JMIH-2018-Program-FINAL-Ztymj6
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
CAT Vertebradosgt CDC CECON USAC 2019
Catálogo de Autoridades Taxonómicas de vertebrados de Guatemala CDC-CECON-USAC 2019 Centro de Datos para la Conservación (CDC) Centro de Estudios Conservacionistas (Cecon) Facultad de Ciencias Químicas y Farmacia Universidad de San Carlos de Guatemala Este documento fue elaborado por el Centro de Datos para la Conservación (CDC) del Centro de Estudios Conservacionistas (Cecon) de la Facultad de Ciencias Químicas y Farmacia de la Universidad de San Carlos de Guatemala. Guatemala, 2019 Textos y edición: Manolo J. García. Zoólogo CDC Primera edición, 2019 Centro de Estudios Conservacionistas (Cecon) de la Facultad de Ciencias Químicas y Farmacia de la Universidad de San Carlos de Guatemala ISBN: 978-9929-570-19-1 Cita sugerida: Centro de Estudios Conservacionistas [Cecon]. (2019). Catálogo de autoridades taxonómicas de vertebrados de Guatemala (Documento técnico). Guatemala: Centro de Datos para la Conservación [CDC], Centro de Estudios Conservacionistas [Cecon], Facultad de Ciencias Químicas y Farmacia, Universidad de San Carlos de Guatemala [Usac]. Índice 1. Presentación ............................................................................................ 4 2. Directrices generales para uso del CAT .............................................. 5 2.1 El grupo objetivo ..................................................................... 5 2.2 Categorías taxonómicas ......................................................... 5 2.3 Nombre de autoridades .......................................................... 5 2.4 Estatus taxonómico -
Rough Fish”: Paradigm Shift in the Conservation of Native Fishes Andrew L
PERSPECTIVE Goodbye to “Rough Fish”: Paradigm Shift in the Conservation of Native Fishes Andrew L. Rypel | University of California, Davis, Department of Wildlife, Fish and Conservation Biology, 1 Shields Ave, Davis, CA 95616 | University of California, Davis, Center for Watershed Sciences, Davis, CA. E-mail: [email protected] Parsa Saffarinia | University of California, Davis, Department of Wildlife, Fish and Conservation Biology, Davis, CA Caryn C. Vaughn | University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma Biological Survey and Department of Biology, Norman, OK Larry Nesper | University of Wisconsin–Madison, Department of Anthropology, Madison, WI Katherine O’Reilly | University of Notre Dame, Department of Biological Sciences, Notre Dame, IN Christine A. Parisek | University of California, Davis, Center for Watershed Sciences, Davis, CA | University of California, Davis, Department of Wildlife, Fish and Conservation Biology, Davis, CA | The Nature Conservancy, Science Communications, Boise, ID Peter B. Moyle | University of California, Davis, Center for Watershed Sciences, Davis, CA Nann A. Fangue | University of California, Davis, Department of Wildlife, Fish and Conservation Biology, Davis, CA Miranda Bell- Tilcock | University of California, Davis, Center for Watershed Sciences, Davis, CA David Ayers | University of California, Davis, Center for Watershed Sciences, Davis, CA | University of California, Davis, Department of Wildlife, Fish and Conservation Biology, Davis, CA Solomon R. David | Nicholls State University, Department of Biological Sciences, Thibodaux, LA While sometimes difficult to admit, perspectives of European and white males have overwhelmingly dominated fisheries science and management in the USA. This dynamic is exemplified by bias against “rough fish”— a pejorative ascribing low- to- zero value for countless native fishes. One product of this bias is that biologists have ironically worked against conservation of diverse fishes for over a century, and these problems persist today. -
Resolving Cypriniformes Relationships Using an Anchored Enrichment Approach Carla C
Stout et al. BMC Evolutionary Biology (2016) 16:244 DOI 10.1186/s12862-016-0819-5 RESEARCH ARTICLE Open Access Resolving Cypriniformes relationships using an anchored enrichment approach Carla C. Stout1*†, Milton Tan1†, Alan R. Lemmon2, Emily Moriarty Lemmon3 and Jonathan W. Armbruster1 Abstract Background: Cypriniformes (minnows, carps, loaches, and suckers) is the largest group of freshwater fishes in the world (~4300 described species). Despite much attention, previous attempts to elucidate relationships using molecular and morphological characters have been incongruent. In this study we present the first phylogenomic analysis using anchored hybrid enrichment for 172 taxa to represent the order (plus three out-group taxa), which is the largest dataset for the order to date (219 loci, 315,288 bp, average locus length of 1011 bp). Results: Concatenation analysis establishes a robust tree with 97 % of nodes at 100 % bootstrap support. Species tree analysis was highly congruent with the concatenation analysis with only two major differences: monophyly of Cobitoidei and placement of Danionidae. Conclusions: Most major clades obtained in prior molecular studies were validated as monophyletic, and we provide robust resolution for the relationships among these clades for the first time. These relationships can be used as a framework for addressing a variety of evolutionary questions (e.g. phylogeography, polyploidization, diversification, trait evolution, comparative genomics) for which Cypriniformes is ideally suited. Keywords: Fish, High-throughput -
A Critical Evaluation of Research Techniques in Animal Ecology
Book Reviews Ecology, 82(1), 2001, pp. 298±299 q 2001 by the Ecological Society of America ACRITICAL EVALUATION OF RESEARCH TECHNIQUES IN ANIMAL ECOLOGY In Chapter 4, David Garshelis provides the best review I Boitani, Luigi, and Todd K. Fuller, editors. 2000. Research have read on habitat evaluations. This is ``must reading'' for techniques in animal ecology: controversies and conse- all ecologists, especially wildlife managers and conservation quences. Methods and Cases in Conservation Science. Co- biologists. Garshelis makes a special effort to point out the lumbia University Press, New York. xxxii 1 442 p. $75.00 delusions in habitat evaluations by inappropriate measure- (cloth), ISBN: 0-231-11340-4 (alk. paper); $32.00 (paper), ments and use of the terms of ``use,'' ``selection,'' ``prefer- ISBN: 0-231-11341-2 (alk. paper). ence,'' and ``importance.'' Garshelis points out that habitat evaluations are often ¯awed because they do not take into Research techniques in animal ecology: controversies and consideration sex-age, social status, time of day, season, year, consequences is just that, a critical examination of some of and they often group animals rather than look at individuals. the most commonly used means of assessing animal popu- Considering all the ¯aws and problems in evaluating habitat lations. Each chapter identi®es limitations, common misuses, use by animals, I am skeptical that most habitat evaluations and possible solutions for gathering, analyzing, and inter- currently published have much relevance to ecology. The es- preting data in a variety of research areas. The edited volume sence of this chapter can be summarized by Garshelis's qoute contains 11 chapters and results from a workshop held at the of E. -
2019-JMIH-Program-Book-MASTER
W:\CNCP\People\Richardson\FY19\JMIH - Rochester NY\Program\2018 JMIH Program Book.pub 2 Organizing Societies American Elasmobranch Society 34th Annual Meeting President: Dave Ebert Treasurer: Christine Bedore Secretary: Tonya Wiley Editor and Webmaster: Chuck Bangley Immediate Past President: Dean Grubbs American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists 98th Annual Meeting President: Kathleen Cole President Elect: Chris Beachy Past President: Brian Crother Prior Past President: Carole Baldwin Treasurer: Katherine Maslenikov Secretary: Prosanta Chakrabarty Editor: W. Leo Smith Herpetologists’ League 76th Annual Meeting President: Willem Roosenburg Vice-President: Susan Walls Immediate Past President: David Sever (deceased) Secretary: Renata Platenburg Treasurer: Laurie Mauger Communications Secretary: Max Lambert Herpetologica Editor: Stephen Mullin Herpetological Monographs Editor: Michael Harvey Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles 61th Annual Meeting President: Marty Crump President-Elect: Kirsten Nicholson Immediate Past-President: Richard Shine Secretary: Marion R. Preest Treasurer: Ann V. Paterson Publications Secretary: Cari-Ann Hickerson 3 Thanks to our Sponsors! PARTNER SPONSOR SUPPORTER SPONSOR 4 We would like to thank the following: Local Hosts Alan Savitzky, Utah State University, LHC Co-Chair Catherine Malone, Utah State University, LHC Co-Chair Diana Marques, Local Host Logo Artist Marty Crump, Utah State University Volunteers We wish to thank the following volunteers who have helped make the Joint Meeting -
Abstracts Part 1
375 Poster Session I, Event Center – The Snowbird Center, Friday 26 July 2019 Maria Sabando1, Yannis Papastamatiou1, Guillaume Rieucau2, Darcy Bradley3, Jennifer Caselle3 1Florida International University, Miami, FL, USA, 2Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium, Chauvin, LA, USA, 3University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA, USA Reef Shark Behavioral Interactions are Habitat Specific Dominance hierarchies and competitive behaviors have been studied in several species of animals that includes mammals, birds, amphibians, and fish. Competition and distribution model predictions vary based on dominance hierarchies, but most assume differences in dominance are constant across habitats. More recent evidence suggests dominance and competitive advantages may vary based on habitat. We quantified dominance interactions between two species of sharks Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos and Carcharhinus melanopterus, across two different habitats, fore reef and back reef, at a remote Pacific atoll. We used Baited Remote Underwater Video (BRUV) to observe dominance behaviors and quantified the number of aggressive interactions or bites to the BRUVs from either species, both separately and in the presence of one another. Blacktip reef sharks were the most abundant species in either habitat, and there was significant negative correlation between their relative abundance, bites on BRUVs, and the number of grey reef sharks. Although this trend was found in both habitats, the decline in blacktip abundance with grey reef shark presence was far more pronounced in fore reef habitats. We show that the presence of one shark species may limit the feeding opportunities of another, but the extent of this relationship is habitat specific. Future competition models should consider habitat-specific dominance or competitive interactions. -
A Summary of the Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina by the Ncfishes.Com Team
A Summary of the Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina By the NCFishes.com Team This is the last blog in the series focusing on the freshwater fishes of North Carolina, which was launched on June 17, 2020 (https://ncfishes.com/identification-of-north-carolina-freshwater-fishes/). In some respects, this last blog should have been the first, but learning about fishes is never along a straight stream, unless it is in a channelized stream. Our last identification key to all the families of freshwater fishes found in North Carolina can be found at the end of this summary (please refer to An Identification Key to the Freshwater Families in North Carolina). These 26 blogs, with their narratives and species identification keys, serve as a companion to “An Annotated Atlas of the Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina” by Tracy et al. (2020). [Please note: Tracy et al. (2020) may be downloaded for free at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/sfcproceedings/vol1/iss60/1.] Along with Tracy et al. (2020), our main webpage, NCFishes.com, and our freshwater-focused webpages (https://ncfishes.com/freshwater-fishes-of-north-carolina/, we have provided much needed revisions and updates to the “The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina” by Menhinick (1991). From the little community of Liberty in Cherokee County to the small Outer Banks town of Buxton in Dare County (about 620 miles as the wolf runs), North Carolina’s waters are home to 39 families of “freshwater” fishes (Table 1). This list includes 30 families whose species are primarily freshwater, 5 families whose species are primarily marine and estuarine, and 4 families whose species are more or less evenly split between fresh water and marine (Table 1). -
Checklist of Fishes of Thunder Bay District, Ontario
Thunder Bay Field Naturalists Checklist of Fish es of Thunder Bay District , Ontario 31 December 2019 Introduction This first edition of Checklist of Fishes of Thunder Bay District adds to existing checklists prepared by members of the Thunder Bay Field Naturalists (TBFN) covering other vertebrate taxa (mammals, birds, reptiles & amphibians), as well vascular plants, butterflies, and odonates. As with these other checklists, it covers the official judicial District of Thunder Bay (Figure 1). The District extends from the eastern border of Quetico Provincial Park east to White River, and from the international border north to Lake St. Joseph and the Albany River. Much of the District (60%) is within the Great Lakes watershed, with the remaining draining into the Arctic Ocean either north via the Hudson Bay Lowlands, or west via Rainy Lake/Lake of the Woods and the Nelson River watershed. Figure 1. Judicial District of Thunder Bay with primary watersheds and protected areas. 2 The fish species of the Thunder Bay District mostly reflect post-glacial colonization, modified by more recent ecological and anthropogenic influences. The Wisconsinan ice mass began to retreat north of Lake Superior circa 10,700 BP (Farrand and Drexler 1985), allowing fish to initially colonize the Thunder Bay area (Momot and Stephenson 1996). The Marquette advance circa 9900 BP likely wiped out these early colonizers, but its retreat around 9700 BP allowed many species access from glacial refugia in the Mississippi River basin to the south (Mandrak and Crossman 1992b; Stephenson and Momot 1994). Some species invaded from the east via the outlet of Lake Minong and Lake Superiors’ other post-glacial predecessors. -
Lake Histories
LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE & FISHERIES OFFICE OF FISHERIES INLAND FISHERIES SECTION PART VI -A WATERBODY MANAGEMENT PLAN SERIES ATCHAFALAYA BASIN LAKE HISTORY & MANAGEMENT ISSUES 1 CHRONOLOGY October, 2009 – Prepared by Mike Walker, Biologist Supervisor, District 9 July, 2011 – Updated by Mike Walker, Biologist Manager, District 9 February, 2014 – Updated by Brac Salyers, Biologist Manager, District 9 September, 2014 – Updated by Brac Salyers, Biologist Manager, District 9 September, 2015 – Updated by Brac Salyers, Biologist Manager, District 9 September, 2016 – Updated by Brac Salyers, Biologist Manager, District 9 September, 2017 – Updated by Brac Salyers, Biologist Manager, District 9 September, 2018 – Updated by Brac Salyers, Biologist Manager, District 9 September, 2019 – Updated by Brac Salyers, Biologist Manager, District 9 September, 2020 – Updated by Brac Salyers, Biologist Manager, District 9 The remainder of this page intentionally left blank. 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS LAKE HISTORY ........................................................................................................................................................ 5 GENERAL INFORMATION ................................................................................................................................. 5 History ................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Size ........................................................................................................................................................................ -
Genetics and Evolution of Freshwater Fishes - the Iberian Peninsula As a Case-Study Area
Genetics and Evolution of Freshwater Fishes - The Iberian Peninsula as a case-study area Illustrations by Claudia Baeta © How many fish species are known to science? About 30 000 species How many fish species occur in European freshwater ecosystems? 577 species Which fish family has the highest number of species? Cyprinidae with 2420 species How many fishes inhabit Portuguese freshwater ecosystems? Total of 62 species Leuciscidae Cyprinidae 14 18 (1 extinct) Petromyzontidae Salmonidae Cobitidae Mugilidae Clupeidae Centrarchidae Ictaluridae Percidae 8 Others 3 3 6 Native species (46) 62 / ~600 sp. in Europe (≈10%) Elsewhere Iberian 17 16 26 sp. endemic (≈5%) Portugal 10 Area of Portugal < 1% Some representatives of native fish fauna Illustrations by Claudia Baeta © The Iberian Peninsula as a Biodiversity Hotspot Myers et al. (2000) Why do we have this high diversity? Southern European peninsulas as glacial refugia www.iceagenow.com Why do we have this high diversity? The Iberian Peninsula refugia allowed the persistence of temperate species throughout the Ice Ages. ê Long term species survival and isolation from rest of Europe also led to differentiation and subsequent speciation. ê High endemism of Iberian plants and animals. www.iceagenow.com Why do we have this high diversity? Features of the Iberian Peninsula: • Geographic isolation at the westernmost tip of Europe. No river drainage crossing the Pyrenees. • High physiographic complexity with many mountain ranges oriented east-west. • Wide range of climates: Atlantic, Mediterranean, desert and Alpine. Freshwater Fish – Genetics and Evolution Freshwater Fish tend to show very clear phylogeographic structure: • Limited dispersal between river drainages (and sometimes within basins) • Distribution of genetic lineages often tracks the history of river drainages Eleven biogeographical provinces were delimited based on the freshwater fish assemblages & geographic contiguity. -
Evolution and Ecology in Widespread Acoustic Signaling Behavior Across Fishes
bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.09.14.296335; this version posted September 14, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY 4.0 International license. 1 Evolution and Ecology in Widespread Acoustic Signaling Behavior Across Fishes 2 Aaron N. Rice1*, Stacy C. Farina2, Andrea J. Makowski3, Ingrid M. Kaatz4, Philip S. Lobel5, 3 William E. Bemis6, Andrew H. Bass3* 4 5 1. Center for Conservation Bioacoustics, Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Cornell University, 159 6 Sapsucker Woods Road, Ithaca, NY, USA 7 2. Department of Biology, Howard University, 415 College St NW, Washington, DC, USA 8 3. Department of Neurobiology and Behavior, Cornell University, 215 Tower Road, Ithaca, NY 9 USA 10 4. Stamford, CT, USA 11 5. Department of Biology, Boston University, 5 Cummington Street, Boston, MA, USA 12 6. Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology and Cornell University Museum of 13 Vertebrates, Cornell University, 215 Tower Road, Ithaca, NY, USA 14 15 ORCID Numbers: 16 ANR: 0000-0002-8598-9705 17 SCF: 0000-0003-2479-1268 18 WEB: 0000-0002-5669-2793 19 AHB: 0000-0002-0182-6715 20 21 *Authors for Correspondence 22 ANR: [email protected]; AHB: [email protected] 1 bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.09.14.296335; this version posted September 14, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. -
Checklist of the Inland Fishes of Louisiana
Southeastern Fishes Council Proceedings Volume 1 Number 61 2021 Article 3 March 2021 Checklist of the Inland Fishes of Louisiana Michael H. Doosey University of New Orelans, [email protected] Henry L. Bart Jr. Tulane University, [email protected] Kyle R. Piller Southeastern Louisiana Univeristy, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/sfcproceedings Part of the Aquaculture and Fisheries Commons, and the Biodiversity Commons Recommended Citation Doosey, Michael H.; Bart, Henry L. Jr.; and Piller, Kyle R. (2021) "Checklist of the Inland Fishes of Louisiana," Southeastern Fishes Council Proceedings: No. 61. Available at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/sfcproceedings/vol1/iss61/3 This Original Research Article is brought to you for free and open access by Volunteer, Open Access, Library Journals (VOL Journals), published in partnership with The University of Tennessee (UT) University Libraries. This article has been accepted for inclusion in Southeastern Fishes Council Proceedings by an authorized editor. For more information, please visit https://trace.tennessee.edu/sfcproceedings. Checklist of the Inland Fishes of Louisiana Abstract Since the publication of Freshwater Fishes of Louisiana (Douglas, 1974) and a revised checklist (Douglas and Jordan, 2002), much has changed regarding knowledge of inland fishes in the state. An updated reference on Louisiana’s inland and coastal fishes is long overdue. Inland waters of Louisiana are home to at least 224 species (165 primarily freshwater, 28 primarily marine, and 31 euryhaline or diadromous) in 45 families. This checklist is based on a compilation of fish collections records in Louisiana from 19 data providers in the Fishnet2 network (www.fishnet2.net).