DOCSLIB.ORG

Assessing the Effects of Freshwater Inflows and Other Key Drivers

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Assessing the Effects of Freshwater Inflows and Other Key Drivers AsSEssING THE EFFECTS OF FRESHWATER INFLOWS AND OTHER KEY DRIVERS ON THE POPULATION DYNAMICS OF BLUE CRAB AND WHITE SHRIMP USING A MuLTIvARIATE TIME- SERIES MODELING fRAMEwoRK Principal Investigator Dr. Edward J. Buskey Research Coordinator, Mission-Aransas National Estuarine Research Reserve Professor, Department of Marine Science, The University of Texas at Austin Co-Principal Investigators Dr. Lindsay P. Scheef Research Associate, Mission-Aransas National Estuarine Research Reserve Dr. Jianhong Xue Research Associate, Mission-Aransas National Estuarine Research Reserve PURSUANT To SENATE BILL 1 AS APPROVED BY THE 83RD TEXAS LEGISLATURE, THIS STUDYREPORT WAS FUNDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF STUDYING ENVIRONMENTAL FLO WNEEDS FOR TEXASRIVERS AND ESTUARIESASPARTOF THEADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PHASE OF THE SENATE BILL 3 PROCESS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL FLOWS ESTABLISHED BY THE 80TH TEXAS LEGISLA TURE. THE VIEWS AND CONCLUSIONS EXPRESSED HEREIN ARE THOSE OF THE AUTHOR(S) AND DO NOT NECESSARILYREFLECT THE VIEWS Of THE TEXAS WA TER DEVELOPMENT BOARD. final Report Sponsor Research Project ID: 1400011712 Sponsored by Texas Water Development Board September 2015 Department of Marine Science The University of Texas at Austin Port Aransas, Texas 78373 I ii ABSTRACT Natural freshwater inflow (FWI) from rivers, streams, and rainfall maintains nutrients, sediments, and salinity regimes within estuaries. These factors, together, produce a healthy and sustainable estuary for juvenile and adult finfish and invertebrates that utilize an estuary for foraging, refuge, and reproduction. Other key drivers, such as droughts and human contributed impacts have negative effects on estuaries. Reduced FWI can affect the population dynamics of commercially and ecologically important species such as blue crab, Callinectes sapidus, and white shrimp, Litopenaeus setiferus. Past studies have indicated that less FWI is reaching the Texas coast, but little work has been done to evaluate the impacts of inflow variability on focal species inhabiting Mission-Aransas and Guadalupe estuaries. This two-part report 1) reviews studies related to blue crab and white shrimp abundances in the Mission-Aransas and Guadalupe estuaries, and 2) describes a multivariate autoregressive (MAR) analysis of the long-term Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) fisheries independent survey species abundance data done to assess the effects of FWI and other potential drivers on local abundances of blue crab and white shrimp in the Mission-Aransas and Guadalupe estuaries. iii Acknowledgements This work was funded by Texas Water Development Board #1400011712. We thank several anonymous reviewers who contributed substantial time and efforts to provide constructive comments on the manuscript. Caimee Schoenbaechler of TWDB is acknowledged for helpful assistance. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I: LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................................................... 1 List of Figures ............................................................................................................................. 2 List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... 3 1.0.0 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 4 2.0.0 Changes in FWI ................................................................................................................. 6 2.1.0 Causes .............................................................................................................................. 6 2.2.0 Potential impacts in an estuarine system ......................................................................... 6 3.0.0 FWI in Mission-Aransas and Guadalupe estuaries ........................................................ 7 3.1.0 Data sources ..................................................................................................................... 7 3.2.0 General assessment of FWI rate: historic and current ..................................................... 8 3.3.0 Seasonal variation of FWI ............................................................................................. 11 3.4.0 Subsequent changes in salinity ...................................................................................... 12 4.0.0 Blue crab ........................................................................................................................... 14 4.1.0 Life cycle ....................................................................................................................... 14 4.2.0 Ecological interaction .................................................................................................... 14 4.3.0 The blue crab in Mission-Aransas and Guadalupe estuaries ......................................... 17 4.3.1 Data sources 17 4.3.2 General assessment of blue crab abundance 18 4.3.3 Geographical and seasonal variation of blue crab 19 4.3.4 Dependency on FWI and salinity 21 4.3.5 Other potential drivers 22 5.0.0 White shrimp ................................................................................................................... 23 5.1.0 Life cycle ....................................................................................................................... 23 5.2.0 Ecological interaction .................................................................................................... 24 5.3.0 The white shrimp in Mission-Aransas and Guadalupe estuaries ................................... 25 5.3.1 Data sources 25 5.3.2 General assessment of white shrimp abundance 25 5.3.3 Geographical and seasonal variation of white shrimp 26 5.3.4 Dependency on FWI and salinity 26 5.3.5 Other potential drivers 28 v 6.0.0 Environmental management implications .................................................................... 30 7.0.0 Summary .......................................................................................................................... 37 8.0.0 Future issues ..................................................................................................................... 39 References ................................................................................................................................. 40 PART II: DATA ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................ 51 List of Figures ........................................................................................................................... 52 List of Tables ............................................................................................................................. 55 1.0.0 Overview ........................................................................................................................... 56 2.0.0 Background ...................................................................................................................... 57 2.1.0 Texas Parks and Wildlife Department coastal monitoring data..................................... 57 2.2.0 Previous studies ............................................................................................................. 57 2.3.0 Potential drivers of abundance ....................................................................................... 58 2.4.0 Assessment of community drivers with MAR models .................................................. 58 3.0.0 Methods ............................................................................................................................ 60 3.1.0 Data acquisition ............................................................................................................. 60 3.2.0 Data assessment ............................................................................................................. 60 3.3.0 Data preparation ............................................................................................................. 60 3.3.1 Variable selection 60 3.3.2 Spatial divisions 63 3.3.3 Temporal divisions 63 3.3.4 Transformations 63 3.4.0 MAR model formulation................................................................................................ 64 4.0.0 Analysis and Results ........................................................................................................ 65 4.1.0 Trends ............................................................................................................................ 65 4.2.0 Correlations .................................................................................................................... 70 4.3.0 Models............................................................................................................................ 73 4.3.1 Environmental models 75 4.3.2 Blue crab models 77 4.3.3 White shrimp models 83 5.0.0 Conclusions ...................................................................................................................... 88 vi 6.0.0 Future Directions ............................................................................................................. 89 References ................................................................................................................................. 90 Appendix A ...............................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Final Master Document Draft EFH EIS Gulf
    Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Generic Essential Fish Habitat Amendment to the following fishery management plans of the Gulf of Mexico (GOM): SHRIMP FISHERY OF THE GULF OF MEXICO RED DRUM FISHERY OF THE GULF OF MEXICO REEF FISH FISHERY OF THE GULF OF MEXICO STONE CRAB FISHERY OF THE GULF OF MEXICO CORAL AND CORAL REEF FISHERY OF THE GULF OF MEXICO SPINY LOBSTER FISHERY OF THE GULF OF MEXICO AND SOUTH ATLANTIC COASTAL MIGRATORY PELAGIC RESOURCES OF THE GULF OF MEXICO AND SOUTH ATLANTIC VOLUME 1: TEXT March 2004 Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council The Commons at Rivergate 3018 U.S. Highway 301 North, Suite 1000 Tampa, Florida 33619-2266 Tel: 813-228-2815 (toll-free 888-833-1844), FAX: 813-225-7015 E-mail: [email protected] This is a publication of the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council pursuant to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Award No. NA17FC1052. COVER SHEET Environmental Impact Statement for the Generic Essential Fish Habitat Amendment to the fishery management plans of the Gulf of Mexico Draft () Final (X) Type of Action: Administrative (x) Legislative ( ) Area of Potential Impact: Areas of tidally influenced waters and substrates of the Gulf of Mexico and its estuaries in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida extending out to the limit of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) Agency: HQ Contact: Region Contacts: U.S. Department of Commerce Steve Kokkinakis David Dale NOAA Fisheries NOAA-Strategic Planning (N/SP) (727)570-5317 Southeast Region Building SSMC3, Rm. 15532 David Keys 9721 Executive Center Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Shrimp Fishing in Mexico
    235 Shrimp fishing in Mexico Based on the work of D. Aguilar and J. Grande-Vidal AN OVERVIEW Mexico has coastlines of 8 475 km along the Pacific and 3 294 km along the Atlantic Oceans. Shrimp fishing in Mexico takes place in the Pacific, Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean, both by artisanal and industrial fleets. A large number of small fishing vessels use many types of gear to catch shrimp. The larger offshore shrimp vessels, numbering about 2 212, trawl using either two nets (Pacific side) or four nets (Atlantic). In 2003, shrimp production in Mexico of 123 905 tonnes came from three sources: 21.26 percent from artisanal fisheries, 28.41 percent from industrial fisheries and 50.33 percent from aquaculture activities. Shrimp is the most important fishery commodity produced in Mexico in terms of value, exports and employment. Catches of Mexican Pacific shrimp appear to have reached their maximum. There is general recognition that overcapacity is a problem in the various shrimp fleets. DEVELOPMENT AND STRUCTURE Although trawling for shrimp started in the late 1920s, shrimp has been captured in inshore areas since pre-Columbian times. Magallón-Barajas (1987) describes the lagoon shrimp fishery, developed in the pre-Hispanic era by natives of the southeastern Gulf of California, which used barriers built with mangrove sticks across the channels and mouths of estuaries and lagoons. The National Fisheries Institute (INP, 2000) and Magallón-Barajas (1987) reviewed the history of shrimp fishing on the Pacific coast of Mexico. It began in 1921 at Guaymas with two United States boats.
    [Show full text]
  • Marine Stewardship Council Pre-Assessment
    10051 5th Street N., Suite 105 St. Petersburg, Florida 33702-2211 Tel: (727) 563-9070 Fax: (727) 563-0207 Em ail: MRAG.Americas@m ragam ericas.com President: Andrew A. Rosenberg, Ph.D. Pre-Assessment of the Louisiana Shrimp Fishery Prepared for Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Prepared by MRAG Americas, Inc. Robert J. Trumble January 2016 Table of Contents 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................... 2 1.1. Aims/scope of pre-assessment ............................................................................ 2 1.2 Constraints to the pre-assessment of the fishery ................................................. 3 1.3. Unit(s) of Assessment ......................................................................................... 3 1.4 Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and Catch Data ...................................................... 3 2. Description of the fishery ................................................................................................ 4 2.1. Scope of the fishery in relation to the MSC programme ....................................... 4 2.2. Overview of the fishery ........................................................................................ 4 2.3. Principle One: Target species background .......................................................... 4 2.4. Principle Two: Ecosystem background ................................................................ 5 2.5. Principle Three: Management system background
    [Show full text]
  • NMFS 2010 Essential Fish Habitat, TN186
    Essential Fish Habitat: A Marine Fish Habitat Conservation Mandate For Federal Agencies Gulf of Mexico Region National Marine Fisheries Service Habitat Conservation Division Southeast Regional Office 263 13th Avenue S. St. Petersburg, FL 33701 727/824-5317 REV. 09/2010 1 Executive Summary The 1996 amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) set forth a new mandate for NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), regional fishery management councils (FMC), and other federal agencies to identify and protect important marine and anadromous fish habitat. The essential fish habitat (EFH) provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act support one of the nation’s overall marine resource management goals - maintaining sustainable fisheries. Essential to achieving this goal is the maintenance of suitable marine fishery habitat quality and quantity. The FMCs, with assistance from NMFS, have delineated EFH for federally managed species. As new fishery management plans (FMPs) are developed, EFH for newly managed species will be defined as well. Federal action agencies which fund, permit, or carry out activities that may adversely affect EFH are required to consult with NMFS regarding the potential impacts of their actions on EFH and respond in writing to NMFS or FMC recommendations. In addition, NMFS and the FMCs may comment on and make recommendations to any state agency on their activities that may affect EFH. Measures recommended by NMFS or an FMC to protect EFH are advisory, not proscriptive. On December 19, 1997, interim final rules, which specified procedures for implementation of the EFH provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, were published in the Federal Register.
    [Show full text]
  • Balanus Trigonus
    Nauplius ORIGINAL ARTICLE THE JOURNAL OF THE Settlement of the barnacle Balanus trigonus BRAZILIAN CRUSTACEAN SOCIETY Darwin, 1854, on Panulirus gracilis Streets, 1871, in western Mexico e-ISSN 2358-2936 www.scielo.br/nau 1 orcid.org/0000-0001-9187-6080 www.crustacea.org.br Michel E. Hendrickx Evlin Ramírez-Félix2 orcid.org/0000-0002-5136-5283 1 Unidad académica Mazatlán, Instituto de Ciencias del Mar y Limnología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. A.P. 811, Mazatlán, Sinaloa, 82000, Mexico 2 Oficina de INAPESCA Mazatlán, Instituto Nacional de Pesca y Acuacultura. Sábalo- Cerritos s/n., Col. Estero El Yugo, Mazatlán, 82112, Sinaloa, Mexico. ZOOBANK http://zoobank.org/urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:74B93F4F-0E5E-4D69- A7F5-5F423DA3762E ABSTRACT A large number of specimens (2765) of the acorn barnacle Balanus trigonus Darwin, 1854, were observed on the spiny lobster Panulirus gracilis Streets, 1871, in western Mexico, including recently settled cypris (1019 individuals or 37%) and encrusted specimens (1746) of different sizes: <1.99 mm, 88%; 1.99 to 2.82 mm, 8%; >2.82 mm, 4%). Cypris settled predominantly on the carapace (67%), mostly on the gastric area (40%), on the left or right orbital areas (35%), on the head appendages, and on the pereiopods 1–3. Encrusting individuals were mostly small (84%); medium-sized specimens accounted for 11% and large for 5%. On the cephalothorax, most were observed in branchial (661) and orbital areas (240). Only 40–41 individuals were found on gastric and cardiac areas. Some individuals (246), mostly small (95%), were observed on the dorsal portion of somites.
    [Show full text]
  • Presence of Pacific White Shrimp Litopenaeus Vannamei (Boone, 1931) in the Southern Gulf of Mexico
    Aquatic Invasions (2011) Volume 6, Supplement 1: S139–S142 doi: 10.3391/ai.2011.6.S1.031 Open Access © 2011 The Author(s). Journal compilation © 2011 REABIC Aquatic Invasions Records Presence of Pacific white shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei (Boone, 1931) in the Southern Gulf of Mexico Armando T. Wakida-Kusunoki1*, Luis Enrique Amador-del Angel2, Patricia Carrillo Alejandro1 and Cecilia Quiroga Brahms1 1Instituto Nacional de Pesca, Ave. Héroes del 21 de Abril s/n. Col Playa Norte, Ciudad del Carmen Campeche, México 2Universidad Autónoma del Carmen, Centro de Investigación de Ciencias Ambientales (CICA), Ave. Laguna de Términos s/n Col. Renovación 2da Sección, C.P. 24155, Ciudad del Carmen, Campeche, México E-mail: [email protected] (ATWK), [email protected] (LEAA), [email protected] (PCA), [email protected] (CQB) *Corresponding author Received: 12 July 2011 / Accepted: 12 October 2011 / Published online: 27 October 2011 Abstract This is the first report of the presence of Pacific white shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei in the Southern Gulf of Mexico coast. Seven specimens were collected in the Carmen-Pajonal-Machona lagoons near La Azucena and Sanchez Magallanes in Tabasco, Mexico, during a shrimp monitoring program survey conducted in this area. Further sampling and monitoring are required to find evidence that confirms the establishment of a population of Pacific white shrimp L. vannamei in Southern Gulf of Mexico. Key words: Litopenaeus vannamei, Pacific white shrimp, invasive species, Tabasco, Mexico Introduction covering 319.6 ha (Diario Oficial de la Federacion 2011). Almost all of these farms are Litopenaeus vannamei (Boone, 1931) is native to located in the Southern part of the Machona the Eastern Pacific coast from the Gulf of Lagoon.
    [Show full text]
  • Crustacean Resources in The
    Cover photos courtesy of The Southeastern Regional Taxonomic Center (SERTC), South Carolina Department of Natural Resources Research Needs for the Sustainable Management of Crustacean Resources in the South Atlantic Bight. Report from a workshop held at the Marine Resources Research Institute Charleston, South Carolina April 9-10, 2014 Authored by Jeff Brunson, Peter Kingsley-Smith, John Leffler, Blaik Keppler, Amy Fowler, Larry DeLancey and David Whitaker. South Carolina Department of Natural Resources TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 RATIONALE AND OVERVIEW OF WORKSHOP 6 LIST OF WORKSHOP ATTENDEES 7 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 8 WORKSHOP AGENDA 9 IDENTIFICATION OF RESEARCH PRIORITIES 10 Blue crabs Disease 10 Habitat Condition and Loss 11 Climate Change 12 Stock Assessment 14 Penaeid shrimp Disease 16 Habitat Condition and Loss 18 Climate Change 19 Stock Assessment 21 Commercial Fisheries 22 Horseshoe crabs Disease 23 Habitat Condition and Loss 23 Climate Change 24 Stock Assessment 24 Fishery and Industry Practices 25 Stone crabs Hybrids 25 Disease 25 Habitat Condition and Loss 26 Climate Change 26 Stock Assessment 26 Fishery Practices 27 RESOURCE MANAGER PANEL SUMMARY 28 AREAS OF EXPERTISE OF WORKSHOP ATTENDEES 30 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY While the management authority for crustacean fisheries generally resides with individual states, crustacean resources are often interconnected within the region of the South Atlantic Bight. Declines among certain economically-important crustacean fisheries (i.e., blue crabs and shrimp) have been reported for both fishery-dependent and fishery-independent data region-wide since 2000. This workshop provided an opportunity for state resource managers and researchers to discuss issues affecting those fisheries and to attempt to identify approaches and resources for addressing the concerns raised.
    [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]
  • Rearing European Brown Shrimp (Crangon Crangon, Linnaeus 1758)
    Reviews in Aquaculture (2014) 6, 1–21 doi: 10.1111/raq.12068 Rearing European brown shrimp (Crangon crangon, Linnaeus 1758): a review on the current status and perspectives for aquaculture Daan Delbare1, Kris Cooreman1 and Guy Smagghe2 1 Animal Science Unit, Research Group Aquaculture, Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research (ILVO), Ostend, Belgium 2 Department of Crop Protection, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium Correspondence Abstract Daan Delbare, Animal Science Unit, Research Group Aquaculture, Institute for Agricultural The European brown shrimp, Crangon crangon, is a highly valued commercial and Fisheries Research (ILVO), Ankerstraat 1, species fished in the north-eastern Atlantic, especially the North Sea. The shrimp 8400 Ostend, Belgium. fisheries are mainly coastal and exert high pressures on the local ecosystems, Email: [email protected] including estuaries. The culture of the species provides an alternative to supply a niche market (large live/fresh shrimps) in a sustainable manner. However, after Received 5 February 2014; accepted 5 June more than a century of biological research on this species, there is still little 2014. knowledge on its optimal rearing conditions. C. crangon remains a difficult spe- cies to keep alive and healthy for an extended period of time in captivity. This review is based on a comprehensive literature search and reflects on the current status of experimental rearing techniques used for this species, identifies the prob- lems that compromise the closing of the life cycle in captivity and provides exam- ples on how these problem issues were solved in the culture of commercial shrimp species or other crustaceans.
    [Show full text]
  • S38 RD 13 Near-Shore Commercial Shrimp Trawl
    INTERSTATE FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION FOR NORTH CAROLINA: Study II: Documentation and Reduction of Bycatch in North Carolina Fisheries Job 3: Characterization of the near-shore commercial shrimp trawl fishery from Carteret County to Brunswick County, North Carolina K. Brown SEDAR38-RD-13 March 2014 INTERSTATE FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION FOR NORTH CAROLINA By Kevin Brown Completion Report for NOAA Award No. NA05NMF4741003 Study II DOCUMENTATION AND REDUCTION OF BYCATCH IN NORTH CAROLINA FISHERIES JOB 3: Characterization of the near-shore commercial shrimp trawl fishery from Carteret County to Brunswick County, North Carolina April 2009 Abstract Observations were made of commercial shrimp trawl fisheries in the near shore waters of North Carolina from Carteret County to Brunswick County from 1 July 2007 to 30 June 2008. These observations were used to characterize the fishery and determine relative effort and discards of weakfish (Cynoscion regalis), spotted sea trout (Cynoscion nebulosus), spot (Leiostomus xanthurus), Atlantic croaker (Micropogonias undulatus), bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix), Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus), southern flounder (Paralichthys lethostigma), and striped mullet (Mugil cephalus) as well as other federally and state managed species of finfish. Observations were made on 143 trips, consisting of 314 tows. Two different net types were observed: double seamed nets and tongue nets. The three commercially important species of shrimp (brown, white, pink) (Farfantepenaeus aztecus, Litopenaeus setiferus, F. duorarum) represented 21% of the total observed catch by weight. Atlantic croaker and spot were the most abundant finfish bycatch, representing 25% and 7% of the total observed catch by weight, respectively. Weakfish represented the largest regulatory discard by weight in both net types.
    [Show full text]
  • Effect of Feed Additives on Amino Acid and Dipeptide Transport By
    UNF Digital Commons UNF Graduate Theses and Dissertations Student Scholarship 2014 Effect of Feed Additives on Amino Acid and Dipeptide Transport by Intestines of American Lobster and Atlantic White Shrimp Maria Louise Peterson University of North Florida Suggested Citation Peterson, Maria Louise, "Effect of Feed Additives on Amino Acid and Dipeptide Transport by Intestines of American Lobster and Atlantic White Shrimp" (2014). UNF Graduate Theses and Dissertations. 497. https://digitalcommons.unf.edu/etd/497 This Master's Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Scholarship at UNF Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in UNF Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of UNF Digital Commons. For more information, please contact Digital Projects. © 2014 All Rights Reserved Effect of Feed Additives on Amino Acid and Dipeptide Transport by Intestines of American Lobster and Atlantic White Shrimp by Maria Louise Peterson A thesis submitted to the Department of Biology in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Biology UNIVERSITY OF NORTH FLORIDA COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES April, 2014 Unpublished work © Maria Louise Peterson CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL The thesis submitted by Maria Louise Peterson is approved: (Date) _____________________________________ _______________ Dr. Gregory Ahearn Committee Chair Person _____________________________________ _______________ Dr. Amy Lane _____________________________________ _______________ Dr. Julie Richmond
    [Show full text]
  • Fishing in the Gulf of Mexico: Towards Greater Biomass in Exploitation
    FISHING IN THE GULF OF MEXICO: TOWARDS GREATER BIOMASS IN EXPLOITATION Virgilio Arenas Fuentes and Lourdes Jiménez Badillo INTRODUCTION The form, magnitude and lack of control over fishing activities worldwide pose an issue for global ecology that requires immediate attention. The ecological value and environmental services at risk must be reviewed. Overinvestment, excessive fishing effort, biological overfishing, inoperative regulation, etc., are added to the destruction of coastal ecosystems, multifocal pollution and recreational shoreline fishing. According to recent data (Myers and Worm 2003), stocks of high trophic level fish species have been reduced by over 90%, representing over 30% of total marine production. The coastal zone lacks effective mechanisms of protection. The Gulf of Mexico is not immune from this situation. Fishing is carried out in all environments and ecosystems, with little regulation. The value of the populations that inhabit the coastal lagoons is evident, as well as their connectivity with other ecosystems. Focus on integral management of the coastal zone, including the neritic zone as a border to the sea and the hydrological basin toward the coast, constitutes an alternative approach to the problem. The objective should be to break the vicious cycle where constantly increasing global demand reduces biomass and prices increase, resulting in increased fishing effort. In this sense, the objective should be to recover biomass lost to overfishing and habitat destruction, with the benefit of restoring ecosystem services and obtaining better economic results. At present there is sufficient technological development for this to be feasible without a large investment and it is important to formally subordinate regulation and fishing management to integral management of the coastal zone.
    [Show full text]