DOCSLIB.ORG

ECOFRAM Aquatic Draft Report (PDF)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
ECOFRAM Aquatic Draft Report (PDF) To: all Reviewers of the ECOFRAM Aquatic Report. From: Paul Hendley and Jeff Giddings. May 4, 1999 This report is being sent out in AdobeTM PDF format to ensure that all pagination and diagrams remain consistent across platforms and software. In your reviews, please reference any comments by page number and line number and, if any more written material is issued (see below), by the version name from the header (in this case Aqex_ecofram_Peer01_may499.doc). This report is being issued today in order to give you all a reasonable chance to get through such a long report before the June deadlines. However, as you will see, there are a few areas highlighted to indicate that more effort/material is needed from one of the authors. We apologize that the report is still a “work in progress” but do not believe that these minor incompletions are fundamental to your comprehension of the thinking behind ECOFRAM. If any significant new material is developed in the next 4 weeks, we will send you the information as a courtesy but would not expect you to review the material unless you wished. As the senior editors, Jeff and I accept the responsibility for all errors and omissions but would like to acknowledge the hard work of the rest of the ECOFRAM aquatic workgroup members. Please do not hesitate to contact Jeff or I by email or phone to discuss questions that may occur to you. My contact info is: Paul Hendley Senior Scientist - Technology Development Zeneca Ag Products 1200 South 47th Street Richmond CA 94804-4610 Tel: (510) 231-1499 Fax: (800) 825-7690 Email: [email protected] Jeff’s details are: Jeffrey M Giddings Springborne Laboratories Inc Environmental Sciences Division 790 Main street Wareham, MA 02571 Tel: (508) 295-2550 xt 319 Fax: (508) 295-4724 [email protected] Thank you again for your willingness to review this package. We are looking forward to meeting you all in June. Sincerely Paul and Jeff. ECOFRAM Aquatic Workgroup Co-chairs Aqex_ecofram_Peer01_may499.doc Chapter 1-1 05/04/99 ECOFRAM Aquatic Report 2 Contents 4 1. Executive Overview -...................................................................................................................................................10 6 1.1. Summary 10 1.2. Examples of expression of risk probabilities 10 8 1.3. Recommendations 10 1.3.1. Risk Assessment 10 10 1.3.2. Exposure Assessment 10 1.3.3. Effects Assessment 10 12 1.4. List of tools available 10 1.5. Aquatic Risk Assessment Topics Not Addressed by ECOFRAM 10 14 2. ECOFRAM Aquatic Risk Assessment Process...............................................................................................................1 2.1. ECOFRAM History, Purpose, and Structure 1 16 2.2. Background 2 2.2.1. Earlier Recommendations for Improving Aquatic Risk Assessments 2 18 2.2.2. Rationale for Probabilistic Risk Assessment 2 2.3. ECOFRAM Aquatic Risk Assessment Process 5 20 2.3.1. Overview of the proposed ECOFRAM tiered process 5 2.3.1.1. Tier 1 - Screening......................................................................................................................................6 22 2.3.1.2. Tier 2 - Basic temporal and spatial risk characterization............................................................................7 2.3.1.3. Tier 3: Refining estimates of risk and uncertainty......................................................................................7 24 2.3.1.4. Tier 4: Major programs, sophisticated modeling or mitigation validation studies.......................................9 2.3.1.5. Risk characterization evaluation process..................................................................................................10 26 2.3.1.6. Risk management options........................................................................................................................12 2.3.1.7. The importance of the problem formulation step to the tiered process ......................................................13 28 2.3.2. Concepts Behind the Aquatic Exposure Refinement Process 14 2.3.3. Concepts Behind the Aquatic Effects Refinement Process 15 30 2.3.4. Uncertainty in the Aquatic Risk Assessment Process 16 2.3.5. Tier 1 Risk Assessments 17 32 2.3.5.1. Problem Formulation at Tier 1.................................................................................................................17 2.3.5.2. Exposure Characterization at Tier 1 ........................................................................................................17 34 2.3.5.3. Effects Characterization at Tier 1 ............................................................................................................18 1 Aqex_ecofram_Peer01_may499.doc Chapter 1-2 05/04/99 2.3.5.4. Risk Characterization at Tier 1................................................................................................................19 2 2.3.6. Tier 2 Risk Assessments 21 2.3.6.1. Problem Formulation at Tier 2.................................................................................................................21 4 2.3.6.2. Exposure Characterization at Tier 2 ........................................................................................................22 2.3.6.3. Effects Characterization at Tier 2 ............................................................................................................23 6 2.3.6.4. Risk Characterization at Tier 2................................................................................................................24 2.3.6.5. Risk Management and Mitigation Decisions where Risk Characterization is Judged “Adequate” at Tier 226 8 2.3.7. Tier 3 Risk Assessments 29 2.3.7.1. Problem Formulation at Tier 3.................................................................................................................30 10 2.3.7.2. Exposure Characterization at Tier 3 ........................................................................................................30 2.3.7.3. Effects Characterization at Tier 3 ............................................................................................................32 12 2.3.7.4. Risk Characterization at Tier 3................................................................................................................35 2.3.7.5. Risk Management and Mitigation Decisions at Tier 3..............................................................................36 14 2.3.8. Tier 4 Risk Assessments 36 2.3.8.1. Problem Formulation at Tier 4.................................................................................................................37 16 2.3.8.2. Exposure Characterization at Tier 4 ........................................................................................................37 2.3.8.3. Effects Characterization at Tier 4 ............................................................................................................38 18 2.3.8.4. Risk Characterization at Tier 4................................................................................................................39 2.4. Expression of Probabilities and Reporting of Risk 40 20 2.4.1. Expressing Exposure 40 2.4.2. Expressing Effects Characterization 41 22 2.4.3. Expressing Risk Characterization 41 2.4.3.1. Example..................................................................................................................................................43 24 2.5. Risk Management and Mitigation 44 2.5.1. Risk Assessment Interface 44 26 2.5.2. Mitigation and Risk Reduction 45 2.5.2.1. Overview of Approaches for Mitigating and Managing Perceived Risk....................................................46 28 2.5.2.2. Selecting Mitigation Practices .................................................................................................................47 2.5.3. Communication of Mitigation Alternatives to the Risk Manager 48 30 2.6. Recommendations for Improving Aquatic Risk Assessment and Characterization 49 2.6.1. Recommendations to Improve the Overall Assessment Process 49 32 2.6.2. Recommendations to Improve Risk Characterization 50 2.6.3. Recommendations to Improve Risk Management and Mitigation 52 34 2.7. Aquatic Risk Assessment Issues Not Addressed by ECOFRAM 52 3. ECOFRAM Aquatic Exposure Workgroup Report .........................................................................................................1 36 3.1. Summary and Recommendations 1 3.1.1. Summary 1 2 Aqex_ecofram_Peer01_may499.doc Chapter 1-3 05/04/99 3.1.2. Recommendations 3 2 3.1.2.1. Recommendations to Improve Aquatic Exposure Assessment: ...................................................................3 3.1.2.2. Recommendations to Improve Aquatic Exposure Modeling .......................................................................6 4 3.1.2.3. Aquatic Exposure Modeling and Assessment Issues Not Addressed by ECOFRAM .................................11 3.2. Introduction 12 6 3.2.1. Team Members and Affiliations 12 3.2.2. Initial Workgroup Objectives and Scope 13 8 3.3. A Brief History of Aquatic Risk Assessment Under FIFRA 13 3.4. Background 16 10 3.4.1. Status/Activities of Aquatic Exposure Monitoring Initiatives 16 3.4.1.1. The National Water-Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA) .................................................................16 12 3.4.1.2. Mid-Continent Monitoring Project ..........................................................................................................17 3.4.1.3. Heidelberg College Monitoring
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Long Island Sound Habitat Restoration Initiative
    LONG ISLAND SOUND HABITAT RESTORATION INITIATIVE Technical Support for Coastal Habitat Restoration FEBRUARY 2003 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ....................................................................i GUIDING PRINCIPLES.................................................................................. ii PROJECT BOUNDARY.................................................................................. iv SITE IDENTIFICATION AND RANKING........................................................... iv LITERATURE CITED ..................................................................................... vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............................................................................... vi APPENDIX I-A: RANKING CRITERIA .....................................................................I-A-1 SECTION 1: TIDAL WETLANDS ................................................1-1 DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................. 1-1 Salt Marshes ....................................................................................................1-1 Brackish Marshes .............................................................................................1-3 Tidal Fresh Marshes .........................................................................................1-4 VALUES AND FUNCTIONS ........................................................................... 1-4 STATUS AND TRENDS ................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Shallow Water As a Refuge Habitat for Fish and Crustaceans in Non-Vegetated Estuaries: an Example from Chesapeake Bay
    MARINE ECOLOGY PROGRESS SERIES Vol. 99: 1-16, 1993 Published September 2 Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. l Shallow water as a refuge habitat for fish and crustaceans in non-vegetated estuaries: an example from Chesapeake Bay Gregory M. Ruiz l, Anson H. Hines l, Martin H. posey2 'Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, PO Box 28, Edgewater, Maryland 21037, USA 'Department of Biological Sciences, University of North Carolina at Wilmington, Wilmington, North Carolina 28403. USA ABSTRACT. Abundances and size-frequency distributions of common epibenth~cflsh and crustaceans were compared among 3 depth zones (1-35, 35-70, 71-95 cm) of the Rhode River, a subestuary of Chesapeake Bay, USA. In the absence of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV),inter- and intraspccific size segregation occurred by depth from May to October, 1989-1992. Small species (Palaemonetes pugjo, Crangon septernspjnosa, Fundulus heteroclitus, F majaljs, Rhithropanope~lsharrisii, Apeltes quadracus, Gobiosorna boscj) were most abundant at water depths <70 cm. Furthermore, the propor- tion of small individuals decreased significantly with depth for 7 of 8 species, with C. septemsp~nosa being the exception, exhibiting no size change with increasing depth. These distributional patterns were related to depth-dependent predalion risk. Large species (Callinectes sap~dus,Leiostomus xan- thurus, and Micropogonias undulatus), known predators of some of the small species, were often most abundant in deep water (>70 cm). In field experiments, mortality of tethered P pugio (30 to 35 mm), small E heteroclitus (40 to 50 mm), and small C. sapjdus (30 to 70 mm) increased significantly with depth. Wc hypothesize that predation risk was size-dependent, creating the observed intra- and inter- specific size differences among depth zones.
    [Show full text]
  • Composition, Seasonality, and Life History of Decapod Shrimps in Great Bay, New Jersey
    20192019 NORTHEASTERNNortheastern Naturalist NATURALIST 26(4):817–834Vol. 26, No. 4 G. Schreiber, P.C. López-Duarte, and K.W. Able Composition, Seasonality, and Life History of Decapod Shrimps in Great Bay, New Jersey Giselle Schreiber1, Paola C. López-Duarte2, and Kenneth W. Able1,* Abstract - Shrimp are critical to estuarine food webs because they are a resource to eco- nomically and ecologically important fish and crabs, but also consume primary production and prey on larval fish and small invertebrates. Yet, we know little of their natural history. This study determined shrimp community composition, seasonality, and life histories by sampling the water column and benthos with plankton nets and benthic traps, respectively, in Great Bay, a relatively unaltered estuary in southern New Jersey. We identified 6 native (Crangon septemspinosa, Palaemon vulgaris, P. pugio, P. intermedius, Hippolyte pleura- canthus, and Gilvossius setimanus) and 1 non-native (P. macrodactylus) shrimp species. These results suggest that the estuary is home to a relatively diverse group of shrimp species that differ in the spatial and temporal use of the estuary and the adjacent inner shelf. Introduction Estuarine ecosystems are typically dynamic, especially in temperate waters, and comprised of a diverse community of resident and transient species. These can include several abundant shrimp species which are vital to the system as prey (Able and Fahay 2010), predators during different life stages (Ashelby et al. 2013, Bass et al. 2001, Locke et al. 2005, Taylor 2005, Taylor and Danila 2005, Taylor and Peck 2004), processors of plant production (Welsh 1975), and com- mercially important bait (Townes 1938).
    [Show full text]
  • Shrimps, Lobsters, and Crabs of the Atlantic Coast of the Eastern United States, Maine to Florida
    SHRIMPS, LOBSTERS, AND CRABS OF THE ATLANTIC COAST OF THE EASTERN UNITED STATES, MAINE TO FLORIDA AUSTIN B.WILLIAMS SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION PRESS Washington, D.C. 1984 © 1984 Smithsonian Institution. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Williams, Austin B. Shrimps, lobsters, and crabs of the Atlantic coast of the Eastern United States, Maine to Florida. Rev. ed. of: Marine decapod crustaceans of the Carolinas. 1965. Bibliography: p. Includes index. Supt. of Docs, no.: SI 18:2:SL8 1. Decapoda (Crustacea)—Atlantic Coast (U.S.) 2. Crustacea—Atlantic Coast (U.S.) I. Title. QL444.M33W54 1984 595.3'840974 83-600095 ISBN 0-87474-960-3 Editor: Donald C. Fisher Contents Introduction 1 History 1 Classification 2 Zoogeographic Considerations 3 Species Accounts 5 Materials Studied 8 Measurements 8 Glossary 8 Systematic and Ecological Discussion 12 Order Decapoda , 12 Key to Suborders, Infraorders, Sections, Superfamilies and Families 13 Suborder Dendrobranchiata 17 Infraorder Penaeidea 17 Superfamily Penaeoidea 17 Family Solenoceridae 17 Genus Mesopenaeiis 18 Solenocera 19 Family Penaeidae 22 Genus Penaeus 22 Metapenaeopsis 36 Parapenaeus 37 Trachypenaeus 38 Xiphopenaeus 41 Family Sicyoniidae 42 Genus Sicyonia 43 Superfamily Sergestoidea 50 Family Sergestidae 50 Genus Acetes 50 Family Luciferidae 52 Genus Lucifer 52 Suborder Pleocyemata 54 Infraorder Stenopodidea 54 Family Stenopodidae 54 Genus Stenopus 54 Infraorder Caridea 57 Superfamily Pasiphaeoidea 57 Family Pasiphaeidae 57 Genus
    [Show full text]
  • Invertebrate ID Guide
    11/13/13 1 This book is a compilation of identification resources for invertebrates found in stomach samples. By no means is it a complete list of all possible prey types. It is simply what has been found in past ChesMMAP and NEAMAP diet studies. A copy of this document is stored in both the ChesMMAP and NEAMAP lab network drives in a folder called ID Guides, along with other useful identification keys, articles, documents, and photos. If you want to see a larger version of any of the images in this document you can simply open the file and zoom in on the picture, or you can open the original file for the photo by navigating to the appropriate subfolder within the Fisheries Gut Lab folder. Other useful links for identification: Isopods http://www.19thcenturyscience.org/HMSC/HMSC-Reports/Zool-33/htm/doc.html http://www.19thcenturyscience.org/HMSC/HMSC-Reports/Zool-48/htm/doc.html Polychaetes http://web.vims.edu/bio/benthic/polychaete.html http://www.19thcenturyscience.org/HMSC/HMSC-Reports/Zool-34/htm/doc.html Cephalopods http://www.19thcenturyscience.org/HMSC/HMSC-Reports/Zool-44/htm/doc.html Amphipods http://www.19thcenturyscience.org/HMSC/HMSC-Reports/Zool-67/htm/doc.html Molluscs http://www.oceanica.cofc.edu/shellguide/ http://www.jaxshells.org/slife4.htm Bivalves http://www.jaxshells.org/atlanticb.htm Gastropods http://www.jaxshells.org/atlantic.htm Crustaceans http://www.jaxshells.org/slifex26.htm Echinoderms http://www.jaxshells.org/eich26.htm 2 PROTOZOA (FORAMINIFERA) ................................................................................................................................ 4 PORIFERA (SPONGES) ............................................................................................................................................... 4 CNIDARIA (JELLYFISHES, HYDROIDS, SEA ANEMONES) ............................................................................... 4 CTENOPHORA (COMB JELLIES)............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • APPENDIX G. Bibliography of ECOTOX Open Literature
    APPENDIX G. Bibliography of ECOTOX Open Literature Explanation of OPP Acceptability Criteria and Rejection Codes for ECOTOX Data Studies located and coded into ECOTOX must meet acceptability criteria, as established in the Interim Guidance of the Evaluation Criteria for Ecological Toxicity Data in the Open Literature, Phase I and II, Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, July 16, 2004. Studies that do not meet these criteria are designated in the bibliography as “Accepted for ECOTOX but not OPP.” The intent of the acceptability criteria is to ensure data quality and verifiability. The criteria parallel criteria used in evaluating registrant-submitted studies. Specific criteria are listed below, along with the corresponding rejection code. · The paper does not report toxicology information for a chemical of concern to OPP; (Rejection Code: NO COC) • The article is not published in English language; (Rejection Code: NO FOREIGN) • The study is not presented as a full article. Abstracts will not be considered; (Rejection Code: NO ABSTRACT) • The paper is not publicly available document; (Rejection Code: NO NOT PUBLIC (typically not used, as any paper acquired from the ECOTOX holding or through the literature search is considered public) • The paper is not the primary source of the data; (Rejection Code: NO REVIEW) • The paper does not report that treatment(s) were compared to an acceptable control; (Rejection Code: NO CONTROL) • The paper does not report an explicit duration of exposure; (Rejection Code: NO DURATION) • The paper does not report a concurrent environmental chemical concentration/dose or application rate; (Rejection Code: NO CONC) • The paper does not report the location of the study (e.g., laboratory vs.
    [Show full text]
  • NOAA Technical Report NMFS SSRF-749
    749 NOAA Technical Report NMFS SSRF-749 ..^*r °'5°v Food of Eight Northwest \ Atlantic Pleuronectiform C Fishes */ ^'irts o« Richard W. Langton and Ray E. Bowman September 1981 Marine Biological Laboratory LIBRARY OCT 14 1992 ii Vv'oods Hole, Mass. , U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service . NOAA TECHNICAL REPORTS National Marine Fisheries Service, Special Scientific Report—Fisheries The major responsibilities of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) are lo monitor and assess the abundance and geographic distribution of fishery resources, to understand and predict fluctuations in the quantity and distribution of these resources, and to establish levels for optimum use of the resources. NMFS is also charged with the development and implementation of policies for managing national fishing grounds, development and enforce- ment of domestic fisheries regulations, surveillance of foreign fishing off United States coastal waters, and the development and enforcement of interna- tional fishery agreements and policies. NMFS also assists the fishing industry through marketing service and economic analysis programs, and mortgage insurance and vessel construction subsidies. It collects, analyzes, and publishes statistics on various phases of the industry. The Special Scientific Report — Fisheries series was established in 1949. The series carries reports on scientific investigations that document long-term continuing programs of NMFS, or intensive scientific reports on studies of restricted scope. The reports may deal with applied fishery problems. The series is also used as a medium for the publication of bibliographies of a specialized scientific nature. NOAA Technical Reports NMFS SSRF are available free in limited numbers to governmental agencies, both Federal and State.
    [Show full text]
  • Feeding Ecology of the Common Shrimp Crangon Crangon in Port Erin Bay, Isle of Man, Irish Sea
    MARINE ECOLOGY PROGRESS SERIES Vol. 214: 211–223, 2001 Published April 26 Mar Ecol Prog Ser Feeding ecology of the common shrimp Crangon crangon in Port Erin Bay, Isle of Man, Irish Sea Chul-Woong Oh, Richard G. Hartnoll*, Richard D. M. Nash Port Erin Marine Laboratory, School of Biological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Port Erin, Isle of Man IM9 6JA, British Isles ABSTRACT: The diet of the common shrimp Crangon crangon (L.) was studied in Port Erin Bay (Isle of Man, Irish Sea) by analysis of stomach contents, with comparison by season and size class of diet composition and prey diversity. Monthly samples were taken from April 1995 to March 1998. Mysids and amphipods together constituted the dominant prey, accounting for >60% of the diet in both per- cent occurrence and percent abundance. Mysids were most important irrespective of season or size class. The small size group (<10 mm CL) tended to be more dependent on epifaunal and infaunal organisms, reflecting ontogenic changes in diet. Trophic diversity and equality of diet varied with season and size class, with highest values in spring. Diet composition differed among seasons and size classes. Niche overlap index was higher between size classes (Schoener index: maximum = 0.83 in summer, minimum = 0.67 in autumn) than between seasons (Schoener index: maximum = 0.70 between summer and autumn, minimum = 0.46 between spring and winter). Shrimp size was signif- icantly correlated with size of certain prey (e.g. Schistomysis spiritus and Gammarus sp.) though not with size of infaunal prey (e.g. Iphinoë trispinosa and Corbula sp.).
    [Show full text]
  • Decapoda, Crangonidae) Based on the Features of Larval Morphology
    Zootaxa 3827 (4): 559–575 ISSN 1175-5326 (print edition) www.mapress.com/zootaxa/ Article ZOOTAXA Copyright © 2014 Magnolia Press ISSN 1175-5334 (online edition) http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3827.4.7 http://zoobank.org/urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:194CD5D9-7872-44F5-AF3C-97A4CBA60452 Systematic position of Neocrangon communis (Decapoda, Crangonidae) based on the features of larval morphology NINA SEDOVA1 & SERGEY GRIGORIEV2 1Kamchatka State Technical University, Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky. E-mail: [email protected] 2Kamchatka Branch of Pacific Geographyсal Institute (KB PGI) FEB RAS, Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky. E-mail: [email protected] Abstract The present article deals with morphological comparison of four species of shrimp larvae, such as Neocrangon communis and Mesocrangon intermedia, Crangon dalli and C. septemspinosa, inhabiting the Okhotsk Sea and north-western part of the Pacific Ocean. Morphological comparison of I–V zoeal stages is discussed. The main morphological differences of the appropriate larval stages are detected. Most features of C. dalli and C. septemspinosa are similar and differ from M. intermedia and N. communis. It is shown that M. intermedia and N. communis more similar species by their origin than it is accepted to think. It is assumed that these two species should be included into one genus—Mesocrangon. The figures of I, III–V zoeal stages are presented. Key words: Crangon, Mesocrangon, systematic, carapace, antennules, antennas, telson Introduction Neocrangon communis (Rathbun, 1899) and Mesocrangon intermedia (Stimpson, 1860) are two close species of shrimps from the family Crangonidae. These species haven’t commercial value but they are widely spread in the Northern part of the Pacific Ocean.
    [Show full text]
  • NOAA Technical Report NMFS SSRF-738
    738 NOAA Technical Report NMFS SSRF-738 y^f^^ OFc, Environmental Baselines in Long Island Sound, 1972-73 R. N. Reid, A. B. Frame, and A. F. Draxler '^ ^^ATES O^ December 1979 r Marine Biological Laboratory ! LIBRARY 1 OCT 4 1992 i Woods Hole, Mass. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service NOAA TECHNICAL REPORTS National Marine Fisheries Service, Special Scientific Report— Fisheries The mu'i.r r.-uwnriMlilir^ "f ttif National Marine Fisheries Sen-ire 'NMFS) arp t" mnnitir and nwews the nhundance and Reofrmphic ^h raarket- -.J publisbe* 'ie* wa^T e^ta'r)li^h•.(' ir'i (urrii- re|^ir<!> >r, ^Ljcntinc investigations that document may deal with applied fishery ai.so b- I iiiinrn.aii otherwist' n' 'ie<i ' Iri :it 1 '^-^, ^er ^iTMi onmeiua; tiiLf are: 700. Expi ;inythermograph ob8er\'ations from the NMTS/ ments, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402: Stock MARAD Ship of Opportunity Program for 1973. By Steven K. Cook, June No. 003-020-00134-3. 1976, iii + 13 p.. 10 figs. For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, L'.S (;ovemment Printing Omce. Washington, DC 20402; Stock No. 003- 712. Annual physical and chemical ' . cycles of Auke Bay. 017-0O.«2-5. southeastern Alaska. By Herbert E ulaa R. McLain, and Bruce L. Wing. May 1977. iii -^ 11 p.. ib figs.. 1 table. For sale by the 701 Seasonal abundance and distribution of zooplankton, fish eggs, Superintendent of Documents. U.S. Government Printing Office. Wash- and fish larvae in the eastern Gulf of .Mexico, 1972-74.
    [Show full text]
  • Feeding Habits of the Sand Shrimp Crangon Septemspinosa
    FAU Institutional Repository http://purl.fcla.edu/fau/fauir This paper was submitted by the faculty of FAU’s Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute. Notice: ©1974 Marine Biological Laboratory. The final published version of this manuscript is available at http://www.biolbull.org/. This article may be cited as: Wilcox, J. R., & Jeffries, H. P. (1974). Feeding habits of the sand shrimp Crangon septemspinosa. The Biological Bulletin, 146(3), 424‐ 434. Reference: Bioi Bull., 146: 424-434. (June, 1974) FEEDING HABITS OF THE S~~ND SHRI~vlP CRANGON SEPTEM5;P/NOSA4 1 ]. ROSS WILCOX 2 AND H. PERRY JEFFRIES Graduate School of Occo"ography, Ulli'('crsity of Rhode Isla"d. K;'llIS/Oll, Rhode Island 02881 The sand shrinlp Crangon septetllspinosa Say is a common estuarine decapod distributed along the northwestern Atlantic from Newfoundland to eastern Florida (Squires, 1965; Williams, 1955, 1965; Price, 1962). Although C. septemspinosa is .carnivorous (Price, 1962; Regnault, 1970), it also may ingest organic nlatter in various forms. Crangon spp. has diverse feeding habits. Lloyd and Yonge (1947) classified Crangon vulgaris (== Crangon crangon) , an European species, as an omnivore after finding algae, polychaetes, gastropods, bivalves, amphipods, fish eggs and fish larvae in the digestive tract. Ho\\Oever, they felt that C. vulgaris preferred animal tissues. Allen (1960) categorized Crallgon all1nani, another European species, as a carnivore, but noted that sand and mud particles were always found in the stomach. Tiews (1968), in reviewing the literature on C. crangon, con­ sidered that the species was an onlnivore, but animal tissues did comprise the main food items. Kosaka (1970) classified a Japanese species Crangon affinis as a carnivore, but sand and mud were always present with the food.
    [Show full text]
  • WHOI-E-01-002 Dispezio, M. Teaching Materi
    ORDER FORM Teaching Materials for "Spineless Science" (an introduction to classification focusing on invertebrates) Color Overhead Transparencies for Classroom Overview Set includes: Introductory slide Major Phyla Marine invertebrates (overview) (7) Slides, each covering a separate Phylum Set comes with detailed background information. Price: $10/set #sets: ___ subtotal $___ _ Shipping $ FREE ORDERTOTAL $___ _ Complete this form, include payment (checks payable to WHOI) and mail to: WHOI Sea Grant Program 193 Oyster Pond Rd., MS#2 Woods Hole, MA 02543-1525 Item(s) should be mailed to: Name Mailing Address City, State, Zip Phone/E-mail -----------------~~---- •• Teaching Materials for "Spineless Science" (an introduction to classification focusing on the invertebrates) Text by Michael DiSpezio Illustrations by Tessa Morgan For Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Sea Grant Program Color Overhead Transparencies for Classroom Overview (Enclosed) Vertebrates (animals with backbones) There are all sorts of animals. Most of us, however, are more familiar with a small group of creatures known as vertebrates. Known as "animals with backbones," the vertebrates include dogs, cats, hamsters, fish, sharks, whales and of course, humans. Run your hand down the center of your back and you'll feel a row of small bumps. Beneath these bumps are distinct segments of bone. These segments are called vertebrae. Strung together like beads on a string, the chain of vertE3brae form a bendable rod that we call the backbone. Not only does the backbone give an animal its support, but it protects a delicate cable of nerves, called the spinal cord. In most vertebrates, the skeleton is made of bone. Bone is a living material that includes large deposits of minerals.
    [Show full text]