasiveness ........................................................................................ 20 3F: ERSS Section 5 - Global Distribution ............................................................................................... 24 3G: ERSS Section 6 - Distribution Within the United States .................................................................. 27 3H: ERSS Section 7 - Climate Matching ................................................................................................. 28 3I: ERSS Section 8 - Certainty of Assessment ........................................................................................ 33 3J: ERSS Section 9 - Risk Assessment .................................................................................................... 36 ii SOP for Ecological Risk Screening Summaries USFWS, February 2020 3K: ERSS Sections 10 and 11 – Literature Cited .................................................................................... 39 PART 4: FINAL NOTE .............................................................................................................................. 41 PART 5: LITERATURE CITED ............................................................................................................... 42 PART 6: APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................. 44 Appendix A: Data Sources.................................................................................................................... A-1 Appendix B: Record of Online Data Searches and ERSS QA/QC Checklist ........................................ B-1 Appendix C: Examples of Standard Formatting for References ............................................................ C-1 Appendix D: Detecting Outlier Data Points.......................................................................................... D-1 Appendix E: RAMP SOP and Climatch User Manual ........................................................................... E-1 Appendix F: ERSS Writing for Species Not Restricted to Freshwater .................................................. F-1 Appendix G: Climate Supplements....................................................................................................... G-1 Appendix H: Derivation of Climate Match Categories ......................................................................... H-1 Appendix I: A Template for Completing Ecological Risk Screening Summaries .................................. I-1 Appendix J: Example of a Completed Ecological Risk Screening Summary ......................................... J-1 iii SOP for Ecological Risk Screening Summaries USFWS, February 2020 PART 1: INTRODUCTION Background Each year, thousands of nonnative species and millions of individual organisms are imported into the United States and moved among States. Although only a small fraction of these organisms escape from intended uses and ultimately cause harm to society and the environment,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • §4-71-6.5 LIST of CONDITIONALLY APPROVED ANIMALS November
    §4-71-6.5 LIST OF CONDITIONALLY APPROVED ANIMALS November 28, 2006 SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME INVERTEBRATES PHYLUM Annelida CLASS Oligochaeta ORDER Plesiopora FAMILY Tubificidae Tubifex (all species in genus) worm, tubifex PHYLUM Arthropoda CLASS Crustacea ORDER Anostraca FAMILY Artemiidae Artemia (all species in genus) shrimp, brine ORDER Cladocera FAMILY Daphnidae Daphnia (all species in genus) flea, water ORDER Decapoda FAMILY Atelecyclidae Erimacrus isenbeckii crab, horsehair FAMILY Cancridae Cancer antennarius crab, California rock Cancer anthonyi crab, yellowstone Cancer borealis crab, Jonah Cancer magister crab, dungeness Cancer productus crab, rock (red) FAMILY Geryonidae Geryon affinis crab, golden FAMILY Lithodidae Paralithodes camtschatica crab, Alaskan king FAMILY Majidae Chionocetes bairdi crab, snow Chionocetes opilio crab, snow 1 CONDITIONAL ANIMAL LIST §4-71-6.5 SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME Chionocetes tanneri crab, snow FAMILY Nephropidae Homarus (all species in genus) lobster, true FAMILY Palaemonidae Macrobrachium lar shrimp, freshwater Macrobrachium rosenbergi prawn, giant long-legged FAMILY Palinuridae Jasus (all species in genus) crayfish, saltwater; lobster Panulirus argus lobster, Atlantic spiny Panulirus longipes femoristriga crayfish, saltwater Panulirus pencillatus lobster, spiny FAMILY Portunidae Callinectes sapidus crab, blue Scylla serrata crab, Samoan; serrate, swimming FAMILY Raninidae Ranina ranina crab, spanner; red frog, Hawaiian CLASS Insecta ORDER Coleoptera FAMILY Tenebrionidae Tenebrio molitor mealworm,
    [Show full text]
  • Fish, Various Invertebrates
    Zambezi Basin Wetlands Volume II : Chapters 7 - 11 - Contents i Back to links page CONTENTS VOLUME II Technical Reviews Page CHAPTER 7 : FRESHWATER FISHES .............................. 393 7.1 Introduction .................................................................... 393 7.2 The origin and zoogeography of Zambezian fishes ....... 393 7.3 Ichthyological regions of the Zambezi .......................... 404 7.4 Threats to biodiversity ................................................... 416 7.5 Wetlands of special interest .......................................... 432 7.6 Conservation and future directions ............................... 440 7.7 References ..................................................................... 443 TABLE 7.2: The fishes of the Zambezi River system .............. 449 APPENDIX 7.1 : Zambezi Delta Survey .................................. 461 CHAPTER 8 : FRESHWATER MOLLUSCS ................... 487 8.1 Introduction ................................................................. 487 8.2 Literature review ......................................................... 488 8.3 The Zambezi River basin ............................................ 489 8.4 The Molluscan fauna .................................................. 491 8.5 Biogeography ............................................................... 508 8.6 Biomphalaria, Bulinis and Schistosomiasis ................ 515 8.7 Conservation ................................................................ 516 8.8 Further investigations .................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Erythrinidae
    FAMILY Erythrinidae Valenciennes, in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1947 - trahiras [=Erythricthini, Erythroides, Hopliidi] Notes: Name in prevailing recent practice, Article 35.5 Erythricthini [Erythrichthini] Bonaparte 1835:[16] [ref. 32242] (subfamily) Erythrichthys [genus inferred from the stem, Article 11.7.1.1; corrected to Erythrichthini by Bonaparte 1837:[7] [ref. 32243]; senior objective synonym of Erythrinidae Valenciennes, 1847, but not used as valid after 1899] Érythroïdes Valenciennes, in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1847:480 [ref. 4883] (family) Erythrinus [latinized to Erythrinidae by Richardson 1856:250 [ref. 3747], confirmed by Gill 1858:410 [ref. 1750] and by Cope 1872:257 [ref. 921]; considered valid with this authorship by Richardson 1856:250 [ref. 3747], by Gill 1893b:131 [ref. 26255] and by Sheiko 2013:44 [ref. 32944] Article 11.7.2; junior objective synonym of Erythrichthini Bonaparte, 1835, but in prevailing recent practice; Erythrinidae also used as valid by: McAllister 1968 [ref. 26854], Lindberg 1971 [ref. 27211], Géry 1972b [ref. 1594], Nelson 1976 [ref.32838], Shiino 1976, Géry 1977 [ref. 1597], Nelson 1984 [ref. 13596], Sterba 1990, Nelson 1994 [ref. 26204], Springer & Raasch 1995:104 [ref. 25656], Eschmeyer 1998 [ref. 23416], Malabarba et al. 1998 [ref. 23777], Reis et al. 2003 [ref. 27061], Nelson 2006 [ref. 32486], Buckup, Menezes & Ghazzi 2007, Oyakawa & Mattox 2009 [ref. 30225], Jacobina, Paiva & Dergam 2011 [ref. 31391]] Hopliidi Fowler, 1958b:9 [ref. 1470] (tribe) Hoplias GENUS Erythrinus Scopoli, 1777 - trahiras [=Erythrinus Scopoli [J. A.] (ex Gronow), 1777:449, Erythrichthys Bonaparte [C. L.], 1831:182, Erythrinus Gronow [L. T.], 1763:114, Hetererythrinus (subgenus of Erythrinus) Günther [A.], 1864:283, 284] Notes: [ref. 3990].
    [Show full text]
  • IN Lake KARIBA ~As Development Ad­ Ndon)
    • View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Aquatic Commons THE A leA JOU L OF (Afr. J Trop. Hydrobiol. Fish) Yo. 1 1994 ASPECTS OF THE BIOLOGY OF THE lAKE TANGANYIKA SARDINE, LIMNOTHRISSA n illustrated key to the flinji. (Mimeographed MIODON (BOULENGER), IN lAKE KARIBA ~as Development Ad­ ndon). R. HUDDART ision des Synodontis Kariba Research Unit, Private Bag 24 CX, CHOMA, Zambia. e Royal de I'Afrique 'en, Belgium. 500p. Present address:- ~). The ecology of the 4, Ingleside Grove, LONDON, S.B.3., U.K. is (Pisces; Siluoidea) Nigeria. (Unpublished ABSTRACT o the University of Juveniles of U11lnothrissa 11liodon (Boulenger) were introduced into the man-made Lake Kariba in ngland). 1967-1968. Thirty months of night-fishing for this species from Sinazongwe, near the centre of the Kariba North bank. from 1971 to 1974 are described. Biological studies were carried out on samples of the catch during most of these months. Limnological studies were carried out over a period of four months in 1973. Li11lnothrissa is breeding successfully and its number have greatly increased. [t has reached an equilibrium level of population size at a [ower density than that of Lake Tanganyika sardines, but nevertheless is an important factor in the ecology of Lake Kariba. The growth rate, size at maturity and maximum size are all less than those of Lake Tanganyika Li11lnothrissa. A marked disruption in the orderly progression of length frequency modes occurs in September, for which the present body of evidence cannot supply an explanation. INTRODUCTION light-attracted sardines in Lake Kariba were The absence of a specialised, plankti­ tested in 1970 and early 1971.
    [Show full text]
  • Thezambiazimbabwesadc Fisheriesprojectonlakekariba: Reportfroma Studytnp
    279 TheZambiaZimbabweSADC FisheriesProjectonLakeKariba: Reportfroma studytnp •TrygveHesthagen OddTerjeSandlund Tor.FredrikNæsje TheZambia-ZimbabweSADC FisheriesProjectonLakeKariba: Reportfrom a studytrip Trygve Hesthagen Odd Terje Sandlund Tor FredrikNæsje NORSKINSTITI= FORNATURFORSKNNG O Norwegian institute for nature research (NINA) 2010 http://www.nina.no Please contact NINA, NO-7485 TRONDHEIM, NORWAY for reproduction of tables, figures and other illustrations in this report. nina oppdragsmelding279 Hesthagen,T., Sandlund, O.T. & Næsje, T.F. 1994. NINAs publikasjoner The Zambia-Zimbabwe SADC fisheries project on Lake Kariba: Report from a study trip. NINA NINA utgirfem ulikefaste publikasjoner: Oppdragsmelding279:1 17. NINA Forskningsrapport Her publiseresresultater av NINAs eget forskning- sarbeid, i den hensiktå spre forskningsresultaterfra institusjonen til et større publikum. Forsknings- rapporter utgis som et alternativ til internasjonal Trondheimapril 1994 publisering, der tidsaspekt, materialets art, målgruppem.m. gjør dette nødvendig. ISSN 0802-4103 ISBN 82-426-0471-1 NINA Utredning Serien omfatter problemoversikter,kartlegging av kunnskapsnivået innen et emne, litteraturstudier, sammenstillingav andres materiale og annet som ikke primært er et resultat av NINAs egen Rettighetshaver0: forskningsaktivitet. NINA Norskinstituttfornaturforskning NINA Oppdragsmelding Publikasjonenkansiteresfritt med kildeangivelse Dette er det minimum av rapporteringsomNINA gir til oppdragsgiver etter fullført forsknings- eller utredningsprosjekt.Opplageter
    [Show full text]
  • Out of Lake Tanganyika: Endemic Lake Fishes Inhabit Rapids of the Lukuga River
    355 Ichthyol. Explor. Freshwaters, Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 355-376, 5 figs., 3 tabs., December 2011 © 2011 by Verlag Dr. Friedrich Pfeil, München, Germany – ISSN 0936-9902 Out of Lake Tanganyika: endemic lake fishes inhabit rapids of the Lukuga River Sven O. Kullander* and Tyson R. Roberts** The Lukuga River is a large permanent river intermittently serving as the only effluent of Lake Tanganyika. For at least the first one hundred km its water is almost pure lake water. Seventy-seven species of fish were collected from six localities along the Lukuga River. Species of cichlids, cyprinids, and clupeids otherwise known only from Lake Tanganyika were identified from rapids in the Lukuga River at Niemba, 100 km from the lake, whereas downstream localities represent a Congo River fish fauna. Cichlid species from Niemba include special- ized algal browsers that also occur in the lake (Simochromis babaulti, S. diagramma) and one invertebrate picker representing a new species of a genus (Tanganicodus) otherwise only known from the lake. Other fish species from Niemba include an abundant species of clupeid, Stolothrissa tanganicae, otherwise only known from Lake Tangan- yika that has a pelagic mode of life in the lake. These species demonstrate that their adaptations are not neces- sarily dependent upon the lake habitat. Other endemic taxa occurring at Niemba are known to frequent vegetat- ed shore habitats or river mouths similar to the conditions at the entrance of the Lukuga, viz. Chelaethiops minutus (Cyprinidae), Lates mariae (Latidae), Mastacembelus cunningtoni (Mastacembelidae), Astatotilapia burtoni, Ctenochromis horei, Telmatochromis dhonti, and Tylochromis polylepis (Cichlidae). The Lukuga frequently did not serve as an ef- fluent due to weed masses and sand bars building up at the exit, and low water levels of Lake Tanganyika.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessment of Fecundity of Brycinus Macrolepidotus in Akomoje Water Reservoir, Abeokuta, South West, Nigeria
    Egyptian Journal of Aquatic Biology & Fisheries Zoology Department, Faculty of Science, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt. ISSN 1110 – 6131 Vol. 23(1): 245 -252 (2019) www.ejabf.journals.ekb.eg Assessment of fecundity of Brycinus macrolepidotus in Akomoje water reservoir, Abeokuta, South West, Nigeria Ajiboye, Elijah Olusegun1; Adeosun, Festus Idowu1*; Oghenochuko, Mavis Titilayo Oghenebrorhie1, 2 1- Department of Aquaculture and Fisheries Management, Federal University of Agriculture, Abeokuta, Ogun State, Nigeria 2- Animal Science Program, Department of Agriculture, Landmark University, Omu-Aran, Kwara State, Nigeria ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Article History: Overfishing and threat of extinction globally has been a topic of Received: Nov. 23, 2018 concern in the fisheries sub-sector over the years. This study assessed Accepted: Jan.30, 2019 some aspect of the biology of Brycinus macrolepidotus in Akomoje Online: Feb. 2019 reservoir, lower River Ogun, Nigeria. A total number of 838 fish _______________ specimens were collected bi-monthly for a nine month period from commercial catches using cast nets and long line. A total number of 51 Keywords: mature female were selected for fecundity analysis which was limited to Brycinus macrolepidotus only sexually gravid female fish. Length and weight of experimental fish Akomoje reservoir were measured. Data were subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA), Fecundity descriptive and inferential statistics. Correlation statistics was carried out Abeokuta to ascertain relationship between absolute and relative fecundity with Nigeria length and weight of fish. Length and weight of experimental fish ranged between 14.5-39.4 cm and 938-1956 g. The relative fecundity ranged between 441 and 3,597 eggs with a mean of 1,702±0.16 eggs while absolute fecundity ranged from 5,838 to 39,208 eggs with a mean of 14,326±0.52 eggs.
    [Show full text]
  • A Rapid Biological Assessment of the Upper Palumeu River Watershed (Grensgebergte and Kasikasima) of Southeastern Suriname
    Rapid Assessment Program A Rapid Biological Assessment of the Upper Palumeu River Watershed (Grensgebergte and Kasikasima) of Southeastern Suriname Editors: Leeanne E. Alonso and Trond H. Larsen 67 CONSERVATION INTERNATIONAL - SURINAME CONSERVATION INTERNATIONAL GLOBAL WILDLIFE CONSERVATION ANTON DE KOM UNIVERSITY OF SURINAME THE SURINAME FOREST SERVICE (LBB) NATURE CONSERVATION DIVISION (NB) FOUNDATION FOR FOREST MANAGEMENT AND PRODUCTION CONTROL (SBB) SURINAME CONSERVATION FOUNDATION THE HARBERS FAMILY FOUNDATION Rapid Assessment Program A Rapid Biological Assessment of the Upper Palumeu River Watershed RAP (Grensgebergte and Kasikasima) of Southeastern Suriname Bulletin of Biological Assessment 67 Editors: Leeanne E. Alonso and Trond H. Larsen CONSERVATION INTERNATIONAL - SURINAME CONSERVATION INTERNATIONAL GLOBAL WILDLIFE CONSERVATION ANTON DE KOM UNIVERSITY OF SURINAME THE SURINAME FOREST SERVICE (LBB) NATURE CONSERVATION DIVISION (NB) FOUNDATION FOR FOREST MANAGEMENT AND PRODUCTION CONTROL (SBB) SURINAME CONSERVATION FOUNDATION THE HARBERS FAMILY FOUNDATION The RAP Bulletin of Biological Assessment is published by: Conservation International 2011 Crystal Drive, Suite 500 Arlington, VA USA 22202 Tel : +1 703-341-2400 www.conservation.org Cover photos: The RAP team surveyed the Grensgebergte Mountains and Upper Palumeu Watershed, as well as the Middle Palumeu River and Kasikasima Mountains visible here. Freshwater resources originating here are vital for all of Suriname. (T. Larsen) Glass frogs (Hyalinobatrachium cf. taylori) lay their
    [Show full text]
  • A Histology-Based Health Assessment of Selected Fish Species
    A HISTOLOGY-BASED HEALTH ASSESSMENT OF SELECTED FISH SPECIES FROM TWO RIVERS IN THE KRUGER NATIONAL PARK BY WARREN CLIFFORD SMITH DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE MAGISTER SCIENTIAE IN AQUATIC HEALTH IN THE FACULTY OF SCIENCE AT THE UNIVERSITY OF JOHANNESBURG SUPERVISOR: DR. G.M. WAGENAAR CO-SUPERVISOR: PROF. N.J. SMIT MAY 2012 Contents Acknowledgements _______________________________________________________ 6 Abstract ________________________________________________________________ 8 List of abbreviations _____________________________________________________ 11 List of figures ___________________________________________________________ 14 List of Tables ___________________________________________________________ 17 Chapter 1: General Introduction ____________________________________________ 19 1.1 Introduction _______________________________________________________ 19 1.2 Study motivation ___________________________________________________ 19 1.3 Hypotheses ________________________________________________________ 21 1.4 Aim of the study ____________________________________________________ 21 1.5 Objectives _________________________________________________________ 21 1.6 Dissertation outline _________________________________________________ 21 Chapter 2: Literature Review ______________________________________________ 23 2.1 Introduction _______________________________________________________ 23 2.2 Study Sites ________________________________________________________ 23 2.2.1 Olifants River (OR)
    [Show full text]
  • Food Habits of Bryconaethiops Boulengeri Pellegrin, 1900 (Characiformes: Alestidae) of Djiri River Tributary of the Right Bank of Congo River
    Open Journal of Ecology, 2018, 8, 510-521 http://www.scirp.org/journal/oje ISSN Online: 2162-1993 ISSN Print: 2162-1985 Food Habits of Bryconaethiops boulengeri Pellegrin, 1900 (Characiformes: Alestidae) of Djiri River Tributary of the Right Bank of Congo River M. Mikia1*, I. Mady-Goma Dirat1, A. Tsoumou1, J. Vouidibio2 1Research Laboratory of Animal Biology and Ecology, ENS, University Marien Ngouabi, Brazzaville, Congo 2Faculty of Sciences and Techniques, University Marien Ngouabi, Brazzaville, Congo How to cite this paper: Mikia, M., Ma- Abstract dy-Goma Dirat, I., Tsoumou, A. and Voui- dibio, J. (2018) Food Habits of Bryconae- Diet of 300 specimens of Bryconaethiops boulengeri from Djiri River (Congo thiops boulengeri Pellegrin, 1900 (Characi- Brazzaville) caught with cash nets was studied according to the size of fish, formes: Alestidae) of Djiri River Tributary sampling stations and hydrological season. Sampling focused on twelve an- of the Right Bank of Congo River. Open Journal of Ecology, 8, 510-521. nual withdrawals made during three years. The relative importance index https://doi.org/10.4236/oje.2018.89031 combining numerical and weight percentages of occurrence was calculated and also the sex ratio was evaluated. Bryconaethiops boulengeri consumes Received: August 7, 2018 Accepted: September 22, 2018 terrestrial and aquatic insects and everything that falls into the water (birds Published: September 25, 2018 feathers, plant debris, fruits, etc.). The percentage of emptiness is 9.66% of the three sampling stations selected; no significant difference in diet was observed Copyright © 2018 by authors and whatever the season. Scientific Research Publishing Inc. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International Keywords License (CC BY 4.0).
    [Show full text]
  • Body Shape Divergence in Invasive Round Goby
    DePaul Discoveries Volume 3 Issue 1 Article 15 2014 Body Shape Divergence in Invasive Round Goby Cat Collins [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/depaul-disc Part of the Biology Commons Recommended Citation Collins, Cat (2014) "Body Shape Divergence in Invasive Round Goby," DePaul Discoveries: Vol. 3 : Iss. 1 , Article 15. Available at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/depaul-disc/vol3/iss1/15 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Science and Health at Via Sapientiae. It has been accepted for inclusion in DePaul Discoveries by an authorized editor of Via Sapientiae. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Body Shape Divergence in Invasive Round Goby Acknowledgements Acknowledgements: Thank you to Dr Aguirre and the other members of the lab for their support. Also to my assistants who helped me with collection, especially Cassie Beamish. Thanks to the Illinois Department of Natural resources for providing us with additional specimens. This article is available in DePaul Discoveries: https://via.library.depaul.edu/depaul-disc/vol3/iss1/15 Collins: Body Shape Divergence in Invasive Round Goby Body Shape Divergence in Invasive Round Goby Cat Collins* Department of Biological Sciences ABSTRACT The round goby, Neogobius melanostomus, originally native to the Black and Caspian seas, was introduced into the Great Lakes via ballast water in the 1990’s. Since then, the species has spread to all of the Great Lakes, thriving in the Lake Michigan region and spreading to surrounding bays and rivers. Invasive species are considered to have a high evolutionary potential.
    [Show full text]
  • An Assessment of Fish Assemblages Between Protected and Non
    International Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Studies 2017; 5(5): 93-99 E-ISSN: 2347-5129 P-ISSN: 2394-0506 (ICV-Poland) Impact Value: 5.62 An assessment of fish assemblages between protected (GIF) Impact Factor: 0.549 IJFAS 2017; 5(5): 93-99 and non-protected areas on the Zambezi /Chobe River © 2017 IJFAS www.fisheriesjournal.com Received: 05-07-2017 EK Simasiku, SK Mafwila, EF Chimbioputo, JL Kashimba and J Accepted: 06-08-2017 Lubanda EK Simasiku Department of Wildlife Abstract Management and Ecotourism, The fisheries of the Zambezi are currently experiencing an alarming decline due to an increasing fishing Katima Mulilo Campus, pressure. With increasing fishing pressure, fish populations may undergo a series of changes in size, University of Namibia, Private species composition and abundance. As a result, scientists and managers are deemed to seek for Bag 1096, Ngweze, Katima alternative measures to protect and conserve fish stocks. One such option is the use of fish protected Mulilo, Namibia areas (FPAs). Two recently established FPA’s on the Zambezi/Chobe River are the Kalimbeza and SK Mafwila Kasaya Channels. However, accrued benefits of these FPAs have never been assessed. Comparative Department of Fisheries and experiments using gillnets of different mesh sizes (12 mm – 150 mm) were conducted between FPA’s Aquatic Sciences, and Sam (Kalimbeza channel) and non-FPA’s (Hippo channel) between March and December 2016 to test the Nujoma Marine and Coastal hypothesis that, FPA’s would yield high fish abundance (CPUE) than non- FPAs. Experimental fishing Resources Research Centre, Sam trials showed a high CPUE by weight and number (p<0.05) of the five dominant species (Hydrocynus Nujoma Campus, University of vittatus, Schilbe intermedius, Pharyngochromis acuticeps, M.
    [Show full text]