Dispersal in free-living, marine, benthic nematodes : passive or active processes?

Meiofauna, and especially marine nematodes are common in sediments around the world. Despite very wide ranging distributions in many nematode species, little is presently known about their dispersal mechanisms shaping these patterns. Rafting, and perhaps ballast water transport has been suggested as viable means for nematode long-range transport. On a much smaller scale other processes have been suggested for their dispersal. They generally include some form of passive suspension into the water column and later on a passive, haphazard settling back towards the bottom. Small-scale phenomena in nematode dispersal were studied by conducting a series of studies at Askö field station, Trosa Archipelago, Baltic proper. Studied aspects were one case of macrofaunal influence on nematode dispersal rate, using an amphipod, Monoporeia affinis as disturbing agent, and three different studies on mechanisms related to settling. The experiments were conducted both in laboratory and field settings. The amphipod Monoporeia affinis did not exert any influence on the dispersal rate in the nematodes. The nematode dispersal was only an effect of time, in the aspect that the more time that past, the more nematodes dispersed from their place of origin. The settling experiments revealed that nematodes do have an active component in their settling behaviour, as they were able to exert influence on the spot where they were to settle. They were able to choose settling spot in response to the food quality of the sediment. It also became evident that contrary to common belief, nematodes are able to extend their presence in the water column far beyond the times that would be predicted considering settling velocities and hydrodynamic conditions alone.

Global trade, food production and ecosystem support : Making the interactions visible

Modern food production is a complex, globalized system in which what we eat and how it is produced are increasingly disconnected. This thesis examines some of the ways in which global trade has changed the mix of inputs to food and feed, and how this affects food security and our perceptions of sustainability. One useful indicator of the ecological impact of trade in food and feed products is the Appropriated Ecosystem Areas (ArEAs), which estimates the terrestrial and aquatic areas needed to produce all the inputs to particular products. The method is introduced in Paper I and used to calculate and track changes in imported subsidies to Swedish agriculture over the period 1962-1994. In 1994, Swedish consumers needed agricultural areas outside their national borders to satisfy more than a third of their food consumption needs. The method is then applied to Swedish meat production in Paper II to show that the term “Made in Sweden” is often a misnomer. In 1999, almost 80% of manufactured feed for Swedish pigs, cattle and chickens was dependent on imported inputs, mainly from Europe, Southeast Asia and South America. Paper III examines ecosystem subsidies to intensive aquaculture in two nations: shrimp production in Thailand and salmon production in Norway. In both countries, aquaculture was shown to rely increasingly on imported subsidies. The rapid expansion of aquaculture turned these countries from fishmeal net exporters to fishmeal net importers, increasingly using inputs from the Southeastern Pacific Ocean. As the examined agricultural and aquacultural production systems became globalized, levels of dependence on other nations’ ecosystems, the number of external supply sources, and the distance to these sources steadily increased. Dependence on other nations is not problematic, as long as we are able to acknowledge these links and sustainably manage resources both at home and abroad. However, ecosystem subsidies are seldom recognized or made explicit in national policy or economic accounts. Economic systems are generally not designed to receive feedbacks when the status of remote ecosystems changes, much less to respond in an ecologically sensitive manner. Papers IV and V discuss the problem of “masking” of the true environmental costs of production for trade. One of our conclusions is that, while the ArEAs approach is a useful tool for illuminating environmentally-based subsidies in the policy arena, it does not reflect all of the costs. Current agricultural and aquacultural production methods have generated substantial increases in production levels, but if policy continues to support the focus on yield and production increases alone, taking the work of ecosystems for granted, vulnerability can result. Thus, a challenge is to develop a set of complementary tools that can be used in economic accounting at national and international scales that address ecosystem support and performance. We conclude that future resilience in food production systems will require more explicit links between consumers and the work of supporting ecosystems, locally and in other regions of the world, and that food security planning will require active management of the capacity of all involved ecosystems to sustain food production.