DOCSLIB.ORG

Appendix G – MIS I George Washington and Jefferson National Forests

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Appendix G – MIS I George Washington and Jefferson National Forests Appendix B – MIS and T&E Species Population Trends Monitoring and Evaluation Report FY2015 through FY2019 for the 2014 George Washington National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan and 2004 Jefferson National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan George Washington and Jefferson National Forests Contents Appendix B – MIS and T&E Species Population Trends ....................................................... i Contents .................................................................................................................................... i Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 3 Identification of Management Indicator Species .................................................................. 3 2014 George Washington Plan Management Indicator Species .......................................................... 3 2004 Jefferson Plan Management Indicator Species ........................................................................... 4 Trends in Forest Service Management Activities Associated with MIS Habitats .............. 5 Forested Age Class Distribution Trend ................................................................................. 7 Monitoring and Evaluation of Management Indicator Species .......................................... 10 Ecological, Biological Community, or Special Habitat Indicators ........................................................ 10 Pileated Woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus) .................................................................................................... 11 Ovenbird (Seiurus aurocapillus) ...................................................................................................................... 14 Hooded Warbler (Wilsonia citrina) ................................................................................................................... 18 Scarlet Tanager (Piranga olivacea) ................................................................................................................. 21 Pine Warbler (Dendroica pinus) ...................................................................................................................... 25 Eastern Towhee (Pipilp erythrophthalmus) ..................................................................................................... 28 Acadian flycatcher (Empidonax virescens) ..................................................................................................... 31 Chestnut-sided Warbler (Dendroica pensylvanica) ......................................................................................... 35 Peaks of Otter Salamander (Plethodon hubrichti) ........................................................................................... 39 Cow Knob Salamander (Plethodon punctatus) ............................................................................................... 42 American Beaver (Castor canadensis) ............................................................................................................ 47 Monitoring and Evaluation of Focal Species ...................................................................... 54 Brook Trout and Wild Trout ............................................................................................................................. 54 Threatened and Endangered Species ................................................................................................ 67 Blackside Dace (Phoxinum cumberlandensis) ................................................................................................ 67 James Spinymussel (Pleurobema collina) ...................................................................................................... 71 Northeastern Bulrush (Scirpus ancistrochaetus) ............................................................................................. 74 Spirea (Spiraea virginiana) .............................................................................................................................. 80 Small Whorled Pogonia (Isotria medeoloides) ................................................................................................ 89 Round Leaf Birch (Betula uber) ....................................................................................................................... 95 Shale Barren Rockcress (Boechera serotina (syn. Arabis serotina) ............................................................... 99 Sneezeweed (Helenium virginicum) .............................................................................................................. 104 Swamp Pink (Helonias bullata)...................................................................................................................... 105 Smooth Coneflower (Echinacea laevigata) ................................................................................................... 108 Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) .......................................................................................................................... 109 Virginia Big-eared Bat (Corynorhinus townsendi virginianus) ....................................................................... 120 Virginia and Carolina Northern Flying Squirrel .............................................................................................. 123 Alleghany Woodrat ........................................................................................................................................ 126 FY 2015 to 2019 M & E Report Appendix G – MIS i George Washington and Jefferson National Forests Southern Rock Vole ....................................................................................................................................... 127 Southern Water Shrew .................................................................................................................................. 128 Rock Gnome Lichen (Cetradonia linearis (syn. Gymnoderma lineare))........................................................ 128 Demand Species .............................................................................................................................. 129 White-tailed Deer (Odococileus virginianus) ................................................................................................. 129 Black Bear (Ursus americanus) ..................................................................................................................... 132 Wild Turkey (Melagris gallopavo) .................................................................................................................. 135 Viability of Forests’ MIS and Focal Species ...................................................................... 139 References ........................................................................................................................... 143 FY 2015 to 2019 M & E Report Appendix G – MIS ii George Washington and Jefferson National Forests Introduction Under the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) the Forest Service is charged with providing for a diversity of plant and animal communities consistent with overall multiple-use objectives. Management Indicator Species (MIS) are a planning tool used to accomplish this requirement (36 CFR 219.19 of 1982 Regulations). They are selected during forest planning “because their population changes are believed to indicate the effects of management activities” (36 CFR 219.19(a) (1)) on important elements of plant and animal diversity. They and their habitat needs are used to set management objectives and minimum management requirements, to focus effects analysis, and to monitor effects of Forest Plan implementation. The George Washington and Jefferson Forest Plans are designed to provide habitat conditions needed to maintain viable populations of all MIS, along with other species that use similar habitats. Wildlife, fish, and plant species are managed in cooperation with the Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources (VDWR), Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation – Division of Natural Heritage (VDCR-DNH), West Virginia Department of Natural Resources (WVDNR), and the Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources (KDFWR). The respective states set policy for hunting and fishing regulations and law enforcement programs. The Forest Service manages fish and wildlife habitat conditions. This discussion focuses on the habitat conditions that support the wildlife populations that are managed by the States. This report focuses on the effects of Forest Service management on the habitat conditions that support Management Indicator Species. All cites to the 219 regulations are to the 1982 planning rule (September 30, 1982 (47 FR 43026)), and amended in part on June 24, 1983 (48 FR 29122), and on September 7, 1983 (48 FR 40383) in effect prior to November 9, 2000. Identification of Management Indicator Species 2014 George Washington Plan Management Indicator Species Table 1 shows the Management Indicator Species (MIS) for the 2014 Revised Land and Resource Management Plan of the George Washington National Forest (2014 GWNF Plan). The MIS can also be found in the 2014 GWNF Plan pages 2-18 and 2-19. Each MIS has a relationship with a certain type of preferred habitat. The habitat preferred by the species is discussed under each species discussion. FY 2015 to 2019 M & E Report Appendix G – MIS 3 George Washington and Jefferson National Forests Table 1. GWNF Plan
Load more

Recommended publications
  • REVIEW of the ATLANTIC STATES MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION's INTERSTATE FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN for SPINY DOGFISH (Squalus Acanthias)
    REVIEW OF THE ATLANTIC STATES MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION'S INTERSTATE FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR SPINY DOGFISH (Squalus acanthias) May 2004 – April 2005 FISHING YEAR Board Approved: February 2006 Prepared by the Spiny Dogfish Plan Review Team: Ruth Christiansen, ASMFC, Chair I. Status of the Fishery Management Plan Date of FMP Approval: November 2002 Date of Addendum I Approval: November 2005 Management Unit: Entire coastwide distribution of the resource from the estuaries eastward to the inshore boundary of the EEZ States With Declared Interest: Maine - Florida Active Boards/Committees: Spiny Dogfish and Coastal Shark Management Board, Advisory Panel, Technical Committee, Stock Assessment Subcommittee, and Plan Review Team In April 1998, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) declared spiny dogfish overfished. The Mid-Atlantic and New England Fishery Management Councils jointly manage the federal spiny dogfish fishery. NMFS partially approved the federal FMP in September 1999, but implementation did not begin until the May 2000, the start of the 2000-2001 fishing year. The federal FMP uses a target fishing mortality to specify a coastwide commercial quota and splits this quota into two seasonal periods (Period 1: May 1 to October 31 and Period 2: November 1 to April 30). The seasonal periods also have separate possession limits that are specified on an annual basis. In August 2000, ASMFC took emergency action to close state waters to the commercial harvest, landing, and possession of spiny dogfish when federal waters closed because the quota was fully harvested. With the emergency action in place, the Commission had time to develop an interstate FMP, which prevented the undermining of the federal FMP and prevented further overharvest of the coastwide spiny dogfish population.
    [Show full text]
  • 2004 Status Review of Southern Resident Killer Whales (Orcinus Orca) Under the Endangered Species Act
    NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-62 2004 Status Review of Southern Resident Killer Whales (Orcinus orca) under the Endangered Species Act December 2004 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS Series The Northwest Fisheries Science Center of the National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, uses the NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS series to issue infor- mal scientific and technical publications when com- plete formal review and editorial processing are not appropriate or feasible due to time constraints. Docu- ments published in this series may be referenced in the scientific and technical literature. The NMFS-NWFSC Technical Memorandum series of the Northwest Fisheries Science Center continues the NMFS-F/NWC series established in 1970 by the Northwest & Alaska Fisheries Science Center, which has since been split into the Northwest Fisheries Science Center and the Alaska Fisheries Science Center. The NMFS-AFSC Technical Memorandum series is now being used by the Alaska Fisheries Science Center. Reference throughout this document to trade names does not imply endorsement by the National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA. This document should be cited as follows: Krahn, M.M., M.J. Ford, W.F. Perrin, P.R. Wade, R.P. Angliss, M.B. Hanson, B.L. Taylor, G.M. Ylitalo, M.E. Dahlheim, J.E. Stein, and R.S. Waples. 2004. 2004 Status review of Southern Resident killer whales (Orcinus orca) under the Endangered Species Act. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS- NWFSC-62, 73 p. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-62 2004 Status Review of Southern Resident Killer Whales (Orcinus orca) under the Endangered Species Act Margaret M.
    [Show full text]
  • Eagle Creek Radio Telemetry Report
    Ecological and Genetic Interactions between Hatchery and Wild Steelhead in Eagle Creek, Oregon Final Report Jeff Hogle and Ken Lujan collecting genetic and fish health samples in Eagle Creek, Oregon. Photo Credit: Maureen Kavanagh Ecological and Genetic Interactions between Hatchery and Wild Steelhead in Eagle Creek, Oregon Final Report Prepared by: Maureen Kavanagh, William R. Brignon and Doug Olson U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Columbia River Fisheries Program Office Hatchery Assessment Team Vancouver, WA 98683 -and- Susan Gutenberger U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Lower Columbia River Fish Health Center Willard, WA 98605 -and- Andrew Matala and William Ardren U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Abernathy Fish Technology Center Applied Research Program in Conservation Genetics Longview, WA 98632 July 23, 2009 Table of Contents 1.0 Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ 9 2.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 10 3.0 Geographic Area ................................................................................................................................... 12 4.0 Background Information on Winter Steelhead in the Clackamas River & Eagle Creek ....................... 13 5.0 Methods ...............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Endangered Species Expenditure Report (1998)
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Federal and State Endangered and Threatened Species Expenditures Fiscal Year 1998 January 1998 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................................................... ii What is the purpose of this report? ....................................................................................................... ii What expenditures are reported?.......................................................................................................... ii What expenditures are not included?.................................................................................................... ii What are the expenditures reported for FY 1998?................................................................................ ii How does the 1998 expenditure report compare to other years? ......................................................... ii ENDANGERED SPECIES EXPENDITURES FISCAL YEAR 1998...................................................1 PURPOSE.............................................................................................................................................1 BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................................1 What does "Reasonably Identifiable Expenditures" mean? .........................................................1 What is not included in the report? ...............................................................................................2
    [Show full text]
  • United States of America
    anran Forestry Department Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations GLOBAL FOREST RESOURCES ASSESSMENT COUNTRY REPORTS NITED TATES OF MERICA U S A FRA2005/040 Rome, 2005 FRA 2005 – Country Report 040 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA The Forest Resources Assessment Programme Sustainably managed forests have multiple environmental and socio-economic functions important at the global, national and local scales, and play a vital part in sustainable development. Reliable and up- to-date information on the state of forest resources - not only on area and area change, but also on such variables as growing stock, wood and non-wood products, carbon, protected areas, use of forests for recreation and other services, biological diversity and forests’ contribution to national economies - is crucial to support decision-making for policies and programmes in forestry and sustainable development at all levels. FAO, at the request of its member countries, regularly monitors the world’s forests and their management and uses through the Forest Resources Assessment Programme. This country report forms part of the Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005 (FRA 2005), which is the most comprehensive assessment to date. More than 800 people have been involved, including 172 national correspondents and their colleagues, an Advisory Group, international experts, FAO staff, consultants and volunteers. Information has been collated from 229 countries and territories for three points in time: 1990, 2000 and 2005. The reporting framework for FRA 2005 is based on the thematic elements of sustainable forest management acknowledged in intergovernmental forest-related fora and includes more than 40 variables related to the extent, condition, uses and values of forest resources.
    [Show full text]
  • Acipenser Brevirostrum
    AR-405 BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF SHORTNOSE STURGEON Acipenser brevirostrum Prepared by the Shortnose Sturgeon Status Review Team for the National Marine Fisheries Service National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration November 1, 2010 Acknowledgements i The biological review of shortnose sturgeon was conducted by a team of scientists from state and Federal natural resource agencies that manage and conduct research on shortnose sturgeon along their range of the United States east coast. This review was dependent on the expertise of this status review team and from information obtained from scientific literature and data provided by various other state and Federal agencies and individuals. In addition to the biologists who contributed to this report (noted below), the Shortnose Stugeon Status Review Team would like to acknowledge the contributions of Mary Colligan, Julie Crocker, Michael Dadswell, Kim Damon-Randall, Michael Erwin, Amanda Frick, Jeff Guyon, Robert Hoffman, Kristen Koyama, Christine Lipsky, Sarah Laporte, Sean McDermott, Steve Mierzykowski, Wesley Patrick, Pat Scida, Tim Sheehan, and Mary Tshikaya. The Status Review Team would also like to thank the peer reviewers, Dr. Mark Bain, Dr. Matthew Litvak, Dr. David Secor, and Dr. John Waldman for their helpful comments and suggestions. Finally, the SRT is indebted to Jessica Pruden who greatly assisted the team in finding the energy to finalize the review – her continued support and encouragement was invaluable. Due to some of the similarities between shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon life history strategies, this document includes text that was taken directly from the 2007 Atlantic Sturgeon Status Review Report (ASSRT 2007), with consent from the authors, to expedite the writing process.
    [Show full text]
  • Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Georgia, Working Draft of 17 March 2004 -- BIBLIOGRAPHY
    Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Georgia, Working Draft of 17 March 2004 -- BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Ackerfield, J., and J. Wen. 2002. A morphometric analysis of Hedera L. (the ivy genus, Araliaceae) and its taxonomic implications. Adansonia 24: 197-212. Adams, P. 1961. Observations on the Sagittaria subulata complex. Rhodora 63: 247-265. Adams, R.M. II, and W.J. Dress. 1982. Nodding Lilium species of eastern North America (Liliaceae). Baileya 21: 165-188. Adams, R.P. 1986. Geographic variation in Juniperus silicicola and J. virginiana of the Southeastern United States: multivariant analyses of morphology and terpenoids. Taxon 35: 31-75. ------. 1995. Revisionary study of Caribbean species of Juniperus (Cupressaceae). Phytologia 78: 134-150. ------, and T. Demeke. 1993. Systematic relationships in Juniperus based on random amplified polymorphic DNAs (RAPDs). Taxon 42: 553-571. Adams, W.P. 1957. A revision of the genus Ascyrum (Hypericaceae). Rhodora 59: 73-95. ------. 1962. Studies in the Guttiferae. I. A synopsis of Hypericum section Myriandra. Contr. Gray Herbarium Harv. 182: 1-51. ------, and N.K.B. Robson. 1961. A re-evaluation of the generic status of Ascyrum and Crookea (Guttiferae). Rhodora 63: 10-16. Adams, W.P. 1973. Clusiaceae of the southeastern United States. J. Elisha Mitchell Sci. Soc. 89: 62-71. Adler, L. 1999. Polygonum perfoliatum (mile-a-minute weed). Chinquapin 7: 4. Aedo, C., J.J. Aldasoro, and C. Navarro. 1998. Taxonomic revision of Geranium sections Batrachioidea and Divaricata (Geraniaceae). Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 85: 594-630. Affolter, J.M. 1985. A monograph of the genus Lilaeopsis (Umbelliferae). Systematic Bot. Monographs 6. Ahles, H.E., and A.E.
    [Show full text]
  • Conference on Endangered P in the Southeast PROCEED
    USDA Forest Seruice General Technical Report S E-I I March 1977 Conference on Endangered P in the Southeast PROCEED Betula uber May 11- 13, Asheville, North Caro Forest Seruice - U. S. Department of Agriculture Sou theastern Forest Experiment Stat ion Asheuille, North Carolina Conference on Endangered Plants in the Southeast PROCEEDINGS May 11- 13, 1976 Asheville, North Carolina Sponsored by Southeastern Forest Experiment Station USDA Forest Service University of North Carolina -Asheville Citation: USaA Forest Service 1977. Conference on endangered plants in the southeast proceedings. USnA For. Sew. Gen, Tech, Rep. SE-11, 104 PO Southeast. For. Exp, Stn,, Asheville, N. C. BMECTIVES OF THE 68NFEEMCE .................... James D, Perq DEFINITION AYD CUSSIFICATZOM OF ENDANGEBD ar.liD TENED PUNT SPECIES (I) ................. James F. Nadthews DEFINITION AND CUSSIPICATION OF ENBANGEWE) AND ATENED PUW SPECIES (11) ................. Thomas M. fillen A WVIEW OF Tm EWDANGEWD SPECIES ACT OF I973 ........... James D, WJ1Li;azns and Gail S, Baker TE ENDARGEMD AND T ATENED PUm PROG U,S, FISM AND WILDLIFE SewecE ................ Gail S, Baker and Bruce mcBryde ............... PEBEML AND STATE PRW ON ENMHGEWB PUNTS .......... FranZ;; B. Barick EXPLOITATION OF ENITDANGEmD PUNTS AHD THEIR MBLTATS ........ Jerv McCollum R0U OF FISH Am WILDLIFE SERVICE CB%a@EBS;IIMG ENWNGEMD FWM ....................... Vernon 6, Henq A 60mWkT APPROACH TO THE PROTECTION OF ENMNGEmD SPECIES .... Charles M. Parrish IIE Tm STATE HATURBL BERLTAGE PRW ................ Robert M.
    [Show full text]
  • The Use of Marine Reserves for Inshore Fisheries
    Managing fisheries without restricting catch or effort : the use of marine reserves for inshore fisheries Daniel S. Holland11[a]1 Department of Environmental & Resource Economics University of Rhode Island Abstract Although widely accepted, management systems that directly restrict catch or effort are neither efficient nor desirable for many fisheries, and have failed to conserve fishery stocks in many cases. Fisheries scientists have suggested that closing part of the fishery with marine reserves may sustain or increase harvest. These marine reserves act as natural hatcheries and nurseries in which reproduction and growth are not impeded, and supplement the surrounding fishery. Empirical studies of marine reserves have focused on the conservation benefits only inside the reserves. I develop a dynamic model and numerical simulation of a fishery for which a marine reserve is introduced. Net present value of fish harvests are maximized as a function of reserve size with total effort assumed constant. Unlike previous models, the time path of harvests and fish stocks prior to reaching a new steady-state is determined. This is important because the full impact of the reserve may not be realized for several years. The model suggests that reserves may increase the net present value of the fishery when total effort is high and can not be regulated directly. Higher discount rates reduce the optimal size of reserves. Introduction Conventional methods of regulating commercial fisheries including licenses, catch quotas, taxes on catch or effort, gear restrictions and closed seasons restrict catch by limiting either the quantity or efficiency of fishing effort, or by putting direct limits on total catch (Cunningham 1983).
    [Show full text]
  • Virginia Journal of Science Official Publication of the Virginia Academy of Science
    VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF SCIENCE OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE VIRGINIA ACADEMY OF SCIENCE Vol. 60 No. 2 Summer 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS ARTICLES PAGE ABSTRACTS OF PAPERS, 87th Annual Meeting of the Virginia Academy of Science, May 27-29, 2009, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA SECTION ABSTRACTS Aeronautical and Aerospace Sciences 53 Agriculture, Forestry and Aquaculture Science 55 Astronomy, Mathematics and Physics &Materials Science 61 Biology and Microbiology & Molecular Biology 64 Biomedical and General Engineering 72 Botany 72 Chemistry 76 Computer Science 83 Education 84 Environmental Science 86 Medical Science 91 Natural History & Biodiversity 98 Psychology 102 Statistics 107 BEST STUDENT PAPER AWARDS 109 JUNIOR ACADEMY AWARDS 113 NEW FELLOWS 127 AUTHOR INDEX 133 ABSTRACTS OF PAPERS, 87th Annual Meeting of the Virginia Academy of Science, May 27-29, 2009, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond VA Aeronautical and Aerospace Sciences FROM THE EARTH TO SPACE WITH NACA/NASA. M. Leroy Spearman. NASA- Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA 23681 & Heidi Owens, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849. Leonardo da Vinci envisioned man-flight in the 15th century and designed a practical airplane concept in 1490. Many other pioneers proposed various types of flying machines over the next 400 years but it was not until December 17, 1903 that the Wright Brothers, at Kitty Hawk, NC, were credited with achieving the first manned-powered flight. Over the next 100 years, several factors have influenced advances in aviation. The use of aircraft by European nations in World War I resulted in concern that the U.S. was lagging in aviation developments. This lead to an act of the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Virginia Round-Leaf Birch Recovery Plan
    Virginia Round-Leaf Birch Recovery Plan REGION FIVE, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE VIRGINIA ROUND-LEAF BIRCH (Betula uber REVISED RECOVERY PLAN UPDATE (Original approved March 3, 1982) (Revision approved September, 1985) Prepared by: Terry L. Shank School of Forestry and Wood Products Michigan Technological University Houghton, Michigan 49931 for: Region 5 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Newton Corner, Massachusetts I Approved: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Date: ~‘V, (~c3 ) * * * This is an update of the first revision of the Virginia Round- leaf Birch Recovery Plan, which was approved in September 1985. It delineates reasonable actions which are believed to be required to protect and recover this endangered species. It was prepared by Dr. Terry L. Shank for publication by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Objectives will be attained and any necessary funds made available subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the parties involved, as well as the need to address other priorities. This plan does not necessarily represent the views, official positions, or approval of any individual or agencies involved in plan formulation, other than the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The recovery plan is subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species status, and the completion of recovery tasks. Literature citations should read as follows: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. Virginia Round—leaf Birch Recovery Plan. Newton Corner, MA. 43 pp. Additional copies may be purchased from: Fish and Wildlife Reference Service 5430 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 (301) 429—6403 or 1—800—582—3421 Fees vary according to number of pages.
    [Show full text]
  • International Conference
    ICCE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE On Coastal Ecosystems Towards and Integrated Knowledge for an Ecosystem Approach for Fisheries PROGRAM / ABSTRACT June 26 - 29, 2006 Campeche, Campeche. Mexico ORGANIZING COMMITTEE J. RAMOS MIRANDA. Centro EPOMEX-Universidad Autónoma de Campeche (Mexico) A. SOSA LOPEZ. Centro EPOMEX-Universidad Autónoma de Campeche (Mexico) D. FLORES HERNANDEZ. Centro EPOMEX-Universidad Autónoma de Campeche (Mexico) N. ACUÑA GONAZALEZ. DGPI-Universidad Autónoma de Campeche (Mexico) J. A. SANCHEZ CHAVEZ. DGPI-Universidad Autónoma de Campeche (Mexico) F. ARREGUIN SANCHEZ. Centro Interdisciplinario de Ciencias Marinas IPN (Mexico) J. C. SEIJO. Universidad Marista de Mérida (Mexico) S. SALAS MARQUEZ. Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Avanzados IPN (Mexico) L. A. AYALA PEREZ. Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana – Xochimilco (Mexico) G. COMPEAN JIMENEZ. Instituto Nacional de la Pesca SAGARPA (Mexico) R. SOLANA SANSORES. Instituto Nacional de la Pesca SAGARPA (Mexico) A. WAKIDA KUZONOKI. Instituto Nacional de la Pesca SAGARPA (Mexico) R. G. OCHOA PEÑA. Secretaría de Pesca, Gobierno del Estado de Campeche (Mexico) T. DO CHI. Laboratoire d’Écosystèmes Lagunaires CNRS-Université Montpellier II (France) R. LAE. Institut de Recherche pour le Développement, IRD (France) G. VIDY. Institut de Recherche pour le Développement, IRD (France) SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE J. RAMOS MIRANDA. Centro EPOMEX-Universidad Autónoma de Campeche (Mexico) D. FLORES HERNANDEZ. Centro EPOMEX-Universidad Autónoma de Campeche (Mexico) T. DO CHI. Laboratoire d’Écosystèmes Lagunaires, CNRS-Université Montpellier II (France) D. MOUILLOT. Laboratoire d’Écosystèmes Lagunaires, CNRS-Université Montpellier II (France) R. LAE. Institut de Recherche pour le Développement, IRD (France) J J ALBARET. Institut de Recherche pour le Développement, IRD (France) F. ARREGUIN SANCHEZ. Centro Interdisciplinario de Ciencias Marinas IPN (Mexico) R.
    [Show full text]