Versatile routes to selenoether functionalised tertiary phosphines

New selenoether functionalised tertiary phosphines, based on aryl (2a, 2b) or alkyl (4) backbones, have been synthesised and characterised. P,Se-chelation has been achieved upon complexation to square-planar PtII (3a) or PdII (3b) metal centres. For 3a and 3b, weak non-covalent M◊ ◊ ◊ Se contacts were established using single crystal X-ray crystallography

The impact of predation by marine mammals on Patagonian toothfish longline fisheries

Predatory interaction of marine mammals with longline fisheries is observed globally, leading to partial or complete loss of the catch and in some parts of the world to considerable financial loss. Depredation can also create additional unrecorded fishing mortality of a stock and has the potential to introduce bias to stock assessments. Here we aim to characterise depredation in the Patagonian toothfish (Dissostichus eleginoides) fishery around South Georgia focusing on the spatio-temporal component of these interactions. Antarctic fur seals (Arctocephalus gazella), sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus), and orcas (Orcinus orca) frequently feed on fish hooked on longlines around South Georgia. A third of longlines encounter sperm whales, but loss of catch due to sperm whales is insignificant when compared to that due to orcas, which interact with only 5% of longlines but can take more than half of the catch in some cases. Orca depredation around South Georgia is spatially limited and focused in areas of putative migration routes, and the impact is compounded as a result of the fishery also concentrating in those areas at those times. Understanding the seasonal behaviour of orcas and the spatial and temporal distribution of “depredation hot spots” can reduce marine mammal interactions, will improve assessment and management of the stock and contribute to increased operational efficiency of the fishery. Such information is valuable in the effort to resolve the human-mammal conflict for resources

Humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) distribution and movements in the vicinity of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands Marine Protected Area

Humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) are showing strong recovery from commercial whaling in the western South Atlantic. In this region, humpback whales migrate annually from their winter breeding grounds off the coast of Brazil to their summer feeding grounds near to the Polar Front, an area that includes the waters of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands (SGSSI). This latter region includes a Marine Protected Area (MPA), which has been developed to ensure sustainable management of fisheries, and protection of foraging predators. To date, management measures within the MPA have primarily been concerned with foraging predators that rely upon Antarctic krill, including for a number of previously over-exploited species. This includes the regional humpback whale population now in recovery in the western South Atlantic. With humpback whales increasing, understanding their spatiotemporal distribution within the MPA is important as it will help inform management particularly in respect of interactions between humpback whales and the regional fishery for Antarctic krill. Here we develop habitat models from the distribution and movement patterns of 16 individuals at their high-latitude feeding grounds, south of 50°S. We show that whale habitat use varies throughout the foraging period. Upon reaching their feeding ground, whales use the area to the east of the South Sandwich Islands, moving westward into the centre of the Scotia Arc and towards South Georgia during the high summer, and then expanding back towards the east in the winter. Based on these findings, we discuss the implications for the future, including necessary research required for underpinning management

Estimation and simulation of foraging trips in land-based marine predators

The behavior of colony-based marine predators is the focus of much research globally. Large telemetry and tracking data sets have been collected for this group of animals, and are accompanied by many empirical studies that seek to segment tracks in some useful way, as well as theoretical studies of optimal foraging strategies. However, relatively few studies have detailed statistical methods for inferring behaviors in central place foraging trips. In this paper we describe an approach based on hidden Markov models, which splits foraging trips into segments labeled as “outbound”, “search”, “forage”, and “inbound”. By structuring the hidden Markov model transition matrix appropriately, the model naturally handles the sequence of behaviors within a foraging trip. Additionally, by structuring the model in this way, we are able to develop realistic simulations from the fitted model. We demonstrate our approach on data from southern elephant seals (Mirounga leonina) tagged on Kerguelen Island in the Southern Ocean. We discuss the differences between our 4-state model and the widely used 2-state model, and the advantages and disadvantages of employing a more complex model

track2KBA: An R package for identifying important sites for biodiversity from tracking data

Identifying important sites for biodiversity is vital for conservation and management. However, there is a lack of accessible, easily applied tools that enable practitioners to delineate important sites for highly mobile species using established criteria. We introduce the R package ‘track2KBA’, a tool to identify important sites at the population level using tracking data from individual animals based on three key steps: (a) identifying individual core areas, (b) assessing population-level representativeness of the sample and (c) quantifying spatial overlap among individuals and scaling up to the population. We describe package functionality and exemplify its application using tracking data from three taxa in contrasting environments: a seal, a marine turtle and a migratory land bird. This tool facilitates the delineation of sites of ecological relevance for diverse taxa and provides output useful for assessing their importance to a population or species, as in the Key Biodiversity Area (KBA) Standard. As such, ‘track2KBA’ can contribute directly to conservation planning at global and regional levels

Transatlantic Air Transport: Routes to Liberalization (DRAFT). European Policy Papers #6

[Introduction]. The air transport industry, for all its imperfections and peculiarities, represents perhaps the greatest achievement of technology and organization in the twentieth century - an achievement which should inspire admiration comparable to that of Dr Samuel Johnson´s observation about the dog walking on its hind legs - "Sir, it is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all." But commercial air transport is also an intensely paradoxical industry. Cosmopolitan by its very nature and daily operations, and dedicated to increasing opportunities for mobility, this industry is also one that has been notorious for cloaking itself - or being cloaked - in the mantle of nationalism. Air transport was, to no-one´s surprise, the one topic that participants in the original negotiations about the General Agreement on Trade in Services unanimously agreed to exclude from their agenda. The nationalism and protectionism endemic in this industry are, indeed, a serious brake on the globalization that observers have discerned in recent enterprise alliances such as Star and Oneworld. Two examples will illustrate the archaic and cramping character of the regulatory regime currently governing the industry - the so-called "Chicago regime." One is offered by the standard language of international bilateral agreements on aviation (taken in this case from the recent U.S.-France bilateral agreement of June 1998). Article 1 of this agreement prescribes that the names of airlines authorized by their respective governments to fly between the two countries shall be "transmitted... in writing through diplomatic channels." Thus, in order to fly passengers between Paris and New York, Air France (a firm that in 1998 carried 33,169,000 passengers and had an operating revenue of $9,694,981,000) and United Airlines (the leader of an alliance that in 1998 carried 233,936,000 passengers worldwide and had an aggregate operating revenue of$52,948,100,000) have first to be formally designated by "their" governments as authorized to engage in trade. Imagine the reaction if similar requirements were imposed on, say, United Colors of Benetton or McDonalds. A second example is the odd situation that arose in August 1999, when British Airways (BA) announced that it would cease its nonstop service between Pittsburgh and London. BA had operated this service exclusively since 1985 under authority provided by the 1977 "Bermuda II" bilateral agreement between the UK and the US. BA took this decision on purely commercial grounds, (because of its new strategy of concentrating on high-yield business traffic, discussed below): it had reportedly said that it would not oppose adoption of the route by USAirways, which (with control of 86.1 percent of flights at Pittsburgh International Airport) was well placed to run the route profitably and was anxious to add a London service to its existing daily international services (to Frankfurt and Paris) fed by a 72-point hub-and-spoke system centered at Pittsburgh. Despite evidence that the route was viable, the British government transferred the route authority from BA to Virgin Atlantic, to enable the latter to fly vacation travelers between London and Las Vegas. The British government was acting entirely legally in transferring the authority and Virgin Atlantic was, in effect, at the head of the waiting list for new authorities, having lost to BA in a recent contest for transatlantic service. But this decision prevented USAirways from taking over the Pittsburgh-London route and led to great resentment in western Pennsylvania, culminating in the holding of a Congressional hearing (beside the international gates at Pittsburgh International Airport). This episode (which was described by a US DOT official as "a poster child for the evils of Bermuda II") revealed the potential under the current regulatory regime for denial of international service by national governments to cities abroad. Absent surrender of an existing authority by USAirways or another US carrier under the US allotment of such authorities or some kind of special deal, airlines were subsequently prohibited from flying between Pittsburgh and London. The regulatory regime in international aviation is probably unique in that, while other regulatory regimes may restrict or channel demand, this one can actually suppress it. Optimists believe that procedures and decisions of the kind illustrated above are doomed by an irresistible tide of liberalization. They point to the sheer size of (in this case) the EU-US market and to the proliferation of "open skies" agreements to suggest that aviation is about to burst out of its regulatory chrysalis to emerge as an exceptionally beautiful free-trading butterfly. This chapter will examine the character and present structure of this industry and will then explore the actual prospects and routes for liberalization of transatlantic air transport. The discussion is divided into the following sections: Transatlantic air transport: Air transport as an industry; The transatlantic market; The regulatory regime; The regulatory regime and airline strategies; Airline strategies I: market share or shareholder value? Airline strategies II: enterprise alliances Routes to liberalization: Route I: Open skies agreements? Route II: A transatlantic common aviation area? Route III: The General Agreement on Trade in Services? Route IV: Multilaterals or plurilaterals? Conclusion