DOCSLIB.ORG

Distribution, Health, and Development of Larval and Juvenile Lost River

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Distribution, Health, and Development of Larval and Juvenile Lost River Distribution, Health, and Development of Larval and Juvenile Lost River and Shortnose Suckers in the Williamson River Delta Restoration Project and Upper Klamath Lake, Oregon: 2008 Annual Data Summary Open File Report 2009–1287 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Distribution, Health, and Development of Larval and Juvenile Lost River and Shortnose Suckers in the Williamson River Delta Restoration Project and Upper Klamath Lake, Oregon: 2008 Annual Data Summary By Summer M. Burdick, Christopher Ottinger, Daniel T. Brown, Scott P. VanderKooi, Laura Robertson, and Deborah Iwanowicz Open-File Report 2009-1287 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior KEN SALAZAR, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Marcia K. McNutt, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2009 For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment, visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1-888-ASK-USGS. For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov Suggested citation: Burdick, S.M., Ottinger, C., Brown, D.T., VanderKooi, S.P., Robertson, L., and Iwanowicz, D., 2009, Distribution, health, and development of larval and juvenile Lost River and shortnose suckers in the Williamson River Delta restoration project and Upper Klamath Lake, Oregon: 2008 annual data summary: U.S. Geological Survey Open- File Report 2009-1287, 76 p. Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted material contained within this report. Contents Executive Summary.................................................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction and Background...................................................................................................................................... 3 Study Area.................................................................................................................................................................. 7 Methods...................................................................................................................................................................... 8 Larval Fish Sampling............................................................................................................................................... 8 Random Stratified Sampling................................................................................................................................ 8 Fixed Site Sampling............................................................................................................................................. 8 Larval Sample Collection..................................................................................................................................... 9 Juvenile Fish Sampling ........................................................................................................................................... 9 Benthic Sampling .................................................................................................................................................. 11 Trammel Net Sampling ......................................................................................................................................... 11 Health and Condition Assessment ........................................................................................................................ 12 Bacterial Terminal Restriction Length Polymorphism (tRFLP) Analysis ............................................................ 13 Transforming Growth Factor-ß (TGF-ß) mRNA Expression in Age-0 Juvenile Suckers: Methods Development................................................................................................. 14 Results...................................................................................................................................................................... 15 Spatial Patterns in Relative Abundance and Condition of Larval Fish................................................................... 15 Larval Sucker Distribution, Condition, and Sample Density Relative to Hydrodynamic Conditions....................... 17 Larval Sample Efficiency ................................................................................................................................... 18 Juvenile Fish Habitat and Habitat Use .................................................................................................................. 19 Juvenile Sucker Prey Availability....................................................................................................................... 19 Spatial and Temporal Variation in Juvenile Sucker Distribution......................................................................... 19 Juvenile Fish Community .................................................................................................................................. 21 Health and Condition of Age-0 Juvenile Suckers .................................................................................................. 22 Mucosal Bacterial Communities ........................................................................................................................ 22 Transforming Growth Factor-ß (TGF-ß) mRNA Expression .............................................................................. 24 Discussion ................................................................................................................................................................ 24 Habitat Development in the Williamson River Delta.............................................................................................. 24 Larval Sucker Distribution ..................................................................................................................................... 25 Juvenile Sucker Distribution.................................................................................................................................. 26 Hypothesized Gradient in Mucosal Bacterial Communities................................................................................... 27 Transforming Growth Factor-ß (TGF-ß) mRNA Expression.................................................................................. 27 Acknowledgments..................................................................................................................................................... 27 References Cited...................................................................................................................................................... 28 iii Figures Figure 1. Map of study area in and adjacent to the Williamson River Delta, in the northeast portion of Upper Klamath Lake, Oregon................................................................................................................................. 33 Figure 2. Map of Upper Klamath Lake study area and three defined areas of the lake ............................................ 34 Figure 3. Mean weekly sample density for Lost River sucker larvae, and a grouping of larvae identified as either shortnose or Klamath largescale suckers.................................................................................................... 35 Figure 4. Mean weekly sample density of larval fish in plankton samples collected from four strata in and adjacent to the Williamson River Delta, Oregon, between May 5 and June 17, 2008. ............................................... 36 Figure 5. Larval Lost River sucker sample densities at seven fixed sites sampled weekly in and adjacent to the Williamson River Delta, Oregon, between May 5 and July 18, 2008 ........................................................... 37 Figure 6. Larval shortnose or Klamath largescale sucker sample densities at seven fixed sites sampled weekly in and adjacent to the Williamson River Delta, Oregon, between May 5 and July 18, 2008 ............ 38 Figure 7. Williamson River discharge and water temperature at the mouth of the Williamson River (dashed line), as measured during weekly site visits between May 5 and July 18, 2008 ................................................... 39 Figure 8. Larval sample density by week and species at seven fixed sites sampled weekly in and adjacent to the Williamson River Delta, Oregon, between May 5 and July 18, 2008 ........................................................... 40 Figure 9. Length of juvenile suckers collected in trap nets set in the Williamson River Delta and southern Agency Lake, Oregon, between May 5 and September 25, 2008 ............................................................................ 41 Figure 10. Mean weekly catch per unit effort for age-0 suckers caught in trap nets set over night in the Tulana Unit of the Williamson River Delta and Agency Lake between June 22 and September 26, 2008...................... 42 Figure 11. Mean weekly catch per unit effort (suckers per net) for age-0 suckers caught in three areas of the Tulana Unit of the Williamson River Delta
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Status Review and Management Outline for Quality Bluegill and Black Crappie Populations in the Grand Rapids Area
    Status Review and Management Outline for Quality Bluegill and Black Crappie Populations in the Grand Rapids Area. Revised in 2013 By David L. Weitzel Assistant Area Fisheries Supervisor MN DNR, Grand Rapids Area Fisheries Table of Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 3 Bass Lake ....................................................................................................................................................... 5 Blackwater, Jay Gould, and Little Jay Gould lakes ...................................................................................... 10 Cut Foot and Little Cut Foot Sioux lakes ..................................................................................................... 18 Deer, Pickerel, and Battle lakes .................................................................................................................. 23 Dixon Lake ................................................................................................................................................... 31 Grave Lake ................................................................................................................................................... 37 Split Hand and Little Split Hand Lakes ........................................................................................................ 41 Sand Lake ...................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • List of Animal Species with Ranks October 2017
    Washington Natural Heritage Program List of Animal Species with Ranks October 2017 The following list of animals known from Washington is complete for resident and transient vertebrates and several groups of invertebrates, including odonates, branchipods, tiger beetles, butterflies, gastropods, freshwater bivalves and bumble bees. Some species from other groups are included, especially where there are conservation concerns. Among these are the Palouse giant earthworm, a few moths and some of our mayflies and grasshoppers. Currently 857 vertebrate and 1,100 invertebrate taxa are included. Conservation status, in the form of range-wide, national and state ranks are assigned to each taxon. Information on species range and distribution, number of individuals, population trends and threats is collected into a ranking form, analyzed, and used to assign ranks. Ranks are updated periodically, as new information is collected. We welcome new information for any species on our list. Common Name Scientific Name Class Global Rank State Rank State Status Federal Status Northwestern Salamander Ambystoma gracile Amphibia G5 S5 Long-toed Salamander Ambystoma macrodactylum Amphibia G5 S5 Tiger Salamander Ambystoma tigrinum Amphibia G5 S3 Ensatina Ensatina eschscholtzii Amphibia G5 S5 Dunn's Salamander Plethodon dunni Amphibia G4 S3 C Larch Mountain Salamander Plethodon larselli Amphibia G3 S3 S Van Dyke's Salamander Plethodon vandykei Amphibia G3 S3 C Western Red-backed Salamander Plethodon vehiculum Amphibia G5 S5 Rough-skinned Newt Taricha granulosa
    [Show full text]
  • Literature Based Characterization of Resident Fish Entrainment-Turbine
    Draft Technical Memorandum Literature Based Characterization of Resident Fish Entrainment and Turbine-Induced Mortality Klamath Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2082) Prepared for PacifiCorp Prepared by CH2M HILL September 2003 Contents Introduction...................................................................................................................................1 Objectives ......................................................................................................................................1 Study Approach ............................................................................................................................2 Fish Entrainment ..............................................................................................................2 Turbine-induced Mortality .............................................................................................2 Characterization of Fish Entrainment ......................................................................................2 Magnitude of Annual Entrainment ...............................................................................9 Size Composition............................................................................................................10 Species Composition ......................................................................................................10 Seasonal and Diurnal Distribution...............................................................................15 Turbine Mortality.......................................................................................................................18
    [Show full text]
  • Endangered Species
    FEATURE: ENDANGERED SPECIES Conservation Status of Imperiled North American Freshwater and Diadromous Fishes ABSTRACT: This is the third compilation of imperiled (i.e., endangered, threatened, vulnerable) plus extinct freshwater and diadromous fishes of North America prepared by the American Fisheries Society’s Endangered Species Committee. Since the last revision in 1989, imperilment of inland fishes has increased substantially. This list includes 700 extant taxa representing 133 genera and 36 families, a 92% increase over the 364 listed in 1989. The increase reflects the addition of distinct populations, previously non-imperiled fishes, and recently described or discovered taxa. Approximately 39% of described fish species of the continent are imperiled. There are 230 vulnerable, 190 threatened, and 280 endangered extant taxa, and 61 taxa presumed extinct or extirpated from nature. Of those that were imperiled in 1989, most (89%) are the same or worse in conservation status; only 6% have improved in status, and 5% were delisted for various reasons. Habitat degradation and nonindigenous species are the main threats to at-risk fishes, many of which are restricted to small ranges. Documenting the diversity and status of rare fishes is a critical step in identifying and implementing appropriate actions necessary for their protection and management. Howard L. Jelks, Frank McCormick, Stephen J. Walsh, Joseph S. Nelson, Noel M. Burkhead, Steven P. Platania, Salvador Contreras-Balderas, Brady A. Porter, Edmundo Díaz-Pardo, Claude B. Renaud, Dean A. Hendrickson, Juan Jacobo Schmitter-Soto, John Lyons, Eric B. Taylor, and Nicholas E. Mandrak, Melvin L. Warren, Jr. Jelks, Walsh, and Burkhead are research McCormick is a biologist with the biologists with the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Teleostei: Cyprinidae), and Its Related Congeners in Sonora, Mexico
    Available online at www.sciencedirect.com Revista Mexicana de Biodiversidad Revista Mexicana de Biodiversidad 87 (2016) 390–398 www.ib.unam.mx/revista/ Taxonomy and systematics Morphometric and meristic characterization of the endemic Desert chub Gila eremica (Teleostei: Cyprinidae), and its related congeners in Sonora, Mexico Caracterización morfométrica y merística de la carpa del desierto endémica Gila eremica (Teleostei: Cyprinidae) y sus congéneres relacionados en Sonora, México a b c Carlos A. Ballesteros-Córdova , Gorgonio Ruiz-Campos , Lloyd T. Findley , a a a,∗ José M. Grijalva-Chon , Luis E. Gutiérrez-Millán , Alejandro Varela-Romero a Departamento de Investigaciones Científicas y Tecnológicas, Universidad de Sonora, Luis Donaldo Colosio s/n, entre Sahuaripa y Reforma, Col. Centro, 83000 Hermosillo, Sonora, Mexico b Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad Autónoma de Baja California, P.O. Box 233, 22800 Ensenada, Baja California, Mexico c Centro de Investigación en Alimentación y Desarrollo, A.C./Unidad Guaymas, Carretera al Varadero Nacional km 6.6, Col. Las Playitas, 85480 Guaymas, Sonora, Mexico Received 29 July 2015; accepted 24 November 2015 Available online 16 May 2016 Abstract The Desert chub, Gila eremica DeMarais, 1991 is a freshwater fish endemic to Northwest Mexico, being described from the Sonora, Matape and Yaqui River basins in Sonora, Mexico. The recent discovery of 2 isolated small populations from the known distribution for this taxon makes necessary an evaluation to determine their specific taxonomical identities (herein designated as G. cf. eremica). Thirty-three morphometric and 6 meristic characters were evaluated in 219 specimens of several populations of the genus Gila in Sonora, including all the known populations of G.
    [Show full text]
  • 15 Best Indiana Panfishing Lakes
    15 best Indiana panfishing lakes This information has been shared numerous places but somehow we’ve missed putting it on our own website. If you’ve been looking for a place to catch some dinner, our fisheries biologists have compiled a list of the 15 best panfishing lakes throughout Indiana. Enjoy! Northern Indiana Sylvan Lake Sylvan Lake is a 669-acre man made reservoir near Rome City. It is best known for its bluegill fishing with some reaching 9 inches. About one third of the adult bluegill population are 7 inches or larger. The best places to catch bluegill are the Cain Basin at the east end of the lake and along the 8 to 10 foot drop-offs in the western basin. Red-worms, flies, and crickets are the most effective baits. Skinner Lake Skinner Lake is a 125-acre natural lake near Albion. The lake is known for crappie fishing for both black and white crappies. Most crappies are in the 8 to 9 inch range, with some reaching 16 inches long. Don’t expect to catch lots of big crappies, but you can expect to catch plenty that are keeper-size. The best crappie fishing is in May over developing lily pads in the four corners of the lake. Live minnows and small white jigs are the most effective baits. J. C. Murphey Lake J. C. Murphey Lake is located on Willow Slough Fish and Wildlife Area in Newton County. Following this winter, there was minimal ice fishing (due to lack of ice) and the spring fishing should be phenomenal especially for bluegills.
    [Show full text]
  • Wildlife Species
    Wildlife Species This chapter contains information on species featured in each of the ecoregions. Species are grouped by Birds, Mammals, Reptiles, Amphibians, and Fish. Species are listed alphabetically within each group. A general description, habitat requirements, and possible wildlife management practices are provided for each species. Wildlife management practices for a particular species may vary among ecoregions, so not all of the wildlife management practices listed for a species may be applicable for that species in all ecoregions. Refer to the WMP charts within a particular ecoregion to determine which practices are appropriate for species included in that ecoregion. The species descriptions contain all the information needed about a particular species for the WHEP contest. However, additional reading should be encouraged for participants that want more detailed information. Field guides to North American wildlife and fish are good sources for information and pictures of the species listed. There also are many Web sites available for wildlife species identification by sight and sound. Information from this section will be used in the Wildlife Challenge at the National Invitational. Participants should be familiar with the information presented within the species accounts for those species included within the ecoregions used at the Invitational. It is important to understand that when assessing habitat for a particular wildlife species and considering various WMPs for recommendation, current conditions should be evaluated. That is, WMPs should be recommended based on the current habitat conditions within the year. Also, it is important to realize the benefit of a WMP may not be realized soon. For example, trees or shrubs planted for mast may not provide cover or bear fruit for several years.
    [Show full text]
  • LATE MIOCENE FISHES of the CACHE VALLEY MEMBER, SALT LAKE FORMATION, UTAH and IDAHO By
    LATE MIOCENE FISHES OF THE CACHE VALLEY MEMBER, SALT LAKE FORMATION, UTAH AND IDAHO by PATRICK H. MCCLELLAN AND GERALD R. SMITH MISCELLANEOUS PUBLICATIONS MUSEUM OF ZOOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, 208 Ann Arbor, December 17, 2020 ISSN 0076-8405 P U B L I C A T I O N S O F T H E MUSEUM OF ZOOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN NO. 208 GERALD SMITH, Editor The publications of the Museum of Zoology, The University of Michigan, consist primarily of two series—the Miscellaneous Publications and the Occasional Papers. Both series were founded by Dr. Bryant Walker, Mr. Bradshaw H. Swales, and Dr. W. W. Newcomb. Occasionally the Museum publishes contributions outside of these series. Beginning in 1990 these are titled Special Publications and Circulars and each is sequentially numbered. All submitted manuscripts to any of the Museum’s publications receive external peer review. The Occasional Papers, begun in 1913, serve as a medium for original studies based principally upon the collections in the Museum. They are issued separately. When a sufficient number of pages has been printed to make a volume, a title page, table of contents, and an index are supplied to libraries and individuals on the mailing list for the series. The Miscellaneous Publications, initiated in 1916, include monographic studies, papers on field and museum techniques, and other contributions not within the scope of the Occasional Papers, and are published separately. Each number has a title page and, when necessary, a table of contents. A complete list of publications on Mammals, Birds, Reptiles and Amphibians, Fishes, I nsects, Mollusks, and other topics is available.
    [Show full text]
  • 4-H-993-W, Wildlife Habitat Evaluation Food Flash Cards
    Purdue extension 4-H-993-W Wildlife Habitat Evaluation Food Flash Cards Authors: Natalie Carroll, Professor, Youth Development right, it goes in the “fast” pile. If it takes a little and Agricultural Education longer, put the card in the “medium” pile. And if Brian Miller, Director, Illinois–Indiana Sea Grant College the learner does not know, put the card in the “no” Program Photos by the authors, unless otherwise noted. pile. Concentrate follow-up study efforts on the “medium” and “no” piles. These flash cards can help youth learn about the foods that wildlife eat. This will help them assign THE CONTEST individual food items to the appropriate food When youth attend the WHEP Career Development categories and identify which wildlife species Event (CDE), actual food specimens—not eat those foods during the Foods Activity of the pictures—will be displayed on a table (see Wildlife Habitat Evaluation Program (WHEP) Figure 1). Participants need to identify which contest. While there may be some disagreement food category is represented by the specimen. about which wildlife eat foods from the category Participants will write this food category on the top represented by the picture, the authors feel that the of the score sheet (Scantron sheet, see Figure 2) and species listed give a good representation. then mark the appropriate boxes that represent the wildlife species which eat this category of food. The Use the following pages to make flash cards by same species are listed on the flash cards, making it cutting along the dotted lines, then fold the papers much easier for the students to learn this material.
    [Show full text]
  • 2021 Fish Suppliers
    2021 Fish Suppliers A.B. Jones Fish Hatchery Largemouth bass, hybrid bluegill, bluegill, black crappie, triploid grass carp, Nancy Jones gambusia – mosquito fish, channel catfish, bullfrog tadpoles, shiners 1057 Hwy 26 Williamsburg, KY 40769 (606) 549-2669 ATAC, LLC Pond Management Specialist Fathead minnows, golden shiner, goldfish, largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, Rick Rogers hybrid bluegill, bluegill, redear sunfish, walleye, channel catfish, rainbow trout, PO Box 1223 black crappie, triploid grass carp, common carp, hybrid striped bass, koi, Lebanon, OH 45036 shubunkin goldfish, bullfrog tadpoles, and paddlefish (513) 932-6529 Anglers Bait-n-Tackle LLC Fathead minnows, rosey red minnows, bluegill, hybrid bluegill, goldfish and Kaleb Rodebaugh golden shiners 747 North Arnold Ave Prestonsburg, KY 606-886-1335 Andry’s Fish Farm Bluegill, hybrid bluegill, largemouth bass, koi, channel catfish, white catfish, Lyle Andry redear sunfish, black crappie, tilapia – human consumption only, triploid grass 10923 E. Conservation Club Road carp, fathead minnows and golden shiners Birdseye, IN 47513 (812) 389-2448 Arkansas Pondstockers, Inc Channel catfish, bluegill, hybrid bluegill, redear sunfish, largemouth bass, Michael Denton black crappie, fathead minnows, and triploid grass carp PO Box 357 Harrisbug, AR 75432 (870) 578-9773 Aquatic Control, Inc. Largemouth bass, bluegill, channel catfish, triploid grass carp, fathead Clinton Charlton minnows, redear sunfish, golden shiner, rainbow trout, and hybrid striped bass 505 Assembly Drive, STE 108
    [Show full text]
  • Summer Panfish Survey Summary Turtle-Flambeau Flowage, Iron County, 2010
    Summer Panfish Survey Summary Turtle-Flambeau Flowage, Iron County, 2010 The Mercer DNR Fisheries Management Team conducted a fyke netting survey on the Turtle- Flambeau Flowage during June 29-30, 2010 as part of our baseline monitoring program. Nine nets were set overnight, for one night, resulting in 9 net-nights of effort. Primary target species were bluegill, black crappie, and pumpkinseed sunfish. An electrofishing survey conducted by the Mercer team in mid May documented the status of smallmouth bass (summarized in a separate survey summary) but provided a poor sample of panfish, which were not targeted specifically. We believe this netting survey provides better insight into the relative number and sizes of panfish in the Turtle-Flambeau Flowage. Quality, preferred, and memorable sizes referenced in this summary are based on standard proportions of world record lengths developed for each species by the American Fisheries Society. Black Crappie Black Crappie Summer Fyke Netting 14 12 10 8 6 4 Captured 4.2 per net-night ≥ 5” CapturedFish 2 Quality Size ≥ 8” 87% 0 Preferred Size ≥ 10” 66% 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Memorable Size ≥ 12” 13% Length (inches) Bluegill Bluegill Summer Fyke Netting 12 10 8 6 4 Captured 2.6 per net-night ≥ 3” CapturedFish 2 Quality Size ≥ 6” 87% 0 Preferred Size ≥ 8” 9% 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Length (inches) Pumpkinseed Pumpkinseed Summer Fyke Netting 5 4 3 2 Fish CapturedFish 1 Captured 1.1 per net-night ≥ 3” Quality Size ≥ 6” 60% 0 3 4 5 6 7 8 Preferred Size ≥ 8” 0% Length (inches) Summary of Results Panfish were captured at a low rate during this survey.
    [Show full text]
  • January 2020 54. Milanin T, Bartholomew JL, Atkinson SD
    Peer-reviewed Journal articles – S.D.Atkinson – January 2020 54. Milanin T, Bartholomew JL, Atkinson SD (2020) An introduced host with novel and introduced parasites: Myxobolus spp. (Cnidaria: Myxozoa) in yellow perch Perca flavescens. Parasitology Research DOI:10.1007/s00436-019-06585-3 53. Richey CA, Kenelty KV, Hopkins KVS, Stevens BN, Martínez-López B, Hallett SL, Atkinson SD, Bartholomew JL, Soto E (2020) Validation of environmental DNA sampling for determination of Ceratonova shasta (Noble, 1950) (Cnidaria: Myxozoa) distribution in Plumas National Forest, CA. Journal of Aquatic Animal Health epub DOI:10.1007/s00436-019-06509-1 52. Atkinson SD, Hallett SL, Díaz Morales D, Bartholomew JL, de Buron I (2019) First myxozoan infection (Cnidaria: Myxosporea) in a marine polychaete from North America, and erection of actinospore collective group Saccimyxon. Journal of Parasitology 105(2):252-262 DOI:10.1645/18-183 51. Alama-Bermejo, G, Viozzi GP, Waicheim MA, Flores VR, Atkinson SD (2019) Host-parasite relationship of Ortholinea lauquen n. sp. (Cnidaria:Myxozoa) and the fish Galaxias maculatus (Jenyns, 1842) in northwest Patagonia, Argentina. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 136(2):163-174 DOI: 10.3354/dao03400 50. Borkhanuddin MH, Cech G, Molnár K, Shaharom-Harrison F, Duy Khoa TN, Samshuri MA, Mazelan S, Atkinson SD, Székely C (2019) Henneguya (Cnidaria: Myxosporea: Myxobolidae) infections of cultured barramundi, Lates calcarifer (Perciformes: Latidae) in an estuarine wetlands system of Malaysia: Description of Henneguya setiuensis n. sp., Henneguya voronini n. sp. and Henneguya calcarifer n. sp. Parasitology Research 119(1):85-96 DOI: 10.1007/s00436-019-06541-1 49. Breyta R, Atkinson SD, Bartholomew JL (2019) Evolutionary dynamics of Ceratonova species in the Klamath River basin reveals different host adaptation strategies.
    [Show full text]