DOCSLIB.ORG

Download the Full Report Pdf, 2.9 MB

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Download the Full Report Pdf, 2.9 MB VKM Report 2016:50 Assessment of the risks to Norwegian biodiversity from the import and keeping of aquarium and garden pond plants Opinion of the Panel on Alien Organisms and Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) of the Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food Safety Report from the Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food Safety (VKM) 2016:50 Assessment of the risks to Norwegian biodiversity from the import and keeping of aquarium and garden pond plants Opinion of the Panel on Alien Organisms and Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) of the Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food Safety 01.11.2016 ISBN: 00000-00000 Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food Safety (VKM) Po 4404 Nydalen N – 0403 Oslo Norway Phone: +47 21 62 28 00 Email: [email protected] www.vkm.no www.english.vkm.no Suggested citation: VKM (2016). Assessment of the risks to Norwegian biodiversity from the import and keeping of aquarium and garden pond plants. Scientific Opinion on the on Alien Organisms and Trade in Endangered species of the Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food Safety ISBN: 978-82-8259-240-6, Oslo, Norway. VKM Report 2016:50 Title: Assessment of the risks to Norwegian biodiversity from the import and keeping of aquarium and garden pond plants Authors preparing the draft opinion Hugo de Boer (chair), Maria G. Asmyhr (VKM staff), Hanne H. Grundt, Inga Kjersti Sjøtun, Hans K. Stenøien, Iris Stiers. Assessed and approved The opinion has been assessed and approved by Panel on Alien organisms and Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). Members of the panel are: Vigdis Vandvik (chair), Hugo de Boer, Jan Ove Gjershaug, Kjetil Hindar, Lawrence Kirkendall, Nina Elisabeth Nagy, Anders Nielsen, Eli K. Rueness, Odd Terje Sandlund, Kjersti Sjøtun, Hans K. Stenøien, Gaute Velle. Acknowledgment The Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food Safety (Vitenskapskomiteen for mattrygghet, VKM) has appointed a working group consisting of both VKM members and external experts to answer the request from the Norwegian Food Safety Authority/Norwegian Environment Agency. Project leader from the VKM secretariat has been Maria Asmyhr. The members of the working group Hugo de Boer, Inga Kjersti Sjøtun, Hans K. Stenøien (Panel on Alien organisms and Trade in endangered species (CITES)), Iris Stiers (Vrije Universiteit Brussel) and Hanne Hegre Grundt (FlowerPower) are acknowledged for their valuable work on this opinion. The Panel on Alien organisms and Trade in endangered species (CITES) are acknowledged for comments and views on this opinion. VKM would like to thank the hearing experts Johan van Valkenburg (Q-bank) and Svein Fosså (Norges Zoohandleres Bransjeforening) for their contributions. Competence of VKM experts Persons working for VKM, either as appointed members of the Committee or as external experts, do this by virtue of their scientific expertise, not as representatives for their employers or third party interests. The Civil Services Act instructions on legal competence apply for all work prepared by VKM. VKM Report 2016:50 Table of Contents Summary .................................................................................................................. 6 Sammendrag på norsk ............................................................................................. 8 Abbreviations and glossary .................................................................................... 10 Background as provided by the Norwegian Environment Agency ......................... 12 Terms of reference as provided by the Norwegian Environment Agency .............. 13 1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 15 1.1 Invasive alien species ............................................................................................. 15 1.2 Escape and spread of aquarium and garden pond plants .......................................... 17 1.3 Presentation of the taxa for risk assessment ............................................................ 20 2 Methodology and data ................................................................................... 20 2.1 Climate classification .............................................................................................. 20 2.2 Screening methodology for evaluation ..................................................................... 20 2.2.1 Preliminary screening .................................................................................. 21 2.2.2 Introduction of harmful hitchhiker organisms, including pathogens and parasites 22 2.3 Risk Assessment Scheme for non-native species ...................................................... 23 2.3.1 Modified NAPRA Risk Assessment Scheme for non-native species ................... 24 2.3.2 Ratings and descriptors ............................................................................... 34 2.4 Climate change from a 50-year perspective ............................................................. 36 2.5 Effects of climate beyond a 50-year perspective and the potential negative impacts on biodiversity of the exporting country ....................................................................... 37 2.6 Sources of information ........................................................................................... 37 3 Assessment results ........................................................................................ 39 3.1 Category 1. Thermophilic species ............................................................................ 39 3.1.1 Taxa in Category 1 ...................................................................................... 40 3.2 Category 2. Temperate and continental species ....................................................... 41 3.2.1 Category 2 taxa posing a low risk and excluded after section A assessments .. 41 3.2.2 Category 2 taxa subjected to a full risk assessment ....................................... 42 3.2.2.1 Ceratophyllum submersum ....................................................................... 43 3.2.2.2 Crassula helmsii ....................................................................................... 44 3.2.2.3 Egeria densa ............................................................................................ 45 3.2.2.4 Eleocharis vivipara .................................................................................... 46 3.2.2.5 Hydrilla verticillata .................................................................................... 46 VKM Report 2016:50 3.2.2.6 Lagarosiphon major .................................................................................. 47 3.2.2.7 Lemna gibba ............................................................................................ 48 3.2.2.8 Myriophyllum ........................................................................................... 49 3.2.2.9 Najas guadalupensis ................................................................................. 51 3.2.2.10 Najas minor ........................................................................................... 52 3.2.2.11 Potamogeton ......................................................................................... 53 3.2.2.12 Salvinia natans ....................................................................................... 54 3.2.2.13 Trapa natans .......................................................................................... 55 3.2.2.14 Vallisneria spiralis ................................................................................... 55 3.2.2.15 Wolffia arrhiza ........................................................................................ 56 3.3 Category 3. Species native to Norway ..................................................................... 57 3.3.1 Taxa occurring in Norway and not included on the Norwegian Red List .......... 57 3.3.2 Taxa occurring in Norway and included on the Norwegian Red List ................ 58 3.4 Introduction of harmful hitchhiker organisms, including pathogens and parasites....... 59 4 Risk reducing measures ................................................................................. 60 5 Uncertainties .................................................................................................. 62 5.1 Taxonomic and nomenclatural uncertainties ............................................................ 62 5.2 Uncertainties relating to climatic tolerance and niche ............................................... 63 5.3 Uncertainties relating to habitat requirements, ecological and biological characteristics ............................................................................................................................ 63 5.4 Uncertainties related to hitchhiker organisms, including pathogens and parasites ......... 64 6 Answers to the Terms of Reference ............................................................... 65 7 Data gaps ....................................................................................................... 69 8 Additional information ................................................................................... 70 8.1 Impact of climate beyond a 50-year perspective ...................................................... 70 8.2 Ecosystem services ................................................................................................ 70 8.3 Negative impacts on biodiversity in the exporting country ........................................ 71 9 References ....................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Red Names=Invasive Species Green Names=Native Species
    CURLY-LEAF PONDWEED EURASIAN WATERMIL- FANWORT CHARA (Potamogeton crispus) FOIL (Cabomba caroliniana) (Chara spp.) This undesirable exotic, also known (Myriophyllum spicatum) This submerged exotic Chara is typically found growing in species is not common as Crisp Pondweed, bears a waxy An aggressive plant, this exotic clear, hard water. Lacking true but management tools are cuticle on its upper leaves making milfoil can grow nearly 10 feet stems and leaves, Chara is actually a limited. Very similar to them stiff and somewhat brittle. in length forming dense mats form of algae. It’s stems are hollow aquarium species. Leaves The leaves have been described as at the waters surface. Grow- with leaf-like structures in a whorled are divided into fine resembling lasagna noodles, but ing in muck, sand, or rock, it pattern. It may be found growing branches in a fan-like ap- upon close inspection a row of has become a nuisance plant with tiny, orange fruiting bodies on pearance, opposite struc- “teeth” can be seen to line the mar- in many lakes and ponds by the branches called akinetes. Thick ture, spanning 2 inches. gins. Growing in dense mats near quickly outcompeting native masses of Chara can form in some Floating leaves are small, the water’s surface, it outcompetes species. Identifying features areas. Often confused with Starry diamond shape with a native plants for sun and space very include a pattern of 4 leaves stonewort, Coontail or Milfoils, it emergent white/pinkish early in spring. By midsummer, whorled around a hollow can be identified by a gritty texture flower.
    [Show full text]
  • Aquatic Plants of Saratoga Lake
    Saratoga Lake Aquatic Plant Survey – 2009 Prepared By Lawrence Eichler Research Scientist and Charles Boylen Associate Director Darrin Fresh Water Institute 5060 Lakeshore Drive Bolton Landing, NY 12814 (518) 644-3541 (voice) (518) 644-3640 (fax) [email protected] December 1, 2009 DFWI Technical Report 2009-6 TABLE OF CONTENTS Background . 1 Introduction . 1 Survey Site . 1 Methods . 3 Species List and Herbarium Specimens . 3 Point Intercept Survey . 3 Results and Discussion Saratoga Lake Survey Results . 5 Maximum Depth of Colonization . 6 Species Richness and Distribution . 7 Summary . 14 References . 19 Acknowledgements . 20 Appendix A. Saratoga Lake aquatic plant distribution maps . A-1 List of Tables Page Table 1 Aquatic plant species present in Saratoga Lake in 2009 ….………... 5 Table 2 Saratoga Lake point intercept percent frequency of occurrence …… 8 Table 3 Saratoga Lake point intercept percent frequency of occurrence in 2009 9 Table 4 Species richness for the point intercept surveys …………………… 13 List of Figures Page Figure 1 Distribution of point intercept survey points for Saratoga Lake ..…… 4 Figure 2 Depth distribution of Saratoga Lake sampling points ..……………… 7 Figure 3 Distribution of Eurasian watermilfoil in Saratoga Lake in 2009 10 Figure 4 Frequency of occurrence summaries for sampling points of all water depth 11 Figure 5 Frequency of occurrence summaries for sampling points of <6m water depth ………………………………………………………………….. 12 Figure 6 Species richness for native species in the point intercept survey ……. 13 Figure 7 A comparison of the distribution of Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) growth in Saratoga Lake in 2004, 2007, 2008 and 2009…. 16 iii Report on Aquatic Vegetation of Saratoga Lake, New York Background Quantitative aquatic plant surveys were undertaken in 2009 for Saratoga Lake, New York as part of a cooperative effort between Aquatic Control Technologies (ACT) and the Darrin Fresh Water Institute, and supported by the Saratoga Lake Protection and Improvement District (SLPID).
    [Show full text]
  • Nova Scotia Provincial Status Report Spotted Pondweed
    Nova Scotia Provincial Status Report on Spotted Pondweed (Potamogeton pulcher Tuckerm.) prepared for Nova Scotia Species at Risk Working Group by David Mazerolle and Sean Blaney Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre P.O. Box 6416, Sackville, NB E4L 1C6 DRAFT Funding provided by Nova Scotia Department of Natural Resources Submitted December 2010 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................i WILDLIFE SPECIES DESCRIPTION AND SIGNIFICANCE...........................................1 Name and Classification............................................................................................1 Morphological Description ........................................................................................2 Field identification......................................................................................................3 Designatable Units .....................................................................................................4 Special Significance...................................................................................................5 DISTRIBUTION ...............................................................................................................7 Global Range ..............................................................................................................7 Canadian Range .........................................................................................................8
    [Show full text]
  • A Checklist of the Vascular Flora of the Mary K. Oxley Nature Center, Tulsa County, Oklahoma
    Oklahoma Native Plant Record 29 Volume 13, December 2013 A CHECKLIST OF THE VASCULAR FLORA OF THE MARY K. OXLEY NATURE CENTER, TULSA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA Amy K. Buthod Oklahoma Biological Survey Oklahoma Natural Heritage Inventory Robert Bebb Herbarium University of Oklahoma Norman, OK 73019-0575 (405) 325-4034 Email: [email protected] Keywords: flora, exotics, inventory ABSTRACT This paper reports the results of an inventory of the vascular flora of the Mary K. Oxley Nature Center in Tulsa, Oklahoma. A total of 342 taxa from 75 families and 237 genera were collected from four main vegetation types. The families Asteraceae and Poaceae were the largest, with 49 and 42 taxa, respectively. Fifty-eight exotic taxa were found, representing 17% of the total flora. Twelve taxa tracked by the Oklahoma Natural Heritage Inventory were present. INTRODUCTION clayey sediment (USDA Soil Conservation Service 1977). Climate is Subtropical The objective of this study was to Humid, and summers are humid and warm inventory the vascular plants of the Mary K. with a mean July temperature of 27.5° C Oxley Nature Center (ONC) and to prepare (81.5° F). Winters are mild and short with a a list and voucher specimens for Oxley mean January temperature of 1.5° C personnel to use in education and outreach. (34.7° F) (Trewartha 1968). Mean annual Located within the 1,165.0 ha (2878 ac) precipitation is 106.5 cm (41.929 in), with Mohawk Park in northwestern Tulsa most occurring in the spring and fall County (ONC headquarters located at (Oklahoma Climatological Survey 2013).
    [Show full text]
  • 27April12acquatic Plants
    International Plant Protection Convention Protecting the world’s plant resources from pests 01 2012 ENG Aquatic plants their uses and risks Implementation Review and Support System Support and Review Implementation A review of the global status of aquatic plants Aquatic plants their uses and risks A review of the global status of aquatic plants Ryan M. Wersal, Ph.D. & John D. Madsen, Ph.D. i The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of speciic companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by FAO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned.All rights reserved. FAO encourages reproduction and dissemination of material in this information product. Non-commercial uses will be authorized free of charge, upon request. Reproduction for resale or other commercial purposes, including educational purposes, may incur fees. Applications for permission to reproduce or disseminate FAO copyright materials, and all queries concerning rights and licences, should be addressed by e-mail to [email protected] or to the Chief, Publishing Policy and Support Branch, Ofice of Knowledge Exchange,
    [Show full text]
  • State of New York City's Plants 2018
    STATE OF NEW YORK CITY’S PLANTS 2018 Daniel Atha & Brian Boom © 2018 The New York Botanical Garden All rights reserved ISBN 978-0-89327-955-4 Center for Conservation Strategy The New York Botanical Garden 2900 Southern Boulevard Bronx, NY 10458 All photos NYBG staff Citation: Atha, D. and B. Boom. 2018. State of New York City’s Plants 2018. Center for Conservation Strategy. The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY. 132 pp. STATE OF NEW YORK CITY’S PLANTS 2018 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6 INTRODUCTION 10 DOCUMENTING THE CITY’S PLANTS 10 The Flora of New York City 11 Rare Species 14 Focus on Specific Area 16 Botanical Spectacle: Summer Snow 18 CITIZEN SCIENCE 20 THREATS TO THE CITY’S PLANTS 24 NEW YORK STATE PROHIBITED AND REGULATED INVASIVE SPECIES FOUND IN NEW YORK CITY 26 LOOKING AHEAD 27 CONTRIBUTORS AND ACKNOWLEGMENTS 30 LITERATURE CITED 31 APPENDIX Checklist of the Spontaneous Vascular Plants of New York City 32 Ferns and Fern Allies 35 Gymnosperms 36 Nymphaeales and Magnoliids 37 Monocots 67 Dicots 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report, State of New York City’s Plants 2018, is the first rankings of rare, threatened, endangered, and extinct species of what is envisioned by the Center for Conservation Strategy known from New York City, and based on this compilation of The New York Botanical Garden as annual updates thirteen percent of the City’s flora is imperiled or extinct in New summarizing the status of the spontaneous plant species of the York City. five boroughs of New York City. This year’s report deals with the City’s vascular plants (ferns and fern allies, gymnosperms, We have begun the process of assessing conservation status and flowering plants), but in the future it is planned to phase in at the local level for all species.
    [Show full text]
  • 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
    [Show full text]
  • Conservationally Important Macrophytes in the Bulgarian Stretch of the Danube River and the Near Water Bodies
    Conservationally important macrophytes in the Bulgarian stretch of the Danube river and the near water bodies Vladimir Valchev1, Valeri Georgiev1, Daniella Ivanova1, Sonya Tsoneva1, and Georg Janauer2 Keywords: macrophytes, conservation, Danube, Bulgaria Introduction In the course of several projects (Multifunctional Integrated Study Danube / Corridor and Catchment (MIDCC), Developing an electronic database of the macrophytes in Bulgaria, Red Lists of Bulgarian Vascular Plants and Fungi project, and Red Data Book of Bulgaria (new edition project), the macrophytes were studied in the Bulgarian stretch of Danube river and the near water bodies. Nine conservationally important species were found (Euphorbia lucida Waldst. & Kit., Lemna gibba L., Marsilea quadrifolia L., Nymphaea alba L., Nymphoides peltata (S.G. Gmel.) Kuntze, Salvinia natans (L.) All., Thelypteris palustris Schott, Trapa natans L., Utricularia vulgaris L.), which are the subject of this paper. Methods Field survey methods were applied in the period 2002 − 2005. For the inventarization of the plant species a boat, rake and long waders were used. The plants were photographed in the field, and samples for the herbarium SOM were collected. As a taxonomic basis the Field Guide to the Vascular Plants in Bulgaria (KOZHUHAROV 1992) was used. The conservation status is according to the Red Lists of Bulgarian Vascular Plants and Fungi project, which followed the IUCN assessment criteria (IUCN 2001). Bern Convention (CONVENTION ON THE CONSERVATION OF EUROPEAN WILDLIFE AND NATURAL HABITATS 1979), EC Habitats Directive (DIRECTIVE 92/43/EEC ON THE CONSERVATION OF NATURAL HABITATS AND OF WILD FAUNA AND FLORA 1992), and the Bulgarian Biodiversity Protection Law (BIODIVERSITY PROTECTION LAW OF BULGARIA 2002) are also used.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Field Host Range, Foraging Depth, and Impact Of
    FIELD HOST RANGE, FORAGING DEPTH, AND IMPACT OF CRICOTOPUS LEBETIS SUBLETTE (DIPTERA: CHIRONOMIDAE), A BIOLOGICAL CONTROL AGENT OF HYDRILLA VERTICILLATA (L.F.) ROYLE (HYDROCHARITACEAE) By EUTYCHUS MUKURE KARIUKI A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2017 © 2017 Eutychus Mukure Kariuki To my loving family ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank my Major Advisor, Dr. Raymond L. Hix, and my Co-Advisor, Dr. James P. Cuda, for their support and guidance during my Ph.D. program. I am also thankful to my committee members, Dr. Stephen D. Hight for his invaluable support and mentorship during the course of my research; Dr. Jennifer Gillett-Kaufman for her constant support, especially through the writing process of my dissertation; and Dr. Lyn Gettys for always being available to help with questions. I am grateful to all others who provided their assistance, including Dr. Edzard van Santen (University of Florida), Dr. Lazarus Mramba (University of Florida), Dr. Emma Weeks (University of Florida), John Mass (United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Tallahassee, Florida), Kelle Sullivan (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission), Dr. Lamberth Kanga (Florida A&M University), and Dr. Muhammad Haseeb (Florida A&M University). I am thankful to all my colleagues and lab mates at the University of Florida who reviewed this manuscript and offered valuable comments and suggestions. I am equally thankful to the USDA for providing funding to this study through the Hydrilla Integrated Pest Management Risk Avoidance and Mitigation Project (IPM RAMP) grant 2010-02825 and the National Institute of Food and Agriculture Crop Protection and Pest Management (NIFA CPPM) grant 2014-70006-22517.
    [Show full text]
  • Atlas of Freshwater Key Biodiversity Areas in Armenia
    Freshwater Ecosystems and Biodiversity of Freshwater ATLAS Key Biodiversity Areas In Armenia Yerevan 2015 Freshwater Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Atlas of Freshwater Key Biodiversity Areas in Armenia © WWF-Armenia, 2015 This document is an output of the regional pilot project in the South Caucasus financially supported by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Norway (MFA) and implemented by WWF Lead Authors: Jörg Freyhof – Coordinator of the IUCN SSC Freshwater Fish Red List Authority; Chair for North Africa, Europe and the Middle East, IUCN SSC/WI Freshwater Fish Specialist Group Igor Khorozyan – Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, Germany Georgi Fayvush – Head of Department of GeoBotany and Ecological Physiology, Institute of Botany, National Academy of Sciences Contributing Experts: Alexander Malkhasyan – WWF Armenia Aram Aghasyan – Ministry of Nature Protection Bardukh Gabrielyan – Institute of Zoology, National Academy of Sciences Eleonora Gabrielyan – Institute of Botany, National Academy of Sciences Lusine Margaryan – Yerevan State University Mamikon Ghasabyan – Institute of Zoology, National Academy of Sciences Marina Arakelyan – Yerevan State University Marina Hovhanesyan – Institute of Botany, National Academy of Sciences Mark Kalashyan – Institute of Zoology, National Academy of Sciences Nshan Margaryan – Institute of Zoology, National Academy of Sciences Samvel Pipoyan – Armenian State Pedagogical University Siranush Nanagulyan – Yerevan State University Tatyana Danielyan – Institute of Botany, National Academy of Sciences Vasil Ananyan – WWF Armenia Lead GIS Authors: Giorgi Beruchashvili – WWF Caucasus Programme Office Natia Arobelidze – WWF Caucasus Programme Office Arman Kandaryan – WWF Armenia Coordinating Authors: Maka Bitsadze – WWF Caucasus Programme Office Karen Manvelyan – WWF Armenia Karen Karapetyan – WWF Armenia Freyhof J., Khorozyan I. and Fayvush G. 2015 Freshwater Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Atlas of Freshwater Key Biodiversity Areas in Armenia.
    [Show full text]
  • LACON: Lake Assessment for Conservation Version 1 Manual
    Scottish Natural Heritage Archive Report No. 175 LACON: Lake Assessment for Conservation Version 1 Manual ARCHIVE REPORT Archive Report No. 175 LACON: Lake Assessment for Conservation Version 1 Manual For further information on this report please contact: Alison Lee Scottish Natural Heritage Silvan House 231 Corstorphine Road EDINBURGH EH12 7AT Telephone: 0131 316 2620 E-mail: [email protected] This report should be quoted as: Palmer, M.A. 2008. LACON: Lake Assessment for Conservation – Version 1 Manual. Scottish Natural Heritage Archive Report No. 175. This report, or any part of it, should not be reproduced without the permission of Scottish Natural Heritage. This permission will not be withheld unreasonably. The views expressed by the author(s) of this report should not be taken as the views and policies of Scottish Natural Heritage. © Scottish Natural Heritage 2019. Archive Reports Scottish Natural Heritage is committed to making the findings of all of its research publicly available whenever possible. In the past, a number of reports from staff and contractors were produced as paper documents and lodged in the SNH library or file systems. Some related to Site Condition Monitoring, others covered a range of subjects. These were not published as Research Reports for a number of reasons. In order to make these reports more available, we have decided to publish them online under the series title of Archive Reports. These will be numbered consecutively in the order that they are prepared for web publication. Their publication date, authors and title will be recorded as presented in the original report. The Archive Reports will be published as scanned PDF files of the original reports.
    [Show full text]