Antarctic macrobenthic communities: a compilation of circumpolar information

Comprehensive information on Antarctic macrobenthic community structure has been publicly available since the 1960s. It stems from trawl, dredge, grab, and corer samples as well as from direct and camera observations (Table 1–2). The quality of this information varies considerably; it consists of pure descriptions, figures for presence (absence) and abundance of some key taxa or proxies for such parameters, e.g. sea-floor cover. Some data sets even cover a defined and complete proportion of the macrobenthos with further analyses on diversity and zoogeography. As a consequence the acquisition of data from approximately 90 different campaigns assembled here was not standardised. Nevertheless, it was possible to classify this broad variety of known macrobenthic assemblages to the best of expert knowledge (Gutt 2007; Fig. 1). This overview does not replace statistically sound community and diversity analyses. However, it shows from where which kind of information is available and it acts as an example of the feasibility and power of such data collections. The data set provides unique georeferenced biological basic information for the planning of future coordinated research activities, e.g. under the umbrella of the biology program “Antarctic Thresholds - Ecosystem Resilience and Adaptation” (AnT-ERA) of the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) and especially for actual conservation issues, e.g. the planning of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) by the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR)

Sub-Antarctic and High Antarctic Notothenioid Fishes: Ecology and Adaptational Biology Revealed by the ICEFISH 2004 Cruise of RVIB Nathaniel B. Palmer

The goal of the ICEFISH 2004 cruise, which was conducted on board RVIB Nathaniel B. Palmer and traversed the transitional zones linking the South Atlantic to the Southern Ocean, was to compare the evolution, ecology, adaptational biology, community structure, and population dynamics of Antarctic notothenioid fishes relative to the cool/temperate notothenioids of the sub-Antarctic. To place this work in a comprehensive ecological context, cruise participants surveyed the benthos and geology of the biogeographic provinces and island shelves on either side of the Antarctic Polar Front (or Antarctic Convergence). Genome-enabled comparison of the responses of cold-living and temperate notothenioids to heat stress confirmed the sensitivity of the former to a warming Southern Ocean. Successful implementation of the international and interdisciplinary ICEFISH research cruise provides a model for future exploration of the sub-Antarctic sectors of the Indian and Pacific Oceans

Responses of Southern Ocean seafloor habitats and communities to global and local drivers of change

Knowledge of life on the Southern Ocean seafloor has substantially grown since the beginning of this century with increasing ship-based surveys and regular monitoring sites, new technologies and greatly enhanced data sharing. However, seafloor habitats and their communities exhibit high spatial variability and heterogeneity that challenges the way in which we assess the state of the Southern Ocean benthos on larger scales. The Antarctic shelf is rich in diversity compared with deeper water areas, important for storing carbon (“blue carbon”) and provides habitat for commercial fish species. In this paper, we focus on the seafloor habitats of the Antarctic shelf, which are vulnerable to drivers of change including increasing ocean temperatures, iceberg scour, sea ice melt, ocean acidification, fishing pressures, pollution and non-indigenous species. Some of the most vulnerable areas include the West Antarctic Peninsula, which is experiencing rapid regional warming and increased iceberg-scouring, subantarctic islands and tourist destinations where human activities and environmental conditions increase the potential for the establishment of non-indigenous species and active fishing areas around South Georgia, Heard and MacDonald Islands. Vulnerable species include those in areas of regional warming with low thermal tolerance, calcifying species susceptible to increasing ocean acidity as well as slow-growing habitat-forming species that can be damaged by fishing gears e.g., sponges, bryozoan, and coral species. Management regimes can protect seafloor habitats and key species from fishing activities; some areas will need more protection than others, accounting for specific traits that make species vulnerable, slow growing and long-lived species, restricted locations with optimum physiological conditions and available food, and restricted distributions of rare species. Ecosystem-based management practices and long-term, highly protected areas may be the most effective tools in the preservation of vulnerable seafloor habitats. Here, we focus on outlining seafloor responses to drivers of change observed to date and projections for the future. We discuss the need for action to preserve seafloor habitats under climate change, fishing pressures and other anthropogenic impacts

Network analysis of sea turtle movements and connectivity: A tool for conservation prioritization

Aim: Understanding the spatial ecology of animal movements is a critical element in conserving long-lived, highly mobile marine species. Analyzing networks developed from movements of six sea turtle species reveals marine connectivity and can help prioritize conservation efforts. Location: Global. Methods: We collated telemetry data from 1235 individuals and reviewed the literature to determine our dataset's representativeness. We used the telemetry data to develop spatial networks at different scales to examine areas, connections, and their geographic arrangement. We used graph theory metrics to compare networks across regions and species and to identify the role of important areas and connections. Results: Relevant literature and citations for data used in this study had very little overlap. Network analysis showed that sampling effort influenced network structure, and the arrangement of areas and connections for most networks was complex. However, important areas and connections identified by graph theory metrics can be different than areas of high data density. For the global network, marine regions in the Mediterranean had high closeness, while links with high betweenness among marine regions in the South Atlantic were critical for maintaining connectivity. Comparisons among species-specific networks showed that functional connectivity was related to movement ecology, resulting in networks composed of different areas and links. Main conclusions: Network analysis identified the structure and functional connectivity of the sea turtles in our sample at multiple scales. These network characteristics could help guide the coordination of management strategies for wide-ranging animals throughout their geographic extent. Most networks had complex structures that can contribute to greater robustness but may be more difficult to manage changes when compared to simpler forms. Area-based conservation measures would benefit sea turtle populations when directed toward areas with high closeness dominating network function. Promoting seascape connectivity of links with high betweenness would decrease network vulnerability.Fil: Kot, Connie Y.. University of Duke; Estados UnidosFil: Åkesson, Susanne. Lund University; SueciaFil: Alfaro Shigueto, Joanna. Universidad Cientifica del Sur; Perú. University of Exeter; Reino Unido. Pro Delphinus; PerúFil: Amorocho Llanos, Diego Fernando. Research Center for Environmental Management and Development; ColombiaFil: Antonopoulou, Marina. Emirates Wildlife Society-world Wide Fund For Nature; Emiratos Arabes UnidosFil: Balazs, George H.. Noaa Fisheries Service; Estados UnidosFil: Baverstock, Warren R.. The Aquarium and Dubai Turtle Rehabilitation Project; Emiratos Arabes UnidosFil: Blumenthal, Janice M.. Cayman Islands Government; Islas CaimánFil: Broderick, Annette C.. University of Exeter; Reino UnidoFil: Bruno, Ignacio. Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones y Desarrollo Pesquero; ArgentinaFil: Canbolat, Ali Fuat. Hacettepe Üniversitesi; Turquía. Ecological Research Society; TurquíaFil: Casale, Paolo. Università degli Studi di Pisa; ItaliaFil: Cejudo, Daniel. Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria; EspañaFil: Coyne, Michael S.. Seaturtle.org; Estados UnidosFil: Curtice, Corrie. University of Duke; Estados UnidosFil: DeLand, Sarah. University of Duke; Estados UnidosFil: DiMatteo, Andrew. CheloniData; Estados UnidosFil: Dodge, Kara. New England Aquarium; Estados UnidosFil: Dunn, Daniel C.. University of Queensland; Australia. The University of Queensland; Australia. University of Duke; Estados UnidosFil: Esteban, Nicole. Swansea University; Reino UnidoFil: Formia, Angela. Wildlife Conservation Society; Estados UnidosFil: Fuentes, Mariana M. P. B.. Florida State University; Estados UnidosFil: Fujioka, Ei. University of Duke; Estados UnidosFil: Garnier, Julie. The Zoological Society of London; Reino UnidoFil: Godfrey, Matthew H.. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission; Estados UnidosFil: Godley, Brendan J.. University of Exeter; Reino UnidoFil: González Carman, Victoria. Instituto National de Investigación y Desarrollo Pesquero; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaFil: Harrison, Autumn Lynn. Smithsonian Institution; Estados UnidosFil: Hart, Catherine E.. Grupo Tortuguero de las Californias A.C; México. Investigacion, Capacitacion y Soluciones Ambientales y Sociales A.C; MéxicoFil: Hawkes, Lucy A.. University of Exeter; Reino UnidoFil: Hays, Graeme C.. Deakin University; AustraliaFil: Hill, Nicholas. The Zoological Society of London; Reino UnidoFil: Hochscheid, Sandra. Stazione Zoologica Anton Dohrn; ItaliaFil: Kaska, Yakup. Dekamer—Sea Turtle Rescue Center; Turquía. Pamukkale Üniversitesi; TurquíaFil: Levy, Yaniv. University Of Haifa; Israel. Israel Nature And Parks Authority; IsraelFil: Ley Quiñónez, César P.. Instituto Politécnico Nacional; MéxicoFil: Lockhart, Gwen G.. Virginia Aquarium Marine Science Foundation; Estados Unidos. Naval Facilities Engineering Command; Estados UnidosFil: López-Mendilaharsu, Milagros. Projeto TAMAR; BrasilFil: Luschi, Paolo. Università degli Studi di Pisa; ItaliaFil: Mangel, Jeffrey C.. University of Exeter; Reino Unido. Pro Delphinus; PerúFil: Margaritoulis, Dimitris. Archelon; GreciaFil: Maxwell, Sara M.. University of Washington; Estados UnidosFil: McClellan, Catherine M.. University of Duke; Estados UnidosFil: Metcalfe, Kristian. University of Exeter; Reino UnidoFil: Mingozzi, Antonio. Università Della Calabria; ItaliaFil: Moncada, Felix G.. Centro de Investigaciones Pesqueras; CubaFil: Nichols, Wallace J.. California Academy Of Sciences; Estados Unidos. Center For The Blue Economy And International Environmental Policy Program; Estados UnidosFil: Parker, Denise M.. Noaa Fisheries Service; Estados UnidosFil: Patel, Samir H.. Coonamessett Farm Foundation; Estados Unidos. Drexel University; Estados UnidosFil: Pilcher, Nicolas J.. Marine Research Foundation; MalasiaFil: Poulin, Sarah. University of Duke; Estados UnidosFil: Read, Andrew J.. Duke University Marine Laboratory; Estados UnidosFil: Rees, ALan F.. University of Exeter; Reino Unido. Archelon; GreciaFil: Robinson, David P.. The Aquarium and Dubai Turtle Rehabilitation Project; Emiratos Arabes UnidosFil: Robinson, Nathan J.. Fundación Oceanogràfic; EspañaFil: Sandoval-Lugo, Alejandra G.. Instituto Politécnico Nacional; MéxicoFil: Schofield, Gail. Queen Mary University of London; Reino UnidoFil: Seminoff, Jeffrey A.. Noaa National Marine Fisheries Service Southwest Regional Office; Estados UnidosFil: Seney, Erin E.. University Of Central Florida; Estados UnidosFil: Snape, Robin T. E.. University of Exeter; Reino UnidoFil: Sözbilen, Dogan. Dekamer—sea Turtle Rescue Center; Turquía. Pamukkale University; TurquíaFil: Tomás, Jesús. Institut Cavanilles de Biodiversitat I Biologia Evolutiva; EspañaFil: Varo Cruz, Nuria. Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria; España. Ads Biodiversidad; España. Instituto Canario de Ciencias Marinas; EspañaFil: Wallace, Bryan P.. University of Duke; Estados Unidos. Ecolibrium, Inc.; Estados UnidosFil: Wildermann, Natalie E.. Texas A&M University; Estados UnidosFil: Witt, Matthew J.. University of Exeter; Reino UnidoFil: Zavala Norzagaray, Alan A.. Instituto politecnico nacional; MéxicoFil: Halpin, Patrick N.. University of Duke; Estados Unido

Detecting Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems in the Southern Ocean using research trawls and underwater imagery

To ensure that destructive bottom fishing activities do not have significant adverse impacts on Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems (VMEs) in high seas areas of the World Ocean, as required by United Nations General Assembly Resolution 61-105, knowledge of the locations of VMEs is required. Quantifying the occurrence and abundance of VME indicator taxa in research bottom-trawl samples, as well as from in situ observations with underwater photography, provides methods for detecting these ecosystems. A case study is presented in which a threshold density of indicator taxa was used as the basis for VME designation. In 2009, high densities of VME indicator taxa were encountered at 11 sites off th`e South Orkney Islands in the Atlantic sector of the Southern Ocean. In most cases, thresholds were exceeded by a limited number of VME indicator taxa, primarily representatives of the class Demospongiae (siliceous sponges), Hexactinellida (glass sponges) and Ascidiacea (tunicates). In situ imagery further showed the importance of bryozoans (lace corals), scleractinians (stony corals) and stylastrids (hydrocorals) in the study region. The approach outlined here, which relies on widely used sampling techniques, could be employed throughout the World Ocean to detect and document the presence of VMEs from existing datasets. To illustrate this point, the method was applied to a separate dataset, collected in 2006, from a research cruise off the northern Antarctic Peninsula, which led to the detection of 17 VMEs. The VMEs from both the 2006 and 2009 data are now registered and influence the management of fisheries in the Southern Ocean.Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems Antarctic benthic invertebrates Fisheries management

One Antarctic slug to confuse them all: the underestimated diversity of Doris kerguelenensis.

17 pagesInternational audienceThe Antarctic marine environment, although rich in life, is predicted to experience rapid and significant effects from climate change. Despite a revolution in the approaches used to document biodiversity, less than one percent of Antarctic marine invertebrates are represented by DNA barcodes and we are at risk of losing biodiversity before discovery. The ease of sequencing mitochondrial DNA barcodes has promoted this relatively ‘universal’ species identification system across most metazoan phyla and barcode datasets are currently readily used for exploring questions of species-level taxonomy. Here we present the most well-sampled phylogeny of the direct-developing, Southern Ocean nudibranch mollusc, Doris kerguelenensis to date. This study sampled over 1000 new Doris kerguelenensis specimens spanning the Southern Ocean and sequenced the mitochondrial COI gene. Results of a maximum likelihood phylogeny and multiple subsequent species delimitation analyses identified 27 new species in this complex (now 59 in total). Using rarefaction techniques, we infer more species are yet to be discovered. Some species were only collected from southern South America or the sub-Antarctic islands, while at least four species were found spanning the Polar Front. This is contrary to dispersal predictions for species without a larval stage such as Doris kerguelenensis. Our work demonstrates the value of increasing geographic scope in sampling and highlights what could be lost given the current global biodiversity crisis

Fungal Endophthalmitis Associated with Compounded Products

Fungal endophthalmitis is a rare but serious infection. In March 2012, several cases of probable and laboratory-confirmed fungal endophthalmitis occurring after invasive ocular procedures were reported nationwide. We identified 47 cases in 9 states: 21 patients had been exposed to the intraocular dye Brilliant Blue G (BBG) during retinal surgery, and the other 26 had received an intravitreal injection containing triamcinolone acetonide. Both drugs were produced by Franck’s Compounding Lab (Ocala, FL, USA). Fusarium incarnatum-equiseti species complex mold was identified in specimens from BBG-exposed case-patients and an unopened BBG vial. Bipolaris hawaiiensis mold was identified in specimens from triamcinolone-exposed case-patients. Exposure to either product was the only factor associated with case status. Of 40 case-patients for whom data were available, 39 (98%) lost vision. These concurrent outbreaks, associated with 1 compounding pharmacy, resulted in a product recall. Ensuring safety and integrity of compounded medications is critical for preventing further outbreaks associated with compounded products. Download MP3  Length: 1:4