DOCSLIB.ORG

Influence of Shelter Availability on Interactions Between Caribbean Spiny Lobsters and Moray Eels: Implications for Artificial Lobster Enhancement

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Influence of Shelter Availability on Interactions Between Caribbean Spiny Lobsters and Moray Eels: Implications for Artificial Lobster Enhancement Vol. 400: 175–185, 2010 MARINE ECOLOGY PROGRESS SERIES Published February 11 doi: 10.3354/meps08324 Mar Ecol Prog Ser OPENPEN ACCESSCCESS Influence of shelter availability on interactions between Caribbean spiny lobsters and moray eels: implications for artificial lobster enhancement E. Lozano-Álvarez1,*, P. Briones-Fourzán1, L. Álvarez-Filip1, H. M. Weiss2, F. Negrete-Soto1, C. Barradas-Ortiz1 1Instituto de Ciencias del Mar y Limnología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Unidad Académica Puerto Morelos, PO Box 1152, Cancún, Quintana Roo 77500, México 2Project Oceanology, Avery Point, Groton, Connecticut 06355, USA ABSTRACT: The Caribbean spiny lobster Panulirus argus is a valuable fishing resource, but local populations may be limited by availability of crevice shelter on juvenile (seagrass) habitats. This has prompted research into the potential density enhancement of juvenile lobsters with ‘casitas’, large (1.1 m2 surface area) but low-lying (3.8 cm entrance height) artificial shelters that exclude large predators. Moray eels (Muraenidae), however, fit into casitas and could therefore pose a threat to lob- ster enhancement. In a shelter-poor reef lagoon, we examined potential interactions between juve- nile lobsters and the locally dominant morays Gymnothorax vicinus and G. moringa in the absence (four 1 ha control sites) and presence of casitas (five 1 ha ‘casita sites’, each with 10 casitas), before (6 surveys) and after (22 surveys) deployment. Morays and lobsters did not interact as predator–prey, as morays neither consumed nor intimidated co-occurring lobsters. Rather, the 2 taxa appeared to compete for limited shelter on the reef lagoon, as suggested by a significant increase in density and mean size of both taxa on casita sites after deployment. Casitas significantly increased cohabitation of morays and lobsters, yet they tended to co-occur less often than expected by chance, but this result likely reflects behavioral differences between the highly gregarious, more numerous lobsters and the typically solitary, cannibalistic morays. Our study exemplifies the influence of habitat complexity on the nature of interspecific interactions and shows that G. vicinus and G. moringa would not pose a threat to lobster enhancement with casitas. KEY WORDS: Artificial shelters · Casitas · Competition · Environmental context · Interspecific interactions · Predation · Reef lagoon Resale or republication not permitted without written consent of the publisher INTRODUCTION neutral, to positive, depending on the environmental context (Stachowicz 2001, van Baalen & Jansen 2001, Communities are structured by interactions be- Hay et al. 2004). In particular, habitat complexity may tween coexisting species. Interactions are positive have a profound influence on the nature and outcome (e.g. mutualism) when one species improves another of interactions between local species (Forrester & species’ environment, or negative (e.g. predation or Steele 2004, Grabowski 2004, Hixon & Jones 2005) competition) when one species detracts from the because high complexity habitats provide a greater environment of other species or has an impact on its spectrum of resources and more refuges that provide components or fitness, such as survival, growth, or protection from predators than low complexity habi- reproduction. However, interspecific interactions may tats (Sih 1984, Almany 2003, Lozano-Álvarez et al. be conditional, potentially shifting from negative, to 2007). *Email: [email protected] © Inter-Research 2010 · www.int-res.com 176 Mar Ecol Prog Ser 400: 175–185, 2010 Moray eels (Pisces: Anguilliformes: Muraenidae) and ston 1998), thus reducing the time of exposure (the spiny lobsters (Crustacea: Decapoda: Palinuridae) typi- ‘guide effect’ benefit, Childress & Herrnkind 1997). cally coexist in coral reef systems. Morays are general- However, if crevice shelter is limited, resident lobsters ist predators and are certainly able to consume spiny may behave aggressively towards other conspecifics lobsters (Lipcius et al. 1998, Weiss et al. 2006), yet spiny attempting to share their shelter (Childress & Herrn- lobsters are usually not present in stomach contents of kind 1997). Therefore, shelter limitation increases the morays (Hiatt & Strassburg 1960, Randall 1967, Chave risk of predation for those lobsters seeking shelter and & Randall 1971, Young & Winn 2003). If morays switch also for those sheltering alone, potentially resulting in among prey species depending on their relative abun- a local demographic bottleneck (Wahle 2003). dance as most generalist predators do (van Baalen et al. The dire consequences of shelter limitation for juve- 2001, Rudolf 2008), these findings may simply reflect a nile Panulirus argus lobsters have prompted research lower local abundance of spiny lobsters relative to other into their potential enhancement (increase in density types of prey. Alternatively, morays may affect lobsters and biomass) with artificial shelters (review in Briones- indirectly (by intimidation) rather than by consumption Fourzán et al. 2007). Although artificial shelters may (Preisser et al. 2005). However, morays and lobsters of- also attract local predators, potentially increasing mor- ten share crevices without showing any obvious inter- tality of resident lobsters (Butler & Herrnkind 1997, actions (Berry 1971, Abrams et al. 1983, Lozano- Sosa-Cordero et al. 1998, Behringer & Butler 2006), it Álvarez & Spanier 1997, Young & Winn 2003, Weiss has been found that ‘casitas’ (large but low-lying artifi- et al. 2006). Berry (1971) considered this occurrence as cial shelters) tend to increase survival and density of a potential mutualism, wherein the lobster would be juvenile lobsters by excluding large predators while protected from other predators (e.g. octopuses) by the offering lobsters the potential for gregariousness moray, and the moray would profit from consuming (Eggleston et al. 1990, Eggleston & Lipcius 1992, other predators attracted by the lobster. Briones-Fourzán et al. 2007). But casitas do not exclude However, because morays (Hixon & Beets 1989, morays, which fit into narrow crevices given their 1993, Gilbert et al. 2005) and spiny lobsters (e.g. Butler snake-like bodies (Hixon & Beets 1989, 1993). Thus, & Herrnkind 1997, Briones-Fourzán et al. 2007) morays have been considered as potential predators strongly depend on crevice shelter for protection for lobsters in casitas (Eggleston et al. 1990, Sosa- against their predators, the 2 taxa might compete for Cordero et al. 1998). limited shelter. For example, on soft-bottom seagrass However, in a controlled experiment conducted in habitats across the Puerto Morelos reef lagoon (Mexi- the Puerto Morelos reef lagoon, casitas significantly can Caribbean), crevice shelters (e.g. solution holes, enhanced juvenile lobsters despite being also readily small coral heads, and the bases of sponges and octo- colonized by morays (Briones-Fourzán et al. 2007). corals) are scarce and generally small (Briones- This experiment thus provided an arena to test several Fourzán & Lozano-Álvarez 2001). In this and other hypotheses concerning potential interactions between Caribbean reef lagoons, juvenile Caribbean spiny lob- morays and lobsters on shelter-poor (without casitas) sters Panulirus argus (Latreille, 1804) coexist with pur- and shelter-enhanced (with casitas) sites. If morays plemouth Gymnothorax vicinus (Castelnau, 1855) and tend to consume co-occurring lobsters, this would be spotted morays G. moringa (Cuvier, 1829) (Young & reflected in a meaningful contribution of lobsters to the Winn 2003, Briones-Fourzán et al. 2007). diet of morays and in a negative relationship between Panulirus argus is one of the most important fishery the average numbers of morays and lobsters per casita. resources in the Caribbean region (Phillips & Melville- If morays affect lobsters indirectly (by intimidation), Smith 2006), but local populations of juvenile lobsters, their presence would be expected to affect the distrib- which are more vulnerable to predation than adults, ution of lobsters among shelters, be they natural may be limited by availability of crevice shelters. crevices (hereafter referred to as ‘crevices’) or casitas. These lobsters, however, are gregarious and their per If morays and lobsters potentially compete for limited, capita survival tends to increase in large shelters that small shelters but can share large shelters, then allow for cohabitation of multiple lobsters across a morays — like lobsters — should undergo a significant broad size range (Dolan & Butler 2006) because the enhancement with casitas, and both taxa would tend to larger lobsters collectively defend the shelter from cohabit more in casitas than in crevices. If cohabitation approaching predators (the ‘group defense’ benefit, is beneficial to both taxa, then they should tend to co- Childress & Herrnkind 1997) while the smaller lobsters occur in individual shelters more often than expected may profit from a ‘dilution effect’ (Eggleston & Lipcius by chance. However, because social behavior may dic- 1992, Briones-Fourzán & Lozano-Álvarez 2008). Also, tate the pattern of shelter occupancy, we compared the lobsters seeking shelter home in on chemical cues tendency of individuals of each taxon to dwell alone or released by sheltered conspecifics (Ratchford & Eggle- aggregated. Lozano-Álvarez et al.: Interactions between spiny lobsters and moray eels 177 MATERIALS AND METHODS sisted of 6 surveys because prior to these surveys no
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Educators' Resource Guide
    EDUCATORS' RESOURCE GUIDE Produced and published by 3D Entertainment Distribution Written by Dr. Elisabeth Mantello In collaboration with Jean-Michel Cousteau’s Ocean Futures Society TABLE OF CONTENTS TO EDUCATORS .................................................................................................p 3 III. PART 3. ACTIVITIES FOR STUDENTS INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................p 4 ACTIVITY 1. DO YOU Know ME? ................................................................. p 20 PLANKton, SOURCE OF LIFE .....................................................................p 4 ACTIVITY 2. discoVER THE ANIMALS OF "SECRET OCEAN" ......... p 21-24 ACTIVITY 3. A. SECRET OCEAN word FIND ......................................... p 25 PART 1. SCENES FROM "SECRET OCEAN" ACTIVITY 3. B. ADD color to THE octoPUS! .................................... p 25 1. CHristmas TREE WORMS .........................................................................p 5 ACTIVITY 4. A. WHERE IS MY MOUTH? ..................................................... p 26 2. GIANT BasKET Star ..................................................................................p 6 ACTIVITY 4. B. WHat DO I USE to eat? .................................................. p 26 3. SEA ANEMONE AND Clown FISH ......................................................p 6 ACTIVITY 5. A. WHO eats WHat? .............................................................. p 27 4. GIANT CLAM AND ZOOXANTHELLAE ................................................p
    [Show full text]
  • Reef Fish Biodiversity in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Megan E
    University of South Florida Scholar Commons Graduate Theses and Dissertations Graduate School November 2017 Reef Fish Biodiversity in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Megan E. Hepner University of South Florida, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd Part of the Biology Commons, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Commons, and the Other Oceanography and Atmospheric Sciences and Meteorology Commons Scholar Commons Citation Hepner, Megan E., "Reef Fish Biodiversity in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary" (2017). Graduate Theses and Dissertations. https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/7408 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Reef Fish Biodiversity in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary by Megan E. Hepner A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science Marine Science with a concentration in Marine Resource Assessment College of Marine Science University of South Florida Major Professor: Frank Muller-Karger, Ph.D. Christopher Stallings, Ph.D. Steve Gittings, Ph.D. Date of Approval: October 31st, 2017 Keywords: Species richness, biodiversity, functional diversity, species traits Copyright © 2017, Megan E. Hepner ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am indebted to my major advisor, Dr. Frank Muller-Karger, who provided opportunities for me to strengthen my skills as a researcher on research cruises, dive surveys, and in the laboratory, and as a communicator through oral and presentations at conferences, and for encouraging my participation as a full team member in various meetings of the Marine Biodiversity Observation Network (MBON) and other science meetings.
    [Show full text]
  • Sharkcam Fishes
    SharkCam Fishes A Guide to Nekton at Frying Pan Tower By Erin J. Burge, Christopher E. O’Brien, and jon-newbie 1 Table of Contents Identification Images Species Profiles Additional Info Index Trevor Mendelow, designer of SharkCam, on August 31, 2014, the day of the original SharkCam installation. SharkCam Fishes. A Guide to Nekton at Frying Pan Tower. 5th edition by Erin J. Burge, Christopher E. O’Brien, and jon-newbie is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/. For questions related to this guide or its usage contact Erin Burge. The suggested citation for this guide is: Burge EJ, CE O’Brien and jon-newbie. 2020. SharkCam Fishes. A Guide to Nekton at Frying Pan Tower. 5th edition. Los Angeles: Explore.org Ocean Frontiers. 201 pp. Available online http://explore.org/live-cams/player/shark-cam. Guide version 5.0. 24 February 2020. 2 Table of Contents Identification Images Species Profiles Additional Info Index TABLE OF CONTENTS SILVERY FISHES (23) ........................... 47 African Pompano ......................................... 48 FOREWORD AND INTRODUCTION .............. 6 Crevalle Jack ................................................. 49 IDENTIFICATION IMAGES ...................... 10 Permit .......................................................... 50 Sharks and Rays ........................................ 10 Almaco Jack ................................................. 51 Illustrations of SharkCam
    [Show full text]
  • 5 Coral Condition Flat
    The Western Atlantic Health and Resilience Cards provide photographic examples of the dominant habitat features and biological indicators of coral reef condition, health and resilience to future perturbations. Representative examples of benthic substrates types, indicators of coral health, algal functional groups, dominant sessile invertebrates, large, motile invertebrates, and herbivorous and predatory fishes are presented, with emphasis on major functional groups regulating coral diversity, abundance and condition. This is not intended as a taxonomic ID guide. Resilience is the ability of the reef community to maintain or restore structure and function and remain in an equivalent ‘phase’ as before an unusual disturbance. The most critical attributes of resilience for monitoring programs are compiled in this guide. A typical protocol involves an assessment of replicate belt transects in multiple reef environments to characterize 1) the diversity, abundance, size structure cover and condition of corals, 2) the abundance/cover of other associated and competing benthic organisms, including “pest” species; 3) fish diversity, abundance and size for the key functional groups (avoiding many of the small blennies, gobies, wrasses, juveniles and non‐reef species, and focusing on large herbivores, piscivores, invertebrate feeders, and detritivores); 4) abundance of motile macroinvertebrates that feed on algae and invertebrates, especially corallivores; 5) habitat quality and substrate condition (biomass and cover of five functional algal groups, turf, CCA, macroalgae, erect corallines and cyanobacteria; amount of rubble, pavement and sediment); 6) coral condition (prevalence of disease and corallivores, broken corals, levels of recruitment); and 7) evidence of human disturbance such as levels and types of fishing, runoff, and coastal development.
    [Show full text]
  • Top 51-100 Offshore Fish Flash Cards
    OFFSHORE FISH ID 51-100 1 Instructions for Printing as Flash Cards 1. Edit Print Settings to [4-pages to 1]; Single Sided 2. Cut out Cards 3. Fold along dotted line so ID Name is hidden behind each card Cut Fold Fold Cut Fold Fold 2 • Purple coloration dorsally • Yellow-gold ventrally and posteriorly • Size: 8” – 14” Spanish Hogfish 3 Bodianus rufus | Wrasses – Labridae • Yellow-gold spots on body • Silvery elongate body • Size: 1’ – 3’ Spanish mackerel 4 Scomberomorus maculatus | Mackerels – Scombridae • Torpedo body w/ flattened forebody • Silver to brown coloration • Sometimes black and white stripes • Size: 2’ – 4’ 5 Cobia Rachycentron canadum | Cobias – Rachycentridae • White side “bridle” running from rear of mouth to gill cover • Color Whitish to transparent, often without markings • Size: 1” – 2” 6 Bridled Goby Coryphopterus glaucofraenum | Gobies – Gobiidae • Three dark spots in a row • Two chin barbels • Mottled reddish-brown when resting • Size: 5” – 8” Spotted Goatfish 7 Pseudopeneus maculatus | Goatfishes – Mullidae • Head and pectoral fins form a triangular ray- like anterior • Thick, tapered, shark- like posterior • Size: 1’ – 2’ Atlantic Guitarfish 8 Rhinobatos lentiginosus | Guitarfishes – Rhinobatidae • Dorsal, anal, and caudal fins without spots • Single black stripe from dorsal fin to caudal fin • Juvenile: Vertical black dash on nose • Size: 5” – 8” Juvenile Juvenile Jackknife-fish 9 Equetus lanceolatus | Drums – Sciaenidae • Overbite • Black spot at base of pectoral fin • Size: 8” – 14” Sheepshead Porgy 10 Calamus
    [Show full text]
  • Seamap Environmental and Biological Atlas of the Gulf of Mexico, 2017
    environmental and biological atlas of the gulf of mexico 2017 gulf states marine fisheries commission number 284 february 2019 seamap SEAMAP ENVIRONMENTAL AND BIOLOGICAL ATLAS OF THE GULF OF MEXICO, 2017 Edited by Jeffrey K. Rester Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission Manuscript Design and Layout Ashley P. Lott Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission GULF STATES MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION FEBRUARY 2019 NUMBER 284 This project was supported in part by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, under State/Federal Project Number NA16NMFS4350111. GULF STATES MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION COMMISSIONERS ALABAMA Chris Blankenship John Roussel Alabama Department of Conservation 1221 Plains Port Hudson Road and Natural Resources Zachary, LA 70791 64 North Union Street Montgomery, AL 36130-1901 MISSISSIPPI Joe Spraggins, Executive Director Representative Steve McMillan Mississippi Department of Marine Resources P.O. Box 337 1141 Bayview Avenue Bay Minette, AL 36507 Biloxi, MS 39530 Chris Nelson TBA Bon Secour Fisheries, Inc. P.O. Box 60 Joe Gill, Jr. Bon Secour, AL 36511 Joe Gill Consulting, LLC 910 Desoto Street FLORIDA Ocean Springs, MS 39566-0535 Eric Sutton FL Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission TEXAS 620 South Meridian Street Carter Smith, Executive Director Tallahassee, FL 32399-1600 Texas Parks and Wildlife Department 4200 Smith School Road Representative Jay Trumbull Austin, TX 78744 State of Florida House of Representatives 402 South Monroe Street Troy B. Williamson, II Tallahassee, FL 32399 P.O. Box 967 Corpus Christi, TX 78403 TBA Representative Wayne Faircloth LOUISIANA Texas House of Representatives Jack Montoucet, Secretary 2121 Market Street, Suite 205 LA Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Galveston, TX 77550 P.O.
    [Show full text]
  • Distribution and Sighting Frequency of Reef Fishes in FL
    Distribution and sighting frequency of reef fishes in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Item Type monograph Authors Jeffrey, C. F. G.; Pattengill-Semmens, C.; Gittings, S.; Monaco, M. E. Publisher NOAA/National Ocean Service/Marine Sanctuaries Division Download date 27/09/2021 08:46:14 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/1834/20166 Marine Sanctuaries Conservation Series MSD-01-1 Distribution and Sighting Frequency of Reef Fishes in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary January 2001 U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Ocean Service Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management Marine Sanctuaries Division About the Marine Sanctuaries Conservation Series The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Marine Sanctuary Division (MSD) administers the National Marine Sanctuary Program. Its mission is to identify, designate, protect and manage the ecological, recreational, research, educational, historical, and aesthetic resources and qualities of nationally significant coastal and marine areas. The existing marine sanctuaries differ widely in their natural and historical resources and include nearshore and open ocean areas ranging in size from less than one to over 5,000 square miles. Protected habitats include rocky coasts, kelp forests, coral reefs, sea grass beds, estuarine habitats, hard and soft bottom habitats, segments of whale migration routes, and shipwrecks. Because of considerable differences in settings, resources, and threats, each marine sanctuary has a tailored management plan. Conservation, education, research, monitoring and enforcement programs vary accordingly. The integration of these programs is fundamental to marine protected area management. The Marine Sanctuaries Conservation Series reflects and supports this integration by providing a forum for publication and discussion of the complex issues currently facing the National Marine Sanctuary Program.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 3434 Vertebrates
    ChapterChapter 3434 Vertebrates PowerPoint® Lecture Presentations for Biology Eighth Edition Neil Campbell and Jane Reece Lectures by Chris Romero, updated by Erin Barley with contributions from Joan Sharp Copyright © 2008 Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Pearson Benjamin Cummings Overview: Half a Billion Years of Backbones • Early in the Cambrian period, about 530 million years ago, an astonishing variety of animals inhabited Earth’s oceans • One type of animal gave rise to vertebrates, one of the most successful groups of animals Copyright © 2008 Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Pearson Benjamin Cummings Fig. 34-1 • The animals called vertebrates get their name from vertebrae, the series of bones that make up the backbone • There are about 52,000 species of vertebrates, including the largest organisms ever to live on the Earth • Vertebrates have great disparity, a wide range of differences within the group Copyright © 2008 Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Pearson Benjamin Cummings Concept 34.1: Chordates have a notochord and a dorsal, hollow nerve cord • Vertebrates are a subphylum within the phylum Chordata • Chordates are bilaterian animals that belong to the clade of animals known as Deuterostomia • Two groups of invertebrate deuterostomes, the urochordates and cephalochordates, are more closely related to vertebrates than to other invertebrates Copyright © 2008 Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Pearson Benjamin Cummings Chordates Craniates Vertebrates Gnathostomes Osteichthyans Lobe-fins Tetrapods Amniotes
    [Show full text]
  • Marine Biodiversity in India
    MARINEMARINE BIODIVERSITYBIODIVERSITY ININ INDIAINDIA MARINE BIODIVERSITY IN INDIA Venkataraman K, Raghunathan C, Raghuraman R, Sreeraj CR Zoological Survey of India CITATION Venkataraman K, Raghunathan C, Raghuraman R, Sreeraj CR; 2012. Marine Biodiversity : 1-164 (Published by the Director, Zool. Surv. India, Kolkata) Published : May, 2012 ISBN 978-81-8171-307-0 © Govt. of India, 2012 Printing of Publication Supported by NBA Published at the Publication Division by the Director, Zoological Survey of India, M-Block, New Alipore, Kolkata-700 053 Printed at Calcutta Repro Graphics, Kolkata-700 006. ht³[eg siJ rJrJ";t Œtr"fUhK NATIONAL BIODIVERSITY AUTHORITY Cth;Govt. ofmhfUth India ztp. ctÖtf]UíK rvmwvtxe yÆgG Dr. Balakrishna Pisupati Chairman FOREWORD The marine ecosystem is home to the richest and most diverse faunal and floral communities. India has a coastline of 8,118 km, with an exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of 2.02 million sq km and a continental shelf area of 468,000 sq km, spread across 10 coastal States and seven Union Territories, including the islands of Andaman and Nicobar and Lakshadweep. Indian coastal waters are extremely diverse attributing to the geomorphologic and climatic variations along the coast. The coastal and marine habitat includes near shore, gulf waters, creeks, tidal flats, mud flats, coastal dunes, mangroves, marshes, wetlands, seaweed and seagrass beds, deltaic plains, estuaries, lagoons and coral reefs. There are four major coral reef areas in India-along the coasts of the Andaman and Nicobar group of islands, the Lakshadweep group of islands, the Gulf of Mannar and the Gulf of Kachchh . The Andaman and Nicobar group is the richest in terms of diversity.
    [Show full text]
  • BIODIVERSITY & CLASSIFICATION 02 OCTOBER 2013 Key Concepts
    BIODIVERSITY & CLASSIFICATION 02 OCTOBER 2013 Lesson Description In this lesson we: Explore biodiversity Examine and apply a system of classification Key Concepts Terminology Biodiversity The wide range of species and the number of organisms making up each species within communities Species Diversity Variety of different species Genetic Diversity Genetic variety within a species Ecosystem Diversity Variety of ecosystems that occur in a specific area. Endemic Species that occur in one country or region (indigenous) and nowhere else in the world Biodiversity in Southern Africa South African biodiversity “hot-spots” are: The Cape Floral Region Succulent Karoo Maputo-Pondoland-Albany Classification of Organisms Classification: Sorting and grouping according to similarities and differences Taxonomy: The science of naming and classifying a wide range of living things Carolus Linnaeus divided all living things into two kingdoms, namely, Plants and Animals. He also developed the binomial system of naming organisms. In this system each organism has two names, a generic name and a specific name E.g. Homo sapiens – human, Pantheraleo – lion and Pantheratigris - tiger In modern Life Sciences we have additional categories based on the shared physical properties within each group. Scientists attempt to classify organisms based on shared features. As information increases classification may change. The categories we use are: Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus Species We can use this system to classify humans as follows: Kingdom Phylum
    [Show full text]
  • Fishes of the Indian River Lagoon and Adjacent Waters, Florida
    FISHES OF THE INDIAN RIVER LAGOON AND ADJACENT WATERS, FLORIDA by R. Grant Gilmore, Jr. Christopher J. Donohoe Douglas W. Cooke Harbor Branch Foundation, Inc. RR 1, Box 196 Fort Pierce, Florida 33450 and David J. Herrema Applied Biology, Inc. 641 DeKalb Industrial Way Decatur, Georgia 30033 Harbor Branch Foundation, Inc. Technical Report No. 41 September 1981 Funding was provided by the Harbor Branch Foundation, Inc. and Florida Power & Light Company, Miami, Florida FISHES OF THE INDIAN RIVER LAGOON AND ADJACENT WATERS, FLORIDA R. Grant Gilmore, Jr. Christopher Donohoe Dougl as Cooke Davi d Herrema INTRODUCTION It is the intent of this presentation to briefly describe regional fish habitats and to list the fishes associated with these habitats in the Indian River lagoon, its freshwater tributaries and the adjacent continental shelf to a depth of 200 m. A brief historical review of other regional ichthyological studies is also given. Data presented here revises the first regional description and checklist of fishes in east central Florida (Gilmore, 1977). The Indian River is a narrow estuarine lagoon system extending from Ponce de Leon Inlet in Vol usia County south to Jupiter Inlet in Palm Beach County (Fig. 1). It lies within the zone of overlap between two well known faunal regimes (i.e. the warm temperate Carolinian and the tropical Caribbean). To the north of the region, Hildebrand and Schroeder (1928), Fowler (1945), Struhsaker (1969), Dahlberg (1971), and others have made major icthyofaunal reviews of the coastal waters of the southeastern United States. McLane (1955) and Tagatz (1967) have made extensive surveys of the fishes of the St.
    [Show full text]
  • Martin County Artificial Reef Monitoring 2016-17 FINAL
    Martin County Artificial Reef Monitoring 2016-17 FINAL REPORT FWC Grant No. 15106 September 2017 Prepared for: Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, FL 32399 Prepared by: Coastal Eco-Group, Inc. 665 SE 10th St. Suite 104 Deerfield Beach, FL 33441 Phone: 954-591-1219 Recommended citation: O’Neil, K., C. Miller and D. Fisco. 2017. Martin County Artificial Reef Monitoring 2016- 17. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Grant No. 15106. Report prepared by Coastal Eco-Group, Inc. 71 pp. plus appendices. Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1 2.0 METHODS ................................................................................................................... 7 2.1 Survey Locations ............................................................................................................... 7 2.1.1 South County Artificial Reefs .................................................................................... 7 2.1.2 Natural Reef Sites ..................................................................................................... 8 2.1.3 Comparisons to Prior Studies.................................................................................... 8 2.2 Experimental Design ........................................................................................................ 9 2.3 Benthic Quadrat Assessments ......................................................................................
    [Show full text]