DOCSLIB.ORG

The Barents Sea Ecoregion a Biodiversity Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

A BIODIVERSITY ASSESSMENT OF THE BARENTS SEA ECOREGION The Barents Sea Ecoregion A biodiversity assessment Edited by: Tore Larsen, Dag Nagoda and Jon Roar Andersen Text by: Tore Larsen, with contributions from Andrei Boltunov, Nina Denisenko, Stanislav Denisenko, Maria Gavrilo, Vadim Mokievsky, Dag Nagoda, Vassily Spiridonov, Cecilie von Quillfeldt and the participants at the St. Petersburg biodiversity workshop 12-13 May 2001 (see list p. 81). Maps and GIS data by: Tore Larsen Bathymetry provided by: The International Bathymetric Chart of the Arctic Ocean (IBCAO) Lay-out by: Anne Bjerkebro and Nina Jensen Cover photos: Common eider. Photo: WWF / Mauri Rautkari Harp seal pup. Photo: WWF-Canon / Chris Martin Bahr Wild salmon. Photo: WWF-Canon / Jo Benn Sperm whales. Photo: WWF-Canon / Hal Whitehead Polar bear on ice. Photo: WWF-Canon / Jack Stein Grove Ivory gull. Photo: WWF-Canon / Peter Prokorsch Harp seal. Photo: WWF / Kjell-Arne Larsson Puffin. Photo: WWF-Canon / Michèle D. Praz Barnacle goose. Photo: WWF-Canon / Klein & Hubert Walrus. Photo: WWF / Fritz Pölking Minke whale. Photo: WWF-Canon / Morten Lindhard Walrus colony. Photo: Staffan Widstrand Puffin Shetland. Photo: Peter Prokorsch Winged Snail. Photo: Bjørn Gulliksen Seabed community. Photo: Bjørn Gulliksen. Harbour seal pups. Photo: WWF / Jan Van De Kam Sepiola atlantica. Photo: Kåre Telnes Protanthea simplex. Photo: Erling Svensen Beluga. Photo: WWF-Canon / Kevin Schafer Amphipode. Photo: Erling Svensen Storm. Photo: Tore Larsen Preface photos: Rasmus Hansson. Photo: Arnodd Håpnes Samantha Smith. Photo: Advokatbladet Igor Chestin. Photo: WWF-Russia / Vladimir Filonov Bearded seal Svalbard. Photo:Peter Prokorsch Lophelia reef. Photo:Erling Svensen Common guillemot. Photo: Peter Prokorsch Anemone. Photo: Kåre Telnes Puffin. Photo: WWF-Canon / Michèle D. Praz Wild salmon. Photo: WWF-Canon / Jo Benn Polar bear. Photo: Staffan Widstrand II – A biodiversity assessment of the Barents Sea Ecoregion “…the Global 200 initiative [is] the most comprehensive strategy to date for the conservation of the world’s biodiversity. The Global 200 Ecoregions, representing a wide range of terrestrial, marine and aquatic environments, were selected with a valuable new set of multiple criteria worthy of adoption by other scientists and conservation professionals.” Dr E.O. Wilson, Professor, Harvard University “The Global 200 map marks an important contribution to the cause of conserving the world’s biological diversity. I attach great importance to international action on this issue, for it is a quintessentially global challenge: no country is immune from the effects of biodiversity loss, and no country can do without the benefits of cooperation in combating the threats that we face.” Kofi A. Annan, Secretary-General of the United Nations “We all agree that time is running out for conserving the world’s extraordinary biodiversity. By highlighting the world’s urgent conservation priorities, the Global 200 analysis is an invaluable tool for the international community that can help set priorities for conserving the world’s most distinctive and outstanding terrestrial, marine and freshwater ecoregions.” James D Wolfensohn, President of the World Bank A biodiversity assessment of the Barents Sea Ecoregion – PREFACE PREFACE This assessment of the biodiversity of the Barents Sea Ecoregion is part of a major initiative launched by the World Wide Fund for Nature, the Ecoregion Conservation (ERC) strategy. The basis for this strategy is the increasing recognition that nature conservation as well as sustainable use of natural resources is best managed on large scales, based on as complete ecological units as possible. Both natural processes and many threats to biodiversity operate on larger scales than single sites, and traditional nature management approaches and small conservation areas have too often proven to be insufficient to protect the biodiversity in a region. Ecoregion conservation aims toward nature management on a scale that 1) coincides to a large degree with the scale at which natural ecological processes in the area operate; 2) deals with the full range of biodiversity; and 3) enables us to deal with threats on several levels. To reach our goal of maintaining biodiversity for future generations, WWF considers it vital that cooperation is sought with as many partners as possible and that information about biodiversity is made available to all stakeholders and users of natural resources. The Biodiversity Assessment of the Barents Sea Ecoregion presents comprehensive information about organisms living in both the Russian and Norwegian part of the Barents Sea, including their abundance, distribution and conservation needs. It is the first time that this information is assembled in one report and priority areas for biodiversity conservation have been identified for the Barents Sea as a whole. The information has been gathered from a multitude of sources in Russia, Norway and elsewhere, and many people have assisted in its making. Besides the participants at a biodiversity workshop held in St. Petersburg in 2001 (see list p. 81, we would particularly like to thank the staff of the WWF Arctic Programme Coordination Office, the marine staff of WWF-Norway, Vassily Spiridonov at the WWF-Russian Programme Office in Moscow, Petra Wahl for valuable information about the Russian oil industry, Karl-Birger Strann for guidance to seabird literature, Bjørn Frantzen for sharing his knowledge about shipping activities and Salve Dahle and Akvaplan-Niva for housing the Barents Sea project office in the Polar Environment Centre in Tromsø. Special thanks must be given to the very helpful staff of the Norwegian Polar Institiute's Library. A most influential source of help and inspiration at the onset of this project was the work done by Margaret Williams and her collaborators in the Bering Sea ecoregion, while Kjell Are Moe and Pål Prestrud provided valuable comments to the manuscript. The report aims toward a broad group of users, managers, and students of biological and other resources in the Barents Sea. When citing literature in the text, we have therefore given preference to review articles and reports, before specialized scientific literature. Scientists may find this a bit backwards, but hopefully they will also find a satisfying number of references to original works and other scientific literature. Reference to unpublished material has been kept to a minimum, but in some cases this has been unavoidable. Russian readers may notice a bias toward western and Norwegian sources. Translating Russian texts has been one of the obstacles to a more IV – A biodiversity assessment of the Barents Sea Ecoregion PREFACE complete assessment of the biodiversity of the Barents Sea ecoregion, an obstacle we have hopefully been able to tackle to a reasonable extent through extensive consultations with Russian scientists. The alert reader will also notice a number of inconsistencies in the text with reference to geographical names. English names have been used as a general rule, but Norwegian and Russian names have also been spread - intentionally - in the text, tables and maps, as the reader will often find them in other literature about the region. The Biodiversity Assessment of the Barents Sea Ecoregion draws a picture of an area with extraordinary biodiversity values. Among its most spectacular features can be mentioned the world’s highest density of migratory seabirds, some of the richest fisheries in the world, diverse and rare communities of sea mammals and the largest deep water coral reef in the world. While these resources have supported human communities for centuries, growth and expansion of infrastructure, industrial activity and resource exploitation is increasingly threatening to undermine the very basis for biological diversity and production in the ecoregion. It is our hope that this assessment will contribute to increased awareness of the riches of the Barents Sea and to a long-term and a holistic management that balances human development with the needs to protect biodiversity. With wise management and pro-active planning it is still possible to ensure that the marine ecosystem of the Barents Sea continues to function with all its richness. Rasmus Hansson Samantha Smith Igor Chestin Secretary general, WWF-Norway Director, WWF Arctic Programme Secretary general, WWF-Russia A biodiversity assessment of the Barents Sea Ecoregion – V CONTENTS CONTENTS Preface...................................................................................................................................................................................... IV List of figures ........................................................................................................................................................................ VII Executive summary (English) ................................................................................................................................................. 1 Executive summary (Russian) .................................................................................................................................................. 6 Introduction: The Framework ................................................................................................................................................ 14 A sea of opportunities 14 The global 200 Ecoregions and the global conservation challenge 15 Biodiversity: Its meaning and measurement 18 The structure of
Recommended publications
  • Spitsbergen in Depth

    Spitsbergen in Depth

    SPITSBERGEN IN DEPTH Big Island, Big Adventure Contents 1 Overview 2 Itinerary 4 Arrival and Departure Details 6 Your Ship 8 Included Activities 9 Adventure Options 10 Dates & Rates 11 Inclusions & Exclusions 13 Your Expedition Team 13 Extend Your Trip 14 Meals on Board 15 Possible Excursions 18 Packing Checklist Overview Spitsbergen in Depth: Big Island, Big Adventure This 14-day journey offers the most extensive exploration of Spitsbergen in the Norwegian archipelago of Svalbard, including the opportunity to witness iconic Arctic wildlife like walrus, reindeer and polar bears, a glimpse into 16th-century EXPEDITION IN BRIEF maritime culture at secluded landing sites, and the rare chance to appreciate breathtaking views at the birdwatching utopias 14th of July Glacier and Alkefjellet. Encounter iconic Arctic wildlife, such as polar bears, walrus and reindeer If conditions allow, we will also attempt a full circumnavigation of the Arctic during this memorable voyage, including a visit to the remote, uninhabited Arctic desert View numerous Arctic bird species, like puffins, Arctic terns and purple of Nordaustlandet. sandpipers The wildlife-viewing opportunities on this trip will leave you with plenty of Take advantage of continuous daylight memories—and photos: the walrus with its long tusks and distinctive whiskers; Explore glaciers, fjords, icebergs and Arctic birds in the thousands—in all their varied majesty; small herds of reindeer more with included Zodiac cruising loping across the tundra; and that most iconic of Arctic creatures, the polar bear, Immerse yourself in the icy realm especially as it prowls the edges of the pack ice on the perpetual hunt for food.
  • Environmental Impact Assessment for the Baydaratskaya Bay Crossing of the Yamai - West Europe Gas Pipeline System

    Environmental Impact Assessment for the Baydaratskaya Bay Crossing of the Yamai - West Europe Gas Pipeline System

    Proceedings of the Seventh (1997) International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference Honolulu, USA, May 25-30, 1997 Copyright © 1997 by The International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers ISBN 1-880653.-28-1 (Set); ISBN 1-880653-29-X (Vol. I) Environmental Impact Assessment for the Baydaratskaya Bay Crossing of the Yamai - West Europe Gas Pipeline System Alexander V. Beloshapkov, Vladimir B. Leschinsky and Alexander S. Tsvetsinsky EPS EcoSystem Moscow, Russia Konstantin A. Kashunin JSC Petergaz BV Moscow, Russia ABSTRACT BOVANENKOVSKOE GAS FIELD~ The Baydaratskaya Bay crossing in the Kara Sea is a part of the Yamal - West Europe gas system project, It is the fast ° experience of the large-diameter gas pipeline engineering in the Russian Arctic seas. The Environmental Impact Assessment of the construction for the fast two lines of the crossing is based on the results of six-year scientific program of Baydaratskaya r YAMAL Bay environmental studies. Laws, rules and regulations MARRE-SALE applicable to Environmental Impact Assessment in the Russian Federation are considered. The sources and types of possible impact during construction and operation stages are shown. % q4} KEY WORDS: Environment, impact, assessment, pipeline, underwater crossing, ecological examination. O q/. INTRODUCTION URAI \, B s ° The development of the Bovanenkovskoye gas field on the Z~ 20 40 km Yamal Peninsula in Northwest Siberia by JSC Gazprom, the Russian Gas company, requires a gas transport system to be PIPELINE i laid across the Baydaratskaya Bay in the Kara Sea. The .... PIPELINEUNDERWATER CROSSING i underwater crossing of main gas pipeline will connect the Yamal gas fields and onshore pipelines in the Yamal Peninsula with the Ural - West Europe pipeline system.
  • Our Arctic Nation a U.S

    Our Arctic Nation a U.S

    Connecting the United States to the Arctic OUR ARCTIC NATION A U.S. Arctic Council Chairmanship Initiative Cover Photo: Cover Photo: Hosting Arctic Council meetings during the U.S. Chairmanship gave the United States an opportunity to share the beauty of America’s Arctic state, Alaska—including this glacier ice cave near Juneau—with thousands of international visitors. Photo: David Lienemann, www. davidlienemann.com OUR ARCTIC NATION Connecting the United States to the Arctic A U.S. Arctic Council Chairmanship Initiative TABLE OF CONTENTS 01 Alabama . .2 14 Illinois . 32 02 Alaska . .4 15 Indiana . 34 03 Arizona. 10 16 Iowa . 36 04 Arkansas . 12 17 Kansas . 38 05 California. 14 18 Kentucky . 40 06 Colorado . 16 19 Louisiana. 42 07 Connecticut. 18 20 Maine . 44 08 Delaware . 20 21 Maryland. 46 09 District of Columbia . 22 22 Massachusetts . 48 10 Florida . 24 23 Michigan . 50 11 Georgia. 26 24 Minnesota . 52 12 Hawai‘i. 28 25 Mississippi . 54 Glacier Bay National Park, Alaska. Photo: iStock.com 13 Idaho . 30 26 Missouri . 56 27 Montana . 58 40 Rhode Island . 84 28 Nebraska . 60 41 South Carolina . 86 29 Nevada. 62 42 South Dakota . 88 30 New Hampshire . 64 43 Tennessee . 90 31 New Jersey . 66 44 Texas. 92 32 New Mexico . 68 45 Utah . 94 33 New York . 70 46 Vermont . 96 34 North Carolina . 72 47 Virginia . 98 35 North Dakota . 74 48 Washington. .100 36 Ohio . 76 49 West Virginia . .102 37 Oklahoma . 78 50 Wisconsin . .104 38 Oregon. 80 51 Wyoming. .106 39 Pennsylvania . 82 WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE AN ARCTIC NATION? oday, the Arctic region commands the world’s attention as never before.
  • Northern Sea Route Cargo Flows and Infrastructure- Present State And

    Northern Sea Route Cargo Flows and Infrastructure- Present State And

    Northern Sea Route Cargo Flows and Infrastructure – Present State and Future Potential By Claes Lykke Ragner FNI Report 13/2000 FRIDTJOF NANSENS INSTITUTT THE FRIDTJOF NANSEN INSTITUTE Tittel/Title Sider/Pages Northern Sea Route Cargo Flows and Infrastructure – Present 124 State and Future Potential Publikasjonstype/Publication Type Nummer/Number FNI Report 13/2000 Forfatter(e)/Author(s) ISBN Claes Lykke Ragner 82-7613-400-9 Program/Programme ISSN 0801-2431 Prosjekt/Project Sammendrag/Abstract The report assesses the Northern Sea Route’s commercial potential and economic importance, both as a transit route between Europe and Asia, and as an export route for oil, gas and other natural resources in the Russian Arctic. First, it conducts a survey of past and present Northern Sea Route (NSR) cargo flows. Then follow discussions of the route’s commercial potential as a transit route, as well as of its economic importance and relevance for each of the Russian Arctic regions. These discussions are summarized by estimates of what types and volumes of NSR cargoes that can realistically be expected in the period 2000-2015. This is then followed by a survey of the status quo of the NSR infrastructure (above all the ice-breakers, ice-class cargo vessels and ports), with estimates of its future capacity. Based on the estimated future NSR cargo potential, future NSR infrastructure requirements are calculated and compared with the estimated capacity in order to identify the main, future infrastructure bottlenecks for NSR operations. The information presented in the report is mainly compiled from data and research results that were published through the International Northern Sea Route Programme (INSROP) 1993-99, but considerable updates have been made using recent information, statistics and analyses from various sources.
  • Climate in Svalbard 2100

    Climate in Svalbard 2100

    M-1242 | 2018 Climate in Svalbard 2100 – a knowledge base for climate adaptation NCCS report no. 1/2019 Photo: Ketil Isaksen, MET Norway Editors I.Hanssen-Bauer, E.J.Førland, H.Hisdal, S.Mayer, A.B.Sandø, A.Sorteberg CLIMATE IN SVALBARD 2100 CLIMATE IN SVALBARD 2100 Commissioned by Title: Date Climate in Svalbard 2100 January 2019 – a knowledge base for climate adaptation ISSN nr. Rapport nr. 2387-3027 1/2019 Authors Classification Editors: I.Hanssen-Bauer1,12, E.J.Førland1,12, H.Hisdal2,12, Free S.Mayer3,12,13, A.B.Sandø5,13, A.Sorteberg4,13 Clients Authors: M.Adakudlu3,13, J.Andresen2, J.Bakke4,13, S.Beldring2,12, R.Benestad1, W. Bilt4,13, J.Bogen2, C.Borstad6, Norwegian Environment Agency (Miljødirektoratet) K.Breili9, Ø.Breivik1,4, K.Y.Børsheim5,13, H.H.Christiansen6, A.Dobler1, R.Engeset2, R.Frauenfelder7, S.Gerland10, H.M.Gjelten1, J.Gundersen2, K.Isaksen1,12, C.Jaedicke7, H.Kierulf9, J.Kohler10, H.Li2,12, J.Lutz1,12, K.Melvold2,12, Client’s reference 1,12 4,6 2,12 5,8,13 A.Mezghani , F.Nilsen , I.B.Nilsen , J.E.Ø.Nilsen , http://www.miljodirektoratet.no/M1242 O. Pavlova10, O.Ravndal9, B.Risebrobakken3,13, T.Saloranta2, S.Sandven6,8,13, T.V.Schuler6,11, M.J.R.Simpson9, M.Skogen5,13, L.H.Smedsrud4,6,13, M.Sund2, D. Vikhamar-Schuler1,2,12, S.Westermann11, W.K.Wong2,12 Affiliations: See Acknowledgements! Abstract The Norwegian Centre for Climate Services (NCCS) is collaboration between the Norwegian Meteorological In- This report was commissioned by the Norwegian Environment Agency in order to provide basic information for use stitute, the Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate, Norwegian Research Centre and the Bjerknes in climate change adaptation in Svalbard.
  • Ctenophore Relationships and Their Placement As the Sister Group to All Other Animals

    Ctenophore Relationships and Their Placement As the Sister Group to All Other Animals

    ARTICLES DOI: 10.1038/s41559-017-0331-3 Ctenophore relationships and their placement as the sister group to all other animals Nathan V. Whelan 1,2*, Kevin M. Kocot3, Tatiana P. Moroz4, Krishanu Mukherjee4, Peter Williams4, Gustav Paulay5, Leonid L. Moroz 4,6* and Kenneth M. Halanych 1* Ctenophora, comprising approximately 200 described species, is an important lineage for understanding metazoan evolution and is of great ecological and economic importance. Ctenophore diversity includes species with unique colloblasts used for prey capture, smooth and striated muscles, benthic and pelagic lifestyles, and locomotion with ciliated paddles or muscular propul- sion. However, the ancestral states of traits are debated and relationships among many lineages are unresolved. Here, using 27 newly sequenced ctenophore transcriptomes, publicly available data and methods to control systematic error, we establish the placement of Ctenophora as the sister group to all other animals and refine the phylogenetic relationships within ctenophores. Molecular clock analyses suggest modern ctenophore diversity originated approximately 350 million years ago ± 88 million years, conflicting with previous hypotheses, which suggest it originated approximately 65 million years ago. We recover Euplokamis dunlapae—a species with striated muscles—as the sister lineage to other sampled ctenophores. Ancestral state reconstruction shows that the most recent common ancestor of extant ctenophores was pelagic, possessed tentacles, was bio- luminescent and did not have separate sexes. Our results imply at least two transitions from a pelagic to benthic lifestyle within Ctenophora, suggesting that such transitions were more common in animal diversification than previously thought. tenophores, or comb jellies, have successfully colonized from species across most of the known phylogenetic diversity of nearly every marine environment and can be key species in Ctenophora.
  • Satellite Ice Extent, Sea Surface Temperature, and Atmospheric 2 Methane Trends in the Barents and Kara Seas

    Satellite Ice Extent, Sea Surface Temperature, and Atmospheric 2 Methane Trends in the Barents and Kara Seas

    The Cryosphere Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-2018-237 Manuscript under review for journal The Cryosphere Discussion started: 22 November 2018 c Author(s) 2018. CC BY 4.0 License. 1 Satellite ice extent, sea surface temperature, and atmospheric 2 methane trends in the Barents and Kara Seas 1 2 3 2 4 3 Ira Leifer , F. Robert Chen , Thomas McClimans , Frank Muller Karger , Leonid Yurganov 1 4 Bubbleology Research International, Inc., Solvang, CA, USA 2 5 University of Southern Florida, USA 3 6 SINTEF Ocean, Trondheim, Norway 4 7 University of Maryland, Baltimore, USA 8 Correspondence to: Ira Leifer ([email protected]) 9 10 Abstract. Over a decade (2003-2015) of satellite data of sea-ice extent, sea surface temperature (SST), and methane 11 (CH4) concentrations in lower troposphere over 10 focus areas within the Barents and Kara Seas (BKS) were 12 analyzed for anomalies and trends relative to the Barents Sea. Large positive CH4 anomalies were discovered around 13 Franz Josef Land (FJL) and offshore west Novaya Zemlya in early fall. Far smaller CH4 enhancement was found 14 around Svalbard, downstream and north of known seabed seepage. SST increased in all focus areas at rates from 15 0.0018 to 0.15 °C yr-1, CH4 growth spanned 3.06 to 3.49 ppb yr-1. 16 The strongest SST increase was observed each year in the southeast Barents Sea in June due to strengthening of 17 the warm Murman Current (MC), and in the south Kara Sea in September. The southeast Barents Sea, the south 18 Kara Sea and coastal areas around FJL exhibited the strongest CH4 growth over the observation period.
  • Spasertur Gjennom Hyllestadgarden - Kulturlandskap Som Har Endra Karakter

    Spasertur Gjennom Hyllestadgarden - Kulturlandskap Som Har Endra Karakter

    Spasertur gjennom Hyllestadgarden - kulturlandskap som har endra karakter 1865 2 «Midtstaden» Då Hyllestad i 1861 vart utskild som eigen kommune blei Hyllestadgarden «kommunesenter». Hyllestad låg midt i den nye kommunen og vart vald til administrasjonsstad for di det ikkje eksisterte større sentrum verken langs Bøfjorden, Åfjorden eller Skifjorden. Hyllestad var då som no eit balansepunktet mellom Sørbøvåg og Leirvik. I jubileumsboka «Hyllestad kommunen og folket» skriv Johs B. Thue dette om Hyllestad-garden …..: «Vi ruslar opp i det gamle Hyllestadtunet. Februardagen pustar klar og kald mot oss i austaver. Garden, tunet og kyrkjestaden breier seg vakkert ut her, med gravplass som er inngjerda av ein steinmur, der steinkrossar enno stikk opp i tre hjørne som tause vitne om eit eldgamalt handverk, knytt til kvernstein- og krosshogginga. Eit nytt prestegjeld og formannskapsdistrikt vart namnsett etter Hyllestadgarden i 1861, den kongelege resolusjonen om nyhendet kom den 6. mars og skulle settast ut i livet frå 1. juli, som altså er skipingsdagen for Hyllestad kommune. Her i tunet og i hallet ned mot Åfjordbotnen, Hyllestadvikja, blei det nye kommunesenteret etablert. Alle kommunestyre- møter fann stad her i tiår etter tiår. Nett her budde etter kvart lensmannen og postopnaren. Doktorkontoret grodde opp, sameleis telefonstasjon. Den offentlige infrastrukturen fann samlings- staden sin i dette tunet. Dampskipsekspedisjonen med brygge, solide jernpollertar og jarnringar for landfeste, fekk staden sin ved sjøkanten. Der var det også almenning for alle robåtar som kom hit med folk som skulle ordne offentlege saker eller delta i ulike møte». 3 Hyllestadgarden Kyrkjestad frå middelalderen til 1880, flytta til Myklebust Møtestad for kommunestyret 1861 til 1946, flytta til Myklebust Lensmann 1873 til 1937, flytta til Myklebust Tingstad/tingstove frå 1884, i dag bustadhus Postopneri 1873 til 1973.
  • Stevnerapport KM/Krinsleikar 2018

    Stevnerapport KM/Krinsleikar 2018

    KM/krinsleikar 2018 Stevnerapport Navn: KM/krinsleikar 2018 Sted: Førde Arrangør: Førde IL Dato: 15.09.2018 - 16.09.2018 Dag: Kontaktp Jan Svoen Telefon E-Post [email protected] Kommentar Førde - 15.09.2018 16:01:00 FriSys Side 1 av 16 KM/krinsleikar 2018 Resultatliste 15.09.2018 G-10 60 m Heat: 1 Vind: -0,9 53 Mats Johan Gausvik Oppedal (09) Førde IL 11,17 30 Even Bjørkhaug (09) Førde IL 11,06 34 Håvard Andre Gausvik Oppedal (10) Førde IL 11,96 0 73 Zakarias Huseth Klakegg (10) Førde IL 12,14 Heat: 2 Vind: -0,4 0 51 Mathias Holme (08) Førde IL 10,88 0 66 Syver Syltesæter Hatteland (08) Førde IL 10,21 0 142 Sander Birkeland (08) Førde IL 12,26 0 27 David Engesæter (08) Førde IL 10,36 G-10 600 m 30 Even Bjørkhaug (09) Førde IL 2,19,68 27 David Engesæter (08) Førde IL 2,05,61 34 Håvard Andre Gausvik Oppedal (10) Førde IL 2,29,43 53 Mats Johan Gausvik Oppedal (09) Førde IL 2,22,27 66 Syver Syltesæter Hatteland (08) Førde IL 2,10,92 G-10 Lengde 53 Mats Johan Gausvik Oppedal (09) Førde IL 2,19 2,19 2,17 2,17 66 Syver Syltesæter Hatteland (08) Førde IL 3,21 3,21 x 3,04 51 Mathias Holme (08) Førde IL 2,65 2,65 1,88 - 34 Håvard Andre Gausvik Oppedal (10) Førde IL 1,78 x 1,62 1,78 73 Zakarias Huseth Klakegg (10) Førde IL 2,52 2,43 2,33 2,52 142 Sander Birkeland (08) Førde IL 2,31 2,31 x x 27 David Engesæter (08) Førde IL 2,78 2,78 2,44 2,26 30 Even Bjørkhaug (09) Førde IL x x x x G-10 Liten Ball 150gr 66 Syver Syltesæter Hatteland (08) Førde IL 22,45 22,45 x 17,80 53 Mats Johan Gausvik Oppedal (09) Førde IL 17,00 17,00 13,85 14,45 30 Even Bjørkhaug
  • World Transport Market and Logistics Project

    World Transport Market and Logistics Project

    World Transport Market and Logistics Project KO1029 Barents Region Transport and Logistics Report 15.5.2020 CONTENTS This report includes the following sections 1 Background and goals of the study p. 2-3 2 The implementer's recommendations and conclusions p. 4-6 Barents Region as a transportation and logistics p. 7-32 3 operating environment today 4 The signals of change p. 33-51 5 Scenarios of the future p. 52-83 1 1 Background and goals of the study 2 BACKGROUND AND GOALS The report examines the current state of different logistics and transportation flows in the Barents Region and creates understanding on the area’s future competitiveness Barents Region is under a transformation The rich natural resources of the Barents Region and growing tourism cause effects to the logistics chains and different material flows from and to the area. The fishing industry is developing and is moving towards the THE RESEARCH QUESTIONS OF THE REPORT ARE North and to new spheres. In addition to these changes, the Northeast passage offers a faster transportation route between Asia and Europe, Phase 1: AS-IS analysis Phase 2: Future scenarios that has big impacts on the development of the Barents Region. At the same time, the industries in the are face still the problem of reachability. 1. What kinds of different goods-, cargo- 1. What is the competitiveness of the Investments in mining-, energy production and fishery are not possible and tourism flows are moving in the Barents Region in the Global market without good connectivity to different markets. Barents Region at the moment? in 2030 and 2040? Understanding the current situation is vital 2.
  • Recent Noteworthy Findings of Fungus Gnats from Finland and Northwestern Russia (Diptera: Ditomyiidae, Keroplatidae, Bolitophilidae and Mycetophilidae)

    Recent Noteworthy Findings of Fungus Gnats from Finland and Northwestern Russia (Diptera: Ditomyiidae, Keroplatidae, Bolitophilidae and Mycetophilidae)

    Biodiversity Data Journal 2: e1068 doi: 10.3897/BDJ.2.e1068 Taxonomic paper Recent noteworthy findings of fungus gnats from Finland and northwestern Russia (Diptera: Ditomyiidae, Keroplatidae, Bolitophilidae and Mycetophilidae) Jevgeni Jakovlev†, Jukka Salmela ‡,§, Alexei Polevoi|, Jouni Penttinen ¶, Noora-Annukka Vartija# † Finnish Environment Insitutute, Helsinki, Finland ‡ Metsähallitus (Natural Heritage Services), Rovaniemi, Finland § Zoological Museum, University of Turku, Turku, Finland | Forest Research Institute KarRC RAS, Petrozavodsk, Russia ¶ Metsähallitus (Natural Heritage Services), Jyväskylä, Finland # Toivakka, Myllyntie, Finland Corresponding author: Jukka Salmela ([email protected]) Academic editor: Vladimir Blagoderov Received: 10 Feb 2014 | Accepted: 01 Apr 2014 | Published: 02 Apr 2014 Citation: Jakovlev J, Salmela J, Polevoi A, Penttinen J, Vartija N (2014) Recent noteworthy findings of fungus gnats from Finland and northwestern Russia (Diptera: Ditomyiidae, Keroplatidae, Bolitophilidae and Mycetophilidae). Biodiversity Data Journal 2: e1068. doi: 10.3897/BDJ.2.e1068 Abstract New faunistic data on fungus gnats (Diptera: Sciaroidea excluding Sciaridae) from Finland and NW Russia (Karelia and Murmansk Region) are presented. A total of 64 and 34 species are reported for the first time form Finland and Russian Karelia, respectively. Nine of the species are also new for the European fauna: Mycomya shewelli Väisänen, 1984,M. thula Väisänen, 1984, Acnemia trifida Zaitzev, 1982, Coelosia gracilis Johannsen, 1912, Orfelia krivosheinae Zaitzev, 1994, Mycetophila biformis Maximova, 2002, M. monstera Maximova, 2002, M. uschaica Subbotina & Maximova, 2011 and Trichonta palustris Maximova, 2002. Keywords Sciaroidea, Fennoscandia, faunistics © Jakovlev J et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
  • Chapter 7. Cities of the Russian North in the Context of Climate Change

    Chapter 7. Cities of the Russian North in the Context of Climate Change

    ? chapter seven Cities of the Russian North in the Context of Climate Change Oleg Anisimov and Vasily Kokorev Introduction In addressing Arctic urban sustainability, one has to deal with the com- plex interplay of multiple factors, such as governance and economic development, demography and migration, environmental changes and land use, changes in the ecosystems and their services, and climate change.1 While climate change can be seen as a factor that exacerbates existing vulnerabilities to other stressors, changes in temperatures, precipitation, snow accumulation, river and lake ice, and hydrological conditions also have direct implications for Northern cities. Climate change leads to a reduction in the demand for heating energy, on one hand, and heightens concerns about the fate of the infrastruc- ture built upon thawing permafrost, on the other. Changes in snowfall are particularly important and have direct implications for the urban economy, because, together with heating costs, expenses for snow removal from streets, airport runways, roofs, and ventilation spaces underneath buildings standing on pile foundations built upon perma- frost constitute the bulk of a city’s maintenance budget during the long cold period of the year. Many cities are located in river valleys and are prone to fl oods that lead to enormous economic losses, inju- ries, and in some cases human deaths. The severity of the northern climate has a direct impact on the regional migration of labor. Climate could thus potentially be viewed as an inexhaustible public resource that creates opportunities for sustainable urban development (Simp- 142 | Oleg Anisimov and Vasily Kokorev son 2009). Long-term trends show that climate as a resource is, in fact, becoming more readily available in the Russian North, notwith- standing the general perception that globally climate change is one of the greatest challenges facing humanity in the twenty-fi rst century.