8 resultados para Anglo-Saxon names
em Aquatic Commons
Resumo:
clarify the multilingual problem of place and oceanographic names in the region of the Okhotsk Sea, especially in Southern Sakhalin (Minami Karafuto) and in the Kuril Islands (Chishima Islands) areas. (PDF contains 61 pages)
Resumo:
As one part of an on-going programme concerned with environmental protection as provided for under the terms of a UK/USSR Joint Environmental Protection Agreement signed in London, 21 May 1974, a seminar — ”The elaboration of the scientific basis for monitoring the quality of surface water by hydrobiological indices” was held at Valdai in Russia 12—14 July, 1976. As a continuation of this theme it was agreed that delegations of hydrobiologists from each side should carry out reciprocal visits to carry out comparative field tests on selected systems of biological surveillance in use in the respective countries. In May 1978 a team of British hydrobiologists visited the USSR, under the auspices of the Department of Environment, to carry out joint exercises on the River Dnieper and some tributaries. This paper reports the results of selected methods used by the British side when applied to the conditions found in the River Dnieper.
Resumo:
In accordance with the plan for joint Anglo-Soviet scientific and technical collaboration on environmental problems, the comparative evaluation of systems of hydrobiological analysis of the surface water quality started in 1977 at the Regional Laboratory of the Severn-Trent Water Authority in Nottingham were continued in the spring of 1978. The investigations were carried out under the auspices of the Institute of Hydrobiology of the Academy of Sciences of the Ukrainian SSR. Hydrobiological and hydrochemical samples were collected by Soviet and British specialists from the Kiev reservoir and the rivers Dnieper, Sozh, Desna and Snov. The samples were processed on the expedition ships and in the Laboratory for the Hydrobiology of Small Water Bodies of the Institute of Hydrobiology of the Academy of Sciences of the Ukrainian SSR. The possible approved methods to be adopted were evaluated from the samples using the phytoperiphyton, phytoplankton, zooplankton and zoobenthos against a background of hydrochemical characteristics. The study concludes that weather conditions complicated the work on testing the systems of biological indication of water quality and made it inadvisable to use those methods of comparison which were used when similar work was carried out in Nottingham.
Resumo:
Few studies of the riverine fish of the Athi-Galana-Sabaki river drainage area in Kenya have been carried out since the last comprehensive surveys of the 1950s and early 1960s. This paper presents updated information on scientific and recommended common names, distribution and ecology of selected fish species of this catchment. At least 28 riverine fish families consisting of 46 genera and 62 species occur in the drainage system, of which, 39 species are strictly freshwater (4 introduced) while 23 species are of marine origin. Five unique behavioural categories of the riverine fish of the drainage system are discussed. The four most speciated riverine fish in the system belong to the families Cyprinidae (14 species), Cichlidae (6 species), and Mormyridae and Gobiidae (4 species each). Thirty fish species occur in areas below the River Tsavo-Athi confluence, 18 fish species above the confluence, while 12 fish species occupy the entire drainage system. One cichlid fish, Oreochromis spilurus spilurus (Gunther, 1894), only occurs in the Tsavo river, while the occurrence in the entire system of one snoutfish species, Mormyprops anguilloides (Linnaeus, 1758) is uncertain. The use of information from this study is recommended when carrying out further studies of fish from the Athi-Galana-Sabaki river drainage.
Resumo:
Over a century of fi shery and oceanographic research conducted along the Atlantic coast of the United States has resulted in many publications using unofficial, and therefore unclear, geographic names for certain study areas. Such improper usage, besides being unscholarly, has and can lead to identification problems for readers unfamiliar with the area. Even worse, the use of electronic data bases and search engines can provide incomplete or confusing references when improper wording is used. The two terms used improperly most often are “Middle Atlantic Bight” and “South Atlantic Bight.” In general, the term “Middle Atlantic Bight” usually refers to an imprecise coastal area off the middle Atlantic states of New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia, and the term “South Atlantic Bight” refers to the area off the southeastern states of North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida’s east coast.