1,770 research outputs found
Study of Fish Weight Loss in Solar Dryer Across Different Agro-Ecological Zones of Nigeria
No full textDrying sessions were conducted across Nigeria to study the interaction between fish weight loss and the meteorological parameters. Correlation analyses using weight loss values show that latitude is strongly related (r =+0.96) to weight loss of fish inside the dryer while altitude had a weak relationship (r = +0.24) with weight loss. The results show that New Bussa recorded more weight loss of fish than Jos, despite their uniform latitude. Weight loss records in Jos, was however better than those of Warri and Ibadan
Qualidade da solha selvagem e criada em circuito fechado e aberto
No full textMestrado em Ciências do Mar e Zonas CosteirasSoles (Solea spp) are a high-value commercial group of species with increasing importance in aquaculture. Common quality evaluation methods were used to compare Solea solea and Solea senegalensis sampled from the natural environment and fish farms. The aim was to develop a series of experiments and analysis of wild and farmed fish in Portugal, during 31 days, during boxed and iced storage. The analyses were performed using physical evaluations with Torrymeter type 295 and RT-Freshmeter type RT-2E, each 2 days and sensory evaluations using QIM (Quality Index Method), every day. The results show that farmed fish has a slower decrease in instrumentally-measured properties than the farmed, and QIM results show a loss in appearance more evident in the wild samples. For more accurate results, complementary analysis, like chemical, histological and microbiological, become necessary.As solhas (Solea spp) são um grupo de espécies de alto valor comercial com crescente importância na aquicultura. Métodos de avaliação da qualidade comuns em pescado foram usados para comparar a qualidade da solha. Solea solea e Solea senegalensis foram amostrados do ambiente natural e aquiculturas. Os peixes passaram por uma série de testes com o objetivo de analisar a sua qualidade. As amostras de peixes selvagens e de cultura, obtidas em Portugal, foram analisadas durante 31 dias, ao longo da sua degradação em caixas e em gelo moído. Foram feitas avaliações com os aparelhos Torrymeter 295 e RT-Freshmeter RT-2E, a cada dois dias, e avaliações sensoriais com o esquema QIM (Quality Índex Method), todos os dias. Os resultados mostram que os peixes de aquacultura têm uma perda mais lenta de qualidade do que os selvagens, em ambas as análises instrumentais, e nas análises do QIM mostram uma perda de qualidade na aparência mais evidente nos os selvagens. Para resultados mais precisos, análises complementares, como químicas, histológicas, e microbiológicas, tornam-se necessárias
FWS/CSS-142-2022
No full textThis report prepared for the Brook Floater Working Group includes a protocol developed to estimate Brook Floater population status and trends and demographic rates that allow for comparisons among populations throughout its range. The protocol describes methods that can be used in a variety of habitats (e.g., small streams and large rivers), at sites with different population densities, and for a range of number of personnel with various levels of experience.Standard operating protocol for
mark and recapture monitoring of
Brook Floater in streams
Sean C. Sterrett1
Allison H. Roy2
Peter Hazelton3,4
Beth Swartz5
Ethan Nedeau6
Jason Carmignani3
Ayla Skorupa1
1 Massachusetts Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of Massachusetts,
Amherst, MA
2 U.S. Geological Survey, Massachusetts Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University
of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA
3 Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program, Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and
Wildlife
4 University of Georgia, Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources
5 Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife
6 Biodrawversity, LLC
Cooperator Science Series # 142-2022
ii
About the Cooperator Science Series:
The Cooperator Science Series was initiated in 2013. Its purpose is to facilitate the archiving and retrieval of research project reports resulting primarily from investigations supported by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), particularly the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program. The online format was selected to provide immediate access to science reports for FWS, state and tribal management agencies, the conservation community, and the public at large.
All reports in this series have been subjected to a peer review process consistent with the agencies and entities conducting the research. For U.S. Geological Survey authors, the peer review process (http://www.usgs.gov/usgs-manual/500/502-3.html) also includes review by a bureau approving official prior to dissemination. Authors and/or agencies/institutions providing these reports are solely responsible for their content. The FWS does not provide editorial or technical review of these reports. Comments and other correspondence on reports in this series should be directed to the report authors or agencies/institutions. In most cases, reports published in this series are preliminary to publication, in the current or revised format, in peer reviewed scientific literature. Results and interpretation of data contained within reports may be revised following further peer review or availability of additional data and/or analyses prior to publication in the scientific literature.
The Cooperator Science Series is supported and maintained by the FWS, National Conservation Training Center at Shepherdstown, WV. The series is sequentially numbered with the publication year appended for reference and started with Report No. 101-2013. Various other numbering systems have been used by the FWS for similar, but now discontinued report series. Starting with No. 101 for the current series is intended to avoid any confusion with earlier report numbers.
The use of contracted research agencies and institutions, trade, product, industry or firm names or products or software or models, whether commercially available or not, is for informative purposes only and does not constitute an endorsement by the U.S. Government.
Contractual References:
This document (USGS IPDS #: IP-132939) was developed in conjunction with the US Geological Survey and the Massachusetts Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit and was supported through the Brook Floater Working Group supported by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Recommended citation:
Sterrett, S.C., A.H. Roy, P. Hazelton, B. Swartz, E. Nedeau, J. Carmignani, and A. Skorupa. 2022. Standard Operating Protocol for Mark and Recapture Monitoring of Brook Floater in Streams. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Cooperator Science Series FWS/CSS-142-2022, Washington, D. C. https://doi.org/10.3996/css67282137
For additional copies or information, contact:
Allison Roy
U.S. Geological Survey
Massachusetts Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit
E-mail: [email protected] 1
Standard Operating Protocol for Mark and Recapture Monitoring of Brook Floater in Streams
A marked Brook Floater from the Nissitissit River, Massachusetts (photo by Peter Hazelton)
Prepared by:
Sean C. Sterrett1, Allison Roy2, Peter Hazelton3,4, Beth Swartz5, Ethan Nedeau6, Jason Carmignani3, and Ayla Skorupa1
1 Massachusetts Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Department of Environmental Conservation, University of Massachusetts
2 U.S. Geological Survey, Massachusetts Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of Massachusetts
3 Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program, Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife
4 University of Georgia, Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources
5Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife
6 Biodrawversity, LLC
Prepared for:
The Brook Floater Working Group
July 2022 V. 1.0 2
Table of Contents
I. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ 6
II. Personnel needs and requirements .......................................................................................................... 7
IV. Sampling design ............................................................................................................................................. 8
III. Field methods and processing of collected materials ..................................................................... 10
A. Sampling area delineation .................................................................................................................. 10
B. Mussel survey, processing, and relic shell collection .......................................................................... 11
C. Habitat survey and processing ........................................................................................................... 16
IV. Data management and reporting ........................................................................................................... 21
V. References ....................................................................................................................................................... 21
VI. Appendices .................................................................................................................................................... 24
A. General assumptions of capture-mark-recapture and example sample design ................................ 24
B. Workflow scenarios ............................................................................................................................ 26
C. Tradeoffs on the use of Passive Integrated Transponder (PIT) and conventional tags ..................... 28
D. Shell measurement and tag placement diagram ............................................................................... 29
E. Shell condition index ........................................................................................................................... 30
F. Field data sheets – Metadata and reach-scale habitat data ............................................................. 31
G. Field data sheets – Mussel and individual-scale habitat data ........................................................... 32
H. Field data sheets – Effort and target mussel location data ............................................................... 34
I. Field data sheets – Individual mussel GPS locations ............................................................................ 35
J. Field data sheets – Site map ............................................................................................................... 36
K. Field data sheets – EPA rapid visual habitat assessment for ............................................................. 37
3
Figures
Figure 1. A diagram illustrating the set up for a Brook Floater long-term monitoring site, which is divided into 10-m bands and longitudinally into lanes which each observer searches. This hypothetical site is 100-m long. ............................................................................. 11
Figure 2. A PIT tagged mussel from Illinois (A - using Devcon marine grade epoxy (model 11800) and B - a demonstration of PIT tag sampling using an aquatic reader). The reader is swept in a systematic manner from a unique starting point (sensu Stodola et al. 2017; photos shared with permission from Alison Price-Stodola, Illinois Natural History Survey). .................................................................................................................................................................. 15
Figure 3. A modified concave spherical densiometer diagram (left) and photo (right) with bubble level, tape and 17 points of observation. A line of intersections at both open and closed circles is examined on the left. Closed circles represent line intersections counted in measurement of canopy closure (i.e., 11 out of 17 points; Fitzpatrick et al. 1998). ............... 19
Tables
Table 1. Examples of commonly used adhesives for conventional marking of freshwater mussels. .................................................................................................................................................. 14
Table 2. Frequency of collecting habitat data. .............................................................................. 17
Table 3. Substrate size class codes from EPA National Wadeable Stream Assessment (U.S. EPA 2013). ............................................................................................................................................. 20
4
Brook Floater Working Group Contributors
The Brook Floater Working Group (BFWG) is a collection of managers and scientists from federal and state agencies and academic institutions, who specialize in mussel ecology and conservation and are specifically working on the conservation of Brook Floater (Alasmidonta varicosa) across its range. We thank all the past and present working group members for their contributions to the development of this protocol.
Current BFWG Member
Affiliation
Allison Roy
U.S. Geological Survey; Massachusetts Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit
Andrew Gascho-Landis
State University of New York at Cobleskill
Ayla Skorupa
Massachusetts Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit; University of Massachusetts Amherst
Barry Wicklow
St. Anselm College
Beth Swartz
Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife
Brian Watson
Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries
Chris Eads
North Carolina State University
Dan Feller
Maryland Department of Natural Resources
David Perkins
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Richard Cronin Aquatic Resource Center
David Smith
U.S. Geological Survey; Leetown Science Center
Donald Pirie-Hay
Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Ethan Nedeau
Biodrawversity, Inc
Isabelle Theriault
Fisheries and Oceans Canada
James McCann
Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Jason Carmignani
Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife
Jason Mays
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Jonathan Wardell
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Kayla Ward
Anqotum
Kevin Eliason
West Virginia Division of Natural Resources
Laura Saucier
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection
Lisa Holst
New York Department of Environmental Conservation
Mark Ferguson
Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife
Matthew Ashton
Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Matthew Rowe
Georgia Department of Natural Resources
Melanie Robichaud-Hache
Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Melissa Doperalski
New Hampshire Fish and Game Department 5
Melissa Grader
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Michelle Graziosi
Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation
Morgan Kern
South Carolina Department of Natural Resources
Natalie Sacco
New York Department of Environmental Conservation
Nathan Whelan
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Nevin Welte
Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program
Peter Hazelton
University of Georgia
Rachael Hoch
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Rachael Mair
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Ree Brennin Houston
Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Sandra Doran
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Sean Sterrett
Monmouth University
Susie Von Oettingen
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
William (T.R.) Russ
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Former BFWG Member
Affiliation
Fabiola Akaishi
Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Heather Galbraith
U.S. Geological Survey
Janet Clayton
West Virginia Department of Natural Resources
Jason Wisniewski
Georgia Department of Natural Resources
Jeanette Bowers-Altman
New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife
Josette Maillet
Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Julie Devers
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Michael Marchand
New Hampshire Fish and Game Department
Rachel Katz
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Acknowledgments
We are grateful for conversations with Katie Kennedy (The Nature Conservancy), Colin Shea, Alison Stodola (Illinois Natural History), Rachel Katz (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service), and Sarah Douglass (Illinois Natural History) that shaped and improved this protocol. Portions of this protocol are adapted from one developed by Sarah Douglass.
Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. 6
I. Introduction
The Brook Floater (Alasmidonta varicosa) is a small (<100 mm) freshwater mussel (Family: Unionidae) found in streams of the eastern United States (U.S.) (Nedeau 2008). While there has been limited effort to document the status of Brook Floater across its range, there is evidence of Brook Floater range contraction and declining local abundances over recent decades (Wicklow et al. 2017, NatureServe 2021). Brook Floater is a Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) in 15 states (94% of range); listed as endangered, threatened, or special concern in nearly every state and province where it still occurs; and has been extirpated from two states (Rhode Island and Delaware). Brook Floater was petitioned for Federal listing under the U.S. Endangered Species Act; however, the listing was determined not to be warranted (U.S. FWS 2019), although it remains a Regional SGCN of very high concern in U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (U.S. FWS) Regions 5 (Terwilliger 2015) and 4 (SEAFWA-WDC 2019) and is an At-Risk Species in U.S. FWS Region 5.
A critical component of understanding population declines is site-specific information about population density and demographics (e.g., growth, age structure) to assess population viability. This information had previously only been collected for a few populations of Brook Floater (e.g., Massachusetts Division of Fisheries & Wildlife, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission) and methods to collect these data varied from state to state, thus limiting comparisons across the range. In 2016, a competitive State Wildlife Grant (SWG) was awarded to develop a standardized monitoring technique that will aid in understanding differences in population viability across its range and assess changes in populations through time. The protocol described in this report was subsequently developed and tested by Massachusetts and Maine (2 sites in each state) and revised based on field experiences. Data collected using this protocol will allow for state managers to make informed decisions about management actions for Brook Floater.
Monitoring approaches are ideally designed to meet management objectives. Management objectives are specific, quantifiable outcomes that reflect the values of the decision makers and relate directly to the management decisions (Conroy and Peterson 2013). Lack of well-defined objectives hinders success of conservation and management actions because there are undefined metrics to determine when the objectives have been met (Yoccoz et al. 2001, Nichols and Thompson 2006). While monitoring to understand a system (i.e., status and trends; Reynolds et al. 2016) provides baseline information for developing management recommendations in the future, Nichols and Thompson (2006) criticize status and trends monitoring because of time lags associated with conservation and the costs and resource availability needed for surveillance, among other reasons. State partners in the Brook Floater SWG have a variety of different monitoring objectives (e.g., abundance/density, survival, recruitment) that depend on the population sizes and demographics.
There are many approaches for estimating population parameters such as density, age structure, recruitment, and growth rates. For example, presence/absence (i.e., multi-state models), counts (i.e., multi-state models or Dail-Madsen model; Dail and Madsen 2011), and capture mark-recapture (CMR; e.g. Cormack-Jolly-Seber models; Lindberg and Rexstad 2002) are all approaches for assessing population status and viability. 7
CMR is among the most common methods to monitor population states and demography. Several research studies have used CMR for freshwater mussels in streams and rivers (e.g., Peterson et al. 2011, Wisniewski et al. 2013). For example, studies have been conducted to estimate survival and temporary immigration/emigration in large rivers (Meador et al. 2011) and to assess effects of stream flows on survival, recruitment, and immigration/emigration (Wisniewski et al. 2016). These studies, along with general documents describing approaches in animal populations (Williams et al. 2002), provide valuable information on numerous modeling approaches available to estimate population parameters if appropriate data have been collected in the field. We refer readers to these and other sources to understand when to use CMR most effectively and how to analyze CMR data.
Objective
The objective of this protocol is to develop a coordinated, standardized, monitoring approach for Brook Floater to estimate population status and trends and demographic rates that allow for comparisons among populations throughout its range. As part of the Brook Floater SWG, we aimed to collect data to compare demographic data among locations with different densities and habitat conditions and understand why there may be differences in demographic stability. As such, the protocol includes methods for collecting ancillary data for assessing detection and addressing questions about habitat. This protocol may also be adapted to address a variety of research questions that require population and demographic data (e.g., population size, emigration, survival, etc.) and supplemental habitat or water quality data that may be collected to address additional hypotheses about the species’ sensitivity to environmental stressors. Furthermore, while this protocol was developed for Brook Floater, many aspects of this monitoring approach are likely applicable to mark and recapture of other stream-dwelling freshwater mussel species.
The protocol describes methods that can be used in a variety of habitats (e.g., small streams and large rivers), at sites with different population densities, and for a range of number of personnel with various levels of experience. We aim to be clear about where the protocols are flexible and may vary depending on resources, including the area sampled, the number of times sampling occurs per year, and the method for processing mussels. We also identify a few methods that are optional depending on the goals of the study. That said, there are many critical components of the protocol that are needed for meeting the assumptions of CMR (Appendix A), including visiting a site at least two times per year (for resampling of what is assumed to be a closed population), marking all individuals captured, and returning mussels to the same location (although mixing is allowed) (Williams et al. 2002, Powell and Gale 2015). Careful attention to what is required and what is flexible or optional is advised to ensure the data are useable.
II. Personnel Needs and Requirements
Personnel assigned to lead surveys for this monitoring project should have sufficient experience and knowledge of mussel ecology, identification, and field methods. In this protocol, we recommend that there are ≥3 observers on a survey, of which at least one observer has extensive experience (i.e., minimum of 5-10 years) sampling mussels and 8
specifically Brook Floater. Surveyor experience in identifying mussels will affect workflows (Appendix B); where there are surveyors who do not have experience identifying Brook Floater, mussels must be collected and identified by an experienced malacologist, whereas experienced surveyors may flag target mussels as they survey. Observers not familiar with mussel assemblages that overlap with Brook Floater should work closely with malacologists that have this experience and may more appropriately be used to help with data recording, measuring animals, and collecting habitat information. All observers should also be familiar with guidelines and safety procedures for safe care and handling of all mussels, particularly sensitive species like Brook Floater.
III. Sampling Design
Overview
To monitor population status and dynamics, this proposed sampling approach will employ visual and tactile surveys (i.e., surface searching with hands but no extensive excavation) using multiple observers at a specified number of sites across years. Mussel sampling is intended to use mask and snorkel, thus streams should be <1-m deep; however, this protocol could be adapted for deeper sites requiring SCUBA. Target species, including Brook Floater, will be measured, marked, and returned to
FWS/CSS-141-2022
No full textIn February 2020, we held a workshop where we sought to identify where states should reintroduce or augment brook floater to minimize the probability of extinction within a state. We focused on Massachusetts and Connecticut, two states with only a few, small populations still extant, that likely need population restoration to prevent statewide extirpation. We identified that restoration actions aimed at redundancy (number of populations), representation (number of occupied basins), and resiliency (population size) were constrained by resource availability such as limited broodstock, staff time, and budgets. Optimal restoration locations depended on habitat conditions, the status (viability) of nearby mussel populations, population size (number of individuals), and the location within watersheds; all important considerations in addressing population persistence. Restoration actions also accounted for the risk of disease transmission among mussels and fish, and the genetic health and diversity of mussel populations. The workshop identified the multiple, compounding uncertainties related to population restoration, identified information gaps critical to decision making, and charted a path forward to make decisions given uncertainties. The optimization approach developed can be used to select specific watersheds for restoration in any state, province, or region and can easily be adapted as new information becomes available.Brook Floater restoration: identifying locations to reintroduce or augment populations with propagated mussels
Allison H. Roy1
Emily Bjerre2
Jonathan Cummings3
Kevin Kalasz4
Jason Carmignani5
Peter Hazelton5
Morgan Kern6
David Perkins7
Laura Saucier8
Ayla Skorupa9
Rachel Katz10
Christy C. Coghlan11
1 U.S. Geological Survey, Massachusetts Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA,
2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Migratory Bird Program, Falls Church, VA
3 School for Marine Science & Technology, University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, Dartmouth, MA,
4 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Coastal Program—South Florida/Everglades, Big Pine Key, FL
5 Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, Westborough, MA
6 South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, Columbia, SC
7 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Cronin Aquatic Resource Center, Sunderland, MA
8 Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, Burlington, CT
9 Department of Environmental Conservation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA
10 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wildlife Refuge System, Hadley, MA
11 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Conservation Training Center, Shepherdstown, WV
Cooperator Science Series # 141-2022 ii
About the Cooperator Science Series:
The Cooperator Science Series was initiated in 2013. Its purpose is to facilitate the archiving and retrieval of research project reports resulting primarily from investigations supported by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), particularly the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program. The online format was selected to provide immediate access to science reports for FWS, state and tribal management agencies, the conservation community, and the public at large.
All reports in this series have been subjected to a peer review process consistent with the agencies and entities conducting the research. For U.S. Geological Survey authors, the peer review process (http://www.usgs.gov/usgs-manual/500/502-3.html) also includes review by a bureau approving official prior to dissemination. Authors and/or agencies/institutions providing these reports are solely responsible for their content. The FWS does not provide editorial or technical review of these reports. Comments and other correspondence on reports in this series should be directed to the report authors or agencies/institutions. In most cases, reports published in this series are preliminary to publication, in the current or revised format, in peer reviewed scientific literature. Results and interpretation of data contained within reports may be revised following further peer review or availability of additional data and/or analyses prior to publication in the scientific literature.
The Cooperator Science Series is supported and maintained by the FWS, National Conservation Training Center at Shepherdstown, WV. The series is sequentially numbered with the publication year appended for reference and started with Report No. 101-2013. Various other numbering systems have been used by the FWS for similar, but now discontinued report series. Starting with No. 101 for the current series is intended to avoid any confusion with earlier report numbers.
The use of contracted research agencies and institutions, trade, product, industry or firm names or products or software or models, whether commercially available or not, is for informative purposes only and does not constitute an endorsement by the U.S. Government.
Contractual References:
This document (USGS IPDS #: IP- 126392) was developed in conjunction with the US Geological Survey and the Massachusetts Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit and was supported by the Brook Floater Working Group through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Recommended citation:
Roy, A.H., E. Bjerre, J. Cummings, K. Kalasz, J. Carmignani, P. Hazelton, M. Kern, D. Perkins, L. Saucier, A. Skorupa, R. Katz, and C. C. Coghlan. 2022. Brook Floater restoration: identifying locations to reintroduce or augment populations with propagated mussels. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Cooperator Science Series FWS/CSS-141-2022, Washington, D. C. https://doi.org/10.3996/css40468057
For additional copies or information, contact:
Allison Roy
U.S. Geological Survey
Massachusetts Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit
E-mail: [email protected] Brook Floater Restoration February 2020 Structured Decision-Making Workshop
Roy et al. 1
Brook Floater Restoration:
Identifying Locations to Reintroduce or Augment Populations with Propagated Mussels
A Case Study from the Structured Decision Making Workshop
3-7 February 2020
Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, Westborough, MA
Authors: Allison H. Roy1, Emily Bjerre2, Jonathan Cummings3, Kevin Kalasz4, Jason Carmignani5, Peter Hazelton5, Morgan Kern6, David Perkins7, Laura Saucier8, Ayla Skorupa9, Rachel Katz10, and Christy C. Coghlan11
Decision Problem
Brook floater (Alasmidonta varicosa) is a stream-dwelling freshwater mussel that has experienced significant reductions in the number of populations (occupied locations) throughout its range and is listed as a species of conservation concern in all states in the United States and two Canadian provinces where it is currently found. However, the magnitude of population loss and knowledge of population status is highly variable across locations, leaving states and provinces with uncertainty about the most effective recovery plan. Moreover, in locations where population restoration via reintroduction or augmentation with lab-propagated mussels has been identified as an important component of recovery, there are questions about the number and location of restoration sites. In February 2020, we held a workshop where we sought to identify where states should reintroduce or augment brook floater to minimize the probability of extinction within a state. We focused on Massachusetts and Connecticut, two states with only a few, small populations still extant, that likely need population restoration to prevent statewide extirpation. Workshop participants included three state decision makers (JC, PH, LS), a mussel biologist from a non-focal state (MK), and three researchers (AHR, DP, AS). The workshop was facilitated by an overall coach (RK) and three project-specific coaches (EB, JC, KK) and coordinated by CCC. We identified that restoration actions aimed at redundancy (number of populations), representation (number of occupied basins), and resiliency (population size) were constrained by resource availability such as limited broodstock, staff time, and budgets. Optimal restoration locations depended on habitat conditions, the status (viability) of nearby mussel populations, population size (number of individuals), and the location within watersheds; all important considerations in addressing population persistence. Restoration actions also
1 U.S. Geological Survey, Massachusetts Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, USA; [email protected]
2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Migratory Bird Program, Falls Church, VA, USA
3 School for Marine Science & Technology, University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, Dartmouth, MA, USA
4 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Coastal Program—South Florida/Everglades, Big Pine Key, FL, USA
5 Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, Westborough, MA, USA
6 South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, Columbia, SC, USA
7 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Cronin Aquatic Resource Center, Sunderland, MA, USA
8 Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, Burlington, CT, USA
9 Department of Environmental Conservation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, USA
10 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wildlife Refuge System, Hadley, MA, USA
11 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Conservation Training Center, Shepherdstown, WV, USA Brook Floater Restoration February 2020 Structured Decision-Making Workshop
Roy et al. 2
accounted for the risk of disease transmission among mussels and fish, and the genetic health and diversity of mussel populations. The workshop identified the multiple, compounding uncertainties related to population restoration, identified information gaps critical to decision making, and charted a path forward to make decisions given uncertainties. The optimization approach developed can be used to select specific watersheds for restoration in any state, province, or region and can easily be adapted as new information becomes available.
Background
Legal, regulatory, and political context
The brook floater (Alasmidonta varicosa) has been extirpated in Rhode Island and Delaware and is listed as a species of greatest conservation need (SGCN) in the 14 states where it is currently found from Georgia to Maine in the United States (U.S.), and in two Canadian provinces, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia (Wicklow et al. 2017). Following a Species Status Assessment (SSA) conducted in 2018 (USFWS 2018), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) decided that the brook floater did not warrant listing under the federal Endangered Species Act (USFWS 2019). This decision was made in part due to the ongoing, coordinated research and conservation conducted by the Brook Floater Working Group (BFWG). The BFWG, which was formed as part of a multi-state USFWS State Wildlife Grant awarded in 2016, has created opportunities for shared resources, learning, and conservation across the species’ range. While states are responsible for assessing populations, developing restoration actions, and preventing local extirpation within their jurisdiction, regional coordination is critical to protecting the species throughout their range.
Propagation and reintroduction or augmentation of populations has been identified as an important conservation strategy for restoring brook floater. Such actions are often considered a last resort measure when population sizes are critically small (thus minimizing opportunities for natural reproduction) and threats causing initial population declines have been mitigated (FMCS 2016). Introducing state-listed species into natural habitats has legal considerations and logistical challenges that will lead to different constraints on site selections in each state. Constraints on reintroduction or augmentation sites often involve obtaining landowner consent and support, which takes time and resources, often incurred through community outreach programs. Even where restoration is on public land, public education and population monitoring programs are needed to ensure persistence once reintroduced (FMCS 2016).
Ecological context
Brook floater is a small freshwater mussel typically found in small and medium sized streams and rivers draining into the Atlantic Ocean, but they also inhabit large rivers such as the Potomac River and Delaware River, and occasionally lakes and ponds (Nova Scotia and Massachusetts) (USFWS 2018). Within these systems, brook floater reside in areas with low to moderate current, stable substrate composed of sand, gravel, and cobble, and relatively unimpaired water quality. Brook floater are considered host generalists, releasing their larvae in mucus strands to allow for passive entanglement by host fish (Wicklow et al. 2017).
While brook floater are still in nearly all states and provinces where they were historically found, their distribution has shrunk from 150 populations to 70-80 populations (USFWS 2018), with populations defined by occupancy within 12-digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC 12) watersheds. Declines have been attributed to dams, sewage and pollutant discharge, Brook Floater Restoration February 2020 Structured Decision-Making Workshop
Roy et al. 3
habitat destruction, habitat fragmentation, urban and agricultural land uses, riparian deforestation, and increased flooding and temperature caused in part by climate change (Wicklow et al. 2017). These same threats affect freshwater mussels globally (Haag and Williams 2014).
For the workshop, we focused the decision on restoration locations in Massachusetts and Connecticut, with the potential for broodstock from Maine, which has the healthiest populations of brook floater in the northeast U.S. region (Wicklow et al. 2017). In Massachusetts, brook floater are currently known to occur in five HUC 12 watersheds, which represents a decrease of 54% from eleven historically known populations (Figure 1). Of the remaining populations in Massachusetts, two appear to be relatively stable in the past 10 years, but longer-term declines are suggested from historic qualitative data. The other three populations in Massachusetts appear to be declining and may be relegated to only a small fraction of once occupied habitat. In Connecticut, brook floater populations are known to occur in eleven of twelve historically known HUC 12 watersheds, although only one of those eleven populations (Shepaug River) is considered viable (Figure 1, Wicklow et al. 2017). Intervention is needed to avoid the potential extirpation of this species from the majority of its historic state range. Planning appropriate restoration treatments requires additional data gathering and inter-watershed coordination.
Figure 1. Map of historic and current populations of brook floater (Alasmidonta varicosa) in Massachusetts and Connecticut at the HUC 12 watershed scale. Blue dashed lines represent HUC 6 basins. Population status is based on element occurrence rankings available in NatureServe: AC, BC = excellent-fair, good-fair; C = fair ; CD = fair-poor ; D = poor ; F, X, H = failed to find in follow-up surveys and presumed extirpated, possibly extirpated; E, NR = verified extant, not ranked. Brook floater are not found in light gray areas of the states. Brook Floater Restoration February 2020 Structured Decision-Making Workshop
Roy et al. 4
Surveys are needed in Connecticut since it has been over ten years since most brook floater survey work has been conducted and new monitoring protocols have been developed (Sterrett et al. 2018). In both states, uncertainties about population viability, genetic structure among watersheds, suitable unoccupied habitat, stressor abatement, and timescale of recovery made identifying an approach to population restoration of brook floaters difficult without a structured decision-making process.
Decision Structure
Objectives
We identified several means objectives to meet the fundamental objective of minimizing the probability of extinction of brook floater within the region (Massachusetts and Connecticut). Specifically, we had three ecological objectives that would reduce extirpation risk:
1. Maximize the number of populations (occupied HUC 12s) in the region
2. Maximize the number of occupied major basins (HUC 6s) in the region
3. Maximize the size of each population (# individuals within HUC 12)
These objectives aimed to increase redundancy within basins (#1) and representation across basins (#2) to provide safeguards from catastrophic disturbances, and to increase resiliency within populations via larger population sizes (#3) that maximize potential for population persistence and ability to use populations as broodstock for lab-propagated animals.
We also identified several objectives or constraints associated with risks to brook floater populations and costs:
4. Minimize disease risk to recipient populations
5. Minimize genetic diversity loss within populations
6. Minimize implementation and monitoring costs
While disease introduction is a major concern that could prohibit any actions, standard screening tests for mussel diseases are yet to be developed (Waller and Cope 2019). Thus, protocols focus on minimizing disease risk through procedures such as quarantine of broodstock (Gatenby et al. 1998) and depurating mussels before movement from captivity into the wild (Starliper 2009). Genetic diversity was a concern in terms of 1) local genetic diversity losses and associated population bottlenecks due to small populations and genetic swamping by introduced animals, 2) maintaining potential genetic differences across populations and basins for species adaptive capacity and 3) artificial selection based on the cohorts used (addressed by best practices). Costs to propagate mussels, reintroduce mussels, and monitor following restoration were additional considerations, but were considered standard based on the number of populations introduced.
Objectives were mapped to show relationships among means objectives and constraints and how they influence the fundamental objectives (Figure 2). Landscape and local scale factors, including connectivity along stream networks and watershed conditions (blue boxes; Figure 2), influence habitat quality, which in turn influences genetic diversity (Objective 5) and the production of brook floater. Genetic diversity and distance between brook floater populations affects resilience to stochastic events and this, along with disease risk (Objective 4), can also influence productivity. Productivity and survival of brook floater influence recruitment and the population size in an occupied HUC. The population size (Objective 3), number of occupied HUC 12s (Objective 1), and the number of occupied basins (Objective 2) all influence the probability of extinction within the region (green box; Figure 2), the fundamental objective. Implementation and monitoring costs were considered a constraint, but not mapped on the influence diagram (Figure 2).Brook Floater Restoration February 2020 Structured Decision-Making Workshop
Roy et al. 5
Figure 2. Influence diagram showing relationships among factors influencing habitat quality and production of brook floater (Alasmidonta varicosa) for addressing means objectives (yellow boxes) of maximizing number of occupied populations (HUC 12s) (Objective 1), number of occupied HUC 6 basins (Objective 2) and population size (Objective 3) toward ultimately minimizing probability of extinction within each state (fundamental objective, green box).Brook Floater Restoration February 2020 Structured Decision-Making Workshop
Roy et al. 6
Alternative actions
Options for restoration were to augment existing populations with propagated mussels,
reintroduce propagated mussels to watersheds where brook floater have been extirpated, or do
nothing (Table 1). For the purposes of this workshop, we defined populations as occurring within
HUC 12 such that a HUC is the geographical area considered to be occupied by a population.
Augmentation was further separated based on the number of lab-propagated animals being added
(i.e., restrained [fewer additions] or not); while we did not assign a specific number or proportion
of animals as restrained, this action acknowledges the importance of not genetically
overwhelming the population where introduced. In addition, we considered which populations
would be sources of broodstock for propagation (i.e., donor sites) and whether the broodstock
would be returned to the population from which they were taken (i.e., replacement vs no
replacement). We considered population persistence, as approximated by current estimated
population size, and habitat quality when deciding which options to consider. Not all options
were considered for every population. For example, populations with high persistence could be a
donor population for propagation but were not considered for augmentation. Habitat quality is
also important for restoration; we do not want to place propagated animals where habitat is of
poor or unknown quality. However, mussels from poor habitat may be considered as donor
populations for broodstock (Table 1).
Table 1. Alternative actions considered for brook floater (Alasmidonta varicosa) based on population
persistence (using population size, N, as a surrogate) and habitat quality. No action is an option for all
combinations.
Persistence Good Habitat Poor Habitat
Vacant (0) Introduce Do nothing
Low (N<100) Donor population for propagation (no
replacement)
Augment
Restrained Augment
Donor population for
propagation (no replacement)
Medium-Low
(N=100-500)
Donor population for propagation (with
replacement)
Augment
Restrained Augment
Donor population for
propagation (with replacement)
Medium-High
(N=500-1000)
Donor population for propagation (with
replacement)
Restrained Augment
Donor population for
pro
Community Response to Habitat Restoration in Sickle and Bear Creeks, with Emphasis on Mottled Sculpin in Sickle Creek
No full textHabitat restoration is employed by biologists and managers to improve the natural functionality and value of aquatic resources. Systems suffer impairment from many sources, including excessive fine sediment, which negatively affects substrate composition, channel morphology, aquatic invertebrate habitat, and fish reproduction and recruitment. Primary objectives included monitoring the biophysical response to sediment abatement in the Big Manistee River watershed. Secondary objectives included (1) placing the biophysical response to the restoration in the context of a much larger watershed plan, (2) quantifying seasonal mottled sculpin movement and habitat use in Sickle Creek for 1-year, and (3) determining habitat variables which may predict mottled sculpin distribution in Sickle Creek. Many sampling techniques were used to quantify metrics related to sediment, macroinvertebrates, and fish. Passive Integrated Transponder (PIT) tags were used to determine mottled sculpin seasonal movements. Efforts were often successful in (1) preventing input of sediment, and (2) flushing accumulated sediment from study reaches. Where a positive response in substrate was observed, there was (1) an increase in macroinvertebrate abundance (avg. 218-330 individuals/m2 in Sickle Creek (1st order tributary), and 514-975 individuals/m2 in Bear vii Creek (4th-order tributary)), (2) increased abundance of sensitive taxa (Baetidae), and (3) appearance of additional sensitive taxa (Ueonidae, seven others) from the Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera orders. The fish community showed a positive response, based on community metrics including richness, diversity, evenness, and similarity. Pronounced changes in Sickle Creek included the virtual disappearance of creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus), brook stickleback (Culaea inconstans), and northern redbelly dace (Phoxinus eos), and increased abundance of key taxa (Chinook salmon, O. tshawytscha). Many taxa exhibited upstream longitudinal distribution shifts, especially mottled sculpin (Cottus bairdi). Mottled sculpin seasonal movements were larger than previous estimates (up to 839m, mean 107 ± 26m); distribution was linked to depth of fine sediment and percent medium and large wood. Bear Creek exhibited subtle changes, though we did observe increased CPUE for recreationally important fish taxa including rainbow and brown trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss and Salmo trutta). In conclusion, Sickle Creek responded more rapidly to restoration than Bear Creek, although in both, positive and statistically significant changes were observed
Quantifying carbon fluxes from primary production to mesopelagic fish using a simple food web model
No full textAn ecosystem-based flow analysis model was used to study carbon transfer from primary production (PP) to mesopelagic fish via three groups of copepods: Detritivores that access sinking particles, vertical migrators, and species that reside in the surface ocean. The model was parameterized for 40°S to 40°N in the world ocean such that results can be compared with recent estimates of mesopelagic fish biomass in this latitudinal range, based on field studies using acoustic technologies, of ∼13 Gt (wet weight). Mesopelagic fish production was predicted to be 0.32% of PP which, assuming fish longevity of 1.5 years, gives rise to predicted mesopelagic fish biomass of 2.4 Gt. Model ensembles were run to analyse the uncertainty of this estimate, with results showing predicted biomass >10 Gt in only 8% of the simulations. The work emphasizes the importance of migrating animals in transferring carbon from the surface ocean to the mesopelagic zone. It also highlights how little is known about the physiological ecology of mesopelagic fish, trophic pathways within the mesopelagic food web, and how these link to PP in the surface ocean. A deeper understanding of these interacting factors is required before the potential for utilizing mesopelagic fish as a harvestable resource can be robustly assessed.</p
An Interview with Jason Ockert
No full textWell before his first collection was published, Jason Ockert had already seen his work printed in some of the best literary magazines of our time: Oxford American, McSweeney’s, the Iowa Review, and other publications that have paved the way for so many of our literary greats. It was therefore no real surprise that Ockert’s Rabbit Punches, which was lauded by critics as “riotously funny,” “quirky, unsettling, and full of unexpected turns,” would soon see a worthy follow up in Neighbors of Nothing, a story collection that Junot Diaz described as “beautiful, searching and generous,” and which earned the author a Shirley Jackson Fiction Award nomination. Now with Wasp Box, a novel forthcoming with Panhandler Books in Spring 2015, we are treated to a high-octane version of the witty, heartbreaking, and slightly absurd themes that earned Ockert his early reputation as “a writer to be watched.
Tewaaraton : La crosse / Lacrosse
No full text"In 2022 the Niagara Region welcomes the Canada Games; 2022 also marks the reintroduction of the Indigenous game of lacrosse. By thematizing lacrosse, this book celebrates the role sport plays in promoting cultural diversity. It features work by poet Jason Stefanik / Jay Stafinak, who grew up and lives in a Métis / mixed environment; photographer Marjorie Kaniehtonkie Skidders of the Mohawk Nation at Akwesasne; Franco-Ontarian author Paul Savoie; and the Toronto Experimental Translation Collective (TETC). They invite us to discover lacrosse from a creative perspective. Their talent and their enthusiastic participation to this volume in French and English are a poignant demonstration of kindness and mutual appreciation. The book reflects our diversity." -- Distributor's websit
Cellular and Molecular Mechanisms of Endothelial Dysfunction in Diabetic Cardiomyopathy
No full textType 2 diabetes (T2D) is associated with cardiac microvascular dysfunction, which is thought to contribute to the development of diastolic dysfunction and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). The molecular mechanisms responsible for HFpEF remain unclear, and no effective diagnostics or main-stay treatments are available. To gain insight into biomarkers and disease mechanisms we measured the microRNA content of circulating extracellular vesicles (EVs) during pathogenesis in two animal models of T2D-associated HFpEF (i.e., obese mouse [Lepr-/-] and lean rat [Goto Kakizaki]). We found that miR-30d and miR-30e were increased prior to echocardiographic evidence of diastolic dysfunction in T2D mice, and they were also elevated in T2D rats with established diastolic dysfunction. These microRNAs may serve as biomarkers of cardiac microvascular dysfunction as they are upregulated in the endothelial cells (ECs) of the left ventricle of the heart, but not other organs. Furthermore, the miR-30 family is secreted in response to activation of senescence pathways, a characteristic feature of diabetic ECs. Assessment of pathways regulated by miR-30d/e revealed a large number of target genes involved in fatty acid biosynthesis and metabolism. Importantly, over-expression of miR-30e in ECs increased fatty acid oxidation and the production of reactive oxygen species, while inhibiting the miR-30 family decreased fatty acid oxidation. Additionally, miR-30e over-expression synergized with fatty acid exposure to dramatically down-regulate the expression of eNOS, an important regulator of microvascular and cardiomyocyte function. Thus, miR-30d/e may represent early biomarkers of diastolic dysfunction that reflect altered fatty acid metabolism and microvascular dysfunction in the heart. Furthermore, the pathways regulated by miR-30 may represent therapeutic targets for diabetes-associated HFpEF.Ph.D
Devi, Vimala. Monsoon. Tradução Paul Melo e Castro. Introdução Jason Keith Fernandes. London, New York, Calcutta: Seagull, 2019.
No full textMonsoon (2019) is an English translation of the short story book Monção (1963/2003) by the Goan Portuguese-speaking author, Vimala Devi, by the professor of Portuguese language literature Paul Melo e Castro (University of Glasgow). The book features an introduction written by Dr. Jason Keith Fernandes, a note on the translation by Melo e Castro and a glossary of terms in Concani, the official language of Goa, and in Portuguese, translated into English. For the literary value of the work and the quality of the translation, Monsoon appeared on The New York Times\u27 2019 Globetrotter List
- …
