DOCSLIB.ORG

Fisheries Research Report No. 259, 2014

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Fisheries Research Report No. 259, 2014 Fisheries Research Report No. 259, 2014 A likelihood analysis of the introduction of marine pests to Western Australian ports via commercial vessels S. Bridgwood and J. McDonald Fisheries Research Division Western Australian Fisheries and Marine Research Laboratories PO Box 20 NORTH BEACH, Western Australia 6920 1742/14 Correct citation: Bridgwood, S. and McDonald, J. A likelihood analysis of the introduction of marine pests to Western Australian ports via commercial vessels. Fisheries Research Report No. 259. Department of Fisheries, Western Australia. 212pp. Enquiries: WA Fisheries and Marine Research Laboratories, PO Box 20, North Beach, WA 6920 Tel: +61 8 9203 0111 Email: [email protected] Website: www.fish.wa.gov.au ABN: 55 689 794 771 A complete list of Fisheries Research Reports is available online at www.fish.wa.gov.au © Department of Fisheries, Western Australia. May 2014. ISSN: 1035 - 4549 ISBN: 978-1-921845-81-9 ii Fisheries Research Report [Western Australia] No. 259, 2014 Contents Executive summary .............................................................................................................. 1 1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 3 1.1 Aims and objectives ................................................................................................ 3 2.0 Methods ......................................................................................................................... 5 2.1 Inoculation likelihood ............................................................................................. 6 2.1.1 Sociopolitcal risk .......................................................................................... 8 2.2 Infection and establishment likelihood ................................................................... 10 3.0 Bioregional analysis ...................................................................................................... 14 3.1 Results and discussion ............................................................................................ 14 3.1.1 North Coast bioregion .................................................................................. 14 3.1.1.1 Inoculation likelihood and sociopolitical risk ............................... 14 3.1.1.2 Infection and establishment likelihood .......................................... 15 3.1.2 Gascoyne bioregion ...................................................................................... 16 3.1.2.1 Inoculation likelihood and sociopolitical risk ............................... 16 3.1.2.2 Infection and establishment likelihood .......................................... 17 3.1.3 West Coast bioregion ................................................................................... 18 3.1.3.1 Inoculation likelihood and sociopolitical risk ............................... 18 3.1.3.2 Infection and establishment likelihood .......................................... 18 3.1.4 South Coast bioregion .................................................................................. 20 3.1.4.1 Inoculation likelihood and sociopolitical risk ............................... 20 3.1.4.2 Infection and establishment likelihood .......................................... 20 4.0 Key Findings from the bioregional analysis .............................................................. 24 4.1 North Coast bioregion ............................................................................................ 24 4.2 Gascoyne Coast bioregion ...................................................................................... 24 4.3 West Coast bioregion .............................................................................................. 24 4.4 South Coast bioregion ............................................................................................ 24 5.0 Wyndham Port ............................................................................................................. 26 5.1 Wyndham Port description ..................................................................................... 28 5.1.1 Environment ................................................................................................. 28 5.1.2 Current knowledge of introduced marine pests ........................................... 29 5.2 Results and discussion ............................................................................................ 29 5.2.1 Inoculation likelihood .................................................................................. 29 5.2.2 Sociopolitical risk ......................................................................................... 31 5.2.3 Infection and establishment likelihood ....................................................... 32 6.0 Broome Port .................................................................................................................. 37 6.1 Broome Port description ......................................................................................... 39 6.1.1 Environment ................................................................................................. 40 6.1.2 Current knowledge of introduced marine pests ........................................... 40 Fisheries Research Report [Western Australia] No. 259, 2014 iii 6.2 Results and discussion ............................................................................................ 40 6.2.1 Inoculation likelihood ................................................................................. 40 6.2.2 Sociopolitical risk ......................................................................................... 42 6.2.3 Infection and establishment likelihood ........................................................ 43 7.0 Port Hedland Port ........................................................................................................ 44 7.1 Port Hedland Port description ................................................................................ 46 7.1.1 Environment ................................................................................................. 47 7.1.2 Current knowledge of introduced marine pests ........................................... 47 7.2 Results and discussion ............................................................................................ 48 7.2.1 Inoculation likelihood .................................................................................. 48 7.2.2 Sociopolitical risk ......................................................................................... 51 7.2.3 Infection and establishment likelihood ....................................................... 52 8.0 Dampier Port ................................................................................................................ 57 8.1 Dampier Port description ........................................................................................ 59 8.1.1 Environment ................................................................................................. 59 8.1.2 Current knowledge of introduced marine pests ........................................... 60 8.2 Results and discussion ............................................................................................ 60 8.2.1 Inoculation likelihood .................................................................................. 60 8.2.2 Sociopolitical risk ......................................................................................... 64 8.2.3 Infection and establishment likelihood ....................................................... 65 9.0 Useless Loop Port ......................................................................................................... 71 9.1 Useless Loop Port description ................................................................................ 73 9.1.1 Environment ................................................................................................. 73 9.1.2 Current knowledge of introduced marine pests ........................................... 74 9.2 Results and discussion ............................................................................................ 74 9.2.1 Inoculation likelihood .................................................................................. 74 9.2.2 Sociopolitical risk ......................................................................................... 76 9.2.3 Infection and establishment likelihood ....................................................... 77 10.0 Geraldton Port ............................................................................................................. 82 10.1 Geraldton Port description ...................................................................................... 84 10.1.1 Environment ................................................................................................ 85 10.1.2 Current knowledge of introduced marine pests .......................................... 85 10.2 Results and discussion ............................................................................................ 86 10.2.1 Inoculation likelihood ................................................................................ 86 10.2.3 Sociopolitical risk ........................................................................................ 90 10.2.4 Infection and establishment likelihood ....................................................... 91 11.0 Fremantle Port ............................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Hiller & Lessios 2017
    www.nature.com/scientificreports OPEN Phylogeography of Petrolisthes armatus, an invasive species with low dispersal ability Received: 20 February 2017 Alexandra Hiller & Harilaos A. Lessios Accepted: 27 April 2017 Theoretically, species with high population structure are likely to expand their range, because marginal Published: xx xx xxxx populations are free to adapt to local conditions; however, meta-analyses have found a negative relation between structure and invasiveness. The crab Petrolisthes armatus has a wide native range, which has expanded in the last three decades. We sequenced 1718 bp of mitochondrial DNA from native and recently established populations to determine the population structure of the former and the origin of the latter. There was phylogenetic separation between Atlantic and eastern Pacific populations, and between east and west Atlantic ones. Haplotypes on the coast of Florida and newly established populations in Georgia and South Carolina belong to a different clade from those from Yucatán to Brazil, though a few haplotypes are shared. In the Pacific, populations from Colombia and Ecuador are highly divergent from those from Panamá and the Sea of Cortez. In general, populations were separated hundreds to million years ago with little subsequent gene flow. High genetic diversity in the newly established populations shows that they were founded by many individuals. Range expansion appears to have been limited by low dispersal rather than lack of ability of marginal populations to adapt to extreme conditions. The population-genetic constitution of marine invasive species in their native range is increasingly being stud- ied in efforts to determine the source of invasions into new areas (reviews in refs 1–5).
    [Show full text]
  • Biodiversity of Jamaican Mangrove Areas
    BIODIVERSITY OF JAMAICAN MANGROVE AREAS Volume 7 Mangrove Biotypes VI: Common Fauna BY MONA WEBBER (PH.D) PROJECT FUNDED BY: 2 MANGROVE BIOTYPE VI: COMMON FAUNA CNIDARIA, ANNELIDA, CRUSTACEANS, MOLLUSCS & ECHINODERMS CONTENTS Page Introduction…………………………………………………………………… 4 List of fauna by habitat……………………………………………………….. 4 Cnidaria Aiptasia tagetes………………………………………………………… 6 Cassiopeia xamachana………………………………………………… 8 Annelida Sabellastarte magnifica………………………………………………… 10 Sabella sp………………………………………………………………. 11 Crustacea Calinectes exasperatus…………………………………………………. 12 Calinectes sapidus……………………………………………………… 13 Portunis sp……………………………………………………………… 13 Lupella forcepes………………………………………………………… 14 Persephone sp. …………………………………………………………. 15 Uca spp………………………………………………………………..... 16 Aratus pisoni……………………………………………………………. 17 Penaeus duorarum……………………………………………………… 18 Panulirus argus………………………………………………………… 19 Alphaeus sp…………………………………………………………….. 20 Mantis shrimp………………………………………………………….. 21 Balanus eberneus………………………………………………………. 22 Balanus amphitrite…………………………………………………….. 23 Chthamalus sp………………………………………………………….. 23 Mollusca Brachidontes exustus…………………………………………………… 24 Isognomon alatus………………………………………………………. 25 Crassostrea rhizophorae……………………………………………….. 26 Pinctada radiata………………………………………………………... 26 Plicatula gibosa………………………………………………………… 27 Martesia striata…………………………………………………………. 27 Perna viridis……………………………………………………………. 28 Trachycardium muricatum……………………………………..……… 30 Anadara chemnitzi………………………………………………...……. 30 Diplodonta punctata………………………………………………..…... 32 Dosinia sp…………………………………………………………..….
    [Show full text]
  • Una Aproximación a La Florística Y Faunística De La
    CICIMAR Oceánides 32(1): 39-58 (2017) UNA APROXIMACIÓN A LA FLORÍSTICA Y FAUNÍSTICA DE LA COSTA ROCOSA EL PULPO, CAZONES, VERACRUZ, MÉXICO De la Cruz-Francisco, Vicencio, Rosa Estela Orduña-Medrano, Josefina Esther Paredes- Flores, Rosa Ivette Vázquez-Estrada, Marlene González-González & Liliana Flores-Galicia Facultad de Ciencias Biológicas y Agropecuarias, Campus Tuxpan. Universidad Veracruzana. Carretera Tuxpan- Tampico Km 7.5, 92895, Tuxpan, Veracruz, México. e-mail: [email protected] RESUMEN. El intermareal rocoso de Veracruz, México, es un ecosistema que resguarda una gran biodiversidad. Sin embargo, no se ha reconocido su relevancia como con otros ecosistemas marinos. El objetivo de este estudio fue elaborar las primeras listas florística y faunística del intermareal rocoso de El Pulpo, localizada en el municipio de Cazones, Veracruz. Para ello, desde el 2013 a 2016 se efectuaron muestreos en la franja intermareal rocosa en periodos de marea baja para el registro de la biota marina y la recolecta de material biológico para su identificación taxonómica. Además, se realizó una revisión bibliográfica para complementar las listas de especies. Se registraron 51 especies de macroalgas bentónicas, una especie de fanerógama, 186 especies de invertebrados, y cinco especies de vertebrados para un total de 243 especies marinas. Las Rhodophyta son la ficoflora más representada con 29 es- pecies, mientras que el Phylum Mollusca lo es para la fauna con 139 especies. La mayoría de las especies marinas se registraron en el intermareal medio e inferior; por consiguiente la menor riqueza se registró en el intermareal superior y la constituyen algas filamentosas y foliosas, así como moluscos y crustáceos con hábitos ramoneadores y filtradores.
    [Show full text]
  • Port Related Structures on the Coast of Western Australia
    Port Related Structures on the Coast of Western Australia By: D.A. Cumming, D. Garratt, M. McCarthy, A. WoICe With <.:unlribuliuns from Albany Seniur High Schoul. M. Anderson. R. Howard. C.A. Miller and P. Worsley Octobel' 1995 @WAUUSEUM Report: Department of Matitime Archaeology, Westem Australian Maritime Museum. No, 98. Cover pholograph: A view of Halllelin Bay in iL~ heyday as a limber porl. (W A Marilime Museum) This study is dedicated to the memory of Denis Arthur Cuml11ing 1923-1995 This project was funded under the National Estate Program, a Commonwealth-financed grants scheme administered by the Australian HeriL:'lge Commission (Federal Government) and the Heritage Council of Western Australia. (State Govenlluent). ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Heritage Council of Western Australia Mr lan Baxter (Director) Mr Geny MacGill Ms Jenni Williams Ms Sharon McKerrow Dr Lenore Layman The Institution of Engineers, Australia Mr Max Anderson Mr Richard Hartley Mr Bmce James Mr Tony Moulds Mrs Dorothy Austen-Smith The State Archive of Westem Australia Mr David Whitford The Esperance Bay HistOIical Society Mrs Olive Tamlin Mr Merv Andre Mr Peter Anderson of Esperance Mr Peter Hudson of Esperance The Augusta HistOIical Society Mr Steve Mm'shall of Augusta The Busselton HistOlical Societv Mrs Elizabeth Nelson Mr Alfred Reynolds of Dunsborough Mr Philip Overton of Busselton Mr Rupert Genitsen The Bunbury Timber Jetty Preservation Society inc. Mrs B. Manea The Bunbury HistOlical Society The Rockingham Historical Society The Geraldton Historical Society Mrs J Trautman Mrs D Benzie Mrs Glenis Thomas Mr Peter W orsley of Gerald ton The Onslow Goods Shed Museum Mr lan Blair Mr Les Butcher Ms Gaye Nay ton The Roebourne Historical Society.
    [Show full text]
  • Molluscs (Mollusca: Gastropoda, Bivalvia, Polyplacophora)
    Gulf of Mexico Science Volume 34 Article 4 Number 1 Number 1/2 (Combined Issue) 2018 Molluscs (Mollusca: Gastropoda, Bivalvia, Polyplacophora) of Laguna Madre, Tamaulipas, Mexico: Spatial and Temporal Distribution Martha Reguero Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México Andrea Raz-Guzmán Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México DOI: 10.18785/goms.3401.04 Follow this and additional works at: https://aquila.usm.edu/goms Recommended Citation Reguero, M. and A. Raz-Guzmán. 2018. Molluscs (Mollusca: Gastropoda, Bivalvia, Polyplacophora) of Laguna Madre, Tamaulipas, Mexico: Spatial and Temporal Distribution. Gulf of Mexico Science 34 (1). Retrieved from https://aquila.usm.edu/goms/vol34/iss1/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by The Aquila Digital Community. It has been accepted for inclusion in Gulf of Mexico Science by an authorized editor of The Aquila Digital Community. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Reguero and Raz-Guzmán: Molluscs (Mollusca: Gastropoda, Bivalvia, Polyplacophora) of Lagu Gulf of Mexico Science, 2018(1), pp. 32–55 Molluscs (Mollusca: Gastropoda, Bivalvia, Polyplacophora) of Laguna Madre, Tamaulipas, Mexico: Spatial and Temporal Distribution MARTHA REGUERO AND ANDREA RAZ-GUZMA´ N Molluscs were collected in Laguna Madre from seagrass beds, macroalgae, and bare substrates with a Renfro beam net and an otter trawl. The species list includes 96 species and 48 families. Six species are dominant (Bittiolum varium, Costoanachis semiplicata, Brachidontes exustus, Crassostrea virginica, Chione cancellata, and Mulinia lateralis) and 25 are commercially important (e.g., Strombus alatus, Busycoarctum coarctatum, Triplofusus giganteus, Anadara transversa, Noetia ponderosa, Brachidontes exustus, Crassostrea virginica, Argopecten irradians, Argopecten gibbus, Chione cancellata, Mercenaria campechiensis, and Rangia flexuosa).
    [Show full text]
  • Distinctness, Phylogenetic Relations and Biogeography of Intertidal Mussels (Brachidontes, Mytilidae) from the South-Western Atlantic Berenice Trovant1, Daniel E
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by CONICET Digital Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 2013, 93(7), 1843–1855. # Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 2013 doi:10.1017/S0025315413000477 Distinctness, phylogenetic relations and biogeography of intertidal mussels (Brachidontes, Mytilidae) from the south-western Atlantic berenice trovant1, daniel e. ruzzante2,ne’stor g. basso1 and j.m. (lobo) orensanz1 1Centro Nacional Patago´nico (CONICET), Boulevard Brown 2915, U9120ACF Puerto Madryn, Chubut, Argentina, 2Department of Biology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada Rocky shore intertidal communities along the cold- and warm-temperate coasts of the south-western Atlantic are dominated by small mussels of the genus Brachidontes s.l. (Mytilidae), yet the status of species occurring in the region remains unresolved. Taxonomic studies have been based on shell morphology, but high phenotypic variability has led to much confusion. Based on mitochondrial and nuclear genes (COI, 28S rDNA and ITS1) from nine localities in Uruguay and Argentina we confirmed the occurrence of three species in the south-western Atlantic: Brachidontes darwinianus and B. rodriguezii in the warm- temperate and B. purpuratus in the cold-temperate sector. The latter two species coexist in the same beds along the transition zone (41–438S). The phylogeny based on mitochondrial and nuclear genes, indicate an early divergence of B. purpuratus.Atthe intra-specific level, low genetic differentiation and absence of fossil record for B. purpuratus from the earlier Quaternary marine terraces of Patagonia likely result from a relatively recent (post-LGM) colonization originated from populations in the south- eastern Pacific.
    [Show full text]
  • Wmed N 104 101 117 37 100 67 65 71 52
    Epibiont communities of loggerhead marine turtles (Caretta caretta) in the western Mediterranean: influence of geographical and ecological factors Domènech F1*, Badillo FJ1, Tomás J1, Raga JA1, Aznar FJ1 1Marine Zoology Unit, Cavanilles Institute of Biodiversity and Evolutionary Biology, University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain. * Corresponding author: F. Domènech, Marine Zoology Unit, Cavanilles Institute of Biodiversity and Evolutionary Biology, University of Valencia, 46980 Paterna (Valencia), Spain. Telephone: +34 963544549. Fax: +34 963543733. E-mail: [email protected] Journal: The Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom Appendix 1. Occurrence of 166 epibiont species used for a geographical comparison of 9 samples of loggerhead marine turtle, Caretta caretta. wMed1: western Mediterranean (this study), cMed1: central Mediterranean (Gramentz, 1988), cMed2: central Mediterranean (Casale et al., 2012), eMed1: eastern Mediterranean (Kitsos et al., 2005), eMed2: eastern Mediterranean (Fuller et al., 2010), Atl1N: North part of the northwestern Atlantic (Caine, 1986), Atl2: North part of the northwestern Atlantic (Frick et al., 1998), Atl1S: South part of the northwestern Atlantic (Caine, 1986), Atl3: South part of the northwestern Atlantic (Pfaller et al., 2008*). Mediterranean Atlantic wMed cMed eMed nwAtl North part South part n 104 101 117 37 100 67 65 71 52 Source wMed1 cMed1 cMed2 eMed1 eMed2 Atl1N Atl2 Atl1S Atl3 Crustacea (Cirripedia) Family Chelonibiidae Chelonibia testudinaria x x x x x x x x x
    [Show full text]
  • First Record of the Charru Mussel Mytella Charruana D'orbignyi, 1846
    BioInvasions Records (2017) Volume 6, Issue 1: 49–55 Open Access DOI: https://doi.org/10.3391/bir.2017.6.1.08 © 2017 The Author(s). Journal compilation © 2017 REABIC Research Article First record of the Charru mussel Mytella charruana d’Orbignyi, 1846 (Bivalvia: Mytilidae) from Manila Bay, Luzon, Philippines Benjamin Vallejo Jr1,2,*, Jeniffer Conejar-Espedido3, Leanna Manubag4,5, Kevin Carlo C. Artiaga6, Amor M. Damatac II6, Ivan Christian V.J. Imperial6, Tyrll Adolf B. Itong6, Ian Kendrich Fontanilla6 and Ernelea P. Cao6 1Institute of Environmental Science and Meteorology, College of Science, University of the Philippines Diliman, 1101 Quezon City, Philippines 2Science and Society Program, College of Science, University of the Philippines Diliman, 1101 Quezon City, Philippines 3Institute of Biological Sciences, University of the Philippines Los Baños, College, Laguna, Philippines 4Manila Ocean Park, Luneta, Ermita, Manila 1000, Philippines 5Biodiversity Management Bureau, Ninoy Aquino Park, Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines 6Institute of Biology, College of Science, University of the Philippines Diliman, 1101 Quezon City, Philippines *Corresponding author E-mail: [email protected] Received: 21 December 2015 / Accepted: 8 December 2016 / Published online: 30 December 2016 Handling editor: Christopher McKindsey Abstract This study reports the presence of the Charru mussel Mytella charruana d’Orbignyi, 1846 (Bivalvia: Mytilidae) in Manila South Harbor, Manila Bay, Luzon Island, Philippines. In 2014, mussels previously identified as Mytilus spp. were reported in Manila Bay. The species was detected as part of an ecological dynamics study of previously-recorded marine non-indigenous mollusc species. DNA barcoding results suggest that the previously identified Mytilus are in fact Mytella charruana with an average identity match of 94%.
    [Show full text]
  • Register of Heritage Places - Assessment Documentation
    REGISTER OF HERITAGE PLACES - ASSESSMENT DOCUMENTATION HERITAGE COUNCIL OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA 11. ASSESSMENT OF CULTURAL HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE The criteria adopted by the Heritage Council in November, 1996 have been used to determine the cultural heritage significance of the place. PRINCIPAL AUSTRALIAN HISTORIC THEME(S) • 3.8.3 Developing harbour facilities • 5.1 Working in harsh conditions HERITAGE COUNCIL OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA THEME(S) • 106 Workers (incl. Aboriginal, convict) • 201 River & sea transport 11.1 AESTHETIC VALUE* The Pilot Crew Quarters (1902) at Albany Pilot Station (fmr) has potential to be appreciated for the aesthetic characteristics expressed in the symmetrical form and masonry detailing which are currently obscured by some unsympathetic treatments. (Criterion 1.1) Albany Pilot Station (fmr) has landmark value as a group of simple yet functional structures located on a prominent point in the exceptionally aesthetic natural environment of King George Sound. (Criterion 1.3) Albany Pilot Station (fmr) contributes to a precinct of significant harbour related activities associated with communication and defence, which include the gun emplacements and Point King Lighthouse Ruin. (Criterion 1.4) 11.2 HISTORIC VALUE Albany Pilot Station (fmr) has occupied the site since 1854, when the first accommodation was provided for the Pilot and boat crew of the Albany port, then Western Australia's major port, to enable their function of guiding vessels in and out of Princess Royal Harbour in the 19th and early 20th centuries; (Criterion 2.1) Albany Pilot Station (fmr) was a venue for the employment of Aboriginal men who worked with Europeans as part of the Pilot boat crew.
    [Show full text]
  • Inventory of Mollusks from the Estuary of the Paraíba River in Northeastern Brazil
    Biota Neotropica 17(1): e20160239, 2017 www.scielo.br/bn ISSN 1676-0611 (online edition) inventory Inventory of mollusks from the estuary of the Paraíba River in northeastern Brazil Silvio Felipe Barbosa Lima1*, Rudá Amorim Lucena2, Galdênia Menezes Santos3, José Weverton Souza3, Martin Lindsey Christoffersen2, Carmen Regina Guimarães4 & Geraldo Semer Oliveira4 1Universidade Federal de Campina Grande, Unidade Acadêmica de Ciências Exatas e da Natureza, Centro de Formação de Professores, Cajazeiras, PB, Brazil 2Universidade Federal da Paraíba, Departamento de Sistemática e Ecologia, João Pessoa, PB, Brazil 3Universidade Federal de Sergipe, Departamento de Ecologia, São Cristóvão, SE, Brazil 4Universidade Federal de Sergipe, Departamento de Biologia, São Cristóvão, SE, Brazil *Corresponding author: Silvio Felipe Lima, e-mail: [email protected] LIMA, S.F.B., LUCENA, R.A., SANTOS, G.M., SOUZA, J.W., CHRISTOFFERSEN, M.L., GUIMARÃES, C.R., OLIVEIRA, G.S. Inventory of mollusks from the estuary of the Paraíba River in northeastern Brazil. Biota Neotropica. 17(1): e20160239. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1676-0611-BN-2016-0239 Abstract: Coastal ecosystems of northeastern Brazil have important biodiversity with regard to marine mollusks, which are insufficiently studied. Here we provide an inventory of mollusks from two sites in the estuary of the Paraíba River. Mollusks were collected in 2014 and 2016 on the coast and sandbanks located on the properties of Treze de Maio and Costinha de Santo Antônio. The malacofaunal survey identified 12 families, 20 genera and 21 species of bivalves, 17 families, 19 genera and 20 species of gastropods and one species of cephalopod. Bivalves of the family Veneridae Rafinesque, 1815 were the most representative, with a total of five species.
    [Show full text]
  • Pursuing the Quest for Better Understanding the Taxonomic Distribution of the System of Doubly Uniparental Inheritance of Mtdna
    Pursuing the quest for better understanding the taxonomic distribution of the system of doubly uniparental inheritance of mtDNA Arthur Gusman1, Sophia Lecomte2, Donald T. Stewart3, Marco Passamonti4 and Sophie Breton1 1 Department of Biological Sciences, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada 2 Department of Biological Sciences, Université de Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France 3 Department of Biology, Acadia University, Wolfville, Nova Scotia, Canada 4 Department of Biological Geological and Environmental Sciences, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy ABSTRACT There is only one exception to strict maternal inheritance of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) in the animal kingdom: a system named doubly uniparental inheritance (DUI), which is found in several bivalve species. Why and how such a radically different system of mitochondrial transmission evolved in bivalve remains obscure. Obtaining a more complete taxonomic distribution of DUI in the Bivalvia may help to better understand its origin and function. In this study we provide evidence for the presence of sex-linked heteroplasmy (thus the possible presence of DUI) in two bivalve species, i.e., the nuculanoid Yoldia hyperborea (Gould, 1841) and the veneroid Scrobicularia plana (Da Costa, 1778), increasing the number of families in which DUI has been found by two. An update on the taxonomic distribution of DUI in the Bivalvia is also presented. Subjects Biodiversity, Evolutionary Studies, Genetics, Marine Biology, Zoology Keywords Mitochondrial DNA, Doubly uniparental inheritance, Bivalvia, Mitochondrial inheritance, Yoldia hyperborea, Scrobicularia plana Submitted 4 September 2016 Accepted 5 November 2016 Published 13 December 2016 INTRODUCTION Corresponding author Sophie Breton, Strict maternal inheritance (SMI) is considered to be the paradigm for mitochondrial DNA [email protected] (mtDNA) transmission in animal species (Birky, 2001).
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 3: the Ports
    3 The Ports 3.1 Evidence given to the Committee at the ports visited, indicated that each had at least one serious infrastructure problem hindering access to the port area. The Committee identified critical projects to a potential value of $6.5 billion – required at Australian ports and their environs and port-related corridors. 3.2 It is the view of the Committee that, while industry and state governments are committed to a number of these projects, the Australian Government may need to contribute not less than $3 billion, on a 50/50 basis with either State or private providers, to bring the ports up to internationally competitive standard. 3.3 In some cases, the problem was the lack of a rail connection, or the need for a passing loop or unloading area of suitable length. In others, there was a problem with road connections, such as the need for a ring road approach to the port for freight vehicles, or a flyover to remove a bottleneck where road and rail, or two roads, meet. 3.4 The ports are also struggling with the problems caused by steadily increasing ship sizes and the associated problem of channel depth. Many are being pressured by urban encroachment and the resultant difficulties in planning transport corridors, especially looking forward twenty years or more. 30 Ship Sizes 3.5 Factors such as the rising cost of oil have encouraged shipping companies to work hard at reducing operational costs for their vessels. 3.6 In addition, rapid growth in world trade volumes, and particularly the heavy demands on shipping caused by China’s growing demand, has moved the world economy towards a shortage of cargo vessels.
    [Show full text]