Effects of diet on larval development of Thor floridanus (Decapoda, Caridea) in the laboratory

Thor floridanus larvae maintained in laboratory culture at 24-26C and 31%0 salinity were subjected to four diets: a) no food, b) algae (approximately halfand- half mixture of Monochrysis lutheri and Phaeodactylum tricorntum), c) live Artemia nauplii, and d) mixed diet (diets band c together). Twenty-seven newly hatched larvae received each diet. None of the starved larvae molted and all died within nine days. Of those larvae fed only algae, 22 % survived through metamorphosis to postlarvae, whereas only 4% of those fed only Artemia nauplii survived through metamorphosis. More of the larvae which were fed the mixed diet survived to the postlarval stage than was recorded with any other diet; 48% completed metamorphosis. Development of algae-fed larvae was significantly slower than that of larvae fed the mixed diet, and there also appeared to be a slight (but non-significant) trend for algae-fed larvae to pass through more molts prior to metamorphosis than did those larvae fed the mixed diet. These results are discussed in relation to the results of other studies concerning the dietary requirements of caridean shrimp larvae

Morphology and Ecology of Chesapeake Bay Decapod Crustacean Larvae

This dissertation is from the Joint Program Degree from the College of William & Mary and University of Virginia and awarded by the University of Virginia. Provisional keys to the marine decapod crustacean zoeae of the Chesapeake Bay are presented. These keys provide distinguishing characters for the specific or generic identification of zoeae of 50 decapod species. Also, provisional classification schemes for the different morphological types of antennae and telsons exhibited by Chesapeake Bay brachyuran larvae are given, and the larval stages of each species or genus considered in the keys are briefly described. The larval development of eight Chesapeake Bay decapod species for which the larvae were previously unknown was studied in detail. All larval stages of ~rides limicola and Libinia dubia and the first zoea of Arenaeus cribrarius are described from laboratory-reared specimens, and four larval stages of Callianassa sp. A (=.Q_. major?), two of Callianassa sp. B (=C. atlantica?), one of Callianassa sp. C, four of Upogebia affinis, and three of Lepidopa websteri (?) are described from specimens taken from the plankton. Previous studies concerning the effects of temperature and salinity on larval development of Chesapeake Bay decapods are reviewed, and the results of an experiment to determine the effects of temperature and salinity on larval development of Palaemonetes vulgaris are presented • .!:• vulgaris larvae were reared in the laboratory in a factorial experiment employing three temperatures (20, 25 and 30 C) and six salinities (5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 0/00). Considering survival, rate of development, and number of instars, optimal conditions for larval development were found to occur at a temperature of about 25 C in salinities of 10 to 30 0/00. Surface and bottom plankton samples taken with a Clarke-Bumpus Quantitative Plankton Sampler at monthly intervals over a two-year period were made available to me by Dr. V. G. Burrell, Jr. These samples were collected at 12 stations spread over a distance of about 80 miles from freshwater in the Pamunkey River, through the meso- and polyhaline York River, to euhaline conditions at the mouth of Chesapeake Bay. Some additional samples were collected with paired BCF Bongo samplers. Planktonic stages representing 37 species and genera of decapods were identified in these zooplankton collections. Decapod larvae were numerous throughout the estuary during the summer. However, larvae of Crangon septemspinosa were abundant in the bay from late winter throughout the spring, and peak numbers were generally of the same order of magnitude as total concentrations of larvae of the other species at the bay stations during summer

Enhancing Disaster Resilience by Reducing Stress-Associated Health Impacts

Disasters are a recurring fact of life, and major incidents can have both immediate and long-lasting negative effects on the health and well-being of people, communities, and economies. A primary goal of many disaster preparedness, response, and recovery plans is to reduce the likelihood and severity of disaster impacts through increased resilience of individuals and communities. Unfortunately, most plans do not address directly major drivers of long-term disaster impacts on humans—that is, acute, chronic, and cumulative stress—and therefore do less to enhance resilience than they could. Stress has been shown to lead to or exacerbate ailments ranging from mental illness, domestic violence, substance abuse, post-traumatic stress disorders, and suicide to cardiovascular disease, respiratory problems, and other infirmities. Individuals, groups, communities, organizations, and social ties are all vulnerable to stress. Based on a targeted review of what we considered to be key literature about disasters, resilience, and disaster-associated stress effects, we recommend eight actions to improve resiliency through inclusion of stress alleviation in disaster planning: (1) Improve existing disaster behavioral and physical health programs to better address, leverage, and coordinate resources for stress reduction, relief, and treatment in disaster planning and response. (2) Emphasize pre- and post-disaster collection of relevant biomarker and other health-related data to provide a baseline of health status against which disaster impacts could be assessed, and continued monitoring of these indicators to evaluate recovery. (3) Enhance capacity of science and public health early-responders. (4) Use natural infrastructure to minimize disaster damage. (5) Expand the geography of disaster response and relief to better incorporate the displacement of affected people. (6) Utilize nature-based treatment to alleviate pre- and post-disaster stress effects on health. (7) Review disaster laws, policies, and regulations to identify opportunities to strengthen public health preparedness and responses including for stress-related impacts, better engage affected communities, and enhance provision of health services. (8) With community participation, develop and institute equitable processes pre-disaster for dealing with damage assessments, litigation, payments, and housing

Exploring connections among nature, biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human health and well-being: Opportunities to enhance health and biodiversity conservation

AbstractWe are at a key juncture in history where biodiversity loss is occurring daily and accelerating in the face of population growth, climate change, and rampant development. Simultaneously, we are just beginning to appreciate the wealth of human health benefits that stem from experiencing nature and biodiversity. Here we assessed the state of knowledge on relationships between human health and nature and biodiversity, and prepared a comprehensive listing of reported health effects. We found strong evidence linking biodiversity with production of ecosystem services and between nature exposure and human health, but many of these studies were limited in rigor and often only correlative. Much less information is available to link biodiversity and health. However, some robust studies indicate that exposure to microbial biodiversity can improve health, specifically in reducing certain allergic and respiratory diseases. Overall, much more research is needed on mechanisms of causation. Also needed are a re-envisioning of land-use planning that places human well-being at the center and a new coalition of ecologists, health and social scientists and planners to conduct research and develop policies that promote human interaction with nature and biodiversity. Improvements in these areas should enhance human health and ecosystem, community, as well as human resilience

An ecological characterization of South Carolina wetland impoundments

In recent years, there has been a dichotomy of management interests in reference to impoundments. Waterfowl management, estuarine management and recent advances in aquaculture are placing demands on the same system, and little data are available to assist in formulation of policies, guidelines, and management strategies. This report attempts to summarize existing data on impoundments to provide a reasonable starting point for further research

Summary of findings and research recommendations from the Gulf of Mexico Research Initiative

© The Author(s), 2021. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. The definitive version was published in Wilson, C. A., Feldman, M. G., Carron, M. J., Dannreuther, N. M., Farrington, J. W., Halanych, K. M., Petitt, J. L., Rullkotter, J., Sandifer, P. A., Shaw, J. K., Shepherd, J. G., Westerholm, D. G., Yanoff, C. J., & Zimmermann, L. A. Summary of findings and research recommendations from the Gulf of Mexico Research Initiative. Oceanography, 34(1), (2021): 228–239, https://doi.org/10.5670/oceanog.2021.128.Following the Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill in 2010, the Gulf of Mexico Research Initiative (GoMRI) was established to improve society’s ability to understand, respond to, and mitigate the impacts of petroleum pollution and related stressors of the marine and coastal ecosystems. This article provides a high-level overview of the major outcomes of the scientific work undertaken by GoMRI. This i scientifically independent initiative, consisting of over 4,500 experts in academia, government, and industry, contributed to significant knowledge advances across the physical, chemical, geological, and biological oceanographic research fields, as well as in related technology, socioeconomics, human health, and oil spill response measures. For each of these fields, this paper outlines key advances and discoveries made by GoMRI-funded scientists (along with a few surprises), synthesizing their efforts in order to highlight lessons learned, future research needs, remaining gaps, and suggestions for the next generation of scientists

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

Thank You to Our 2020 Peer Reviewers

Peer review is at the heart of the scientific endeavor, ensuring that high‐quality discoveries are communicated in effective and impactful ways. As a voluntary and mostly anonymous effort, peer review is often poorly recognized. But it is so valuable to journal Editors, and we are often so impressed by the incredibly detailed, constructive, and informative reviews that we get back from reviewers. In 2019, GeoHealth benefited from more than 94 reviews provided by 73 of our peers for papers submitted to the journal. Thank you all for being such an important part of the scientific process, advancing the communication of discoveries at the intersections of the environmental and health sciences to improve society

Thank You to Our 2018 Peer Reviewers

Public trust in science, effective science communication, and rapid and constructive response to authors about their submissions are of paramount importance to the scientific enterprise and indeed to society itself. This is really at the heart of peer review—providing thoughtful insights into both the scientific quality and importance of work, and also how it is communicated to other scientists and increasingly to a broader audience. Very few opportunities exist to acknowledge the mostly anonymous process of peer review, especially given the huge increase in review requests and the relatively mechanical nature of online reviewing platforms. We continue to be humbled by the time, effort, and careful insights that our colleagues share with each other through the process of peer review. In 2018, GeoHealth benefited from more than 83 reviews provided by 53 of our peers for papers submitted to the journal. Thank you all for your awesome efforts toward advancing geohealth now and for the future