Early Life History and a Modeling Framework for Lobster (Homarus Americanus) Populations in the Gulf of Maine

Beginning in the late 1980s, lobster (Homarus americanus) landings for the state of Maine and the Bay of Fundy increased to levels more than three times their previous 20-year means. Reduced predation may have permitted the expansion of lobsters into previously inhospitable territory, but we argue that in this region the spatial patterns of recruitment and the abundance of lobsters are substantially driven by events governing the earliest life history stages, including the abundance and distribution of planktonic stages and their initial settlement as Young-of-Year (YOY) lobsters. Settlement densities appear to be strongly driven by abundance of the pelagic postlarvae. Postlarvae and YOY show large-scale spatial patterns commensurate with coastal circulation, but also multi-year trends in abundance and abrupt shifts in abundance and spatial patterns that signal strong environmental forcing. The extent of the coastal shelf that defines the initial settlement grounds for lobsters is important to future population modeling. We address one part of this definition by examining patterns of settlement with depth, and discuss a modeling framework for the full life history of lobsters in the Gulf of Maine.

Estimates of in situ Larval Development Time for the Lobster, Homarus Americanus

Larval development time is a critical factor in assessing the potential for larval transport, mortality. and subsequently, the connectivity of marine populations through larval exchange. Most estimates of larval duration are based on laboratory studies and may not reflect development times in nature. For larvae of the American lobster (Homarus americanus), temperature-dependent development times have been established in previous laboratory studies. Here, we used the timing of seasonal abundance curves for newly hatched larvae (stage 1) and the final plankonic instar (postlarva), coupled with a model of temperature-dependent development to assess development time in the field. We were unable to reproduce the timing of the seasonal abundance curves using laboratory development rates in our model. Our results suggest that larval development in situ may be twice as fast as reported laboratory rates. This will result in reduced estimates of larval transport potential, and increased estimates of instantaneous mortality rate and production.

Na 1 Nachlass Max Horkheimer, 13 - Korrespondenzen u.a. mit Familie Eder (p. I 7, 1-223)

7 Briefe zwischen Edward Mead Earle, American Committee for International Studies, Princeton N. J. und Max Horkheimer, 1940-1941; 3 Briefe zwischen Margaret Ebert und Margot von Mendelssohn, 1941, 28.08.1941; 6 Briefe zwischen C. C. Eckhardt und Max Horkheimer, 1940; 5 Briefe zwischen Kay Eckstein und Max Horkheimer, 1940; 2 Briefe zwischen George Eckstein und Max Horkheimer, 16.05.1939, 35.05.1939; 1 Brief von F. K. Eden an Max Horkheimer, 02.04.1944; 33 Briefe zwischen Leopold Eder, Frieda Eder, Ruth Eder und Max Horkheimer, 1937-1940; 2 Briefe zwischen Dale Edwards und Max Horkheimer, 16.07.1940; 1 Brief von Hedwig Ehrlich an Max Horkheimer; 1 Brief von Max Horkheimer an Albert Einstein, 20.02.1935; 1 Brief von Max Horkheimer an W. Eisemann, 02.11.1939; 1 Brief von Else Eisner an Max Horkheimer, 09.12.1935; 2 Briefe zwischen Edit Elbogen und Max Horkheimer, 24.03.1942, 26.03.1942; 1 Brief von Käte von Hirsch an Max Horkheimer, 03.08.1941; 2 Briefe von Emmy Elbogen an Margot von Mendelssohn, 1945; 2 Briefe zwischen Paul Elbogen und Max Horkheimer, 02.06.1944, 09.06.1944; 4 Briefe zwischen Norbert Elias und Max Horkheimer, 1934-1935; 1 Brief von Werner B. Ellinger an Max Horkheimer, 16.12.1937; 19 Briefe zwischen dem Emergency Committee in Aid of Displaced Foreign Scholars New York und Max Horkheimer, 1938-1944; 2 Briefe zwischen dem Emergency Rescue Committee New York und Max Horkheimer, 12.06.1941, 14.06.1941; 1 Brief von F.L. Neumann an Emhardt, 13.02.1939; 23 Briefe zwischen Alice Engel und Max Horkheimer, 1937-1941; 9 briefe zwischen Paul Doernberg, Sofie Doernberg und Max Horkheimer, 1940-1942; 3 Briefe zwischen der Hebrew Sheltering and Immigrant Aid Society New York und Max Horkheimer, 05.01.1942, 1942; 1 Brief von der Selfhelp of Emigres from Central Europe, New York an Max Horkheimer, 18.08.1941; 2 Briefe zwischen R. Weissmann und Max Horkheimer, 09.01.1941, 03.02.1941; 5 Briefe zwischen Ernst Engelberg und Max Horkheimer, 1939-1940, 07.06.1939; 1 Brief von Fritz Epstein an Max Horkheimer, 10.04.1937; 1 Brief von Erika Ermel an Max Horkheimer, 15.09.1948; 2 Briefe zwischen Max Ernst und Max Horkheimer, 23.01.1936; 4 Briefe zwischen Margot Esser und Max Horkheimer, 1935-1936; 16 Briefe zwischen Rene Etiemble und Max Horkheimer, 1936-1938; 4 Briefe zwischen L.M. Ettlinger und Max Horkheimer, 1937; 8 Briefe zwischen Walter Fabien und Max Horkheimer, 1937-1941; 1 Brief von Max Horkheimer an Henry Pratt Fairchild, 25.03.1941; 2 Briefe zwischen Marvin Farber und Max Horkheimer, 14.03.1940, 17.05.1940; 4 Briefe zwischen Walter Farley udn Max Horkheimer, 1935, 01.10.1935; 8 Briefe zwischen Alexander Farquharson und Max Horkheimer, 1935-1939;

Na 1 Nachlass Max Horkheimer, 493 - Korrespondenzen mit Mitarbeitern (u.a. Gerhard Brand, Ludwig von Friedeburg und Jürgen Habermas) aus dem Institut für Sozialforschung (p. V 193, 1 - 212)

Briefe zwischen Mitarbeitern des Instituts für Sozialforschung und Max Horkheimer, 1964-1973; 13 Briefe und Beilagen zwischen dem Verwaltungsleiter IfS Siegfried Geissler und Max Horkheimer, 1968-1973; 9 Briefe zwischen Klaus Körber (Institut für Sozialforschung) und Max Horkheimer, 1971-1973; 2 Briefe zwischen dem Professor Rudolf Gunzert und Max Horkheimer, 1972; 2 Briefe zwischen Dr. Joachim Bergmann (Institut für Sozialforschung) und Max Horkheimer, 1971; 2 Briefe zwischen dem Professor Gerhard Brandt und Max Horkheimer, 1971; 6 Briefe zwischen Herbert Ludwig (Institut für Sozialforschung) und Max Horkheimer, 1966-1967; 3 Briefe von Max Horkheimer an Professor Franz Böhm, 1966; Briefe zwischen den Mitarbeitern des Instituts für Sozialforschung und Max Horkheimer, 1955-1959; 4 Briefe von Jürgen Habermas an Max Horkheimer, Frankfurt, 1957-1959; 3 Briefe zwischen Christoph Oehler und Max Horkheimer, 1959; 13 Briefe zwischen Ludwig von Friedeburg und Max Horkheimer, 1955-1959; 1 Brief von Werner Wilkening an Max Horkheimer, 1958; 1 Brief von Gerhard Brandt an Max Horkheimer, 1958; 1 Brief von Max Horkheimer an den Dekan Helmut Viebrock, 1958; 2 Briefe von Egon Becker mit Helge Pross und Ludwig Friedeburg an Max Horkheimer, Frankfurt, 1958-1959; 2 Briefe von Helge Pross mit Egon Becker und Ludwig Friedeburg an Max Horkheimer, Frankfurt, 1958-1959; 1 Brief von Dieter Arenz an Max Horkheimer, Frankfurt, 1956; Briefe vom und an das Institut für Sozialforschung (Advisory Board of the Institute of Social Research), 1940-1947; Briefe und Briefentwürfe an und von Mitgliedern des Advisory Board betreffend die Zusendung von Max Horkheimer "Eclipse of Reason" und Karl August Wittvogel/Olga Lang, "Chinese Family and Society"; vom Institut für Sozialforschung, 1946-1947; 1 Brief von Edwin Borchard vom Institut für Sozialforschung, 1947; 1 Brief von Friedrich Pollock an Alfred E. Cohn, Los Angeles, 1947; 1 Brief von Friedrich Pollock an Stephan Duggan, Los Angeles, 1947; 2 Briefe zwischen Lloyd K. Garrison und Friedrich. Pollock, 1947; 1 Brief von Friedrich Pollock an Calvin B. Hoover, Los Angeles, 1947; 1 Brief von Friedrich Pollock an Philip C. Jessup, Los Angeles, 1947; 1 Brief von Friedrich Pollock an Wesley C. Mitchell, Los Angeles, 1947; 1 Brief von Friedrich Pollock an William A. Neilson, Los Angeles, 1947; 1 Brief von Friedrich Pollock an Frederick M. Padelford, Los Angeles, 1947; 1 Brief von Friedrich Pollock an Thorsten Sellin, Los Angeles, 1947; 3 Briefe zwischen John Whyte und Friedrich Pollock, 1947; 2 Briefe zwischen Louis Wirth und Friedrich Pollock, 1947; 1 Brief von Friedrich Pollock an Howard Woolston, Los Angeles, 1947; 1 Brief von George H. Sabine an das Institut für Sozialforschung, Ithaca, New York, 1946; Briefe und Briefentwürfe an und von Mitgliedern des Advisory Board betreffend den Druck eines neuen Briefkopfs des Instituts, 1940; 1 Brief von Leo Löwenthal, Pacific Palisades an Margot von Mendelssohn, 1942; 1 Brief von Leo Löwenthal an Margot von Mendelssohn, Pacific Palisades, 1942; 1 Brief von Max Horkheimer an K. Pilser, 1942; 2 Briefe zwischen Charles A. Beard und Max Horkheimer, 1940; 2 Briefe zwischen Edwin M. Borchard und Max Horkheimer, 1940; 3 Briefe zwischen Henry Sloane Coffin und Max Horkheimer, 1940; 2 Briefe zwischen Morris R. Cohen und Max Horkheimer, 1940; 2 Briefe zwischen Alfred E. Cohn und Max Horkheimer, 1940; 2 Briefe zwischen Stephen Duggan und Max Horkheimer, 1940; 2 Briefe zwischen dem Soziologen Henry Pratt Fairchild und Max Horkheimer, 1940; 2 Briefe zwischen Sidney B. Fay und Max Horkheimer, 1940; 2 Briefe zwischen Lloyd K. Garrison und Max Horkheimer, 1940; 1 Brief von Max Horkheimer an Calvin B. Hoover, 1940; 2 Briefe zwischen Robert M. Hutchins und Max Horkheimer, 1940; 2 Briefe zwischen Philip C. Jessup und Max Horkheimer, 1940; 2 Briefe zwischen Lewis L. Lorwin und Max Horkheimer, 1940; 2 Briefe zwischen Robert S. Lynd und Max Horkheimer, 1940; 2 Briefe zwischen Robert M. MacIver und Max Horkheimer, 1940; 2 Briefe von Max Horkheimer an Charles H. McIlwain, 1940; 2 Briefe zwischen Charles E. Merriam und Max Horkheimer, 1940; 2 Briefe zwischen Wesley C. Mitchell und Max Horkheimer, 1940; 2 Briefe zwischen William A. Nielson und Max Horkheimer, 1940; 5 Briefe zwischen Howard W. Odum und Max Horkheimer, 1940; 3 Briefe zwischen Frederick M. Padelford und Max Horkheimer, 1940; 3 Briefe von Max Horkheimer an Max Radin, 1940; 2 Briefe zwischen George H. Sabine und Max Horkheimer, 1940; 2 Briefe zwischen Thorsten Sellin und Max Horkheimer, 1940; 2 Briefe zwischen James T. Shotwell und Max Horkheimer, 1940; 1 Brief von dem Soziologen Louis Wirth an Franz Neumann, Chicago, 1940; 1 Brief von Louis Wirth an Franz L. Neumann, Chicago, 1940; 3 Briefe zwischen Howard Woolston und Max Horkheimer, 1940;

A critical review: Why isn't "cold pasteurization" being used widespread as a method to prevent food-related illnesses as a result of the consumption of ready-to-eat, fresh fruits, and vegetables

The Centers for Disease Control estimates that foodborne diseases cause approximately 76 million illnesses, 325,000 hospitalizations, and 5,000 deaths in the United States each year. The American public is becoming more health conscious and there has been an increase in the dietary intake of fresh fruits and vegetables. Affluence and demand for convenience has allowed consumers to opt for pre-processed packaged fresh fruits and vegetables. These pre-processed foods are considered Ready-to-Eat. They have many of the advantages of fresh produce without the inconvenience of processing at home. After seeing a decline in food-related illnesses between 1996 and 2004, due to an improvement in meat and poultry safety, tainted produce has tilted the numbers back. This has resulted in none of the Healthy People 2010 targets for food-related illness reduction being reached. Irradiation has been shown to be effective in eliminating many of the foodborne pathogens. The application of irradiation as a food safety treatment has been widely endorsed by many of the major associations involved with food safety and public health. Despite these endorsements there has been very little use of this technology to date for reducing the disease burden associated with the consumption of these products. A review of the available literature since the passage of the 1996 Food Quality Protection Act was conducted on the barriers to implementing irradiation as a food safety process for fresh fruits and vegetables. The impediments to adopting widespread utilization of irradiation food processing as a food safety measure involve a complex array of legislative, regulatory, industry, and consumer issues. The FDA’s approval process limits the expansion of the list of foods approved for the application of irradiation as a food safety process. There is also a lack of capacity within the industry to meet the needs of a geographically dispersed industry.^

Expression and function of $\beta$-1,4-galactosyltransferase during wild-type and T/{\it t\/} -mutant spermatogenesis

In the mouse, gamete recognition is mediated in part by the binding of sperm surface $\beta$1,4 galactosyltransferase (GalTase) to specific oligosaccharide residues on the zona pellucida ZP3. The expression of GalTase on the sperm surface is regulated by alleles within the distal segment of the T/t complex and results in a haploid-specific increase in GalTase expression on spermatids and sperm from t-bearing males, suggesting that differences in sperm GalTase activity may contribute to t-sperm transmission ratio distortion. In this study, the expression of GalTase RNA during wild-type and T/t-mutant spermatogenesis was characterized and the role of GalTase was analyzed in transmission ratio distortion. It was found that spermatogenic cells predominantly express the long form of the GalTase RNA, which encodes the GalTase protein that is preferentially targeted to the cell surface in somatic cells. In wild-type testes, GalTase RNA accumulates during the maturation of primary spermatocytes, reaches peak levels prior to meiosis, and decreases and meiosis. GalTase RNA accumulates to similar levels during the maturation of +/t and t/t primary spermatocytes, but unlike wild-type, the level of GalTase RNA in t-spermatocytes remains elevated during meiotic division. Consequently, spermatids in t-mutant testes inherit higher levels of GalTase RNA than do wild-type spermatids, which likely accounts for the haploid-specific increase in surface GalTase activity characteristic of spermatids from t-bearing mice.^ The functional significance of the increased GalTase activity during t-sperm transmission ratio distortion was determined by examining the distribution of GalTase RNA and surface GalTase protein in haploid spermatids from +/t males. Results show that +- and t-spermatids have similar levels of both GalTase RNA and protein, indicating that transmission ratio distortion in +/t mice is not likely due to haploid-specific differences in sperm surface GalTase activity.^ The presence of GalTase on the surface of an early spermatogenic cells before it is required on the mature sperm to perform its function during gamete binding suggests a separate function for GalTase in Sertoli-germ cell adhesion. Studies indicate that cell surface GalTase partly mediates the initial adhesion of pachytene spermatocytes, but not haploid spermatids, to Sertoli cells. ^