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.)

Impacts of inorganic turbidity on diquat efficacy against Egeria densa

In clear water, diquat [6,7-dihydrodipyrido (1,2-1a:2',1'-c) pyrazinediium dibromide] provides excellent submersed Plant control at low concentrations, such as <0.5 mg active ingredient (ai) L-1: however. turbid water conditions can interfere with the activity and effectiveness of this herbicide. Little work has been done to examine what ranges of turbidity caused by different Suspended sediment types affect diquat efficacy against a target species. A growth chamber study was conducted rising diquat against the submersed macrophyte -egeria (Egeria densa Planch.) under a range Of turbid conditions. Two materials were used to create turbid beater conditions: 100% bentonite clay for a "worst-case" scenario and a natural partial-clav (20% clay). Results indicated that a high rate of diquat (2 mg ai L-1) controlled egeria under relatively low levels of turbidity (5-10 NTU) using bentonite clay: however. higher levels (25 to 50 NTU) of turbidity essentially blocked effectiveness of diquat when applied at all rates tested (0.5. 1, 2 mg ai L-1). When using a natural partial-clay sediment, rates of 1 to 2 mg ai L-1 diquat provided good control of egeria in moderately turbid water (15 NTU). Additional evaluations rising different clay types would be useful to determine the effect of inorganic turbidity oil diquat efficacy.

History of Whaling and Estimated Kill of Right Whales, Balaena glacialis, in the Northeastern United States, 1620–1924

This study, part of a broader investigation of the history of exploitation of right whales, Balaena glacialis, in the western North Atlantic, emphasizes U.S. shore whaling from Maine to Delaware (from lat. 45°N to 38°30'N) in the period 1620–1924. Our broader study of the entire catch history is intended to provide an empirical basis for assessing past distribution and abundance of this whale population. Shore whaling may have begun at Cape Cod, Mass., in the 1620’s or 1630’s; it was certainly underway there by 1668. Right whale catches in New England waters peaked before 1725, and shore whaling at Cape Cod, Martha’s Vineyard, and Nantucket continued to decline through the rest of the 18th century. Right whales continued to be taken opportunistically in Massachusetts, however, until the early 20th century. They were hunted in Narragansett Bay, R.I., as early as 1662, and desultory whaling continued in Rhode Island until at least 1828. Shore whaling in Connecticut may have begun in the middle 1600’s, continuing there until at least 1718. Long Island shore whaling spanned the period 1650–1924. From its Dutch origins in the 1630’s, a persistent shore whaling enterprise developed in Delaware Bay and along the New Jersey shore. Although this activity was most profi table in New Jersey in the early 1700’s, it continued there until at least the 1820’s. Whaling in all areas of the northeastern United States was seasonal, with most catches in the winter and spring. Historically, right whales appear to have been essentially absent from coastal waters south of Maine during the summer and autumn. Based on documented references to specific whale kills, about 750–950 right whales were taken between Maine and Delaware, from 1620 to 1924. Using production statistics in British customs records, the estimated total secured catch of right whales in New England, New York, and Pennsylvania between 1696 and 1734 was 3,839 whales based on oil and 2,049 based on baleen. After adjusting these totals for hunting loss (loss-rate correction factor = 1.2), we estimate that 4,607 (oil) or 2,459 (baleen) right whales were removed from the stock in this region during the 38-year period 1696–1734. A cumulative catch estimate of the stock’s size in 1724 is 1,100–1,200. Although recent evidence of occurrence and movements suggests that right whales continue to use their traditional migratory corridor along the U.S. east coast, the catch history indicates that this stock was much larger in the 1600’s and early 1700’s than it is today. Right whale hunting in the eastern United States ended by the early 1900’s, and the species has been protected throughout the North Atlantic since the mid 1930’s. Among the possible reasons for the relatively slow stock recovery are: the very small number of whales that survived the whaling era to become founders, a decline in environmental carrying capacity, and, especially in recent decades, mortality from ship strikes and entanglement in fishing gear.

A 139-year dendroclimatic cycle, cultural/environmental history, sunspots, and longer-term cycles

Higher resolution time-stratigraphic records suggest correlation of lower frequency paleoclimatic events with Milankovitch obliquity/precessional cycles and of higher frequency events with the evidently resonance-related Pettersson maximum tidal force (MTF) model. Subsequently published records, mainly pollen, seemingly confirm that atmospheric resonances may have modulated past climatic changes in phase with average MTF cycles of 1668, 1112, and 556 years, as calculated in anomalistic years from planetary movements by Stacey. Stacey accepts Pettersson's dating of AD 1433 (517 YBP) for the last major perihelian spring tide based solely on calculations of moon- and earth-orbital relations to the sun. Use of AD 1433 as an origin for the tidal resonance model seemingly continues to provide a best fit for the timing of cyclical patterns in the presented paleoclimate time series.

Trophic State Index, morphoedaphic index and fish yield prediction in a sub-tropical lake, Manchar (Sindh), Pakistan

Limnological factors of a sub-tropical lake Manchar were studied on seasonal basis. The mean values of various parameters were: transparency, (secchi disc reading): 90.5 cm, Orthophosphate: 0.257 mg/l, TDS: 3310,5 mg/l, Conductivity: 5232 µs/l, Total Chlorophyll (Planktonic): 31.3 µg/l Planktonic biomass: 5466 µg/l. Trophic state index (TSI) was calculated by using Carlson's (1977) equations. Mean TSI for transparency was 61, while for orthophosphate and chlorophyll, it was 82 and 64 respectively. TSI values indicate advanced eutrophic state of Manchar Lake. Morphoedaphic index (MEI) was also calculated on seasonal basis. The mean values were, TDS: 1103, conductivity: 1744, alkalinity: 60, transparency: 29 and biomass (plankton dry weight): 1746. Fish yield prediction for Manchar Lake (Z =3m, mean area=100 km²) was calculated by using MEI values. The results were quite different among various parameters. Conductivity (89.1mt/y), biomass (67.6 mt/y) and TDS (44.6 mt/y) were found to be good predictors of fish yield. Chlorophyll, transparency and alkalinity values gave very low estimate.

Species diversification in coastal aquaculture: production potentials of shrimp (Penaeus monodon) with mono and mixed sex tilapia

An experiment of 120 days of culture was conducted in brackishwater earthen ponds having an area of 0.2ha each. The hatchery produced shrimp (Penaeus monodon) post larvae were stocked in the 40m² fine meshed nylon net nursery enclosures were fed with commercial pellet feed. After two weeks of nursing, juveniles were allowed to spread in cultural pond by opening the fence. Fingerlings of three different strain of tilapia were stocked as shrimp and Strain-1 all male (monosex) (T1), shrimp and Strain-2 all male (T2), shrimp and Strain-3 mixed sex population (T3) @ 20.000/ha and 10.000/ha, respectively and shrimp only (monoculture) (T4) @ 20.000/ha. The shrimp and fish were fed with farm made feed consisting of a mixture of fishmeal 29%, MOC 15%, rice bran 30%, soybean meal 16%, wheat flour 9% and vitamin premix 0.1%. The average final weight of shrimp was 24.9±1.13g, 23.41±3.26g and 26.67±1.89g that stocked with tilapia in treatments T1, T2, and T3 respectively. The final average weight of shrimp in monoculture (T4) was 27.41±0.76g, apparently higher but insignificant in treatments. The survival of shrimp was 42.17%, 32.38%, 39.45% and 61.98% in treatments T1 T2, T3 and T4 respectively. The production of shrimp in concurrent culture was 193.67, 154.26 and 210.41kg/ha in T1, T2 and T3, respectively, while in monoculture (T4) was 339.77 kg/ha. The growth and survival of tilapia among the treatments was insignificant. The growth of monosex tilapia ranged 225.29 and 291.31g and survival 62.77 and 72.20% in T1 and T2, respectively, in mixed sex was 193.0g and 83.20% (T3). The production of tilapia monosex strains was 1676.69kg/ha (Strain-2 all male) and 1668.98 kg/ha (Strain-1 all male) while that of Strain-3 mixed sex population was 1622.92 kg/ha.