DOCSLIB.ORG

The Relative Importance of Eutrophication and Connectivity in Structuring Biological Communities of the Upper Lough Erne System, Northern Ireland

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

THE RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF EUTROPHICATION AND CONNECTIVITY IN STRUCTURING BIOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES OF THE UPPER LOUGH ERNE SYSTEM, NORTHERN IRELAND Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University College London by JORGE SALGADO Department of Geography University College London and Department of Zoology Natural History Museum December 2011 1 2 Abstract This study investigates the relative importance of eutrophication and connectivity (dispersal) in structuring macrophyte and invertebrate lake assemblages across spatial and temporal scales in the Upper Lough Erne (ULE) system, Northern Ireland. Riverine systems and their associated flood-plains and lakes comprise dynamic diverse landscapes in which water flow plays a key role in affecting connectivity. However, as for many other freshwater systems, their ecological integrity is threatened by eutrophication and hydrological alteration. Eutrophication results in a shift from primarily benthic to primarily pelagic primary production and reductions in species diversity, while flow regulation often reduces water level fluctuation and hydrological connectivity in linked riverine systems. Low water levels promote isolation between areas and increases the importance of local driving forces (e.g. eutrophication). Conversely, enhanced water flow and flooding events promote connectivity in systems thus potentially increasing local diversity and homogenising habitats through the exchange of species. Therefore, connectivity may help to override the local effects of eutrophication. Attempts at testing the above ideas are rare and typically involve the examination of current community patterns using space for time substitution. However, biological community responses to eutrophication and changes in hydrological connectivity may involve lags, historical contingency, and may be manifested over intergenerational timescales (10s -100s of years), rendering modern studies less than satisfactory for building an understanding of processes that drive community structure and effect change. By combining contemporary and palaeolimnological data this study demonstrates that the ULE system is far from its pre-disturbance state as an oligotrophic-mesotrophic system. Furthermore, contemporary and palaeo-data suggest there has been a strong interaction between eutrophication and hydrological change, which influences the distributions and abundances of representative taxa in the ULE system. Thus, while eutrophication has promoted a decrease in compositional heterogeneity of organisms and has exerted a homogenising effect over time, connectivity has buffered the effects of eutrophication helping to maintain local diversity via re-introductions. 3 Acknowledgements I would like to thank my supervisors who have brought different qualities to the task of supervision. These included, Beth Okamura, Carl Sayer, Steve Brooks and Thomas Davidson. Thanks to Rick Battarbee and Helen Bennion for stepping in with words of wisdom and encouragement when called for. Thanks, in no particular order, for your guidance, enthusiasm, patience, tolerance, friendship and advice. I would like to give a special thank to Phil Rainbow and the Department of Zoology of the Natural history Museum for funding this work and giving me the opportunity of developing and testing my ideas at the Museum. I would like to thanks also to the Freshwater Biological Association for funding my fieldwork and the Central Research Fund of University of London for funding the radiometric laboratory analyses. This study is also a contribution to the EU FP7 Project Biofresh (Biodiversity of Freshwater Ecosystems: Status, Trends, Pressures, and Conservation Priorities) Contract No. 226874”. I would like to thank the various landowners in Fermanagh County, Northern Ireland, for site access and generous hospitality. Thanks to Tony Waterman and Gareth Greer for valuable information. I am indebted to all the staff at the Natural History Museum for all their help and friendship. I would really like to thank Peter, Patrik, Laura, Charlotte and the mighty full metal Ian for all your help, thoughts, patience and support in the field. Sorry for the long-days and make you spend hours sampling green stuff, bubbly stuff and mud. Without you guys I would not be able to collect as many data as we did together. Many thanks to Gavin Simpson for the patience, guidance on numerical techniques and vital assistance with R during some of the most confusing but in the end helpful hours of the PhD. I would like to thank everyone at the ECRC who has helped through advice, discussion, assistance in the field and most importantly invaluable entertainment and friendship at the JB and John Russel. Thanks to Ben Goldsmith, Simon Patrick, and all the Water Monitoring Network team for all your help, generosity and specially for giving me the opportunity of visiting some of the most wonderful pubs, B&Bs and landscapes in the UK. Finally I would like to give a big thank to Claudia, Vale, my family and friends for all the support you provided me during this time. 4 Table of contents ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................................ 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS ....................................................................................................................... 5 LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................................. 7 1 CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 13 1.1 BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................... 13 1.2 RIVERINE SYSTEMS ................................................................................................................... 16 1.2.1 Eutrophication .................................................................................................................. 17 1.2.2 Hydrological alteration ..................................................................................................... 18 1.2.3 Riverscapes and metacommunities.................................................................................... 18 1.2.4 Long-term records and metacommunity ........................................................................... 19 1.3 OVERALL AIM AND SPECIFIC RESEARCH QUESTIONS.................................................................. 20 1.4 STUDY SITE ............................................................................................................................... 21 1.4.1 A history of eutrophication and connectivity .................................................................... 22 1.5 STRUCTURE AND OUTLINE OF THESIS ........................................................................................ 25 1.5.1 Spatial contemporary dynamics: ....................................................................................... 25 1.5.2 Spatial-temporal dynamics ................................................................................................ 25 1.6 GLOSSARY OF TERMS ................................................................................................................ 27 2 CHAPTER 2 – THE RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF LOCAL AND REGIONAL PROCESSES IN STRUCTURING SHALLOW LAKE METACOMMUNITIES ......................... 29 2.1 ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................. 29 2.2 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................... 30 2.3 STUDY SITE ............................................................................................................................... 32 2.4 MATERIALS AND METHODS ....................................................................................................... 34 2.4.1 Data analysis .................................................................................................................... 39 2.5 RESULTS ................................................................................................................................... 44 2.5.1 Relative contributions of spatial and environmental variables ......................................... 45 2.5.2 Community similarity along environmental and spatial gradients ................................... 50 2.6 DISCUSSION .............................................................................................................................. 52 2.6.1 Environmental variables and assemblage variation ......................................................... 52 2.6.2 Spatial variables and assemblage variation ..................................................................... 54 2.6.3 Metacommunity perspectives ............................................................................................ 57 2.6.4 Community similarity along environmental and spatial gradients ................................... 58 2.7 CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................................... 59 3 CHAPTER 3 – ENVIRONMENTAL AND SPATIAL PROCESSES DETERMINE LAKE MACROPHYTE DIVERSITY AND COMPOSITIONAL HETEROGENEITY IN A METACOMMUNITY LANDSCAPE. ..............................................................................................
Recommended publications
  • Plant Macrofossil Evidence for an Early Onset of the Holocene Summer Thermal Maximum in Northernmost Europe

    Plant Macrofossil Evidence for an Early Onset of the Holocene Summer Thermal Maximum in Northernmost Europe

    ARTICLE Received 19 Aug 2014 | Accepted 27 Feb 2015 | Published 10 Apr 2015 DOI: 10.1038/ncomms7809 OPEN Plant macrofossil evidence for an early onset of the Holocene summer thermal maximum in northernmost Europe M. Va¨liranta1, J.S. Salonen2, M. Heikkila¨1, L. Amon3, K. Helmens4, A. Klimaschewski5, P. Kuhry4, S. Kultti2, A. Poska3,6, S. Shala4, S. Veski3 & H.H. Birks7 Holocene summer temperature reconstructions from northern Europe based on sedimentary pollen records suggest an onset of peak summer warmth around 9,000 years ago. However, pollen-based temperature reconstructions are largely driven by changes in the proportions of tree taxa, and thus the early-Holocene warming signal may be delayed due to the geographical disequilibrium between climate and tree populations. Here we show that quantitative summer-temperature estimates in northern Europe based on macrofossils of aquatic plants are in many cases ca.2°C warmer in the early Holocene (11,700–7,500 years ago) than reconstructions based on pollen data. When the lag in potential tree establishment becomes imperceptible in the mid-Holocene (7,500 years ago), the reconstructed temperatures converge at all study sites. We demonstrate that aquatic plant macrofossil records can provide additional and informative insights into early-Holocene temperature evolution in northernmost Europe and suggest further validation of early post-glacial climate development based on multi-proxy data syntheses. 1 Department of Environmental Sciences, ECRU, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 65, Helsinki FI-00014, Finland. 2 Department of Geosciences and Geography, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 65, Helsinki FI-00014, Finland.
  • Natural Communities of Michigan: Classification and Description

    Natural Communities of Michigan: Classification and Description

    Natural Communities of Michigan: Classification and Description Prepared by: Michael A. Kost, Dennis A. Albert, Joshua G. Cohen, Bradford S. Slaughter, Rebecca K. Schillo, Christopher R. Weber, and Kim A. Chapman Michigan Natural Features Inventory P.O. Box 13036 Lansing, MI 48901-3036 For: Michigan Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Division and Forest, Mineral and Fire Management Division September 30, 2007 Report Number 2007-21 Version 1.2 Last Updated: July 9, 2010 Suggested Citation: Kost, M.A., D.A. Albert, J.G. Cohen, B.S. Slaughter, R.K. Schillo, C.R. Weber, and K.A. Chapman. 2007. Natural Communities of Michigan: Classification and Description. Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Report Number 2007-21, Lansing, MI. 314 pp. Copyright 2007 Michigan State University Board of Trustees. Michigan State University Extension programs and materials are open to all without regard to race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, marital status or family status. Cover photos: Top left, Dry Sand Prairie at Indian Lake, Newaygo County (M. Kost); top right, Limestone Bedrock Lakeshore, Summer Island, Delta County (J. Cohen); lower left, Muskeg, Luce County (J. Cohen); and lower right, Mesic Northern Forest as a matrix natural community, Porcupine Mountains Wilderness State Park, Ontonagon County (M. Kost). Acknowledgements We thank the Michigan Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Division and Forest, Mineral, and Fire Management Division for funding this effort to classify and describe the natural communities of Michigan. This work relied heavily on data collected by many present and former Michigan Natural Features Inventory (MNFI) field scientists and collaborators, including members of the Michigan Natural Areas Council.
  • Comparative Genomic Analysis of Cristatella Mucedo Provides Insights Into Bryozoan Evolution and Nervous System Function

    Comparative Genomic Analysis of Cristatella Mucedo Provides Insights Into Bryozoan Evolution and Nervous System Function

    bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/869792; this version posted December 14, 2019. 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-ND 4.0 International license. Comparative genomic analysis of Cristatella mucedo provides insights into Bryozoan evolution and nervous system function Viktor V Starunov1,2†, Alexander V Predeus3†*, Yury A Barbitoff3, Vladimir A Kutiumov1, Arina L Maltseva1, Ekatherina A Vodiasova4, Andrea B Kohn5, Leonid L Moroz5*, Andrew N Ostrovsky1,6* 1 Department of Invertebrate Zoology, Faculty of Biology, Saint Petersburg State University, Universitetskaya nab. 7/9, 199034, St. Petersburg, Russia 2 Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, Universitetskaya nab. 1, 199034, St. Petersburg, Russia 3 Bioinformatics Institute, Kantemirovskaya 2A, 197342, St. Petersburg, Russia 4 A.O. Kovalevsky Institute of Biology of the Southern Seas, Russian Academy of Sciences, Leninsky pr. 38/3, 119991, Moscow, Russia 5 The Whitney Laboratory for Marine Bioscience, University of Florida, 9505 Ocean Shore Blvd, St Augustine, FL 32080, USA 6 Department of Paleontology, Faculty of Earth Sciences, Geography and Astronomy, University of Vienna, Althanstrasse 14, 1090, Vienna, Austria † These authors contributed equally to the study. * To whom correspondence should be addressed: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/869792; this version posted December 14, 2019. 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.
  • Introduction to Common Native & Invasive Freshwater Plants in Alaska

    Introduction to Common Native & Invasive Freshwater Plants in Alaska

    Introduction to Common Native & Potential Invasive Freshwater Plants in Alaska Cover photographs by (top to bottom, left to right): Tara Chestnut/Hannah E. Anderson, Jamie Fenneman, Vanessa Morgan, Dana Visalli, Jamie Fenneman, Lynda K. Moore and Denny Lassuy. Introduction to Common Native & Potential Invasive Freshwater Plants in Alaska This document is based on An Aquatic Plant Identification Manual for Washington’s Freshwater Plants, which was modified with permission from the Washington State Department of Ecology, by the Center for Lakes and Reservoirs at Portland State University for Alaska Department of Fish and Game US Fish & Wildlife Service - Coastal Program US Fish & Wildlife Service - Aquatic Invasive Species Program December 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgments ............................................................................ x Introduction Overview ............................................................................. xvi How to Use This Manual .................................................... xvi Categories of Special Interest Imperiled, Rare and Uncommon Aquatic Species ..................... xx Indigenous Peoples Use of Aquatic Plants .............................. xxi Invasive Aquatic Plants Impacts ................................................................................. xxi Vectors ................................................................................. xxii Prevention Tips .................................................... xxii Early Detection and Reporting
  • Aquatic Vascular Plant Species Distribution Maps

    Aquatic Vascular Plant Species Distribution Maps

    Appendix 11.5.1: Aquatic Vascular Plant Species Distribution Maps These distribution maps are for 116 aquatic vascular macrophyte species (Table 1). Aquatic designation follows habitat descriptions in Haines and Vining (1998), and includes submergent, floating and some emergent species. See Appendix 11.4 for list of species. Also included in Appendix 11.4 is the number of HUC-10 watersheds from which each taxon has been recorded, and the county-level distributions. Data are from nine sources, as compiled in the MABP database (plus a few additional records derived from ancilliary information contained in reports from two fisheries surveys in the Upper St. John basin organized by The Nature Conservancy). With the exception of the University of Maine herbarium records, most locations represent point samples (coordinates were provided in data sources or derived by MABP from site descriptions in data sources). The herbarium data are identified only to township. In the species distribution maps, town-level records are indicated by center-points (centroids). Figure 1 on this page shows as polygons the towns where taxon records are identified only at the town level. Data Sources: MABP ID MABP DataSet Name Provider 7 Rare taxa from MNAP lake plant surveys D. Cameron, MNAP 8 Lake plant surveys D. Cameron, MNAP 35 Acadia National Park plant survey C. Greene et al. 63 Lake plant surveys A. Dieffenbacher-Krall 71 Natural Heritage Database (rare plants) MNAP 91 University of Maine herbarium database C. Campbell 183 Natural Heritage Database (delisted species) MNAP 194 Rapid bioassessment surveys D. Cameron, MNAP 207 Invasive aquatic plant records MDEP Maps are in alphabetical order by species name.
  • Comparative Genomic Analysis of Cristatella Mucedo Provides Insights Into Bryozoan

    Comparative Genomic Analysis of Cristatella Mucedo Provides Insights Into Bryozoan

    bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/869792; this version posted December 10, 2019. 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-ND 4.0 International license. Comparative genomic analysis of Cristatella mucedo provides insights into Bryozoan evolution and nervous system function Viktor V Starunov1,2†, Alexander V Predeus3†*, Yury A Barbitoff3, Vladimir A Kutyumov1, Arina L Maltseva1, Ekatherina A Vodiasova4 Andrea B Kohn5, Leonid L Moroz4,5*, Andrew N Ostrovsky1,6* 1 Department of invertebrate zoology, Saint Petersburg State University, Universitetskaya nab. 7/9, 199034, St. Petersburg, Russia 2 Zoological Institute RAS, Universitetskaya nab. 1, 199034, St. Petersburg, Russia 3 Bioinformatics Institute, Kantemirovskaya 2A, 197342, St. Petersburg, Russia 4 A.O. Kovalevsky Institute of Biology of the Southern Seas RAS, Leninsky pr. 38/3, 119991, Moscow, Russia 5 The Whitney Laboratory for Marine Bioscience, University of Florida 6 University of Vienna † These authors contributed equally to the study. * To whom correspondence should be addressed: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/869792; this version posted December 10, 2019. 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-ND 4.0 International license. Abstract The modular body organization is an enigmatic feature of different animal phyla scattered throughout the phylogenetic tree.
  • WETLAND PLANTS – Full Species List (English) RECORDING FORM

    WETLAND PLANTS – Full Species List (English) RECORDING FORM

    WETLAND PLANTS – full species list (English) RECORDING FORM Surveyor Name(s) Pond name Date e.g. John Smith (if known) Square: 4 fig grid reference Pond: 8 fig grid ref e.g. SP1243 (see your map) e.g. SP 1235 4325 (see your map) METHOD: wetland plants (full species list) survey Survey a single Focal Pond in each 1km square Aim: To assess pond quality and conservation value using plants, by recording all wetland plant species present within the pond’s outer boundary. How: Identify the outer boundary of the pond. This is the ‘line’ marking the pond’s highest yearly water levels (usually in early spring). It will probably not be the current water level of the pond, but should be evident from the extent of wetland vegetation (for example a ring of rushes growing at the pond’s outer edge), or other clues such as water-line marks on tree trunks or stones. Within the outer boundary, search all the dry and shallow areas of the pond that are accessible. Survey deeper areas with a net or grapnel hook. Record wetland plants found by crossing through the names on this sheet. You don’t need to record terrestrial species. For each species record its approximate abundance as a percentage of the pond’s surface area. Where few plants are present, record as ‘<1%’. If you are not completely confident in your species identification put’?’ by the species name. If you are really unsure put ‘??’. After your survey please enter the results online: www.freshwaterhabitats.org.uk/projects/waternet/ Aquatic plants (submerged-leaved species) Stonewort, Bristly (Chara hispida) Bistort, Amphibious (Persicaria amphibia) Arrowhead (Sagittaria sagittifolia) Stonewort, Clustered (Tolypella glomerata) Crystalwort, Channelled (Riccia canaliculata) Arrowhead, Canadian (Sagittaria rigida) Stonewort, Common (Chara vulgaris) Crystalwort, Lizard (Riccia bifurca) Arrowhead, Narrow-leaved (Sagittaria subulata) Stonewort, Convergent (Chara connivens) Duckweed , non-native sp.
  • NJ Native Plants - USDA

    NJ Native Plants - USDA

    NJ Native Plants - USDA Scientific Name Common Name N/I Family Category National Wetland Indicator Status Thermopsis villosa Aaron's rod N Fabaceae Dicot Rubus depavitus Aberdeen dewberry N Rosaceae Dicot Artemisia absinthium absinthium I Asteraceae Dicot Aplectrum hyemale Adam and Eve N Orchidaceae Monocot FAC-, FACW Yucca filamentosa Adam's needle N Agavaceae Monocot Gentianella quinquefolia agueweed N Gentianaceae Dicot FAC, FACW- Rhamnus alnifolia alderleaf buckthorn N Rhamnaceae Dicot FACU, OBL Medicago sativa alfalfa I Fabaceae Dicot Ranunculus cymbalaria alkali buttercup N Ranunculaceae Dicot OBL Rubus allegheniensis Allegheny blackberry N Rosaceae Dicot UPL, FACW Hieracium paniculatum Allegheny hawkweed N Asteraceae Dicot Mimulus ringens Allegheny monkeyflower N Scrophulariaceae Dicot OBL Ranunculus allegheniensis Allegheny Mountain buttercup N Ranunculaceae Dicot FACU, FAC Prunus alleghaniensis Allegheny plum N Rosaceae Dicot UPL, NI Amelanchier laevis Allegheny serviceberry N Rosaceae Dicot Hylotelephium telephioides Allegheny stonecrop N Crassulaceae Dicot Adlumia fungosa allegheny vine N Fumariaceae Dicot Centaurea transalpina alpine knapweed N Asteraceae Dicot Potamogeton alpinus alpine pondweed N Potamogetonaceae Monocot OBL Viola labradorica alpine violet N Violaceae Dicot FAC Trifolium hybridum alsike clover I Fabaceae Dicot FACU-, FAC Cornus alternifolia alternateleaf dogwood N Cornaceae Dicot Strophostyles helvola amberique-bean N Fabaceae Dicot Puccinellia americana American alkaligrass N Poaceae Monocot Heuchera americana
  • Kenai National Wildlife Refuge Species List, Version 2018-07-24

    Kenai National Wildlife Refuge Species List, Version 2018-07-24

    Kenai National Wildlife Refuge Species List, version 2018-07-24 Kenai National Wildlife Refuge biology staff July 24, 2018 2 Cover image: map of 16,213 georeferenced occurrence records included in the checklist. Contents Contents 3 Introduction 5 Purpose............................................................ 5 About the list......................................................... 5 Acknowledgments....................................................... 5 Native species 7 Vertebrates .......................................................... 7 Invertebrates ......................................................... 55 Vascular Plants........................................................ 91 Bryophytes ..........................................................164 Other Plants .........................................................171 Chromista...........................................................171 Fungi .............................................................173 Protozoans ..........................................................186 Non-native species 187 Vertebrates ..........................................................187 Invertebrates .........................................................187 Vascular Plants........................................................190 Extirpated species 207 Vertebrates ..........................................................207 Vascular Plants........................................................207 Change log 211 References 213 Index 215 3 Introduction Purpose to avoid implying
  • Pondnet RECORDING FORM (PAGE 1 of 5)

    Pondnet RECORDING FORM (PAGE 1 of 5)

    WETLAND PLANTS PondNet RECORDING FORM (PAGE 1 of 5) Your Name Date Pond name (if known) Square: 4 fig grid reference Pond: 8 fig grid ref e.g. SP1243 e.g. SP 1235 4325 Determiner name (optional) Voucher material (optional) METHOD (complete one survey form per pond) Aim: To assess pond quality and conservation value, by recording wetland plants. How: Identify the outer boundary of the pond. This is the ‘line’ marking the pond’s highest yearly water levels (usually in early spring). It will probably not be the current water level of the pond, but should be evident from wetland vegetation like rushes at the pond’s outer edge, or other clues such as water-line marks on tree trunks or stones. Within the outer boundary, search all the dry and shallow areas of the pond that are accessible. Survey deeper areas with a net or grapnel hook. Record wetland plants found by crossing through the names on this sheet. You don’t need to record terrestrial species. For each species record its approximate abundance as a percentage of the pond’s surface area. Where few plants are present, record as ‘<1%’. If you are not completely confident in your species identification put ’?’ by the species name. If you are really unsure put ‘??’. Enter the results online: www.freshwaterhabitats.org.uk/projects/waternet/ or send your results to Freshwater Habitats Trust. Aquatic plants (submerged-leaved species) Nitella hyalina (Many-branched Stonewort) Floating-leaved species Apium inundatum (Lesser Marshwort) Nitella mucronata (Pointed Stonewort) Azolla filiculoides (Water Fern) Aponogeton distachyos (Cape-pondweed) Nitella opaca (Dark Stonewort) Hydrocharis morsus-ranae (Frogbit) Cabomba caroliniana (Fanwort) Nitella spanioclema (Few-branched Stonewort) Hydrocotyle ranunculoides (Floating Pennywort) Callitriche sp.
  • Note to Users

    Note to Users

    Odors And Ornaments In Crested Auklets (Aethia Cristatella): Signals Of Mate Quality? Item Type Thesis Authors Douglas, Hector D., Iii Download date 24/09/2021 03:31:59 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/11122/8905 NOTE TO USERS Page(s) missing in number only; text follows. Page(s) were scanned as received. 61 , 62 , 201 This reproduction is the best copy available. ® UMI Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ODORS AND ORNAMENTS IN CRESTED AUKLETS (AETHIA CRISTATELLA): SIGNALS OF MATE QUALITY ? A DISSERTATION Presented to the Faculty of the University of Alaska Fairbanks in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY By Hector D. Douglas III, B.A., B.S., M.S., M.F.A. Fairbanks, Alaska August 2006 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. UMI Number: 3240323 Copyright 2007 by Douglas, Hector D., Ill All rights reserved. INFORMATION TO USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. ® UMI UMI Microform 3240323 Copyright 2007 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved.
  • Population Ecology and Structural Dynamics of Walleye Pollock (Theragra Chalcogramma)

    Population Ecology and Structural Dynamics of Walleye Pollock (Theragra Chalcogramma)

    Dynamics of the Bering Sea • 1999 581 CHAPTER 26 Population Ecology and Structural Dynamics of Walleye Pollock (Theragra chalcogramma) Kevin M. Bailey Alaska Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, Washington Dennis M. Powers, Joseph M. Quattro, and Gary Villa Hopkins Marine Station, Stanford University, Pacific Grove, California Akira Nishimura National Institute of Far Seas Fisheries, Orido, Shimizu, Japan James J. Traynor and Gary Walters Alaska Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, Washington Abstract In this paper, walleye pollock (Theragra chalcogramma) is characterized as a generalist species, occupying a broad niche and inhabiting a wide geographic range. Pollock’s local abundance is usually high, dominating the fish biomass in many regional ecosystems. Thus, it appears to be an adaptable species capable of colonizing marginal habitats. The fields of macroecology, metapopulation dynamics, and genetic population struc- ture are briefly reviewed and information on pollock is summarized with- in the framework of these concepts. Pollock show a pattern of apparent stock structure that has not always been indicated by genetic differences. Phenotypic differences between stocks, elemental composition of otoliths, and parasite studies indicate restricted mixing of adults. There are genet- ic differences between broad regions, but differences between adjacent stocks, especially within the eastern Bering Sea, are currently unresolved. The potential for gene flow mediated by larval drift is high between adja- cent stocks. A generalized population structure for walleye pollock is pro- posed. The macro-population of walleye pollock is made of several major populations (such as the eastern Bering Sea and Sea of Okhotsk populations) Current address for Joseph M. Quattro is Department of Biological Science, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208.