DOCSLIB.ORG

Version 1, Peter Matthiessen, March 2009

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

1 Detailed Review Paper on Mollusc Life-Cycle 2 Toxicity Testing for Endocrine Disrupters and 3 Other Chemicals 4 Final Draft Version 09 – 1 July 2009 FINAL_DRAFT_DRP_V9 1 Content 2 1 Executive Summary ..................................................................................... 6 3 2 Introduction ................................................................................................. 8 4 2.1 Background ............................................................................................. 8 5 2.2 Purpose of the DRP.................................................................................10 6 2.3 Objectives of partial- and full mollusc life cycle tests ...............................12 7 3 Neuroendocrine control of physiological functions in molluscs ....................15 8 3.1 Phylogeny and the divergence of molluscan endocrinology ......................15 9 3.2 (Neuro-)endocrine control in molluscs .....................................................17 10 3.3 Modes of action of endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) in molluscs ....27 11 3.3.1 Possible TBT MOAs: Vertebrate-type steroid hypothesis (aromatase 12 inhibition).......................................................................................................29 13 3.3.2 Possible TBT MOAs: Vertebrate-type steroid hypothesis (inhibited 14 testosterone excretion) ....................................................................................30 15 3.3.3 Possible TBT MOAs: Vertebrate-type steroid hypothesis (modulation of 16 free versus fatty acid-bound testosterone levels) ...............................................30 17 3.3.4 Possible TBT MOAs: Neuropeptide hypothesis ....................................31 18 3.3.5 Possible TBT MOAs: Retinoid X receptor hypothesis ..........................32 19 4 Endocrine disruption in wild molluscs .........................................................34 20 4.1 Effects of tributyltin ................................................................................34 21 4.1.1 Prosobranch molluscs ..........................................................................35 22 4.1.2 Bivalves..............................................................................................36 23 4.2 Effects of estrogens and their mimics ......................................................38 24 4.3 Summary of EDC effects in wild molluscs ...............................................39 25 5 Experimental induction of endocrine disruption in molluscs .........................40 26 5.1 Organotins ..............................................................................................40 27 5.2 Estrogens and their mimics .....................................................................42 28 5.3 Androgens and their mimics ....................................................................44 29 5.4 Others EDCs...........................................................................................45 30 5.5 Summary ................................................................................................45 31 6 Experimental design considerations .............................................................47 32 6.1 Exposure duration ...................................................................................47 2 FINAL_DRAFT_DRP_V9 1 6.1.1 Strength and weaknesses of partial versus full life cycle tests................47 2 6.1.2 Partial life cycle (PLC) tests ................................................................48 3 6.1.3 Full life cycle (FLC) tests ....................................................................50 4 6.2 Possible periods of exposure during development ....................................50 5 6.3 Routes of dosing .....................................................................................52 6 6.3.1 Water .................................................................................................52 7 6.3.2 Sediments ...........................................................................................54 8 6.4 Dose selection ........................................................................................55 9 6.5 Statistical considerations .........................................................................56 10 6.5.1 Controlling variability .........................................................................57 11 6.5.2 Defining the experimental unit.............................................................58 12 6.5.3 Importance of statistical power ............................................................59 13 6.5.4 Data treatment ....................................................................................60 14 6.5.5 NOEC and ECX determination .............................................................61 15 6.5.6 Sample size in FLC tests .....................................................................64 16 7 Candidate test protocols ..............................................................................65 17 7.1 Strengths and weaknesses of potential test species ...................................65 18 7.2 Strengths and weaknesses of different test methods and endpoints ............72 19 7.2.1 Partial life cycle tests ..........................................................................72 20 7.2.2 Full life cycle tests ..............................................................................73 21 7.2.3 Biomarkers .........................................................................................74 22 7.2.4 Conclusions about test methods and endpoints .....................................76 23 7.3 Candidate partial life cycle test methods ..................................................77 24 7.3.1 The test organism Potamopyrgus antipodarum .....................................77 25 7.4 Candidate full life cycle test methods ......................................................84 26 7.4.1 The test organism Lymnaea stagnalis ...................................................84 27 7.4.2 The test organism Crassostrea gigas ....................................................91 28 8 Recommended Protocols – data gaps and validation requirements ................99 29 8.1 Data gaps and research requirements .......................................................99 30 8.1.1 The freshwater mudsnail (Potamopyrgus antipodarum) ........................99 31 8.1.2 The pond snail (Lymnaea stagnalis) ................................................... 100 3 FINAL_DRAFT_DRP_V9 1 8.1.3 The Pacific oyster (Crassostrea gigas) ............................................... 100 2 8.1.4 Other species .................................................................................... 101 3 8.2 Validation requirements ........................................................................ 101 4 9 Culture and handling of recommended species........................................... 104 5 9.1 Methods ............................................................................................... 104 6 9.1.1 The freshwater mudsnail (Potamopyrgus antipodarum) ...................... 104 7 9.1.2 The pond snail (Lymnaea stagnalis) ................................................... 108 8 9.1.3 The Pacific oyster (Crassostrea gigas) ............................................... 111 9 9.2 Data gaps.............................................................................................. 114 10 9.2.1 Adjustment of industrial aquaculture techniques ................................. 114 11 9.2.2 Basic research ................................................................................... 114 12 9.2.3 Sensitivity of genetically different strains ........................................... 115 13 10 Implementation ........................................................................................ 116 14 10.1 Animal welfare ..................................................................................... 116 15 10.2 Facilities and equipment........................................................................ 117 16 10.3 Running costs ....................................................................................... 118 17 10.4 Test reproducibility and confounding factors ......................................... 118 18 10.5 Data interpretation ................................................................................ 119 19 10.5.1 Representativeness and data extrapolation ...................................... 120 20 10.5.2 Environmental relevance ............................................................... 120 21 10.5.3 Hormesis or low dose effects ......................................................... 121 22 10.6 Advantages and disadvantages of the different candidate species ............ 122 23 11 Conclusions .............................................................................................. 125 24 12 References................................................................................................ 129 25 13 List of abbreviations ................................................................................. 166 26 14 Appendix 1............................................................................................... 169 27 28 4 FINAL_DRAFT_DRP_V9 1 Acknowledgements 2 The preparation of this review was solely supported by funding from the German and 3 United Kingdom Governments. Many scientists kindly provided advice on various 4 aspects, but particular assistance was given by Toshihiro Horiguchi, Laurent Lagadic, 5 Gerry LeBlanc,
Recommended publications
  • Diversity of Echinostomes (Digenea: Echinostomatidae) in Their Snail Hosts at High Latitudes

    Diversity of Echinostomes (Digenea: Echinostomatidae) in Their Snail Hosts at High Latitudes

    Parasite 28, 59 (2021) Ó C. Pantoja et al., published by EDP Sciences, 2021 https://doi.org/10.1051/parasite/2021054 urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:9816A6C3-D479-4E1D-9880-2A7E1DBD2097 Available online at: www.parasite-journal.org RESEARCH ARTICLE OPEN ACCESS Diversity of echinostomes (Digenea: Echinostomatidae) in their snail hosts at high latitudes Camila Pantoja1,2, Anna Faltýnková1,* , Katie O’Dwyer3, Damien Jouet4, Karl Skírnisson5, and Olena Kudlai1,2 1 Institute of Parasitology, Biology Centre of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Branišovská 31, 370 05 České Budějovice, Czech Republic 2 Institute of Ecology, Nature Research Centre, Akademijos 2, 08412 Vilnius, Lithuania 3 Marine and Freshwater Research Centre, Galway-Mayo Institute of Technology, H91 T8NW, Galway, Ireland 4 BioSpecT EA7506, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Reims Champagne-Ardenne, 51 rue Cognacq-Jay, 51096 Reims Cedex, France 5 Laboratory of Parasitology, Institute for Experimental Pathology, Keldur, University of Iceland, IS-112 Reykjavík, Iceland Received 26 April 2021, Accepted 24 June 2021, Published online 28 July 2021 Abstract – The biodiversity of freshwater ecosystems globally still leaves much to be discovered, not least in the trematode parasite fauna they support. Echinostome trematode parasites have complex, multiple-host life-cycles, often involving migratory bird definitive hosts, thus leading to widespread distributions. Here, we examined the echinostome diversity in freshwater ecosystems at high latitude locations in Iceland, Finland, Ireland and Alaska (USA). We report 14 echinostome species identified morphologically and molecularly from analyses of nad1 and 28S rDNA sequence data. We found echinostomes parasitising snails of 11 species from the families Lymnaeidae, Planorbidae, Physidae and Valvatidae.
  • Species Assessments We Identified 80 Freshwater Mollusk Species We

    Species Assessments We Identified 80 Freshwater Mollusk Species We

    Species Assessments We identified 80 freshwater mollusk species we believe are currently sold in the Great Lakes region and conducted a risk assessment for each using the Notre Dame STAIRmollusk tool, answering as many of the six questions as possible. Using a fecundity of 158 as the divide between low and high risk (see STAIRmollusk tool, question 2), each species was ranked according to the likelihood that it will become invasive. Risk Explanation Low Species either has no climate match to the Great Lakes OR has a fecundity of less than 158, no record of pathogens and no history of invasion elsewhere. High Species has a climate match to the Great Lakes and at least one of the following characteristics: a fecundity over 158, known pathogens, or a history of invasion elsewhere. Potential Species has a climate match to the Great Lakes but fecundity is unknown. ? Data to assess climate match is insufficient and fecundity is unknown. Mollusk Species Risk Assessments for the Great Lakes Using 2020-2029 Climate Conditions (Great Lakes = Hardiness Zone 8 or below) Established in Hardiness Risk Factor(s) in Species Name Risk Great Lakes zone ≤ 7? Evidence?* Ancylus fluviatilis Yes N/A Low Anodonta cygnea Yes No fecundity data Potential Bellamya chinensis (=Cipangopaludina chinensis, C. chinensis maleata, and Yes Yes Pathogens High Viviparus malleatus) Bellamya japonica (=Cipangopaludina Yes Yes Pathogens High japonica) Biomphalaria alexandrina Fecundity, No Low pathogens Biomphalaria glabrata Fecundity, Yes pathogens, High Invasion history Biomphalaria
  • Environmental Risk Limits for Triphenyltin in Water

    Environmental Risk Limits for Triphenyltin in Water

    Environmental risk limits for triphenyltin in water RIVM report 601714018/2012 R. van Herwijnen | C.T.A. Moermond | P.L.A. van Vlaardingen | F.M.W. de Jong | E.M.J. Verbruggen National Institute for Public Health and the Environment P.O. Box 1 | 3720 BA Bilthoven www.rivm.com Environmental risk limits for triphenyltin in water RIVM Report 601714018/2012 RIVM Report 601714018 Colophon © RIVM 2012 Parts of this publication may be reproduced, provided acknowledgement is given to the 'National Institute for Public Health and the Environment', along with the title and year of publication. R. van Herwijnen C.T.A. Moermond P.L.A. van Vlaardingen F.M.W. de Jong E.M.J. Verbruggen Contact: René van Herwijnen Expertise Centre for Substances [email protected] This investigation has been performed by order and for the account of the Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment, Directorate for Sustainability, within the framework of the project 'Chemical aspects of the Water Framework Directive and the Directive on Priority Substances'. Page 2 of 104 RIVM Report 601714018 Abstract Environmental risk limits for triphenyltin in water RIVM has, by order of the Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment, derived environmental risk limits for triphenyltin. This was necessary because the current risk limts have not been derived according to the most recent methodology. Main uses of triphenyltin were for wood preservation and as antifouling on ships. The use as antifouling has been banned within Europe since 2003. The Dutch Steering Committee for Substances will set new standards on the basis of the scientific advisory values in this report.
  • Liste Rouge Mollusques (Gastéropodes Et Bivalves)

    Liste Rouge Mollusques (Gastéropodes Et Bivalves)

    2012 > L’environnement pratique > Listes rouges / Gestion des espèces > Liste rouge Mollusques (gastéropodes et bivalves) Espèces menacées en Suisse, état 2010 > L’environnement pratique > Listes rouges / Gestion des espèces > Liste rouge Mollusques (gastéropodes et bivalves) Espèces menacées en Suisse, état 2010 Publié par l’Office fédéral de l’environnement OFEV et par le Centre suisse de cartographie de la faune CSCF Berne, 2012 Valeur juridique de cette publication Impressum Liste rouge de l’OFEV au sens de l’art. 14, al. 3, de l’ordonnance Editeurs du 16 janvier 1991 sur la protection de la nature et du paysage Office fédéral de l’environnement (OFEV) (OPN; RS 451.1), www.admin.ch/ch/f/rs/45.html L’OFEV est un office du Département fédéral de l’environnement, des transports, de l’énergie et de la communication (DETEC). La présente publication est une aide à l’exécution de l’OFEV en tant Centre Suisse de Cartographie de la Faune (CSCF), Neuchâtel. qu’autorité de surveillance. Destinée en premier lieu aux autorités d’exécution, elle concrétise des notions juridiques indéterminées Auteurs provenant de lois et d’ordonnances et favorise ainsi une application Mollusques terrestres: Jörg Rüetschi, Peter Müller et François Claude uniforme de la législation. Elle aide les autorités d’exécution Mollusques aquatiques: Pascal Stucki et Heinrich Vicentini notamment à évaluer si un biotope doit être considéré comme digne avec la collaboration de Simon Capt et Yves Gonseth (CSCF) de protection (art. 14, al. 3, let. d, OPN). Accompagnement à l’OFEV Francis Cordillot, division Espèces, écosystèmes, paysages Référence bibliographique Rüetschi J., Stucki P., Müller P., Vicentini H., Claude F.
  • Symbionts and Diseases Associated with Invasive Apple Snails

    Symbionts and Diseases Associated with Invasive Apple Snails

    Symbionts and diseases associated with invasive apple snails Cristina Damborenea, Francisco Brusa and Lisandro Negrete CONICET, División Zoología Invertebrados, Museo de La Plata (FCNyM-UNLP), Paseo del Bosque, 1900 La Plata, Argentina. Email: [email protected], fbrusa@ fcnym.unlp.edu.ar, [email protected] Abstract This contribution summarizes knowledge of organisms associated with apple snails, mainly Pomacea spp., either in a facultative or obligate manner, paying special attention to diseases transmitted via these snails to humans. A wide spectrum of epibionts on the shell and operculum of snails are discussed. Among them algae, ciliates, rotifers, nematodes, flatworms, oligochaetes, dipterans, bryozoans and leeches are facultative, benefitting from the provision of substrate, transport, access to food and protection. Among obligate symbionts, five turbellarian species of the genusTemnocephala are known from the branchial cavity, with T. iheringi the most common and abundant. The leech Helobdella ampullariae also spends its entire life cycle inside the branchial cavity; two copepod species and one mite are found in different sites inside the snails. Details of the nature of the relationships of these specific obligate symbionts are poorly known. Also, extensive studies of an intracellular endosymbiosis are summarized. Apple snails are the first or second hosts of several digenean species, including some bird parasites.A number of human diseases are transmitted by apple snails, angiostrongyliasis being the most important because of the potential seriousness of the disease. Additional keywords: Ampullariidae, Angiostrongylus, commensals, diseases, epibionts, parasites, Pomacea, symbiosis 73 Introduction The term “apple snail” refers to a number of species of freshwater snails belonging to the family Ampullariidae (Caenogastropoda) inhabiting tropical and subtropical regions (Hayes et al., 2015).
  • Effects of Food Type, Feeding Frequency, and Temperature on Juvenile Survival and Growth of Marisa Cornuarietis (Mollusca: Gastropoda)

    Effects of Food Type, Feeding Frequency, and Temperature on Juvenile Survival and Growth of Marisa Cornuarietis (Mollusca: Gastropoda)

    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Valery Forbes Publications Papers in the Biological Sciences 2006 Effects of food type, feeding frequency, and temperature on juvenile survival and growth of Marisa cornuarietis (Mollusca: Gastropoda) Henriette Selck Roskilde University, [email protected] John Aufderheide ABC Laboratories, Inc., Columbia, Missouri Nadine Pounds Brixham Environmental Laboratory, AstraZeneca, Devon, UK Charles Staples Assessment Technologies Inc., Fredericksburg, Virginia Norbert Caspers Bayer AG, Institute for Environmental Analysis and Evaluation, Leverkusen, Germany See next page for additional authors Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/biosciforbes Part of the Pharmacology, Toxicology and Environmental Health Commons Selck, Henriette; Aufderheide, John; Pounds, Nadine; Staples, Charles; Caspers, Norbert; and Forbes, Valery E., "Effects of food type, feeding frequency, and temperature on juvenile survival and growth of Marisa cornuarietis (Mollusca: Gastropoda)" (2006). Valery Forbes Publications. 32. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/biosciforbes/32 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Papers in the Biological Sciences at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Valery Forbes Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Authors Henriette Selck, John Aufderheide, Nadine Pounds, Charles Staples, Norbert Caspers, and Valery
  • Summary Report of Freshwater Nonindigenous Aquatic Species in U.S

    Summary Report of Freshwater Nonindigenous Aquatic Species in U.S

    Summary Report of Freshwater Nonindigenous Aquatic Species in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 4—An Update April 2013 Prepared by: Pam L. Fuller, Amy J. Benson, and Matthew J. Cannister U.S. Geological Survey Southeast Ecological Science Center Gainesville, Florida Prepared for: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Southeast Region Atlanta, Georgia Cover Photos: Silver Carp, Hypophthalmichthys molitrix – Auburn University Giant Applesnail, Pomacea maculata – David Knott Straightedge Crayfish, Procambarus hayi – U.S. Forest Service i Table of Contents Table of Contents ...................................................................................................................................... ii List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................ v List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................ vi INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 1 Overview of Region 4 Introductions Since 2000 ....................................................................................... 1 Format of Species Accounts ...................................................................................................................... 2 Explanation of Maps ................................................................................................................................
  • W+W Special Paper B-18-2

    W+W Special Paper B-18-2

    W+W Special Paper B-18-2 DIE GENETISCHE FAMILIE DER HALIOTIDAE – HYBRIDISIERUNG, FORTPFLANZUNGSISOLATION UND SYMPATRISCHE ARTBILDUNG Nigel Crompton September 2018 http://www.wort-und-wissen.de/artikel/sp/b-18-2_haliotidae.pdf Bild: Doka54, Public Domain Inhalt Einleitung ................................................................................................ 3 Taxonomie der Seeohren ...................................................................... 6 Die taxonomische Stellung der Seeohren .........................................................7 Glossar ..............................................................................................................7 Seeohren-Arten und Hybriden ......................................................... 9 Genetische Familien und Befruchtung ..........................................14 Genetische Familien und sympatrische Artbildung ......................15 Die Rolle der Wechselwirkung zwischen Ei und Spermium bei der Befruchtung..............................................................................................16 Wechselwirkung zwischen Ei und Spermium und sympatrische Artbildung ....17 Besonderheiten der VERL-Lysin-Bindungsdomänen ......................................18 Wie kann es trotz Hybridisierung zur Artbildung kommen? ..........................19 Weitere Beispiele und vergleichbare Mechanismen bei Pflanzen ......................20 Schlussfolgerung .............................................................................21 Quellen ............................................................................................21
  • White Abalone (Haliotis Sorenseni)

    White Abalone (Haliotis Sorenseni)

    White Abalone (Haliotis sorenseni) Five-Year Status Review: Summary and Evaluation Photo credits: Joshua Asel (left and top right photos); David Witting, NOAA Restoration Center (bottom right photo) National Marine Fisheries Service West Coast Region Long Beach, CA July 2018 White Abalone 5- Year Status Review July 2018 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. i 1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION .............................................................................................. 1 1.1 Reviewers ......................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Methodology used to complete the review ...................................................................... 1 1.3 Background ...................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 RECOVERY IMPLEMENTATION ................................................................................... 3 2.2 Biological Opinions.......................................................................................................... 3 2.3 Addressing Key Threats ................................................................................................... 4 2.4 Outreach Partners ............................................................................................................. 5 2.5 Recovery Coordination ...................................................................................................
  • Reproductive Challenges in Abalone Breeding 17 Natasha A

    Reproductive Challenges in Abalone Breeding 17 Natasha A

    Breeding Focus 2021 - Improving Reproduction Edited by Susanne Hermesch Animal Genetics and Breeding Unit, University of New England, Armidale, Australia Sonja Dominik CSIRO Agriculture and Food, Armidale, Australia Published by Animal Genetics and Breeding Unit University of New England Armidale, NSW, Australia © Animal Genetics and Breeding Unit, 2021 All rights reserved except under the conditions described in the Australian Copyright Act 1968 and subsequent amendments, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retriev- al system or be transmitted in any form, or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopy- ing, recording, duplicating, or otherwise, without prior permission from the publisher: Animal Genetics and Breeding Unit University of New England Armidale NSW 2351 Australia http://agbu.une.edu.au ISBN: 978-1-921597-86-2 eISBN: 978-1-921597-87-9 Cover design by Susan Joyal Book design by Kathy Dobos First published, 2021 Contents Preface iii Review: Cattle fertility and genetic improvement of fertility in developing countries 5 Eva M. Strucken Reproductive challenges in abalone breeding 17 Natasha A. Botwright, Omar Mendoza-Porras, Roger Chong, Ya Zhang and Carmel McDougall Opportunities from understanding health and welfare of sows 37 Laura Vargovic, Jo Harper and Kim Bunter Saltwater crocodile (Crocodylus porosus) embryo survival: risk factors 49 Sally R. Isberg and Peter C. Thomson New phenotypes for genetic improvement of fertility in dairy cows 59 Irene van den Berg, Melissa Stephen, Phuong N. Ho, Mekonnen Haile-Mariam, Claire Phyn, Susanne Meier, Chris Burke, Nicole Steele and Jennie E. Pryce The influence of bull fertility on beef herd productivity 71 Laercio R Porto-Neto, John Bertram, Marina R S Fortes, Pamela Alexandre, Michael McGowan, Ben Hayes and Antonio Reverter Improving reproductive performance in pigs 85 Jo-Anne Harper, Kim Bunter and Laura Vargovic Breeding for improved fertility of honey bees 97 E.A.
  • Use of Antifouling Paints on Ship Hulls Over Past Four Decades and Consequent Imposex: a Review

    Use of Antifouling Paints on Ship Hulls Over Past Four Decades and Consequent Imposex: a Review

    International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR) ISSN (Online): 2319-7064 Index Copernicus Value (2013): 6.14 | Impact Factor (2013): 4.438 Use of Antifouling Paints on Ship Hulls over Past Four Decades and Consequent Imposex: A Review Nuzhat Afsar Assistant Professor, Institute of Marine Science, University of Karachi, Karachi-75270, Pakistan Abstract: Review provides the historic stance, general overview of gastropod populations being served as biosensors and developments in imposex detection. Typically muricoid species belonging to genus Nucella and Thais have been found to be good bioindicators globally. Although up to seven (7) imposex developmental stages have been described based on organotin accumulation by an organism and resultant morphological expression (penis and vas deferens development in females) due to endocrine disruption and steroidal imbalance. From Pakistan phenomenon of imposex has been described in nine (9) species of meso and neogasrtropods. Imposex stages 1-4 and 4+ have been found in examined muricids, bursid and buccinid species which revealed the moderate contamination effects on gastropod populations found along the Pakistan coast. Some archaeogastropods from Japan and Pakistan have also been tested respectively for reproductive fitness due to possible contamination effects. Keywords: shipping traffic, antifouling paints, gastropods, endocrine disruption 1. Introduction The application of TBT based antifouling paints was banned in the late 1980s in many countries. Legislation The phenomenon of imposex in gastropod species is have been implemented to restrict the use of TBT in anti globally recognized as a cheap, easily applied biological fouling paints [15-16] then finally a global ban on the use indicator test and marine gastropod species being served as of TBT from 2003 to 2008 was imposed by the biosensors have provided a guideline in assigning International Maritime Organization (IMO) to restrict and priorities for more rigorous chemical analysis and to remove all existing coatings from ship hulls [17].
  • 2011 Biodiversity Snapshot. Isle of Man Appendices

    2011 Biodiversity Snapshot. Isle of Man Appendices

    UK Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies: 2011 Biodiversity snapshot. Isle of Man: Appendices. Author: Elizabeth Charter Principal Biodiversity Officer (Strategy and Advocacy). Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture, Isle of man. More information available at: www.gov.im/defa/ This section includes a series of appendices that provide additional information relating to that provided in the Isle of Man chapter of the publication: UK Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies: 2011 Biodiversity snapshot. All information relating to the Isle or Man is available at http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-5819 The entire publication is available for download at http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-5821 1 Table of Contents Appendix 1: Multilateral Environmental Agreements ..................................................................... 3 Appendix 2 National Wildife Legislation ......................................................................................... 5 Appendix 3: Protected Areas .......................................................................................................... 6 Appendix 4: Institutional Arrangements ........................................................................................ 10 Appendix 5: Research priorities .................................................................................................... 13 Appendix 6 Ecosystem/habitats ................................................................................................... 14 Appendix 7: Species ....................................................................................................................