Estimates of in situ Larval Development Time for the Lobster, Homarus Americanus

Larval development time is a critical factor in assessing the potential for larval transport, mortality. and subsequently, the connectivity of marine populations through larval exchange. Most estimates of larval duration are based on laboratory studies and may not reflect development times in nature. For larvae of the American lobster (Homarus americanus), temperature-dependent development times have been established in previous laboratory studies. Here, we used the timing of seasonal abundance curves for newly hatched larvae (stage 1) and the final plankonic instar (postlarva), coupled with a model of temperature-dependent development to assess development time in the field. We were unable to reproduce the timing of the seasonal abundance curves using laboratory development rates in our model. Our results suggest that larval development in situ may be twice as fast as reported laboratory rates. This will result in reduced estimates of larval transport potential, and increased estimates of instantaneous mortality rate and production

Early Life History and a Modeling Framework for Lobster (Homarus Americanus) Populations in the Gulf of Maine

Beginning in the late 1980s, lobster (Homarus americanus) landings for the state of Maine and the Bay of Fundy increased to levels more than three times their previous 20-year means. Reduced predation may have permitted the expansion of lobsters into previously inhospitable territory, but we argue that in this region the spatial patterns of recruitment and the abundance of lobsters are substantially driven by events governing the earliest life history stages, including the abundance and distribution of planktonic stages and their initial settlement as Young-of-Year (YOY) lobsters. Settlement densities appear to be strongly driven by abundance of the pelagic postlarvae. Postlarvae and YOY show large-scale spatial patterns commensurate with coastal circulation, but also multi-year trends in abundance and abrupt shifts in abundance and spatial patterns that signal strong environmental forcing. The extent of the coastal shelf that defines the initial settlement grounds for lobsters is important to future population modeling. We address one part of this definition by examining patterns of settlement with depth, and discuss a modeling framework for the full life history of lobsters in the Gulf of Maine

Biodiversity and Ecosystem Function in the Gulf of Maine: Pattern and Role of Zooplankton and Pelagic Nekton

This paper forms part of a broader overview of biodiversity of marine life in the Gulf of Maine area (GoMA), facilitated by the GoMA Census of Marine Life program. It synthesizes current data on species diversity of zooplankton and pelagic nekton, including compilation of observed species and descriptions of seasonal, regional and cross-shelf diversity patterns. Zooplankton diversity in the GoMA is characterized by spatial differences in community composition among the neritic environment, the coastal shelf, and deep offshore waters. Copepod diversity increased with depth on the Scotian Shelf. On the coastal shelf of the western Gulf of Maine, the number of higher-level taxonomic groups declined with distance from shore, reflecting more nearshore meroplankton. Copepod diversity increased in late summer, and interdecadal diversity shifts were observed, including a period of higher diversity in the 1990s. Changes in species diversity were greatest on interannual scales, intermediate on seasonal scales, and smallest across regions, in contrast to abundance patterns, suggesting that zooplankton diversity may be a more sensitive indicator of ecosystem response to interannual climate variation than zooplankton abundance. Local factors such as bathymetry, proximity of the coast, and advection probably drive zooplankton and pelagic nekton diversity patterns in the GoMA, while ocean-basin-scale diversity patterns probably contribute to the increase in diversity at the Scotian Shelf break, a zone of mixing between the cold-temperate community of the shelf and the warm-water community offshore. Pressing research needs include establishment of a comprehensive system for observing change in zooplankton and pelagic nekton diversity, enhanced observations of underknown\u27\u27 but important functional components of the ecosystem, population and metapopulation studies, and development of analytical modeling tools to enhance understanding of diversity patterns and drivers. Ultimately, sustained observations and modeling analysis of biodiversity must be effectively communicated to managers and incorporated into ecosystem approaches for management of GoMA living marine resources

Managing for ocean biodiversity to sustain marine ecosystem services

Managing a complex ecosystem to balance delivery of all of its services is at the heart of ecosystem-based management. But how can this balance be accomplished amidst the conflicting demands of stakeholders, managers, and policy makers? In marine ecosystems, several common ecological mechanisms link biodiversity to ecosystem functioning and to a complex of essential services. As a result, the effects of preserving diversity can be broadly beneficial to a wide spectrum of important ecosystem processes and services, including fisheries, water quality, recreation, and shoreline protection. A management system that conserves diversity will help to accrue more “ecoservice capital” for human use and will maintain a hedge against unanticipated ecosystem changes from natural or anthropogenic causes. Although maintenance of biodiversity cannot be the only goal for ecosystem-based management, it could provide a common currency for evaluating the impacts of different human activities on ecosystem functioning and can act as a critical indicator of ecosystem status

An Overview of Marine Biodiversity in United States Waters

Marine biodiversity of the United States (U.S.) is extensively documented, but data assembled by the United States National Committee for the Census of Marine Life demonstrate that even the most complete taxonomic inventories are based on records scattered in space and time. The best-known taxa are those of commercial importance. Body size is directly correlated with knowledge of a species, and knowledge also diminishes with distance from shore and depth. Measures of biodiversity other than species diversity, such as ecosystem and genetic diversity, are poorly documented. Threats to marine biodiversity in the U.S. are the same as those for most of the world: overexploitation of living resources; reduced water quality; coastal development; shipping; invasive species; rising temperature and concentrations of carbon dioxide in the surface ocean, and other changes that may be consequences of global change, including shifting currents; increased number and size of hypoxic or anoxic areas; and increased number and duration of harmful algal blooms. More information must be obtained through field and laboratory research and monitoring that involve innovative sampling techniques (such as genetics and acoustics), but data that already exist must be made accessible. And all data must have a temporal component so trends can be identified. As data are compiled, techniques must be developed to make certain that scales are compatible, to combine and reconcile data collected for various purposes with disparate gear, and to automate taxonomic changes. Information on biotic and abiotic elements of the environment must be interactively linked. Impediments to assembling existing data and collecting new data on marine biodiversity include logistical problems as well as shortages in finances and taxonomic expertise

Four Regional Marine Biodiversity Studies: Approaches and Contributions to Ecosystem-Based Management

We compare objectives and approaches of four regional studies of marine biodiversity: Gulf of Maine Area Census of Marine Life, Baltic Sea History of Marine Animal Populations, Great Barrier Reef Seabed Biodiversity Project, and Gulf of Mexico Biodiversity Project. Each program was designed as an "ecosystem" scale but was created independently and executed differently. Each lasted 8 to 10 years, including several years to refine program objectives, raise funding, and develop research networks. All resulted in improved baseline data and in new, or revised, data systems. Each contributed to the creation or evolution of interdisciplinary teams, and to regional, national, or international science-management linkages. To date, there have been differing extents of delivery and use of scientific information to and by management, with greatest integration by the program designed around specific management questions. We evaluate each research program's relative emphasis on three principal elements of biodiversity organization: composition, structure, and function. This approach is used to analyze existing ecosystem-wide biodiversity knowledge and to assess what is known and where gaps exist. In all four of these systems and studies, there is a relative paucity of investigation on functional elements of biodiversity, when compared with compositional and structural elements. This is symptomatic of the current state of the science. Substantial investment in understanding one or more biodiversity element(s) will allow issues to be addressed in a timely and more integrative fashion. Evaluating research needs and possible approaches across specific elements of biodiversity organization can facilitate planning of future studies and lead to more effective communication between scientists, managers, and stakeholders. Building a general approach that captures how various studies have focused on different biodiversity elements can also contribute to meta-analyses of worldwide experience in scientific research to support ecosystem-based management

Planktonic Microbes in the Gulf of Maine Area

In the Gulf of Maine area (GoMA), as elsewhere in the ocean, the organisms of greatest numerical abundance are microbes. Viruses in GoMA are largely cyanophages and bacteriophages, including podoviruses which lack tails. There is also evidence of Mimivirus and Chlorovirus in the metagenome. Bacteria in GoMA comprise the dominant SAR11 phylotype cluster, and other abundant phylotypes such as SAR86-like cluster, SAR116-like cluster, Roseobacter, Rhodospirillaceae, Acidomicrobidae, Flavobacteriales, Cytophaga, and unclassified Alphaproteobacteria and Gammaproteobacteria clusters. Bacterial epibionts of the dinoflagellate Alexandrium fundyense include Rhodobacteraceae, Flavobacteriaceae, Cytophaga spp., Sulfitobacter spp., Sphingomonas spp., and unclassified Bacteroidetes. Phototrophic prokaryotes in GoMA include cyanobacteria that contain chlorophyll (mainly Synechococcus), aerobic anoxygenic phototrophs that contain bacteriochlorophyll, and bacteria that contain proteorhodopsin. Eukaryotic microalgae in GoMA include Bacillariophyceae, Dinophyceae, Prymnesiophyceae, Prasinophyceae, Trebouxiophyceae, Cryptophyceae, Dictyochophyceae, Chrysophyceae, Eustigmatophyceae, Pelagophyceae, Synurophyceae, and Xanthophyceae. There are no records of Bolidophyceae, Aurearenophyceae, Raphidophyceae, and Synchromophyceae in GoMA. In total, there are records for 665 names and 229 genera of microalgae. Heterotrophic eukaryotic protists in GoMA include Dinophyceae, Alveolata, Apicomplexa, amoeboid organisms, Labrynthulida, and heterotrophic marine stramenopiles (MAST). Ciliates include Strombidium, Lohmaniella, Tontonia, Strobilidium, Strombidinopsis and the mixotrophs Laboea strobila and Myrionecta rubrum (ex Mesodinium rubra). An inventory of selected microbial groups in each of 14 physiographic regions in GoMA is made by combining information on the depth-dependent variation of cell density and the depth-dependent variation of water volume. Across the entire GoMA, an estimate for the minimum abundance of cell-based microbes is 1.7×1025 organisms. By one account, this number of microbes implies a richness of 105 to 106 taxa in the entire water volume of GoMA. Morphological diversity in microplankton is well-described but the true extent of taxonomic diversity, especially in the femtoplankton, picoplankton and nanoplankton – whether autotrophic, heterotrophic, or mixotrophic, is unknown

Movements of marine fish and decapod crustaceans: Process, theory and application

Many marine species have a multi-phase ontogeny, with each phase usually associated with a spatially and temporally discrete set of movements. For many fish and decapod crustaceans that live inshore, a tri-phasic life cycle is widespread, involving: (1) the movement of planktonic eggs and larvae to nursery areas; (2) a range of routine shelter and foraging movements that maintain a home range; and (3) spawning migrations away from the home range to close the life cycle. Additional complexity is found in migrations that are not for the purpose of spawning and movements that result in a relocation of the home range of an individual that cannot be defined as an ontogenetic shift. Tracking and tagging studies confirm that life cycle movements occur across a wide range of spatial and temporal scales. This dynamic multi-scale complexity presents a significant problem in selecting appropriate scales for studying highly mobile marine animals. We address this problem by first comprehensively reviewing the movement patterns of fish and decapod crustaceans that use inshore areas and present a synthesis of life cycle strategies, together with five categories of movement. We then examine the scale-related limitations of traditional approaches to studies of animal-environment relationships. We demonstrate that studies of marine animals have rarely been undertaken at scales appropriate to the way animals use their environment and argue that future studies must incorporate animal movement into the design of sampling strategies. A major limitation of many studies is that they have focused on: (1) a single scale for animals that respond to their environment at multiple scales or (2) a single habitat type for animals that use multiple habitat types. We develop a hierarchical conceptual framework that deals with the problem of scale and environmental heterogeneity and we offer a new definition of 'habitat' from an organism-based perspective. To demonstrate that the conceptual framework can be applied, we explore the range of tools that are currently available for both measuring animal movement patterns and for mapping and quantifying marine environments at multiple scales. The application of a hierarchical approach, together with the coordinated integration of spatial technologies offers an unprecedented opportunity for researchers to tackle a range of animal-environment questions for highly mobile marine animals. Without scale-explicit information on animal movements many marine conservation and resource management strategies are less likely to achieve their primary objectives

Zooplankton counts (density) from R/V Seward Johnson, R/V Oceanus, and R/V Edwin Link cruises SJ9508, OC303, EL9904, and EL9905 in the Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank from 1995-1999 (GB project)

Dataset: zoo_pumpZooplankton counts (density) from R/V Seward Johnson, R/V Oceanus, and R/V Edwin Link cruises SJ9508, OC303, EL9904, and EL9905 in the Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank from 1995-1999 For a complete list of measurements, refer to the full dataset description in the supplemental file 'Dataset_description.pdf'. The most current version of this dataset is available at: https://www.bco-dmo.org/dataset/2332National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) unknown GB NOAA, NSF Division of Ocean Sciences (NSF OCE) OCE-931366

GRAZING AND PREDATION AS RELATED TO ENERGY NEEDS OF STAGE I ZOEAE OF THE TANNER CRAB CHIONOECETES BAIRDI (BRACHYURA, MAJIDAE)

Volume: 165Start Page: 197End Page: 20