(Table 1) Krill (Euphausia superba) biomass estimates at South Georgia Island from 2001-2005

The South Georgia region supports a large biomass of krill that is subject to high interannual variability. The apparent lack of a locally self-maintaining krill population at South Georgia means that understanding the mechanism underlying these observed population characteristics is essential to successful ecosystem-based management of krill fishery in the region. Krill acoustic-density data from surveys conducted in the early, middle and late period of the summers of 2001 to 2005, together with krill population size structure over the same period from predator diet data, were used with a krill population dynamics model to evaluate potential mechanisms behind the observed changes in krill biomass. Krill abundance was highest during the middle of the summer in 3 years and in the late period in 2 years; in the latter there was evidence that krill recruitment was delayed by several months. A model scenario that included empirically derived estimates of both the magnitude and timing of recruitment in each year showed the greatest correlation with the acoustic series. The results are consistent with a krill population with allochthonous recruitment entering a retained adult population; i.e. oceanic transport of adult krill does not appear to be the major factor determining the dynamics of the adult population. The results highlight the importance of the timing of recruitment, especially where this could introduce a mismatch between the peak of krill abundance and the peak demand from predators, which may exacerbate the effects of changes in krill populations arising from commercial harvesting and/or climate change.

Bird count in Mastbos forest (Breda, Netherlands) in the years 1950 to 1981

Notes from Henrik de Nie: The project started as a phenological study in cooperation with the (Dutch) meteorological institute (KNMI) to register the time of arrival of Fitis and Tjiftaf. During 1951 to 1969 he went every day to the wood (except 1966, in this year his wife died). Thereafter he went no more daily, but because he knew the wood very well and he was free to choice the day on which he did a survey, therefore he choose days with relatively good weather. He did not observe very common bird species, maybe because they are dependent on nest boxes and he did not want to be dependent on the management of the nest box-people (in fact I forgot precisely his arguments, and now I cannot ask him this): Common Starling; Eurasian Tree Sparrow (not common); Great Tit; Eurasian Blue Tit Pieter mentioned 14 species that scored many zero values or only one observation: Stock Dove; Common Cuckoo; Lesser Spotted Woodpecker; Eurasian Golden Oriole; Eurasian Nuthatch; Short-toed Treecreeper; Common Nightingale; Marsh Warbler; Lesser Whitethroat; Goldcrest; Common Firecrest (after 1970 he had difficulties in hearing these two species); Spotted Flycatcher; Eurasian Bullfinch; Black Woodpecker He also mentioned species that he found much fewer as: European Greenfinch; European Pied Flycatcher; Long-eared Owl; Red Crossbill; Sedge Warbler; Icterine Warbler; Eurasian Woodcock; Eurasian Siskin; European Green Woodpecker; Great Spotted Woodpecker; Eurasian Hobby; Western Barn Owl; Woodlark; Common Wood Pigeon; Little Owl; European Crested Tit; Hawfinch. But for these species I think that observations are strongly dependent on the number of visits to the wood. Also here, many zeros and few 1 x during the whole series of visits.