Population-Growth And Vertical-Distribution Of Calanus-Helgolandicus In The Celtic Sea

Calanus helgolandicus over-winters in the shallow waters (100 m) of the Celtic Sea as copepodite stages V and VI; the minimum temperature in winter is approximately 8.0°C. This over-wintering is not a true hibernation or dormacy, accompanied by a reduced metabolic state with a discontinuation of feeding and development, but more of a lowered activity, involving reduced feeding and development, with predation on available microzooplankton and detritus. Analysis of specimens from the winter population showed that copepodite stages V and VI were actively feeding and still producing and possibly liberating eggs. The absence of late nauplii and young copepodites in the water column until late March indicated that there must be a high mortality of these winter cohorts. The copepodites of the first generation appeared in April–May, the younger stages, copepodites I to III, being distributed deeper in the water column below the euphotic zone and thermocline. This distribution would contribute to amuch slower rate of development. By August the ontogenetic vertical distributions observed in the copepodites were reversed, the younger stages occuring in the warmer surface layers within the euphotic zone. Diurnal migrations were observed in the later copepodites only, the younger stages I to III either remaining deep in spring or shallow in summer. The causal mechanisms which alter the behaviour of the young copepodites remain unexplained. The development of the population of Calanus helgolandicus in 1978, reaching its peak of abundance in August, was typical for the shelf seas around U.K. as observed from Continuous Plankton Recorder data, 1958 to 1977.

Population-Dynamics Of Mytilicola-Intestinalis In Mytilus-Edulis In South West England

The population dynamics of Mytilicola intestinalis Steuer in mussels (Mytilus edulis L.) from the River Lynher, Cornwall, England, have been studied over 3 years. By transplanting uninfested mussels from the River Erme, South Devon, into the Lynher mussel bed, the study was extended to the growth and development of new infestations under natural conditions. Female Mytilicola intestinalis are shown to breed twice, and two generations of parasites coexist for most of the year, with recruitment taking place in summer and autumn. One generation contributes its first brood to the autumn recruits before overwintering and contributing its second brood to the following summer's recruits. The other generation overwinters as juvenile and immature stages to contribute its two broods successively to the summer and autumn recruits. Environmental temperatures are believed to control the rates of development at all stages rather than acting as triggers in the onset or cessation of breeding at specific times. There is no evidence to support the contention that heavily infested mussels are killed, and parasite mortality is shown to be density-independent.

A comparison of the degree of implementation of marine biodiversity indicators by European countries in relation to the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD)

The degree of development and operability of the indicators for the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) using Descriptor 1 (D1) Biological Diversity was assessed. To this end, an overview of the relevance and degree of operability of the underlying parameters across 20 European countries was compiled by analysing national directives, legislation, regulations, and publicly available reports. Marked differences were found between countries in the degree of ecological relevance as well as in the degree of implementation and operability of the parameters chosen to indicate biological diversity. The best scoring EU countries were France, Germany, Greece and Spain, while the worst scoring countries were Italy and Slovenia. No country achieved maximum scores for the implementation of MSFD D1. The non-EU countries Norway and Turkey score as highly as the top-scoring EU countries. On the positive side, the chosen parameters for D1 indicators were generally identified as being an ecologically relevant reflection of Biological Diversity. On the negative side however, less than half of the chosen parameters are currently operational. It appears that at a pan-European level, no consistent and harmonized approach currently exists for the description and assessment of marine biological diversity. The implementation of the MSFD Descriptor 1 for Europe as a whole can therefore at best be marked as moderately successful.