Documentos Históricos - V. Obras, documentos y revistas.

La evolución científica queda documentada en publicaciones. Todas contribuyen al enriquecimiento y la transferencia del conocimiento, pero algunas hacen historia o marcan un paso importante en los avances de ramas de la ciencia. En esta sección se presenta la imagen de tapa de algunas obras, documentos y trabajos, y se mencionan además parte de las revistas que difundieron la actividad limnológica de nuestro país.

Bibliografía argentina de peces de agua dulce.

Espanol: En la presente lista bibliográfica fueron recopiladas las referencias sobre los peces continentales de la Argentina, del período comprendido entre mediados del siglo XVIII y fines del año 2005. Incluye las listas bibliográficas publicadas durante los años 1981 a 2004, y las citas no mencionadas en ellas. Se incluyeron el ISSN o ISBN según correspondiera, la abreviatura oficial y el lugar de origen de las publicaciones. En algunos casos, los ISSN, las abreviaturas de los nombres de las publicaciones o su procedencia, mencionados en los catálogos, no coinciden con los de la home page de la publicación. Una bibliografía puede ser muy rica y aún estar incompleta. Requiere de sus lectores algún interés histórico, y aún un interés profundo por su tema. Ante una bibliografía, muchos investigadores preferirían no encontrar algunas referencias, y de hecho, muchas son oportunamente olvidadas. Por no saber como hacerlo, o por menosprecio, estas listas raramente son citadas en los trabajos, aunque sobre algunos temas en particular, sería realmente difícil formarse una idea si las bibliografías no existieran. Aún desde el comienzo es complicado precisar un criterio de inclusiones. Por ejemplo, gran parte de la ictiofauna Argentina se encuentra también en Brasil. ¿Justifica esto incluir informes perdidos sobre artes de pesca en una cuenca distante? ¿Deben los clásicos, que todo el mundo conoce y el que se inicia encontrará sin dificultad, ser incluidos? Aún a un grupo que se dedicara full time a este trabajo, le sería difícil verificar la precisión de las citas antiguas, en las que fechas y autoría cambian según la investigación histórica. En una bibliografía más o menos general, la perfección atenta contra la publicación. Sin embargo, pensamos que es conveniente hacerlas. Una mirada a este volumen, muestra la enorme cantidad de desarrollos en muchos temas, y la regla que uno de nosotros ha mencionado desde hace tiempo: siempre hay más publicado sobre un tema de lo que uno cree. La sospecha de que con sólo mirar lo que está hecho, muchos subsidios podrían utilizarse para algo más útil que algunas evaluaciones repetidas de recursos o biodiversidad, es un poco pesimista y no haremos perder trabajos insistiendo en eso. Cada generación elige sus metas, su propia base epistemológica, sus trabajos preferidos y los que desecha. Aún en trabajos perdidos o de mala calidad, es posible encontrar datos valiosos. Ningún proyecto, por mejor diseñado que esté, podrá mostrar en el presente los organismos que vivían en el pasado en un lugar en el que las condiciones han cambiado, o lo hará en términos de otra disciplina. En los temas aplicados la información del pasado puede ser importantísima. Aún en una disciplina tan conservadora como la nomenclatura, los cambios pueden ser exasperantes; no pueden serlo menos en las que intrínsecamente, como la ecología, es lo que estudian. Para dar una idea más precisa del desarrollo de la ictiología en la Argentina, esta lista podría ir acompañada de una apreciación crítica. Entendemos que una tarea así exige un trabajo diferente, de cierta magnitud y con no pocos elementos históricos. Aunque tiene deficiencias, la ictiología argentina constituye una acumulación de conocimientos de considerable calidad y pertinencia para la historia natural de América del Sur. Dejamos a los lectores que cada uno haga la suya. English: For the present list, references on freshwater fishes of Argentina were compiled from the period between middle XVIII Century and the end of the year 2005. It includes previous lists published during 1981 to 2004, and references not mentioned therein. The ISSN o ISBN numbers were included, as well as the official abbreviations and the place of origin of the periodicals. In some cases, these data as quoted in catalogs, do not agree with those in the home page of the publication. A bibliography may be very rich and anyway never complete. It requires from its readers some historic interest and indeed a deep interest on his (her) subject. Browsing a bibliography, many researchers would prefer not to find some references, and in fact, sometimes they forget some of them. Not imagining how to do it, or because people do not concede importance to them, bibliographic lists are rarely quoted in papers, though some subjects would be rather difficult to understand if list of publications would not exist. Even from the beginning, it is difficult to precise a criterion of inclusions. For example, many Argentine fishes occur also in Brazil. Does this justify the inclusion of grey reports on a distant basin? Should classic works, that everybody knows and are easily found, be included? Is near impossible, even for a group dedicated full time to this work, to verify the precision of old citations, whose dates and authorship change according to authorities and historical research. In a more or less general bibliography, completeness is against publication. Nevertheless, we think that is convenient to prepare these lists. A look at this volume shows the enormous developments in many subjects, and the rule that one of us mentioned long ago: there are always more papers on any subject than one suspects. Looking at what has already been done raises the suspicion that many grants could be used for something more useful than repeated evaluations of biodiversity or resources. This is a bit pessimistic, and we do not want to erase working opportunities. Each generation chooses its targets, its own epistemological base, its preferred papers and those that rejects. Even in lost or bad quality papers, the possibility of finding valuable information exists. No project, whatever the appropriateness of its design, could show at present which organisms lived in the past in a place where environmental conditions have changed, or it will do it in terms of another discipline. In applied subjects, information from the past can be very important. Even in a conservative discipline as nomenclature, changes can be exasperating. They are not lesser in those like ecology, where change itself is studied. To provide a more precise idea of the development of ichthyology in Argentina, this list could be accompanied by a critical appreciation. We understood that such an aim requires a different work, with no few historical elements and of certain magnitude. In spite of some deficiencies, Argentine ichthyology, resulting from collaboration of both local and foreign people, constitutes a bulk of knowledge of considerable quality and pertinence for the natural history of South America. We leave each reader to make his (or her) own evaluation. (Texto en Espanol. PDF tiene cien setenta paginas.)

Cruise no. 2 of the M/V N.B. Scofield for 1957, 57S2-Albacore. Cruise report 57-S-2

(PDF contains 6 pages.)

M/V ELPIS Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Report Monitoring Events 2004-2007 Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, Monroe County, Florida

This document presents the results of the first three monitoring events to track the recovery of a repaired coral reef injured by the M/V Elpis vessel grounding incident of November 11, 1989. This grounding occurred within the boundaries of what at the time was designated the Key Largo National Marine Sanctuary (NMS), now designated the Key Largo NMS Existing Management Area within the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS). Pursuant to the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA) 16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq., and the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and Protection Act (FKNMSPA) of 1990, NOAA is the federal trustee for the natural and cultural resources of the FKNMS. Under Section 312 of the NMSA, NOAA has the authority to recover monetary damages for injury, destruction, or loss of Sanctuary resources, and to use the recovered monies to restore injured or lost sanctuary resources within the FKNMS. The restoration monitoring program tracks patterns of biological recovery, determines the success of restoration measures, and assesses the resiliency to environmental and anthropogenic disturbances of the site over time. To evaluate restoration success, reference habitats adjacent to the restoration site are concurrently monitored to compare the condition of restored reef areas with natural coral reef areas unimpacted by the vessel grounding. Restoration of the site was completed September 1995, and thus far three monitoring events have occurred; one in the summer of 2004, one in the summer of 2005, and the latest in the summer of 2007. The monitoring in 2004 was in the nature of a “pilot project,” or proof of concept. Only the quantitative results of the 2005 and 2007 monitoring are presented and discussed. Monitoring has consisted of assessment of the structural stability of limestone boulders used in the restoration and comparison of the coral communities on the boulders and reference areas. Corals are divided into Gorgonians, Milleporans, and Scleractinians. Coral densities at the Restored and Reference areas for the 2005 and 2007 events are compared, and it is shown that the densities of all taxa in the Restored area are greater by 2007, though not significantly so. For the Scleractinians, number and percentage of colonies by species, as well as several common biodiversity indices are provided. The greater biodiversity of the Restored area is evidenced. Also, size-class frequency distributions for Agaricia spp. (Scleractinia) are presented. These demonstrate the approaching convergence of the Restored and Reference areas in this regard. An inter-annual comparison of densities, within both areas, for all three Orders, is presented. The most noteworthy finding was the relative consistency across time for all taxa in each area. Finally, certain anomalies regarding species settlement patterns are presented. (PDF contains 48 pages.)

M/V WELLWOOD Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Report, Monitoring Events 2004-2006. Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Monroe County, Florida

This document presents the results of the first two monitoring events to track the recovery of a repaired coral reef injured by the M/V Wellwood vessel grounding incident of August 4, 1984. This grounding occurred within the boundaries of what at the time was designated the Key Largo National Marine Sanctuary (NMS), now designated the Key Largo NMS Existing Management Area within the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS). Pursuant to the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA) 16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq., and the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and Protection Act (FKNMSPA) of 1990, NOAA is the federal trustee for the natural and cultural resources of the FKNMS. Under Section 312 of the NMSA, NOAA has the authority to recover monetary damages for injury, destruction, or loss of Sanctuary resources, and to use the recovered monies to restore injured or lost sanctuary resources within the FKNMS. The restoration monitoring program tracks patterns of biological recovery, determines the success of restoration measures, and assesses the resiliency to environmental and anthropogenic disturbances of the site over time. To evaluate restoration success, reference habitats adjacent to the restoration site are concurrently monitored to compare the condition of restored reef areas with “natural” coral reef areas unimpacted by the vessel grounding or other injury. Restoration of the site was completed on July 22, 2002, and thus far two monitoring events have occurred; one in the Fall of 2004, and one in the Summer/Fall of 2006. The monitoring has consisted of: assessment of the structural stability of restoration modules and comparison of the coral recruitment conditions of the modules and reference sites. Corals are divided into Gorgonians, Milleporans, and Scleractinians and (except where noted) recruits are defined as follows: Gorgonians—maximum size (height) 150 mm at first monitoring event, 270 mm at second; Milleporans—maximum size (height) 65 mm at first event, 125 mm at second; Scleractinians—maximum size (greatest diameter) 50 mm at second event (only one species was size-classed at first event, at smaller size). Recruit densities at the restored and reference areas for each event are compared, as are size-class frequency distributions. For the Scleractinians, number and percentage of recruits by species, as well as several common biodiversity indices are provided. Finally, a qualitative comparison of recruit substrate settlement preference is indicated. Generally, results indicate that restored areas are converging on reference areas, based on almost all parameters examined, with one noted exception. Further monitoring is planned and the trends are anticipated to continue; close attention will be paid to the indicated anomaly. (PDF contains 63 pages.)

M/V Scofield. Cruise one of 1954

(PDF contains 2 pages.)

Cruise 1 of the M.V. N.B. Scofield for 1955. Cruise Report 55-S-1

(PDF contains 3 pages.)

Cruise of the M/V N.B. Scofield for 1956. Cruise Report 56-S-1

(PDF contains 6 pages.)

M/V CONNECTED Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Report, Monitoring Events 2004-2005. Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Monroe County, Florida

This document presents the results of the monitoring of a repaired coral reef injured by the M/V Connected vessel grounding incident of March 27, 2001. This grounding occurred in Florida state waters within the boundaries of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS). The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund of the State of Florida, (“State of Florida” or “state”) are the co-trustees for the natural resources within the FKNMS and, thus, are responsible for mediating the restoration of the damaged marine resources and monitoring the outcome of the restoration actions. The restoration monitoring program tracks patterns of biological recovery, determines the success of restoration measures, and assesses the resiliency to environmental and anthropogenic disturbances of the site over time. The monitoring program at the Connected site was to have included an assessment of the structural stability of installed restoration modules and biological condition of reattached corals performed on the following schedule: immediately (i.e., baseline), 1, 3, and 6 years after restoration and following a catastrophic event. Restoration of this site was completed on July 20, 2001. Due to unavoidable delays in the settlement of the case, the “baseline” monitoring event for this site occurred in July 2004. The catastrophic monitoring event occurred on August 31, 2004, some 2 ½ weeks after the passage of Hurricane Charley which passed nearby, almost directly over the Dry Tortugas. In September 2005, the year one monitoring event occurred shortly after the passage of Hurricane Katrina, some 70 km to the NW. This report presents the results of all three monitoring events. (PDF contains 37 pages.)

M/V JACQUELYN L Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Report, Monitoring Events 2004-2005. Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Monroe County, Florida

This document presents the results of the monitoring of a repaired coral reef injured by the M/V Jacquelyn L vessel grounding incident of July 7, 1991. This grounding occurred in Florida state waters within the boundaries of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS). The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund of the State of Florida, (“State of Florida” or “state”) are the co-trustees for the natural resources within the FKNMS and, thus, are responsible for mediating the restoration of the damaged marine resources and monitoring the outcome of the restoration actions. The restoration monitoring program tracks patterns of biological recovery, determines the success of restoration measures, and assesses the resiliency to environmental and anthropogenic disturbances of the site over time. The monitoring program at the Jacquelyn L site was to have included an assessment of the structural stability of installed restoration modules and biological condition of reattached corals performed on the following schedule: immediately (i.e., baseline), 1, 3, and 6 years after restoration and following a catastrophic event. Restoration of this site was completed on July 20, 2000. Due to unavoidable delays in the settlement of the case, the “baseline” monitoring event for this site occurred in July 2004. The catastrophic monitoring event occurred on August 31, 2004, some 2 ½ weeks after the passage of Hurricane Charley which passed nearby, almost directly over the Dry Tortugas. In September 2005, the year one monitoring event occurred shortly after the passage of Hurricane Katrina, some 70 km to the NW. This report presents the results of all three monitoring events. (PDF contains 31 pages.)

M/V WAVE WALKER Coral reef restoration baseline monitoring report – 2004 Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, Monroe County, Florida

This document presents the results of baseline monitoring of a repaired coral reef injured by the M/V Wave Walker vessel grounding incident of January 19, 2001. This grounding occurred in Florida state waters within the boundaries of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS). The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund of the State of Florida, (“State of Florida” or “state”) are the co-trustees for the natural resources within the FKNMS. This report documents the efficacy of the restoration effort, the condition of the restored reef area two year and four months post-effort, and provides a picture of surrounding reference areas, so as to provide a basis for future comparisons by which to evaluate the long-term success of the restoration. (PDF contains 25 pages.)

Pre-construction coral survey of the M/V Wellwood Grounding Site: April 23-24, 2002

This report documents abundance and cover for selected elements of the benthic coral reef assemblage at the site of the 1984 grounding of the M/V Wellwood on Molasses Reef, Florida Keys. The purpose of the effort was to establish a pre-construction baseline before the installation of reef modules at the site. The installation process is intended to stabilize fractured substrates that were recently exposed by storm impacts, and to provide three-dimensional relief in order to enhance reef community recovery. It is hoped that the restoration effort will result in a biological assemblage with the character of the transition community that would exist there had the incident not occurred. To date, the assemblage has developed the character of a comparatively featureless hard ground similar in composition to hard ground areas and transition zones surrounding the grounding site. These data will allow scientists and resource managers to better track the trajectory of recovery following the installation of modules. Direct counts of scleractinian and gorgonian corals, hydrocorals of the genus Millepora, and zoanthids of the genus Palythoa were made in three areas within and around the grounding site. The site is poorly developed with respect to scleractinian colony size and cover compared to surrounding areas. Key scleractinian species necessary for the development of topographic relief in the area denuded by the grounding are not well represented in the current community. Though gorgonian cover and richness is similar in all study areas, gorgonian community recovery in the damaged area is not complete. Unlike surrounding areas, one species, Pseudopterogorgia americana, accounts for over half of all corals at the grounding site, over 80% of all gorgonians, and nearly all the coral cover. Based on these findings and other observations made in the 18 years since the grounding, recommendations are made that should be considered in the course of human intervention targeted at stabilizing and enhancing the site. (PDF contains 24 pages.)

Cruise 4 of the M/V N.B. Scofield for 1957.

(PDF contains 3 pages.)

Guidelines for the Provision of Garbage Reception Facilities at Ports Under MARPOL Annex V

This report offers guidelines for the provision of adequate port reception facilities for vessel-generated garbage under the requirements of Annex V of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution From Ships, 1973 (MARPOL 73/78), Regulations for the Prevention of Pollution by Garbage from Ships. MARPOL Annex V prohibits at-sea disposal of plastic materials from vessels, and specifies the distance from shore at which other materials may be dumped. Annex V also requires the provision of port reception facilities for garbage, but it does not specify these facilities or how they are to be provided. Since the at-sea dumping restrictions apply to all vessels, the reception facility requirement applies to all ports, terminals, and marinas that serve vessels. These guidelines were prepared to assist port owners and operators in meeting their obligation to provide adequate reception facilities for garbage. The report synthesizes available information and draws upon experience from the first years ofimplementation of MARPOL Annex V. (PDF file contains 55 pages.)

Soviet-American Cooperative Research on Marine Mammals. Volume 1- Pinnipeds: Under Project V.6. Marine Mammals, of the US-USSR Agreement on Cooperation in the Field of Environmental Protection

Some 25 to 30 yr ago, when we as students were beginning our respective careers and were developing for the first time our awareness of marine mammals in the waters separating western North America from eastern Asia, we had visions of eventually bridging the communication gap which existed between our two countries at that time. Each of us was anxious to obtain information on the distribution, biology, and ecological relations of "our" seals and walruses on "the other side," beyond our respective political boundari~s where we were not permitted to go to study them. We were concerned that the resource management practices on the other side of the Bering and Chukchi Seas, implemented in isolation, on a purely unilateral basis, might endanger the species which we had come to know and were striving to conserve. At once apparent to both of us was the need for free exchange of biological information between our two countries and, ultimately, joint management of our shared resources. In a small way, we and others made some initial efforts to generate that exchange by personal correspondence and through vocal interchange at the annual meetings of the North Pacific Fur Seal Commission. By the enabling Agreement on Cooperation in the Field of Environmental Protection, reached between our two countries in 1972, our earlier visions at last came true. Since that time, within the framework of the Marine Mammal Project under Area V of that Agreement, we and our colleagues have forged a strong bond of professional accord and respect, in an atmosphere of free intercommunication and mutual understanding. The strength and utility of this arrangement from the beginning of our joint research are reflected in the reports contained in this, the first compendium of our work. The need for a series of such a compendia became apparent to us in 1976, and its implementation was agreed on by the regular meeting of the Project in La Jolla, Calif., in January 1977. Obviously, the preparation and publication of this first volume has been excessively delayed, in part by continuing political distrust between our governments but mainly by increasing demands placed on the time of the contributors. In this period of growing environmental concern in both countries, we and our colleagues have been totally immersed in other tasks and have experienced great difficulty in drawing together the works presented here. Much of the support for doing so was provided by the State of Alaska, through funding for Organized Research at the University of Alaska-Fairbanks. For its ultimate completion in publishable form we wish to thank Helen Stockholm, Director of Publications, Institute of Marine Science, University of Alaska, and her staff, especially Ruth Hand, and the numerous referees narned herein who gave willingly oftheir time to review each ofthe manuscripts critically and to provide a high measure of professionalism to the final product. (PDF file contains 110 pages.)