DOCSLIB.ORG

Neuse Modmon Investigations Confirm Recovery of Neuse River Estuary

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Neuse Modmon Investigations Confirm Recovery of Neuse River Estuary ISSN 0549-799X Number 316 March/April 1999 Neuse ModMon investigations confirm recovery of Neuse River Estuary will be slow The Neuse River Estuary is a troubled ment of the group that the estuary is ecological system. Algae blooms, suffering from nutrient overenrichment ■ Just what are the goals that people fishkills, and what many perceive as a and that capping nitrogen loading at 70% who live in the Neuse River Basin, decline in fisheries have plagued the of the 1990-95 average load will produce especially near the estuary, want to see system for decades, reaching a peak in a detectable improvement in water accomplished by the Neuse River 1995 with appearance of the toxic quality within five years after loading cleanup? dinoflagellate Pfiesteria piscicida and a reduction to that level has been achieved. number of large fishkills. The N.C. General Assembly and the ■ Are we using all the scientific knowl- In 1995 the N.C. Senate Select N.C. Environmental Management edge we have about the Neuse to try Committee on River Water Quality and Commission responded to the scientists to make sure we are targeting the right Fish Kills assembled a group of univer- recommendations. In August 1998 a problems? sity scientists to focus on Neuse water package of rules went into effect aimed at quality issues. In January 1996, the reducing nitrogen loading to the Neuse ■ If the rules are effective at reducing group issued a set of findings and River Estuary by 30% of the 1995 nitrogen loading by 30%, will the recommendations for improving water baseline. The rules are intended to reduce reduction accomplish the desired quality in the estuary. It was the judg- eutrophication, as measured by chloro- goals? phyll concentrations, in the estuary. Retirements at WRRI Although there is much public ■ If a 30% reduction will accomplish the The Water Resources Research support for efforts to improve water desired goals, how long will it be Institute will soon say farewell to two quality in the Neuse River, there are also before we begin to see results? long-time staff members. Eva Walters many questions about whether the Neuse will retire on March 31. Eva has been River rules will accomplish what the the cheerful and helpful first point of continued page 3 contact for investigators and the public wants: public for 30 years, having served as secretary to 5 directors. Frances IN THIS ISSUE March/April 1999 Yeargan will retire April 30. As Page accounting technician, Frances has Directors Forum: How to establish practical water quality standards 2 kept the ledgers, helped investiga- tors manage their budgets, regis- Improving water quality takes time: Success on the Chowan River tered workshop and conference brings new hope for the Neuse 8 participants, filed timesheets for interns and graduate students, and February-March action of the N.C. Environmental Management Commission 11 handed us all our checks for 20 Division of Water Quality begins new enforcement initiative to protect wetlands 12 years. We will miss Eva and Frances, Neuse Basin Oversight Committee presents method and wish them lots of relaxation, for accounting for agricultural nitrogen reductions 12 family company and travel in Aging dams pose threats to life, properly, and water quality 13 retirement. PLUS Water Resources Conditions . People . Publications 2 WRRI NEWS March/April 1999 Directors Forum How to establish practical water quality standards Kenneth H. Reckhow, Director, Water Resources Research Institute Surface water standards should be among excess of 40 µg/l. Should each of those quality standards is to incorporate natural the more practical measures to protect cases constitute a violation? variability and sampling error into the water quality in North Carolina. Given Based on the written standards, each standard (Barnett and OHagan 1997). the importance of standards, how should water quality sample that exceeds 40 µg/l For example, an appropriate stan- standards be established, and how might could be called a standard violation. dard might be expressed as the concen- they be interpreted for effective enforce- However, practical considerations such tration of chlorophyll a should not µ ment? as naturally occurring eutrophication, exceed 40 g/l for more than 10% of the It is common practice for an envi- spatial/temporal variability in chlorophyll time in a given year. This statement ronmental agency to establish guidelines a, and measurement error could make reflects natural variability. To completely for the acceptability of water quality in this an enforcement nightmare. A better, operationalize this standard, a compli- terms of criteria and standards. A water more operational approach to water ance criterion is needed that acknowl- quality criterion is typically a numeric continued next page value or narrative statement that largely Water Resources Research Institute reflects a judgment concerning the News of The University of North Carolina scientific evidence on the effects of the contaminant of interest. A water quality standard is typically based on the ISSN 0549-799X scientific evidence in support of the Number 316 water quality criterion, but the standard March/April 1999 is a rule established by an authority (e.g., Published bimonthly the Environmental Management Com- mission). This newsletter is financed in part by the Department of the Interior, U.S. Geologi- cal Survey, as authorized by the Water Resources Research Act of 1984. Forty-one One implication of the distinction hundred copies of this newsletter were printed at a cost of $1,653.6 or 40 cents between a criterion and a standard is the per copy. fact that a standard essentially elevates a scientific assessment (the criterion) into a WRRI NEWS AVAILABLE ON WRRI WORLD WIDE WEB SITE legal rule (the standard) formalized by an The WRRI News plus summaries of more than 100 WRRI technical reports and authority. Establishment of the standard frequently updated information on employment opportunities; conferences and implies that some balancing of costs and workshops; and public hearings/meetings are available on the World Wide Web at: benefits has occurred. To be specific, http://www2.ncsu.edu/ncsu/CIL/WRRI achievement of water quality standards usually comes at a cost (e.g., the cost of EMAIL SUBSCRIPTIONS TO WRRI NEWS AVAILABLE additional wastewater treatment), so Anyone with an Email account can receive an announcement that a new newslet- there should be some recognition that the ter has been posted to the web along with the current table of contents and links to the web newsletter and the WRRI News in PDF format delivered bimonthly via benefits achieved in meeting the stan- Email. To subscribe, send an Email message to: [email protected]. In the dards are comparable to those costs. message say: subscribe WRRI-NEWS Your Full Name. Please send any Email Beyond that, standards are effective correspondence regarding the WRRI News to [email protected]. only if there is a clear means for enforce- ment. To understand the difficulties WRRI offices are located at 1131 Jordan Hall associated with enforcement, consider on the North Carolina State University campus North Carolinas chlorophyll a water Mailing address: Box 7912, NCSU, Raleigh, NC 27695-7912 quality standard of 40 µg/l. For selected Telephone: (919) 515-2815 General Email: [email protected] water bodies, violation of this standard WRRI Staff Director/Kenneth H. Reckhow ([email protected]) may be determined through either Associate Director/ Robert E. Holman ([email protected]) monitoring or prediction and may result Newsletter Editor and Tech Transfer Spec/ Jeri Gray ([email protected]) in action by the Environmental Manage- Business and Administrative Officer/ Mary Sanford ([email protected]) ment Commission. Unfortunately, it is Secretary/ Eva Walters ([email protected]) not uncommon for water quality monitor- Accounting Technician/ Frances Yeargan ([email protected]) ing results to yield chlorophyll a in March/April 1999 WRRI NEWS 3 Top ten rankings of stakeholder interests edges the fact that greater precision is in the Neuse River from 50 written and phone surveys achieved with a better, larger sampling Scale: 1=least important, 5= most important. program. This is essentially captured in (Maloney, Maguire, and Lind. In press.) an expression such as based on the samples, the 95% confidence interval on Interest Average Ranking the true proportion of time that the Decision-making based on sound science 4.52 Healthy oxygen levels 4.00 standard is violated should overlap the Water safe for swimming and recreation 3.96 goal of 10% (or less). Fair allocation of cleanup costs 3.92 While this standard gives the initial Confidence in safety of seafood 3.80 impression that you need a degree in Avoiding excessive regulations 3.68 statistics for proper interpretation and Shellfish beds open for harvest 3.36 application, in fact the standard can be Good supply of commercial fish 3.32 re-expressed in clearer terms for actual No more Pfiesteria 3.25 use, once the underlying distributions are Clear water 3.23 selected. For example, if the binomial is a reasonable distribution for the number Neuse ModMon investigations continued of standard violations, then the actual In 1997, with funding from the N.C. The first stage of the so-called number of samples necessary to declare a Neuse ModMon Program ended in violation of this standard can be pre- Department of Environment and Natural Resources, scientists at four universities December 1998, and researchers have specified based on the annual sample undertook an effort to help answer these completed draft reports on their investi- size. Once this is done, the standard gations. Their findings confirm that it is could be re-stated in understandable and other questions. Under the coordina- tion of Kenneth H. Reckhow, Director of likely to take many years to nurse the terms such as, if 20-25 samples per year the Water Resources Research Institute, Neuse River Estuary back to healththat are to be taken, then no more than 3 can is to the point that healthy oxygen levels exceed 40 µg/l to achieve compliance scientists began prevail, massive algae blooms and with the standard.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Chapter 6.2-Assessment of Harmful Algae Bloom
    Maryland’s Coastal Bays: Ecosystem Health Assessment Chapter 6.2 Chapter 6.2 Assessment of harmful algae bloom species in the Maryland Coastal Bays Catherine Wazniak Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Tidewater Ecosystem Assessment, Annapolis, MD 21401 Abstract Thirteen potentially harmful algae taxa have been identified in the Maryland Coastal Bays: Aureococcus anophagefferens (brown tide), Pfiesteria piscicida and P. shumwayae, Chloromorum/ Chattonella spp., Heterosigma akashiwo, Fibrocapsa japonica, Prorocentrum minimum, Dinophysis spp., Amphidinium spp., Pseudo-nitzchia spp., Karlodinium micrum and two macroalgae genera (Gracilaria, Chaetomorpha). Presence of potentially toxic species is richest in the polluted tributaries of St. Martin River and Newport Bay. Approximately 5% of the phytoplankton species identified for Maryland’s Coastal Bays represent potentially harmful algal bloom (HAB) species. The HABs are recognized for their potentially toxic properties and, in some cases, their ability to produce large blooms negatively affecting light and dissolved oxygen resources. Brown tide (Aureococcus anophagefferens) has been the most widespread and prolific HAB species in the area in recent years, producing growth impacts to juvenile clams in test studies and potential impacts to sea grass distribution and growth (see Chapter 7.1). Macroalgal fluctuations may be evidence of a system balancing on the edge of a eutrophic (nutrient- enriched) state (see chapter 4). No evidence of toxic activity has been detected among the Coastal Bays phytoplankton. However, species such as Pseudo-nitzschia seriata, Prorocentrum minimum, Pfiesteria piscicida, Dinophysis acuminata and Karlodinium micrum have produced positive toxic bioassays or generated detectable toxins in Chesapeake Bay. Pfiesteria piscicida was retrospectively considered as the likely causative organism in a large historical fish kill on the Indian River, Delaware.
    [Show full text]
  • The Eukaryotic Life on Microplastics in Brackish Ecosystems
    Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Fakultät Marie Therese Kettner | Sonja Oberbeckmann | Matthias Labrenz Hans-Peter Grossart The Eukaryotic Life on Microplastics in Brackish Ecosystems Suggested citation referring to the original publication: Frontiers in Microbiology 10 (2019), Art. 538 DOI https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00766 ISSN (online) 1664-302X Postprint archived at the Institutional Repository of the Potsdam University in: Postprints der Universität Potsdam Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe ; 741 ISSN 1866-8372 https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-434996 DOI https://doi.org/10.25932/publishup-43499 fmicb-10-00538 March 19, 2019 Time: 17:29 # 1 ORIGINAL RESEARCH published: 20 March 2019 doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2019.00538 The Eukaryotic Life on Microplastics in Brackish Ecosystems Marie Therese Kettner1,2, Sonja Oberbeckmann3, Matthias Labrenz3 and Hans-Peter Grossart1,2* 1 Department of Experimental Limnology, Leibniz-Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries, Berlin, Germany, 2 Institute for Biochemistry and Biology, University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany, 3 Environmental Microbiology Working Group, Leibniz Institute for Baltic Sea Research Warnemünde, Rostock, Germany Microplastics (MP) constitute a widespread contaminant all over the globe. Rivers and wastewater treatment plants (WWTP) transport annually several million tons of MP into freshwaters, estuaries and oceans, where they provide increasing artificial surfaces for microbial colonization. As knowledge on MP-attached communities is insufficient for brackish ecosystems, we conducted exposure experiments in the coastal Baltic Sea, an in-flowing river and a WWTP within the drainage basin. While reporting on prokaryotic and fungal communities from the same set-up previously, we focus here on the entire eukaryotic communities.
    [Show full text]
  • Proceedings of the 40Th U.S.-Japan Aquaculture Panel Symposium
    Hatchery Technology for High Quality Juvenile Production Proceedings of the 40th U.S.-Japan Aquaculture Panel Symposium University of Hawaii East West Center Honolulu, Hawaii October 22-23 2012 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-136 Hatchery Technology for High Quality Juvenile Production Proceedings of the 40th U.S.-Japan Aquaculture Panel Symposium University of Hawaii East West Center Honolulu, Hawaii October 22-23 2012 Mike Rust1, Paul Olin2, April Bagwill3, and Marie Fujitani3, editors 1Northwest Fisheries Science Center 2725 Montlake Boulevard East Seattle, Washington 98112 2California Sea Grant UCSD / Scripps Institution of Oceanography 133 Aviation Blvd., Suite 109 Santa Rosa CA 95403 3NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service 1315 East-West Highway Silver Spring, MD 20910 NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-136 December 2013 U.S. Department of Commerce Penny Pritzker, Secretary of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Dr. Kathryn Sullivan, (Acting) NOAA Administrator National Marine Fisheries Service Samuel D. Rauch III, (Acting) Assistant Administrator for Fisheries SUGGESTED CITATION: Rust, M., P. Olin, A. Bagwill and M. Fujitani (editors). 2013. Hatchery Technology for High Quality Juvenile Production: Proceedings of the 40th U.S.-Japan Aquaculture Panel Symposium, Honolulu, Hawaii, October 22-23, 2012. U.S. Dept. Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-136. A COPY OF THIS REPORT MAY BE OBTAINED FROM: Northwest Fisheries Science Center 2725 Montlake Boulevard East Seattle, Washington 98112 OR ONLINE AT: http://spo.nmfs.noaa.gov/tm/ Reference throughout this document to trade names does not imply endorsement by the National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA.
    [Show full text]
  • North and South Carolina Coasts
    Marine Pollution Bulletin Vol. 41, Nos. 1±6, pp. 56±75, 2000 Ó 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved Printed in Great Britain PII: S0025-326X(00)00102-8 0025-326X/00 $ - see front matter North and South Carolina Coasts MICHAEL A. MALLIN *, JOANN M. BURKHOLDERà, LAWRENCE B. CAHOON§ and MARTIN H. POSEY Center for Marine Science, University of North Carolina at Wilmington, 5001 Masonboro Loop Road, Wilmington, NC 28409, USA àDepartment of Botany, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7612, USA §Department of Biological Sciences, University of North Carolina at Wilmington, Wilmington, NC 28403, USA This coastal region of North and South Carolina is a sediments with toxic substances, especially of metals and gently sloping plain, containing large riverine estuaries, PCBs at suciently high levels to depress growth of sounds, lagoons, and salt marshes. The most striking some benthic macroinvertebrates. Numerous ®sh kills feature is the large, enclosed sound known as the have been caused by toxic P®esteria outbreaks, and ®sh Albemarle±Pamlico Estuarine System, covering approx- kills and habitat loss have been caused by episodic imately 7530 km2. The coast also has numerous tidal hypoxia and anoxia in rivers and estuaries. Oyster beds creek estuaries ranging from 1 to 10 km in length. This currently are in decline because of overharvesting, high coast has a rapidly growing population and greatly siltation and suspended particulate loads, disease, hyp- increasing point and non-point sources of pollution. oxia, and coastal development. Fisheries monitoring Agriculture is important to the region, swine rearing which began in the late 1970s shows greatest recorded notably increasing fourfold during the 1990s.
    [Show full text]
  • Human Health and Environmental Impacts from Pfiesteria: a Science-Based Rebuttal to Griffith (1999)
    Human Health and Environmental Impacts from Pfiesteria: A Science-Based Rebuttal to Griffith (1999) By: Alan J. Lewitus, Parke A. Rublee, Michael A. Mallin, and Sandra E. Shumway Lewitus, A.J., P.A. Rublee, M.A. Mallin, S.E. Shumway. 1999. Human health and environmental impacts from Pfiesteria: A Science-based rebuttal to Griffith (1999). Human Organization 58(4):455-458. Made available courtesy of Society for Applied Anthropology: http://www.sfaa.net/ ***Reprinted with permission. No further reproduction is authorized without written permission from the Society for Applied Anthropology. This version of the document is not the version of record. Figures and/or pictures may be missing from this format of the document.*** Key words: dinoflagellate, environmental health, fish kill, human health, Pfiesteria, risk analysis Article: David Griffith began his article, ―Exaggerating Environmental Health Risk: The Case of the Toxic Dinoflagellate Pfiesteria‖ (Human Organization 58:119-127). with a quotation by Angell (1995) which notes that assuming a connection between an effect and a cause, and then searching for it, is an inefficient approach that can lead to bias. Griffith clearly implied this was the approach Burkholder and her colleagues took to link Pfiesteria to human health problems. Griffith was in error. The approach Drs. Burkholder. Noga, and others took began with an observation of fish dying in aquaria. followed by identification of the cause as an unknown dinollagellate (Burkholder et al. 1992; Noga et al. 19931. It was then hypothesized that this organism could potentially cause fish kills in the environment. This was followed by its identification in field samples at fish kills (Burkholder et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Autotrophic Picoplankton: Their Presence and Significance in Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 1 Harold G
    ______,...----- Virginia Journal of Science Volume 53, Number 1 Spring 2002 Autotrophic Picoplankton: Their Presence and Significance In Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 1 Harold G. Marshall, Department of Biological Sciences, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia, 23529-0266, U.S.A. During the first half of the 20th century, scientists collecting plankton specimens would use nets having different sized apertures to selectively obtain organisms within various plankton categories. As these net apertures were reduced in size, it was realized that there were numerous microscopic cells capable of passing through the smallest openings of these nets (Lohmann, 1911 ). The presence of these very small cells was later reported at numerous freshwater sites (Rodhe, 19 5 5, Bailey-Watts et al., 1968; Pennak, 1968; Votintsev et al., 1972; Pearl, 1977) and marine locations (Van Baalin, 1962; Saijo, 1964; Saijo and Takesue, 1965; Reynolds, 1973; Banse, 1974; Berman, 1975; etc.). In this early literature, various terms were used to describe these cells (e.g. ultraplankton, olive green cells, µ-algae, nanoplankton, etc.), but it wasn't until Sieburth et al. ( 1978) established a plankton reference classification system based on size, that the term picoplankton began to be used collectively for these microscopic cells. The standard definition of picoplankton refers to cells within the size range of 0.2 to 2.0 microns. This term has since been generally accepted as the category to assign plankton cells that occur singly or within colonies that are within this size range. However, one of the initial concerns in algal studies was the inability to distinguish many of the bacteria, cyanobacteria, and eukaryotes in this category with similar characteristics, and to specifically identify the heterotrophs from autotrophs when limited to standard light microscopy protocols.
    [Show full text]
  • Aquatic Invasive Species Literature Review C
    Dinoflagellate “Cell from Hell”; “Ambush Predator”; “Phantom Dinoflagellate” I. Current Status and Distribution Pfiesteria piscicida a. Range Global/Continental Wisconsin Native Range Native to United States coasts1 Not recorded in Wisconsin1,2 Figure 1: U.S. Distribution Map1 Abundance/Range Widespread: Brackish coastal waters from Delaware Not applicable to North Carolina1 Locally Abundant: Undocumented Not applicable Sparse: Undocumented Not applicable Range Expansion Date Introduced: Not introduced; believed to be native1 Not applicable Rate of Spread: First discovered in 19881,3; estimated 1 Not applicable billion fish killed in fall 19914; has not been found in freshwater lakes, streams, or other inland water1,2 Density Risk of Monoculture: Undocumented Unknown Facilitated By: Undocumented Unknown b. Habitat Warm, brackish, poorly flushed waters, high levels of nutrients1 Tolerance Chart of tolerances: Increasingly dark color indicates increasingly optimal range2,5 ,6 Preferences Shallow, brackish, slow-moving waters (typical of estuaries); temperature of 75°F; abundant fish population; high levels of nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorous)7 Page 1 of 5 Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources – Aquatic Invasive Species Literature Review c. Regulation Noxious/Regulated: Not regulated Minnesota Regulations: Not regulated Michigan Regulations: Not regulated Washington Regulations: Not regulated II. Establishment Potential and Life History Traits a. Life History Marine/estuarine dinoflagellate1; flagellated, amoeboid, and cyst stages8 Fecundity Undocumented Reproduction Sexual; Asexual; highly complex life cycle, 24 reported forms, several of which can produce toxins1 Importance of Gametes: Produces anisogamous gametes (sexual)5 Vegetative: Produces temporary cysts (asexual)5 Hybridization Undocumented Overwintering Winter Tolerance: Cysts can stay dormant in sediment2; undocumented cyst temperature tolerance Phenology: Potentially a problem from April through October9 b.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 1 Fish Diseases and Parasites
    Advances in Fish Diseases and Disorders Diagnosis and Treatment Steve C Singer Editor ANMOL PUBLICATIONS PVT. LTD. NEW DELHI-110 002 (INDIA) ANMOL PUBLICATIONS PVT. LTD. Regd. Office: 4360/4, Ansari Road, Daryaganj, New Delhi-110002 (India) Tel.: 23278000, 23261597, 23286875, 23255577 Fax: 91-11-23280289 Email: [email protected] Visit us at: www.anmolpublications.com Branch Office: No. 1015, Ist Main Road, BSK IIIrd Stage IIIrd Phase, IIIrd Block, Bengaluru-560 085 (India) Tel.: 080-41723429 • Fax: 080-26723604 Email: [email protected] Advances in Fish Diseases and Disorders: Diagnosis and Treatment © 2013 ISBN: 978-81-261-5160-8 Editor: Steve C Singer No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without prior written permission of the publisher. Reasonable efforts have been made to publish reliable data and information, but the authors, editors, and the publisher cannot assume responsibility for the legality of all materials or the consequences of their use. The authors, editors, and the publisher have attempted to trace the copyright holders of all materials in this publication and express regret to copyright holders if permission to publish has not been obtained. If any copyright material has not been acknowledged, let us know so we may rectify in any future reprint. PRINTED IN INDIA Printed at Avantika Printers Private Limited, New Delhi Contents Preface vii 1. Fish Diseases and Parasites 1 Disease • Parasites • Mass Die Offs • Cleaner Fish • Wild Salmon • Farmed Salmon • Aquarium Fish • Spreading Disease and Parasites • Eating Raw Fish • Aeromonas Salmonicida • Columnaris • Enteric Redmouth Disease • Fin Rot 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Report of the Working Group on Pathology and Diseases of Marine Organisms (WGPDMO)
    ICES WGPDMO REPORT 2015 SCICOM STEERING GROUP ON ECOSYSTEM PRESSURES AND IMPACTS ICES CM 2015/SSGEPI:01 REF. ACOM, SCICOM Report of the Working Group on Pathology and Diseases of Marine Organisms (WGPDMO) 24-28 February 2015 Helsinki, Finland International Council for the Exploration of the Sea Conseil International pour l’Exploration de la Mer H. C. Andersens Boulevard 44–46 DK-1553 Copenhagen V Denmark Telephone (+45) 33 38 67 00 Telefax (+45) 33 93 42 15 www.ices.dk [email protected] Recommended format for purposes of citation: ICES. 2015. Report of the Working Group on Pathology and Diseases of Marine Or- ganisms (WGPDMO), 24–28 February 2015, Helsinki, Finland. ICES CM 2015/SSGEPI:01. 124 pp. For permission to reproduce material from this publication, please apply to the Gen- eral Secretary. The document is a report of an Expert Group under the auspices of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea and does not necessarily represent the views of the Council. © 2015 International Council for the Exploration of the Sea ICES WGPDMO REPORT 2015 | i Contents Executive summary ................................................................................................................ 1 1 Administrative details .................................................................................................. 2 2 Terms of Reference a) – z) ............................................................................................ 2 3 Summary of Work plan ................................................................................................ 3 4 Summary of Achievements of the WG during 3-year term ................................... 4 5 Final report on ToRs, workplan and Science Implementation Plan .................... 5 5.1 Produce an update of new disease trends in wild and cultured fish, molluscs and crustaceans based on national reports (ToR a)................. 5 5.2 Parasites and other infectious agents in marine finfish and shellfish species posing a hazard to human health (ToR b) ........................................
    [Show full text]
  • Pfiesteria Piscicida, Toxic Dinoflagellate: Facts, Life Cycle
    http://www.MetaPathogen.com: Pfiesteria piscicida, toxic dinoflagellate cellular organisms - Eukaryota - Alveolata - Dinophyceae - Peridiniales - Pfiesteriaceae - Pfiesteria - Pfiesteria piscicida 1. Genera information 2. Introduction to dinoflagellates 3. Pfiesteria brief facts 4. Pfiesteria discovery 5. Human health implications 6. Pfiesteria general biology 7. Pfiesteria life cycle controversy 8. Pfiesteria toxicity controversy 9. Pfiesteria piscicida life forms by Burkholder JM, Glasgow HB Jr. (1997) 10. Pfiesteria piscicida life cycle by Litaker et al. (2002) 11. References 1. General informaiton Pfiesteria spp. and Pfiesteria-like organisms belong to class Dinophyceae (synonym Pyrrhophyta), dinoflagellates. Dinoflagellates are organisms whose dominant stage is unarmored or armored flagellated zoospore. Armor consists of thecal (wall) plates. Their arrangment is most important morphological characteristic for taxonomic placement of the dinoflagellates. Pfiesteria spp. are small (~10-20 µm in length) lightly armored heterotrophic dinoflagellates, typically with a dinokaryon (dinoflagellate nucleus) in the hypocone (region of a dinoflagellate cell posterior to the girdle) and food vacuoles in the epicone (region of a dinoflagellate cell anterior to the girdle). 2. Introduction: dinoflagellates ● The dinoflagellates are a major marine phytoplankton group found in high energy aquatic biosystems. They are the major agents causing Harmful Algal Bloom (HAB) and are also the symbionts of corals. Despite of the autotrophic nature of many dinoflagellates, the group is phylogenetically affiliated with obligate parasites Plasmodium falsiparum (malaria) and Toxoplasma gondii (toxoplasmosis). ● The dinoflagellates are characterized by the presence of one or two flagella which propel the organisms in a rotating manner through the water. Each flagellum is located in a groove on the cell surface. One flagellum encircles the cell and is flattened like a ribbon; the other one is whip-like and extends beyond the posterior end of the cell.
    [Show full text]
  • An Overview of Harmful Algal Blooms and Human Health
    An Overview of Harmful Algal Blooms and Human Health Lora E Fleming MD PhD MPH MSc Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs) Definition: • “Red/Brown/Yellow/etc Tides” • Proliferation of microscopic organisms • Marine, fresh & estuarine waters • Potential danger to: – Environment – Wildlife – Humans Harmful Algal Bloom Causes of HABs? DEPENDS on Individual Organism!!!! • Environmental/Biological factors • ?Anthropogenic Factors – ?Human Interactions – ?Pollution & Nutrients – ?Global Change Causes of HABs • Microscopic organisms • “Harm” = – Oxygen deprivation – Natural Toxin- production HAB Toxins • Natural Toxins – Harmful in minute (picogram) doses • Can NOT be – detected • No taste or smell – eliminated • Heat and acid stable • Cleaning, storage, cooking • Work at cellular level Ciguatoxin Effects on the Sodium Channel in Nerve Cells Nerve Cell Economic Costs of HABs US 1987-1992: > $449,291,987 – Public Health – Commercial Fisheries – Recreation & Tourism – Monitoring & Management – Anderson, Hoagland et al (2000/2002) HAB Human Diseases: Routes of Exposure Seafood Consumption • Conflicting Health Advice & Data • Bivalve Consumption (FAO 2004) – France & Norway 35% consume 1-11x/yr = 4.2 “eating occasions”/yr – US 8.6 “eating occasions”/yr • Seafood Consumption (NAS 2007) – US > 16 lbs/person/yr • Subpopulation & Individual Variability HAB Human Diseases: Air/Water Exposure HAB Known Human Diseases HAB Known Human Diseases • Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning (PSP) • Neurotoxic Shellfish Poisoning (NSP) • Diarrheic Shellfish Poisoning (DSP) • Amnesiac
    [Show full text]
  • Symposium on Harmful Marine Algae in the U.S
    Symposium on Harmful Marine Algae in the U.S. December 4-9, 2000 Symposium Agenda, Abstracts and Participants Marine Biological Laboratory Woods Hole, Massachusetts Symposium Director: Donald M. Anderson Symposium Coordinator: Judy Kleindinst Steering Committee: Don Anderson Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Dan Baden University of North Carolina, Wilmington Sue Banahan NOAA, National Ocean Service, Silver Spring JoAnn Burkholder North Carolina State University Pat Glibert University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science John Heisler EPA, Oceans and Coastal Protection Division Dennis McGillicuddy Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Chris Scholin Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute Kevin Sellner NOAA, Coastal Ocean Program, Silver Spring Rick StumpfNOAA, National Ocean Service, Silver Spring Pat Tester NOAA, National Ocean Service, Beaufort Fran VanDolah NOAA, National Ocean Service, Charleston Tracy Villareal The University of Texas at Austin Session Coordinators/Chairs: (Note: Names of Session Chairs are underlined) ECOHAB – Florida: Karen Steidinger, Pat Tester, Fran VanDolah Gulf of Mexico HABs Quay Dortch, Tracy Villareal Pfiesteria – NC, SC, FL JoAnn Burkholder, Jan Landsberg, Alan Lewitus, Wayne Litaker Pfiesteria – DE, MD, VA Pat Glibert, Dave Oldach, Jeff Shields West Coast HABs Rita Horner, Chris Scholin, Vera Trainer Non-regional HABs Kevin Sellner, Tracy Villareal ECOHAB – GOM Don Anderson, Dave Townsend Brown Tides Sue Banahan, Greg Boyer, Cornelia Schlenk Sponsors: U.S. National Office for Marine Biotoxins and Harmful Algae California Sea Grant College Maryland Sea Grant College Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences NOAA / Coastal Ocean Program NOAA / Center for Coastal Monitoring and Assessment National Sea Grant Office New York Sea Grant College South Carolina Sea Grant Consortium Virginia Sea Grant College Symposium on Harmful Marine Algae in the U.S.
    [Show full text]