Toxoplasma gondii seropositive rates of animals living on Svalbard

Samples (blood or tissue fluid) from 594 arctic foxes (Alopex lagopus), 390 Svalbard reindeer (Rangifer tarandus platyrhynchus), 361 sibling voles (Microtus rossiaemeridionalis), 17 walruses (Odobenus rosmarus), 149 barnacle geese (Branta leucopsis), 58 kittiwakes (Rissa tridactyla), and 27 glaucous gulls (Larus hyperboreus) from Svalbard and nearby waters were assayed for antibodies against Toxoplasma gondii using a direct agglutination test. The proportion of seropositive animals was 43% in arctic foxes, 7% in barnacle geese, and 6% (1 of 17) in walruses. There were no seropositive Svalbard reindeer, sibling voles, glaucous gulls, or kittiwakes. The prevalence in the arctic fox was relatively high compared to previous reports from canid populations. There are no wild felids in Svalbard and domestic cats are prohibited, and the absence of antibodies against T gondii among the herbivorous Svalbard reindeer and voles indicates that transmission of the parasite by oocysts is not likely to be an important mechanism in the Svalbard ecosystem. Our results suggest that migratory birds, such as the barnacle goose, may be the most important vectors bringing the parasite to Svalbard. In addition to transmission through infected prey and carrion, the age-seroprevalence profile in the fox population suggests that their infection levels are enhanced by vertical transmission.

Meiofauna and the structure of the benthic community in the Iberian deep sea basin

1. On the cruises 3 and 15 of R.V. "Meteor" 6 grab samples, and 6 hauls with the 6 m Agassiztrawl were taken and at 2 stations the deep sea camera was lowered. This material gave quantitative results on the meiofauna and minimum counts of the macrofauna. 2. The nematodes constitute nearly 95% of the meiofauna, the copepoda only 2%. With increasing sediment depth the density of animals decrease gradually. In the uppermost centimeter of sediment 42.6% of the meiofauna are found while only 3.7% live in layer 6-7 cm. Meiofauna weight ranges from 0.6-5.7 mg/25 m**2 surface i.e. 0.24-2.8 g/m**2. 3. Mean numbers of individuals and weights show standard errors of 20-30 %. As an approximate average values for further considerations the weight of the meiofauna in the area was taken as 1 g/m**2 4. Quantitative information on the macrofauna is derived from the trawls and the photographs for the actinia Chitonanthus abyssorum only, which is found in the rate of 1 individual/36-72 m**2, but seems to be less abundant generally. 5. Animal density does not decrease steadily from nearshore to offshore biocoenoses, i.e. generally with increasing depth. The decrease is more pronounced for macro- than for meiofauna. For the deep sea the weight proportion of macrofauna : meiofauna is of the order of 1 : 1. 6. With the assumption, that adaptation of metabolism to deep sea conditions is similar in macro- and meiofauna total metabolism of invertebrates is ascribed to meiofauna to more than 80%. 7. The structure of the biocoenosis of the deep sea floor is characterized by the meiofauna living on and in the sediment and by the dominance of sediment feeders in the macrofauna. 8. Considering the large numbets and high partition rates of bacteria a comparative large part of the metabolism in the deep sea sediment must be ascribed to bacteria. This favours the hypothesis, that with increasing depth and decreasing addition of organic material to the sediment, the importance of meiofauna and microorganisms for total metabolism increases. 9. Considering the different modes of food transport to the deep sea environment, i.e. sinking of dead particles, transport by vertical migration of organisms, aggregation of organic particles, adsorption of dissoloved organic substance to inorganic particles, and heterotrophy, the sediment may be assumed to contain more food for invertebrates than the water above the bottom. 10. Suspensions feeders of macrofauna are fixed to hard substrates in the sediment surface. Some of them are shown to bend themselves down to the bottom in underwater photographs. This suggests the idea that some deep sea suspension feeders partly depend on food from the sediment surface, on which they feed directly.