DOCSLIB.ORG

Table of Contents 1 Introduction

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Table of Contents 1 Introduction TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................1 2 ECOLOGY AND POPULATION DYNAMICS ........................................................3 2.1 Pecten maximus ........................................................................................................3 2.1.1 Habitat ................................................................................................................3 2.1.2 Life cycle ............................................................................................................3 2.1.3 Spawning and settlement of P. maximus in Mulroy Bay ...................................6 2.1.4 Growth ..............................................................................................................10 2.1.5 Recruitment ......................................................................................................10 2.1.6 Exploitation and mortality rates: North Irish Sea .............................................12 2.2 Aequipecten opercularis: North Irish Sea ...............................................................13 2.3 Chlamys varia .........................................................................................................15 2.4 Chamelea gallina in the Northern Adriatic ............................................................17 2.4.1 Habitat ..............................................................................................................17 2.4.2 The Northern Adriatic ......................................................................................17 2.4.3 Life cycle ..........................................................................................................22 2.4.4 Status of clam resources: North Adriatic .........................................................26 2.5 Portuguese clam species: ........................................................................................28 2.5.1 Species ..............................................................................................................28 2.5.2 Habitat ..............................................................................................................28 2.5.3 Life cycle: General considerations ...................................................................29 2.6 Spisula solida ..........................................................................................................30 2.7 Ensis siliqua ............................................................................................................32 2.8 Chamelea gallina: Portuguese waters .....................................................................33 2.9 Donax trunculus ......................................................................................................35 2.10Clam species in French waters ...............................................................................38 3 DREDGE DESIGN .....................................................................................................50 3.1 European dredge designs ........................................................................................51 3.1.1 Manual dredges ................................................................................................51 3.2 Box designs ............................................................................................................54 3.2.1 Flexible designs ................................................................................................57 3.2.2 Hydraulic dredges ...........................................................................................70 3.3 Dredge designs elsewhere .......................................................................................77 3.3.1 Rigid Box dredges ............................................................................................77 3.3.2 Flexible dredges ..............................................................................................80 3.3.3 Hydraulic dredges ...........................................................................................84 4 EUROPEAN DREDGE FISHERIES ........................................................................89 4.1 England and Wales .................................................................................................89 4.1.1 Pectinid group .................................................................................................90 4.1.2 Oyster Fishery ..................................................................................................91 4.1.3 Clam fisheries ..................................................................................................93 4.1.4 Mussel Fisheries ...............................................................................................95 4.1.5 Management measures UK dredge fisheries ....................................................96 4.1.6 Dredge Fishing Effort for Pecten maximus in England and Wales .................98 4.2 Scotland .................................................................................................................102 4.2.1 Pectinid Group ................................................................................................102 4.2.2 Aequipecten opercularis ................................................................................107 4.2.3 Other local novel bivalve dredge fisheries ....................................................110 4.3 Isle of Man ...........................................................................................................112 4.3.1 Pectinid group ................................................................................................112 4.3.2 Management measures Isle of Man fisheries ................................................120 4.4 Ireland ...................................................................................................................122 4.4.1 Pectinid group ................................................................................................122 4.4.2 Oyster group ..................................................................................................125 4.4.3 Management measures ...................................................................................126 4.5 France ...................................................................................................................129 4.5.1 Pectinid group ................................................................................................129 4.5.2 King scallops (Pecten maximus) ................................................................... 129 4.5.3 Queen scallops (Chlamys varia and Aequipecten opercularis) .....................136 4.5.4 Clam group ....................................................................................................138 4.5.5 Warty venus (Venus verrucosa) .....................................................................139 4.5.6 Small bivalves: Palourd, Bittersweet and Thick trough shell ........................142 4.5.7 Mussels ...........................................................................................................143 4.6 Italy ......................................................................................................................147 4.6.1 Chamelea gallina fishery ................................................................................147 4.6.2 Razor clam fishery .........................................................................................152 4.6.3 Callista chione fishery ...................................................................................154 4.6.4 Management measures ...................................................................................155 4.7 Portugal .................................................................................................................157 4.7.1 Management measures ...................................................................................162 5 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS .............................................................................165 5.1 Physical effects .....................................................................................................165 5.1.1 Scallop dredging ............................................................................................165 5.1.2 Hydraulic dredging ........................................................................................166 5.2 Chemical Effects ...................................................................................................168 5.3 Biological effects ..................................................................................................168 5.4 Ecological effects ..................................................................................................174 6 SELECTIVITY .........................................................................................................183 6.1 Species selection ...................................................................................................183 6.2 Size selection ........................................................................................................185 Introduction 1 INTRODUCTION Dredge fisheries face stock and environmental management pressures. Size and species selectivity and non-catch incidental mortality are important issues concerned with technical measures. Environmental issues are likely to become increasingly
Load more

Recommended publications
  • National Monitoring Program for Biodiversity and Non-Indigenous Species in Egypt
    UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAM MEDITERRANEAN ACTION PLAN REGIONAL ACTIVITY CENTRE FOR SPECIALLY PROTECTED AREAS National monitoring program for biodiversity and non-indigenous species in Egypt PROF. MOUSTAFA M. FOUDA April 2017 1 Study required and financed by: Regional Activity Centre for Specially Protected Areas Boulevard du Leader Yasser Arafat BP 337 1080 Tunis Cedex – Tunisie Responsible of the study: Mehdi Aissi, EcApMEDII Programme officer In charge of the study: Prof. Moustafa M. Fouda Mr. Mohamed Said Abdelwarith Mr. Mahmoud Fawzy Kamel Ministry of Environment, Egyptian Environmental Affairs Agency (EEAA) With the participation of: Name, qualification and original institution of all the participants in the study (field mission or participation of national institutions) 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS page Acknowledgements 4 Preamble 5 Chapter 1: Introduction 9 Chapter 2: Institutional and regulatory aspects 40 Chapter 3: Scientific Aspects 49 Chapter 4: Development of monitoring program 59 Chapter 5: Existing Monitoring Program in Egypt 91 1. Monitoring program for habitat mapping 103 2. Marine MAMMALS monitoring program 109 3. Marine Turtles Monitoring Program 115 4. Monitoring Program for Seabirds 118 5. Non-Indigenous Species Monitoring Program 123 Chapter 6: Implementation / Operational Plan 131 Selected References 133 Annexes 143 3 AKNOWLEGEMENTS We would like to thank RAC/ SPA and EU for providing financial and technical assistances to prepare this monitoring programme. The preparation of this programme was the result of several contacts and interviews with many stakeholders from Government, research institutions, NGOs and fishermen. The author would like to express thanks to all for their support. In addition; we would like to acknowledge all participants who attended the workshop and represented the following institutions: 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Fisheries (Southland and Sub-Antarctic Areas Commercial Fishing) Regulations 1986 (SR 1986/220)
    Reprint as at 1 October 2017 Fisheries (Southland and Sub-Antarctic Areas Commercial Fishing) Regulations 1986 (SR 1986/220) Paul Reeves, Governor-General Order in Council At Wellington this 2nd day of September 1986 Present: The Right Hon G W R Palmer presiding in Council Pursuant to section 89 of the Fisheries Act 1983, His Excellency the Governor-Gener- al, acting by and with the advice and consent of the Executive Council, hereby makes the following regulations. Contents Page 1 Title, commencement, and application 4 2 Interpretation 4 Part 1 Southland area Total prohibition 3 Total prohibitions 15 Note Changes authorised by subpart 2 of Part 2 of the Legislation Act 2012 have been made in this official reprint. Note 4 at the end of this reprint provides a list of the amendments incorporated. These regulations are administered by the Ministry for Primary Industries. 1 Fisheries (Southland and Sub-Antarctic Areas Reprinted as at Commercial Fishing) Regulations 1986 1 October 2017 Certain fishing methods prohibited 3A Certain fishing methods prohibited in defined areas 16 3AB Set net fishing prohibited in defined area from Slope Point to Sand 18 Hill Point Minimum set net mesh size 3B Minimum set net mesh size 19 3BA Minimum net mesh for queen scallop trawling 20 Set net soak times 3C Set net soak times 20 3D Restrictions on fishing in paua quota management areas 21 3E Labelling of containers for paua taken in any PAU 5 quota 21 management area 3F Marking of blue cod pots and fish holding pots [Revoked] 21 Trawling 4 Trawling prohibited
    [Show full text]
  • Faunistic Assemblages of a Sublittoral Coarse Sand Habitat of the Northwestern Mediterranean
    Scientia Marina 75(1) March 2011, 189-196, Barcelona (Spain) ISSN: 0214-8358 doi: 10.3989/scimar.2011.75n1189 Faunistic assemblages of a sublittoral coarse sand habitat of the northwestern Mediterranean EVA PUBILL 1, PERE ABELLÓ 1, MONTSERRAT RAMÓN 2,1 and MARC BAETA 3 1 Institut de Ciències del Mar (CSIC), Passeig Marítim de la Barceloneta, 37-49, 08003 Barcelona, Spain. E-mail: [email protected] 2 Instituto Español de Oceanografía, Centre Oceanogràfic de les Balears, Moll de Ponent s/n, 07015 Palma de Mallorca, Spain. 3 Tecnoambiente S.L., carrer Indústria, 550-552, 08918 Badalona, Spain. SUMMARY: The sublittoral megabenthic assemblages of a northwestern Mediterranean coarse sandy beach exploited for the bivalve Callista chione were studied. The spatial and bathymetric variability of its distinctive faunal assemblages was characterised by quantitative sampling performed with a clam dredge. The taxa studied were Mollusca Bivalvia and Gastropoda, Crustacea Decapoda, Echinodermata and Pisces, which accounted for over 99% of the total biomass. Three well- differentiated species assemblages were identified: (1) assemblage MSS (Medium Sand Shallow) in medium sand (D50=0.37 mm) and shallow waters (mean depth =6.5 m), (2) assemblage CSS (Coarse Sand Shallow) in coarse sand (D50=0.62 mm) in shallow waters (mean depth =6.7 m), and (3) assemblage CSD (Coarse Sand Deep) in coarse sand (D50=0.64 mm) in deeper waters (mean depth =16.2 m). Assemblage MSS was characterised by the codominance of the bivalves Mactra stultorum and Acanthocardia tuberculata. C. chione was dominant in both density and biomass in assemblages CSS and CSD.
    [Show full text]
  • Marine Bivalve Molluscs
    Marine Bivalve Molluscs Marine Bivalve Molluscs Second Edition Elizabeth Gosling This edition first published 2015 © 2015 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd First edition published 2003 © Fishing News Books, a division of Blackwell Publishing Registered Office John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK Editorial Offices 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030‐5774, USA For details of our global editorial offices, for customer services and for information about how to apply for permission to reuse the copyright material in this book please see our website at www.wiley.com/wiley‐blackwell. The right of the author to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in accordance with the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, without the prior permission of the publisher. Designations used by companies to distinguish their products are often claimed as trademarks. All brand names and product names used in this book are trade names, service marks, trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners. The publisher is not associated with any product or vendor mentioned in this book. Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty: While the publisher and author(s) have used their best efforts in preparing this book, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this book and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose.
    [Show full text]
  • Diseases Affecting Finfish
    Diseases Affecting Finfish Legislation Ireland's Exotic / Disease Name Acronym Health Susceptible Species Vector Species Non-Exotic Listed National Status Disease Measures Bighead carp (Aristichthys nobilis), goldfish (Carassius auratus), crucian carp (C. carassius), Epizootic Declared Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), redfin common carp and koi carp (Cyprinus carpio), silver carp (Hypophtalmichthys molitrix), Haematopoietic EHN Exotic * Disease-Free perch (Percha fluviatilis) Chub (Leuciscus spp), Roach (Rutilus rutilus), Rudd (Scardinius erythrophthalmus), tench Necrosis (Tinca tinca) Beluga (Huso huso), Danube sturgeon (Acipenser gueldenstaedtii), Sterlet sturgeon (Acipenser ruthenus), Starry sturgeon (Acipenser stellatus), Sturgeon (Acipenser sturio), Siberian Sturgeon (Acipenser Baerii), Bighead carp (Aristichthys nobilis), goldfish (Carassius auratus), Crucian carp (C. carassius), common carp and koi carp (Cyprinus carpio), silver carp (Hypophtalmichthys molitrix), Chub (Leuciscus spp), Roach (Rutilus rutilus), Rudd (Scardinius erythrophthalmus), tench (Tinca tinca) Herring (Cupea spp.), whitefish (Coregonus sp.), North African catfish (Clarias gariepinus), Northern pike (Esox lucius) Catfish (Ictalurus pike (Esox Lucius), haddock (Gadus aeglefinus), spp.), Black bullhead (Ameiurus melas), Channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), Pangas Pacific cod (G. macrocephalus), Atlantic cod (G. catfish (Pangasius pangasius), Pike perch (Sander lucioperca), Wels catfish (Silurus glanis) morhua), Pacific salmon (Onchorhynchus spp.), Viral
    [Show full text]
  • Marine Animal Behaviour in a High CO2 Ocean
    Vol. 536: 259–279, 2015 MARINE ECOLOGY PROGRESS SERIES Published September 29 doi: 10.3354/meps11426 Mar Ecol Prog Ser REVIEW Marine animal behaviour in a high CO2 ocean Jeff C. Clements*, Heather L. Hunt Department of Biology, University of New Brunswick Saint John Campus, 100 Tucker Park Road, Saint John E2L 4L5, NB, Canada ABSTRACT: Recently, the effects of ocean acidification (OA) on marine animal behaviour have garnered considerable attention, as they can impact biological interactions and, in turn, ecosystem structure and functioning. We reviewed current published literature on OA and marine behaviour and synthesize current understanding of how a high CO2 ocean may impact animal behaviour, elucidate critical unknowns, and provide suggestions for future research. Although studies have focused equally on vertebrates and invertebrates, vertebrate studies have primarily focused on coral reef fishes, in contrast to the broader diversity of invertebrate taxa studied. A quantitative synthesis of the direction and magnitude of change in behaviours from current conditions under OA scenarios suggests primarily negative impacts that vary depending on species, ecosystem, and behaviour. The interactive effects of co-occurring environmental parameters with increasing CO2 elicit effects different from those observed under elevated CO2 alone. Although 12% of studies have incorporated multiple factors, only one study has examined the effects of carbonate system variability on the behaviour of a marine animal. Altered GABAA receptor functioning under elevated CO2 appears responsible for many behavioural responses; however, this mechanism is unlikely to be universal. We recommend a new focus on determining the effects of elevated CO2 on marine animal behaviour in the context of multiple environmental drivers and future carbonate system variability, and the mechanisms governing the association between acid-base regulation and GABAA receptor functioning.
    [Show full text]
  • Analysis of Hydrometeorological Conditions in the South Baltic Sea During the Stormy Weather O N 2 7 Th November, 2016
    ZESZYTY NAUKOWE AKADEMII MARYNARKI WOJENNEJ SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL OF POLISH NAVAL ACADEMY 2017 (LVIII) 2 (209) DOI: 10.5604/01.3001.0010.4062 Czesław Dyrcz ANALYSIS OF HYDROMETEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS IN THE SOUTH BALTIC SEA DURING THE STORMY WEATHER O N 2 7 TH NOVEMBER, 2016 ABSTRACT The paper presents results of research concerning hydrological and meteorological conditions during the stormy weather on 27th November, 2016 in the South Baltic Sea and over the Polish coast. The wind which occurred the South Baltic Sea at that time reached the force of 7 Beaufort degree and in gusts 8 to 9 Beaufort degree. The south part of the Baltic Sea was affected by the low pressure system (981 hPa) which the centre was situated in South Finland and Northwest Russia. Some destroys were observed on the Polish coast line and in ports of the Gdansk Bay. The analysis is concerned on the wind force, the wind direction, the atmospheric pressure and the sea water level in some places of the Polish coast line and especially in the Gdansk Bay. Key words: sea water level, weather conditions, the South Baltic Sea. INTRODUCTION Occurrence of strong winds in the area of the Baltic Sea and on the Polish coast is related mainly with active cyclones. This means that the strong winds zone is of the synoptic scale, i.e. it extends in an area of over 500 NM across and it lasts for a few days. Storms cause serious difficulties or they are even threats to safety of sea navigation and work in harbors. They often destroy hydrotechnical devices and coast facilities.
    [Show full text]
  • Chlamys Varia and Pecten Maximus Exposed Through Seawater, Food And/Or Sediment, Depending of Their
    Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology Archimer December 2007, Volume 353, Issue 1, Pages 58-67 Archive Institutionnelle de l’Ifremer http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jembe.2007.09.001 http://www.ifremer.fr/docelec/ © 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Interspecific comparison of Cd bioaccumulation in European Pectinidae (Chlamys varia and Pecten maximus) ailable on the publisher Web site Marc Metianab, Michel Warnaub, François Oberhänslib, Jean-Louis Teyssiéb and Paco a, * Bustamante aCentre de Recherche sur les Ecosystèmes Littoraux Anthropisés, UMR 6217, CNRS-IFREMER-Université de La Rochelle, 22 avenue Michel Crépeau, F-17042 La Rochelle Cedex 01, France bInternational Atomic Energy Agency-Marine Environment Laboratories, 4 Quai Antoine Ier, MC-98000 Principality of Monaco *: Corresponding author : P. Bustamante, email address : [email protected] blisher-authenticated version is av Abstract: The uptake and loss kinetics of Cd were determined in two species of scallops from the European coasts, the variegated scallop Chlamys varia and the king scallop Pecten maximus, following exposures via seawater, phytoplankton and sediment using highly sensitive radiotracer techniques (109Cd). Results indicate that, for seawater and dietary pathways, C. varia displays higher bioaccumulation capacities in terms of uptake rate from water and fraction absorbed from ingested food (assimilation efficiency) than Pecten maximus. Regarding sediment exposure, P. maximus displayed low steady-state Cd transfer factor (TFSS < 1); however, once incorporated, a very large part of Cd transferred from sediment (92%) was strongly retained within P. maximus tissues. Both species showed a high retention capacity for Cd (biological half-life, Tb1/2 > 4 months), suggesting efficient mechanisms of detoxification and storage in both species.
    [Show full text]
  • Os Nomes Galegos Dos Moluscos
    A Chave Os nomes galegos dos moluscos 2017 Citación recomendada / Recommended citation: A Chave (2017): Nomes galegos dos moluscos recomendados pola Chave. http://www.achave.gal/wp-content/uploads/achave_osnomesgalegosdos_moluscos.pdf 1 Notas introdutorias O que contén este documento Neste documento fornécense denominacións para as especies de moluscos galegos (e) ou europeos, e tamén para algunhas das especies exóticas máis coñecidas (xeralmente no ámbito divulgativo, por causa do seu interese científico ou económico, ou por seren moi comúns noutras áreas xeográficas). En total, achéganse nomes galegos para 534 especies de moluscos. A estrutura En primeiro lugar preséntase unha clasificación taxonómica que considera as clases, ordes, superfamilias e familias de moluscos. Aquí apúntase, de maneira xeral, os nomes dos moluscos que hai en cada familia. A seguir vén o corpo do documento, onde se indica, especie por especie, alén do nome científico, os nomes galegos e ingleses de cada molusco (nalgún caso, tamén, o nome xenérico para un grupo deles). Ao final inclúese unha listaxe de referencias bibliográficas que foron utilizadas para a elaboración do presente documento. Nalgunhas desas referencias recolléronse ou propuxéronse nomes galegos para os moluscos, quer xenéricos quer específicos. Outras referencias achegan nomes para os moluscos noutras linguas, que tamén foron tidos en conta. Alén diso, inclúense algunhas fontes básicas a respecto da metodoloxía e dos criterios terminolóxicos empregados. 2 Tratamento terminolóxico De modo moi resumido, traballouse nas seguintes liñas e cos seguintes criterios: En primeiro lugar, aprofundouse no acervo lingüístico galego. A respecto dos nomes dos moluscos, a lingua galega é riquísima e dispomos dunha chea de nomes, tanto específicos (que designan un único animal) como xenéricos (que designan varios animais parecidos).
    [Show full text]
  • Int. J. Biosci. 2018
    Int. J. Biosci. 2018 International Journal of Biosciences | IJB | ISSN: 2220-6655 (Print), 2222-5234 (Online) http://www.innspub.net Vol. 12, No. 1, p. 82-89, 2018 RESEARCH PAPER OPEN ACCESS Describing shell shapes of Venerid bivalves using elliptic fourier analysis Mark Lloyd Dapar, Sharon Rose Tabugo* Department of Biological Sciences, College of Science and Mathematics Mindanao State University-Iligan Institute of Technology, Iligan City, Philippines Key words: Veneridae, CVA, MANOVA, Variation, Elliptic Fourier Analysis. http://dx.doi.org/10.12692/ijb/12.1.82-89 Article published on January 12, 2018 Abstract In this study, Elliptic Fourier (EF) analysis was used to describe phenotypic variation among the selected venerid bivalve species Meretrix lyrata (lyrate asiatic hard clam), Chamelea striatula (striped venus clam) and Tapes dorsatus (turgid venus clam). Thus, to describe possible phenotypic diversity, a total of 90 venerid bivalves (30 specimens for each species) were photographed on their right valves. Canonical variate analysis (CVA), multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA), principal component analysis (PCA) and Kruskal-Wallis tests showed significant difference between species based on the Fourier coefficients. This study showed significant variations in the shape of the right external valve of the shell. CVA plot generated show separation of populations examined indicating significant difference between groups. Observed differences in the external shell shapes of different venerid bivalve species were based in the umbo, anterior margin, shell width, length depth and anterior margin depression. Results suggest hypothesized variable factors behind the disparity of the external shell shape which include habitat differences, environment and genotype interactions. Herewith, the use of Elliptic Fourier (EF) analysis proved to be useful in effective quantification of inter-specific variation between species.
    [Show full text]
  • Biogeographical Homogeneity in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea. II
    Vol. 19: 75–84, 2013 AQUATIC BIOLOGY Published online September 4 doi: 10.3354/ab00521 Aquat Biol Biogeographical homogeneity in the eastern Mediterranean Sea. II. Temporal variation in Lebanese bivalve biota Fabio Crocetta1,*, Ghazi Bitar2, Helmut Zibrowius3, Marco Oliverio4 1Stazione Zoologica Anton Dohrn, Villa Comunale, 80121, Napoli, Italy 2Department of Natural Sciences, Faculty of Sciences, Lebanese University, Hadath, Lebanon 3Le Corbusier 644, 280 Boulevard Michelet, 13008 Marseille, France 4Dipartimento di Biologia e Biotecnologie ‘Charles Darwin’, University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’, Viale dell’Università 32, 00185 Roma, Italy ABSTRACT: Lebanon (eastern Mediterranean Sea) is an area of particular biogeographic signifi- cance for studying the structure of eastern Mediterranean marine biodiversity and its recent changes. Based on literature records and original samples, we review here the knowledge of the Lebanese marine bivalve biota, tracing its changes during the last 170 yr. The updated checklist of bivalves of Lebanon yielded a total of 114 species (96 native and 18 alien taxa), accounting for ca. 26.5% of the known Mediterranean Bivalvia and thus representing a particularly poor fauna. Analysis of the 21 taxa historically described on Lebanese material only yielded 2 available names. Records of 24 species are new for the Lebanese fauna, and Lioberus ligneus is also a new record for the Mediterranean Sea. Comparisons between molluscan records by past (before 1950) and modern (after 1950) authors revealed temporal variations and qualitative modifications of the Lebanese bivalve fauna, mostly affected by the introduction of Erythraean species. The rate of recording of new alien species (evaluated in decades) revealed later first local arrivals (after 1900) than those observed for other eastern Mediterranean shores, while the peak in records in conjunc- tion with our samplings (1991 to 2010) emphasizes the need for increased field work to monitor their arrival and establishment.
    [Show full text]
  • DEEP SEA LEBANON RESULTS of the 2016 EXPEDITION EXPLORING SUBMARINE CANYONS Towards Deep-Sea Conservation in Lebanon Project
    DEEP SEA LEBANON RESULTS OF THE 2016 EXPEDITION EXPLORING SUBMARINE CANYONS Towards Deep-Sea Conservation in Lebanon Project March 2018 DEEP SEA LEBANON RESULTS OF THE 2016 EXPEDITION EXPLORING SUBMARINE CANYONS Towards Deep-Sea Conservation in Lebanon Project Citation: Aguilar, R., García, S., Perry, A.L., Alvarez, H., Blanco, J., Bitar, G. 2018. 2016 Deep-sea Lebanon Expedition: Exploring Submarine Canyons. Oceana, Madrid. 94 p. DOI: 10.31230/osf.io/34cb9 Based on an official request from Lebanon’s Ministry of Environment back in 2013, Oceana has planned and carried out an expedition to survey Lebanese deep-sea canyons and escarpments. Cover: Cerianthus membranaceus © OCEANA All photos are © OCEANA Index 06 Introduction 11 Methods 16 Results 44 Areas 12 Rov surveys 16 Habitat types 44 Tarablus/Batroun 14 Infaunal surveys 16 Coralligenous habitat 44 Jounieh 14 Oceanographic and rhodolith/maërl 45 St. George beds measurements 46 Beirut 19 Sandy bottoms 15 Data analyses 46 Sayniq 15 Collaborations 20 Sandy-muddy bottoms 20 Rocky bottoms 22 Canyon heads 22 Bathyal muds 24 Species 27 Fishes 29 Crustaceans 30 Echinoderms 31 Cnidarians 36 Sponges 38 Molluscs 40 Bryozoans 40 Brachiopods 42 Tunicates 42 Annelids 42 Foraminifera 42 Algae | Deep sea Lebanon OCEANA 47 Human 50 Discussion and 68 Annex 1 85 Annex 2 impacts conclusions 68 Table A1. List of 85 Methodology for 47 Marine litter 51 Main expedition species identified assesing relative 49 Fisheries findings 84 Table A2. List conservation interest of 49 Other observations 52 Key community of threatened types and their species identified survey areas ecological importanc 84 Figure A1.
    [Show full text]