DOCSLIB.ORG

Ecola Pt MCA 12.19.20 Reports

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Oregon Ocean Planning Ecola Pt MCA 12.19.20 Reports Size Three Nearest Cities Name Area (Acres) Name Ecola Pt MCA 12.19.20 159.3 Gearhart Total 159.3 Seaside Cannon Beach Adjacent County Shoreline Clatsop county is adjacent to this zone. The selected designated area touches 3.5 miles of shoreline. Islands and Rocks This zone includes 4 acres of offshore islands. Intertidal Area There are 131 islands included within this zone. This zone includes 26 acres of intertidal area in the 0m Sea Level Rise scenario. Substrate Types Average Depth Subtidal Substrates Average Maximum Minimum Name Area (Acres) Area (% of zone) Name Depth Depth (m) Depth (m) Rock 85.2 53.5 (m) Sand 64.5 40.5 Ecola Pt MCA 12.19.20 1.6 -12 55 Total 149.7 94.0 Positive values for minimum depth represents elevation above mean lower low water. Unusually high values indicate cliff edges that fall within 100m of Intertidal Substrates Mean High Water. Name Area (Acres) Area (% of zone) Unclassified 84.5 53.1 Sea Level Rise Fine Unconsolidated Substrate 29.1 18.3 Sea Level Rise Rock Substrate 7.8 4.9 Sea level rise is predicted to cause the following changes in the intertidal Boulder 2.8 1.7 habitat within this designated area: Coarse Unconsolidated Substrate 0.3 0.2 Sea Level Rise Scenario Remaining Intertidal Habitat (in Acres)* Total 124.4 78.1 0.5 Meters 20.0 1 Meter 15.4 Sea Level Rise Risk 1.5 Meter 10.0 *due to the fact that future intertidal areas may be above present-day MHW, Nearby sites have the following estimated risk from sea level rise (slr) of this analysis is based on intertidal area contained in the unclipped site 0.5, 1.0, and 1.5 meters: polygon. SLR SLR Name SLR 1.5m 0.5m 1.0m Ecola Point Low Low None Marine Mammal Species Indian Beach Low Low Moderate Name Species Haulout Count Ranges for Estimated SLR Risk Levels: Steller sea lions Eumetopias jubatus 1 Increase or Less than 10% Loss (Minor) Northern elephant seals Mirounga angustirostris 1 11-29% Loss (Low) 30-49% Loss (Moderate) California sea lions Zalophus californianus 1 More than 50% Loss (High) Pacific harbor seals Phoca vitulina 1 Total -- 4 Key Species Present Key Species Present Long Term Research Species Found Name Name Bossiella spp Acrosiphonia spp Fucus spp Aglaophenia spp Kornmannia spp Ahnfeltia fastigiata Mazzaella cordata Ahnfeltia spp Mazzaella splendens Name Name Mazzaella spp Ahnfeltiopsis linearis Monostroma spp Ahnfeltiopsis spp Mytilus californianus Alaria marginata Neorhodomela larix Amphissa columbiana Nucella canaliculata Anthopleura artemisia Nucella emarginata Anthopleura elegantissima Nucella ostrina Anthopleura sola Pelvetiopsis spp Anthopleura xanthogrammica Phyllospadix scouleri Antithamnionella spp Pisaster ochraceus Aplidium arenatum Pollicipes polymerus Aplidium californicum Saccharina sessilis Aplidium propinquum Strongylocentrotus purpuratus Aplidium solidum Tegula funebralis Aplidium spp Ulva spp Balanus crenatus Total Balanus glandula No key species found Blue green algae Important Bird Colonies Boringclam Bossiella spp Importance Number of Colonies Bugula spp High 8 Calliarthron spp Medium 317 Callithamnion pikeanum Low 12 Callothrix Total 337 Cancer antennarius High-importance bird colonies are offshore colonies/complexes with ≥ Cancer magister 5,000 breeding birds, OR offshore or mainland colonies with Tufted Puffins, Centroceras spp OR offshore colonies with Leach’s Storm Petrels or Fork-tailed Storm Petrels. Ceramium spp Medium-importance colonies include all rocks, reefs, and islands of Chthamalus dalli Oregon Islands and Three Arch Rocks NWRs with breeding seabirds that Chthamalus fissus were not included in Importance level 1, OR mainland seabird breeding Cladophora columbiana sites with ≥ 1,000 breeding birds. Low-importance colonies are all other colonies. Colonial diatom Colpomenia spp Constantinea simplex Bird Species Present Corallina spp Name Corallophila spp Unidentified cormorant Crustose corallines Pelagic cormorant Cryptopleura spp Double-crested cormorant Cryptosiphonia woodii Brandt's cormorant Derbesia marina Seabirds Desmarestia ligulata Pigeon guillemot Dilsea californica Black oystercatcher Dodecaceria spp Common murre Edulis West./glaucous-winged gull Endarachne spp Endocladia muricata Erythrophyllum delesserioides Critical Habitats Farlowia spp Common Name Species Flustrellidra corniculata Total -- Fucus spp Galloprovincialis Gelidium coulteri Kelp Grateloupia californica Halichondria spp The selected designated area does not overlap with any observed Halymenia spp x kelp areas. Hemigrapsus nudus Hermissenda crassicornis Overlap with Gray Whale Migration Pathways Hildenbrandia spp Hydroid The selected designated area does not overlap with any Gray Whale Hymenena spp x migration pathways. Idotea spp Name Ports Kornmannia spp Lacuna spp The three nearest ports are: Laminaria setchellii Name Distance (Miles) Laminaria sinclairii Port Of Nehalem 14 Leathesia spp Port Of Astoria 18.9 Lirabuccinum dirum Port Of Garibaldi 25 Littorina plena Littorina scutulata Lottia austrodigitalis State Parks Lottia conus The three nearest state parks are: Lottia digitalis Lottia paradigitalis Name Distance (Miles) Lottia pelta Ecola 0 Lottia scabra John Yeon 0.4 Lottia scutum Elmer Feldenheimer 0.4 Lottia strigatella Mastocarpus spp NPDES Outfalls Mazzaella cordata Mazzaella parksii There are 1 NPDES outfalls within 1 mile of this designated area. Mazzaella splendens Mazzaella spp Melanosiphon spp Attendance at Nearby Parks Microcladia borealis Monostroma spp Parking lot visitor counts for nearby OPRD parking lots for the years 2016- 2018: Mytilus californianus Mytilus trossulus Name Bin Trend 2016 2017 2018 Neoptilota spp Ecola State Park 339056 375472 355604 200,000-500,000 Increasing Neorhodomela larix Neorhodomela oregona Overlap with Long Term Research Areas Nucella canaliculata Nucella emarginata The selected designated area overlaps with long term Nucella ostrina research areas. Ocenebra circumtexta Odonthalia floccosa Ophlitaspongia pennata Recreational Activities Osmundea spectabilis Recreational activities in or near this designated area: Pagurus granosimanus Pagurus hirsutiusculus Activity Name Count Pagurus samuelis Beach going (dog walking, kite flying, jogging, etc.) 7 Pelvetiopsis spp Photography 4 Petalonia spp Scenic enjoyment 1 Petrocelis Tide pooling 8 Peyssonnelia spp Total 21 Phaeostrophion spp Watching birds and/or other marine life from shore 1 Phyllospadix scouleri These data are the panel point results from the following studies: Phyllospadix serrulatus Boating Recreational Ocean Users Study. This group aggregated the Phyllospadix torreyi following activities: sailing, power boating, personal water crafts, Pikea spp windsurfing, kite boarding, charter trips, and tow-in surfing The Human-powered group in the Recreational Ocean Users Study. Pisaster ochraceus This group aggregated the following activities: Kayaking, Surfing, Pista spp Swimming, Scuba diving, Snorkeling and Skimboarding. Plocamium oregonum The Shore group of the Recreational Ocean Users Study. This group Plocamium pacificum aggregated the following activities: beach going, hang-gliding, scenic enjoyment, storm watching, biking/hiking, off-road vehicles, and Plocamium violaceum photography. Pollicipes polymerus Additional Shore group of the Recreational Ocean Users Study. This Polysiphonia spp group aggregated the following activities: bird watching, tide-pooling and Potamilla occelata whale watching. Prionitis lanceolata The data were collected to create a baseline of use patterns for Oregon's Prionitis linearis recreational non-consumptive ocean users. These data include only the last trip data collected over the summer of 2010. These data were collected as Prionitis spp part of Oregon's Territorial Sea Plan revision. Prionitis sternbergii Name Pterosiphonia bipinnata Pterosiphonia dendroidea Pterosiphonia pennata Ptilota spp Pugettia gracilis Pugettia producta Pugettia richii Pyropia spp Ralfsiaceae Saccharina sessilis Schizymenia spp Sculpins Scytosiphon spp Semibalanus cariosus Silvetia compressa Smalllimpet Smallmytilusspp Strongylocentrotus purpuratus Tegula funebralis Tiffaniella snyderiae Tonicella lineata Tonicella lokii Printed from SeaSketch, http://www.seasketch.org/#projecthomepage/5c1001699112e049f6T8rfic8e3lla9ria spp Ulva spp Total.
Recommended publications
  • GASTROPOD CARE SOP# = Moll3 PURPOSE: to Describe Methods Of

    GASTROPOD CARE SOP# = Moll3 PURPOSE: to Describe Methods Of

    GASTROPOD CARE SOP# = Moll3 PURPOSE: To describe methods of care for gastropods. POLICY: To provide optimum care for all animals. RESPONSIBILITY: Collector and user of the animals. If these are not the same person, the user takes over responsibility of the animals as soon as the animals have arrived on station. IDENTIFICATION: Common Name Scientific Name Identifying Characteristics Blue topsnail Calliostoma - Whorls are sculptured spirally with alternating ligatum light ridges and pinkish-brown furrows - Height reaches a little more than 2cm and is a bit greater than the width -There is no opening in the base of the shell near its center (umbilicus) Purple-ringed Calliostoma - Alternating whorls of orange and fluorescent topsnail annulatum purple make for spectacular colouration - The apex is sharply pointed - The foot is bright orange - They are often found amongst hydroids which are one of their food sources - These snails are up to 4cm across Leafy Ceratostoma - Spiral ridges on shell hornmouth foliatum - Three lengthwise frills - Frills vary, but are generally discontinuous and look unfinished - They reach a length of about 8cm Rough keyhole Diodora aspera - Likely to be found in the intertidal region limpet - Have a single apical aperture to allow water to exit - Reach a length of about 5 cm Limpet Lottia sp - This genus covers quite a few species of limpets, at least 4 of them are commonly found near BMSC - Different Lottia species vary greatly in appearance - See Eugene N. Kozloff’s book, “Seashore Life of the Northern Pacific Coast” for in depth descriptions of individual species Limpet Tectura sp. - This genus covers quite a few species of limpets, at least 6 of them are commonly found near BMSC - Different Tectura species vary greatly in appearance - See Eugene N.
  • An Annotated Checklist of the Marine Macroinvertebrates of Alaska David T

    An Annotated Checklist of the Marine Macroinvertebrates of Alaska David T

    NOAA Professional Paper NMFS 19 An annotated checklist of the marine macroinvertebrates of Alaska David T. Drumm • Katherine P. Maslenikov Robert Van Syoc • James W. Orr • Robert R. Lauth Duane E. Stevenson • Theodore W. Pietsch November 2016 U.S. Department of Commerce NOAA Professional Penny Pritzker Secretary of Commerce National Oceanic Papers NMFS and Atmospheric Administration Kathryn D. Sullivan Scientific Editor* Administrator Richard Langton National Marine National Marine Fisheries Service Fisheries Service Northeast Fisheries Science Center Maine Field Station Eileen Sobeck 17 Godfrey Drive, Suite 1 Assistant Administrator Orono, Maine 04473 for Fisheries Associate Editor Kathryn Dennis National Marine Fisheries Service Office of Science and Technology Economics and Social Analysis Division 1845 Wasp Blvd., Bldg. 178 Honolulu, Hawaii 96818 Managing Editor Shelley Arenas National Marine Fisheries Service Scientific Publications Office 7600 Sand Point Way NE Seattle, Washington 98115 Editorial Committee Ann C. Matarese National Marine Fisheries Service James W. Orr National Marine Fisheries Service The NOAA Professional Paper NMFS (ISSN 1931-4590) series is pub- lished by the Scientific Publications Of- *Bruce Mundy (PIFSC) was Scientific Editor during the fice, National Marine Fisheries Service, scientific editing and preparation of this report. NOAA, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 98115. The Secretary of Commerce has The NOAA Professional Paper NMFS series carries peer-reviewed, lengthy original determined that the publication of research reports, taxonomic keys, species synopses, flora and fauna studies, and data- this series is necessary in the transac- intensive reports on investigations in fishery science, engineering, and economics. tion of the public business required by law of this Department.
  • Dominance of Three Local Hermit Crabs with Relation to Shell Selection By: Khoury Hickman

    Dominance of Three Local Hermit Crabs with Relation to Shell Selection By: Khoury Hickman

    Dominance of Three Local Hermit Crabs with relation to Shell Selection by: Khoury Hickman INTRODUCTION: Hermit crabs all over the world are faced with the challenge of finding a gastropod shell to call their home. The difficulty is finding a shell that is large enough for them to fit their entire body into, but not too large that they can't carry the shell due to its weight. There are many factors that go into shell selection which include: shell weight, shell volume, overall shell size and the protective properties provided by the shell (McClintock 1985). Since all hermit crabs need a shell to inhabit, competition is also going to factor into their home selection. Therefore, I would hypothesize that in the event of two crabs competing for a shell, there is going to be some type of dominance or hierarchy between different species occupying the same tidal zones. Many types of shells are occupied by hermit crabs, and according to Wilber (1990), hermit crabs are not known to change shell preference with prior experience. This means that regardless of the current home being used, there is no preference to find the same species of shell for a new home. METHODS : I obtained approximately 50 hermit crabs of all different sizes from South Cove, Cape Arago, Charleston, Oregon during a low tide. During collection, I tried to get all three common species: Pagurus granosimanus, Pagurus hirsutiusculus, and Pagurus samuelis. I also tried to collect crabs that inhabited different types of shells, the most common being Tegula funebralis. Other species included Calliostoma ligatum, Ceratostoma foliatum, Nucella emarginata, Nucella lamellose, & Lirabuccinum dirum.
  • Toxic Contaminants in Puget Sound's Nearshore Biota: a Large-Scale Synoptic Survey Using Transplanted Mussels (Mytilus Tross

    Toxic Contaminants in Puget Sound's Nearshore Biota: a Large-Scale Synoptic Survey Using Transplanted Mussels (Mytilus Tross

    Puget Sound Ecosystem Monitoring Program (PSEMP) Toxic Contaminants in Puget Sound’s Nearshore Biota: A Large-Scale Synoptic Survey Using Transplanted Mussels (Mytilus trossulus) Final Report September 4, 2014 Jennifer A. Lanksbury, Laurie A. Niewolny, Andrea J. Carey and James E. West WDFW Report Number FPT 14-08 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................................................................... i LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................................ v LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................................ vii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................... 1 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... 3 1.1 Project Goals ............................................................................................................................................ 4 1.2 Background .............................................................................................................................................. 5 1.2.1 Mussels as Biomonitors ...................................................................................................................
  • Nurse Egg Consumption and Intracapsular Development in the Common Whelk Buccinum Undatum (Linnaeus 1758)

    Nurse Egg Consumption and Intracapsular Development in the Common Whelk Buccinum Undatum (Linnaeus 1758)

    Helgol Mar Res (2013) 67:109–120 DOI 10.1007/s10152-012-0308-1 ORIGINAL ARTICLE Nurse egg consumption and intracapsular development in the common whelk Buccinum undatum (Linnaeus 1758) Kathryn E. Smith • Sven Thatje Received: 29 November 2011 / Revised: 12 April 2012 / Accepted: 17 April 2012 / Published online: 3 May 2012 Ó Springer-Verlag and AWI 2012 Abstract Intracapsular development is common in mar- each capsule during development in the common whelk. ine gastropods. In many species, embryos develop along- The initial differences observed in nurse egg uptake may side nurse eggs, which provide nutrition during ontogeny. affect individual predisposition in later life. The common whelk Buccinum undatum is a commercially important North Atlantic shallow-water gastropod. Devel- Keywords Intracapsular development Á Buccinum opment is intracapsular in this species, with individuals undatum Á Nurse egg partitioning Á Competition Á hatching as crawling juveniles. While its reproductive Reproduction cycle has been well documented, further work is necessary to provide a complete description of encapsulated devel- opment. Here, using B. undatum egg masses from the south Introduction coast of England intracapsular development at 6 °Cis described. Number of eggs, veligers and juveniles per Many marine gastropods undergo intracapsular development capsule are compared, and nurse egg partitioning, timing of inside egg capsules (Thorson 1950; Natarajan 1957;D’Asaro nurse egg consumption and intracapsular size differences 1970; Fretter and Graham 1985). Embryos develop within the through development are discussed. Total development protective walls of a capsule that safeguards against factors took between 133 and 140 days, over which 7 ontogenetic such as physical stress, predation, infection and salinity stages were identified.
  • JULY 2007 Education, Research, Stewardship

    JULY 2007 Education, Research, Stewardship

    Beach Log JULY 2007 Education, Research, Stewardship WSU Beach Watchers P. O. Box 5000 Coupeville WA 98239 360-679-7391 ; 321-5111 or 629-4522 Ext. 7391 FAX 360-678-4120 Camano Office: 121 N. East Camano Dr., Camano Island, WA 98282, 387-3443 ext. 258, email: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Web address: www.beachwatchers.wsu.edu Beach Monitoring Continues Through the Summer Low Tides Camano Island Twelve eager Beach Watchers arrived at Elger Bay on June 13 at the early hour of 8:00 a.m. ready to tackle the first Ca- mano Island intertidal monitoring for 2007. This was a surprising number of volunteers to turn out, considering the cold overcast day. Mary Jo Adams from Whidbey joined us for the adventure. She brought a supply of “Salish Sea Seaweed E-Z ID” charts, which were “hot off the press.” With the overcast, it often was difficult to see the horizon point across the wa- ter. Fortunately, light rain held off until the last minutes of monitoring. We accomplished the task, going out 257 feet to the low tide mark. Half of us did the profile line while the others ex- amined the marine life found in the nine quadrats. After we finished and regrouped at Alice’s house, comments were heard about the wide variety of critters spotted, among them; bald eagle, barnacle-eating nudibranch, tube worm Thelepus crispus, hermit crab, sea star, and mossy chiton. Abundant life ranked high on the list of Beach Watchers highlights for the day, and one declared Elger Bay “the best beach for species.” Another Beach Watcher experienced a first monitoring session that day.
  • Common Sea Life of Southeastern Alaska a Field Guide by Aaron Baldwin & Paul Norwood

    Common Sea Life of Southeastern Alaska a Field Guide by Aaron Baldwin & Paul Norwood

    Common Sea Life of Southeastern Alaska A field guide by Aaron Baldwin & Paul Norwood All pictures taken by Aaron Baldwin Last update 08/15/2015 unless otherwise noted. [email protected] Table of Contents Introduction ….............................................................…...2 Acknowledgements Exploring SE Beaches …………………………….….. …...3 It would be next to impossible to thanks everyone who has helped with Sponges ………………………………………….…….. …...4 this project. Probably the single-most important contribution that has been made comes from the people who have encouraged it along throughout Cnidarians (Jellyfish, hydroids, corals, the process. That is why new editions keep being completed! sea pens, and sea anemones) ……..........................…....8 First and foremost I want to thanks Rich Mattson of the DIPAC Macaulay Flatworms ………………………….………………….. …..21 salmon hatchery. He has made this project possible through assistance in obtaining specimens for photographs and for offering encouragement from Parasitic worms …………………………………………….22 the very beginning. Dr. David Cowles of Walla Walla University has Nemertea (Ribbon worms) ………………….………... ….23 generously donated many photos to this project. Dr. William Bechtol read Annelid (Segmented worms) …………………………. ….25 through the previous version of this, and made several important suggestions that have vastly improved this book. Dr. Robert Armstrong Mollusks ………………………………..………………. ….38 hosts the most recent edition on his website so it would be available to a Polyplacophora (Chitons) …………………….
  • MOLLUSCAN FORUM 2011 ABSTRACTS…...…………3 to 16 VERÓNICA NÚÑEZ: XXII Encontro Brasileiro De Malacologia RESEARCH GRANT REPORTS: (EBRAM)

    MOLLUSCAN FORUM 2011 ABSTRACTS…...…………3 to 16 VERÓNICA NÚÑEZ: XXII Encontro Brasileiro De Malacologia RESEARCH GRANT REPORTS: (EBRAM)

    Number 58 (February 2012) The Malacologist Page 1 NUMBER 58 FEBRUARY 2012 TRAVEL GRANT REPORTS: Contents th EDITORIAL ………………………………...………….…... 2 FERNANDO ANEIROS : 6 Congress of the European Malacological SocietiesVitoria-Gasteiz (Spain), 18-22 July 011 .......................25 MOLLUSCAN FORUM 2011 ABSTRACTS…...…………3 to 16 VERÓNICA NÚÑEZ: XXII Encontro Brasileiro de Malacologia RESEARCH GRANT REPORTS: (EBRAM). 4 - 8 September 2011, Fortaleza, Brazil..................26 MAX MALISKA: Evolution of different modes of development in IN MEMORIAM Littorina: a molecular phylogenetic approach……………….….17 W L Paraense........................................................................26 MAGDELENA MARZEC: Microhabitat preferences of co-existing forest Clausiliidae.........................................................................20 George Crawford..................................................................27 CONOR D WILSON, GARETH ARNOTT & ROBERT ELWOOD: Pear GRANTS AND AWARDS..............................................................31 mussels show plasticity of responses to different predation risks FORTHCOMING MEETINGS ……………………………...….. 32 but also show consistent differences in responsiveness ............23 PUBLICATIONS AND ACCESS......................................................33 NEWS OF PUBLICATIONS..............................PAGES 16, 24, 25, 34, SOCIETY NOTICES …………………………………….…........34 SOCIETY AWARDS AND GRANTS ………………………..........35 CONFERENCE—MOLLUSCAN LIFE CYCLES..................................36 AGM NOMINATIONS
  • LIBI Appendix A

    LIBI Appendix A

    Lummi Intertidal Baseline Inventory Appendix A: Intertidal Biota Survey Prepared by: Lummi Natural Resources Department (LNR) 2616 Kwina Rd. Bellingham, WA 98226 Contributors: Craig Dolphin LNR Fisheries Shellfish Biologist Michael LeMoine LNR Fisheries Habitat Biologist Jeremy Freimund LNR Water Resources Manager March 2010 A B C D Collecting Intertidal Biota Survey samples during the LIBI. A: Anthony George and Dacia Wiitala. B: Dewey Solomon and Dan Haught. C: Jordan Ballew and Johnathan Robinson D. Delanae Estes and Jessica Urbanec. E. Julie Barber E Executive Summary The Intertidal Biota Survey documented the presence, relative abundance, and preferred habitats of benthic infauna that are present on the Lummi Reservation tidelands. 366 sites were characterized and sampled across the Lummi Reservation tidelands, and the biota present were identified and counted. Approximately 150 taxa were identified in the samples, with some taxonomic labels including more than one species. Overall, polychaete worms in the Family Oweniidae were the most abundant animal taxon present across the Reservation tidelands, followed by caprellid amphipods (Caprella sp.), and then horn shells (Batillaria attramentaria). The most abundant clam species was the recently arrived purple varnish clam (Nuttallia obscurata), which also had the largest total biomass (19.9 million pounds) of any clam species. Butter clam (Saxidomus gigantea), cockle (Clinocardium nuttali), Manila clam (Venerupis phillipinarum), and Pacific littleneck clam (Leukoma staminea) populations had 6.7, 2.7, 2.9, and 2.1 million pounds of biomass, respectively. Horse clam (Tresus sp.) and softshell clam (Mya arenaria) populations were also present but estimates of biomass indicate lower overall biomass for these species (1.6 and 1.2 million pounds, respectively).
  • Buccinum Undatum (Linnaeus 1758) By

    Buccinum Undatum (Linnaeus 1758) By

    University of Southampton Research Repository ePrints Soton Copyright © and Moral Rights for this thesis are retained by the author and/or other copyright owners. A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge. This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the copyright holder/s. The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given e.g. AUTHOR (year of submission) "Full thesis title", University of Southampton, name of the University School or Department, PhD Thesis, pagination http://eprints.soton.ac.uk UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON FACULTY OF NATURAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES Ocean and Earth Science Physiological thresholds through early ontogeny: the effects of temperature and hydrostatic pressure on the common whelk Buccinum undatum (Linnaeus 1758) by Kathryn Elizabeth Smith Thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy January 2013 ‘It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change’ - Clarence Darrow (1857-1938) Physiological thresholds during development in Buccinum undatum Abstract UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON ABSTRACT FACULTY OF NATURAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES Ocean and Earth Sciences Doctor of Philosophy PHYSIOLOGICAL THRESHOLDS THROUGH EARLY ONTOGENY: THE EFFECTS OF TEMPERATURE AND HYDROSTATIC PRESSURE ON THE COMMON WHELK BUCCINUM UNDATUM (LINNAEUS 1758) By Kathryn Elizabeth Smith The eco-physiological thresholds controlling the distribution of marine invertebrates are of significance in understanding the evolution of marine diversity.
  • Common Seashore Animals of Southeastern Alaska a Field Guide by Aaron Baldwin

    Common Seashore Animals of Southeastern Alaska a Field Guide by Aaron Baldwin

    Common seashore animals of Southeastern Alaska A field guide by Aaron Baldwin All pictures taken by Aaron Baldwin Last update 9/15/2014 unless otherwise noted. [email protected] Seashore animals of Southeastern Alaska By Aaron Baldwin Introduction Southeast Alaska (the “Alaskan Panhandle”) is an ecologically diverse region that extends from Yakutat to Dixon Entrance south of Prince of Wales Island. A complex of several hundred islands, fjords, channels, and bays, SE Alaska has over 3,000 miles of coastline. Most people who live or visit Southeast Alaska have some idea of the incredible diversity of nature found here. From mountain tops to the cold, dark depths of our many fjords, life is everywhere. The marine life of SE Alaska is exceptionally diverse for several reasons. One is simply the amount of coast, over twice the amount of the coastline of Washington, Oregon, and California combined! Within this enormous coastline there is an incredible variety of habitats, each with their own ecological community. Another reason for SE Alaska’s marine diversity is that we are in an overlap zone between two major faunal provinces. These provinces are defined as large areas that contain a similar assemblage of animals. From northern California to SE Alaska is a faunal province called the Oregonian Province. From the Aleutian Island chain to SE Alaska is the Aleutian Province. What this means is that while our sea life is generally similar to that seen in British Columbia and Washington state, we also have a great number of northern species present. History of this guide http://www.film.alaska.gov/ This guide began in 2009 as a simple guide to common seashore over 600 species! In addition to expanding the range covered, I animals of Juneau, Alaska.
  • Taxonomic Resolution of Surveys

    Taxonomic Resolution of Surveys

    Lummi Intertidal Baseline Inventory Appendix E: Taxonomic Resolution Prepared by: Lummi Natural Resources Department (LNR) 2616 Kwina Rd. Bellingham, WA 98226 Contributors: Craig Dolphin LNR Fisheries Shellfish Biologist Michael LeMoine LNR Fisheries Habitat Biologist Jeremy Freimund LNR Water Resources Manager March 2010 This page intentionally left blank. Executive Summary The Lummi Intertidal Baseline Inventory documented over 250 distinct taxa present across the Lummi Reservation tidelands. This paper lists the taxonomic labels and hierarchies used to identify individual specimens during the LIBI, and discusses the process of identifying the organisms encountered. LIBI: Appendix E. Taxonomic Resolution i Table of Contents Executive Summary............................................................................................................. i Table of Contents................................................................................................................ ii 1.0 Introduction................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Methods......................................................................................................................... 1 3.0 Results........................................................................................................................... 2 4.0 Discussion................................................................................................................... 15 5.0 References..................................................................................................................