Student Engagement in the School: Interpersonal and Inter-Center Differences

Traducido al castellano e inglés

Dynamics of pneumococcal nasopharyngeal carriage in healthy children attending a day care center in northern Spain. Influence of detection techniques on the results

8 p.

Whales and Sonar: Environmental Exemptions for the Navy’s Mid-Frequency Active Sonar Training

Mid-frequency active (MFA) sonar emits pulses of sound from an underwater transmitter to help determine the size, distance, and speed of objects. The sound waves bounce off objects and reflect back to underwater acoustic receivers as an echo. MFA sonar has been used since World War II, and the Navy indicates it is the only reliable way to track submarines, especially more recently designed submarines that operate more quietly, making them more difficult to detect. Scientists have asserted that sonar may harm certain marine mammals under certain conditions, especially beaked whales. Depending on the exposure, they believe that sonar may damage the ears of the mammals, causing hemorrhaging and/or disorientation. The Navy agrees that the sonar may harm some marine mammals, but says it has taken protective measures so that animals are not harmed. MFA training must comply with a variety of environmental laws, unless an exemption is granted by the appropriate authority. Marine mammals are protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and some under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The training program must also comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and in some cases the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). Each of these laws provides some exemption for certain federal actions. The Navy has invoked all of the exemptions to continue its sonar training exercises. Litigation challenging the MFA training off the coast of Southern California ended with a November 2008 U.S. Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court said that the lower court had improperly favored the possibility of injuring marine animals over the importance of military readiness. The Supreme Court’s ruling allowed the training to continue without the limitations imposed on it by other courts. (pdf contains 20pp.)

Relationship between water quality, watermilfoil frequency, and weevil distribution in the State of Washington

During the summer of 1997, we surveyed 50 waterbodies in Washington State to determine the distribution of the aquatic weevil Euhrychiopsis lecontei Dietz. We collected data on water quality and the frequency of occurrence of watermilfoil species within selected watermilfoil beds to compare the waterbodies and determine if they were related to the distribution E. lecontei . We found E. lecontei in 14 waterbodies, most of which were in eastern Washington. Only one lake with weevils was located in western Washington. Weevils were associated with both Eurasian ( Myriophyllum spicatum L.) and northern watermilfoil ( M. sibiricum K.). Waterbodies with E. lecontei had significantly higher ( P < 0.05) pH (8.7 ± 0.2) (mean ± 2SE), specific conductance (0.3 ± 0.08 mS cm -1 ) and total alkalinity (132.4 ± 30.8 mg CaCO 3 L -1 ). We also found that weevil presence was related to surface water temperature and waterbody location ( = 24.3, P ≤ 0.001) and of all the models tested, this model provided the best fit (Hosmer- Lemeshow goodness-of-fit = 4.0, P = 0.9). Our results suggest that in Washington State E. lecontei occurs primarily in eastern Washington in waterbodies with pH ≥ 8.2 and specific conductance ≥ 0.2 mS cm -1 . Furthermore, weevil distribution appears to be correlated with waterbody location (eastern versus western Washington) and surface water temperature.

The frequency of muscle protein polymorphism in Menidia menidia (Atherinidae) along the Atlantic coast

(PDF has 6 pages.)

An Integrated Assessment of the Introduction of Lionfish (Pterois volitans/miles complex) to the Western Atlantic Ocean.

Lionfish (Pterois volitans/miles complex) are venomous coral reef fishes from the Indian and western Pacific oceans that are now found in the western Atlantic Ocean. Adult lionfish have been observed from Miami, Florida to Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, and juvenile lionfish have been observed off North Carolina, New York, and Bermuda. The large number of adults observed and the occurrence of juveniles indicate that lionfish are established and reproducing along the southeast United States coast. Introductions of marine species occur in many ways. Ballast water discharge, a very common method of introduction for marine invertebrates, is responsible for many freshwater fish introductions. In contrast, most marine fish introductions result from intentional stocking for fishery purposes. Lionfish, however, likely were introduced via unintentional or intentional aquarium releases, and the introduction of lionfish into United States waters should lead to an assessment of the threat posed by the aquarium trade as a vector for fish introductions. Currently, no management actions are being taken to limit the effect of lionfish on the southeast United States continental shelf ecosystem. Further, only limited funds have been made available for research. Nevertheless, the extent of the introduction has been documented and a forecast of the maximum potential spread of lionfish is being developed. Under a scenario of no management actions and limited research, three predictions are made: ● With no action, the lionfish population will continue to grow along the southeast United States shelf. ● Effects on the marine ecosystem of the southeast United States will become more noticeable as the lionfish population grows. ● There will be incidents of lionfish envenomations of divers and/or fishers along the east coast of the United States. Removing lionfish from the southeast United States continental shelf ecosystem would be expensive and likely impossible. A bounty could be established that would encourage the removal of fish and provide specimens for research. However, the bounty would need to be lower than the price of fish in the aquarium trade (~$25-$50 each) to ensure that captured specimens were from the wild. Such a low bounty may not provide enough incentive for capturing lionfish in the wild. Further, such action would only increase the interaction between the public and lionfish, increasing the risk of lionfish envenomations. As the introduction of lionfish is very likely irreversible, future actions should focus on five areas. 1) The population of lionfish should be tracked. 2) Research should be conducted so that scientists can make better predictions regarding the status of the invasion and the effects on native species, ecosystem function, and ecosystem services. 3) Outreach and education efforts must be increased, both specifically toward lionfish and more generally toward the aquarium trade as a method of fish introductions. 4) Additional regulation should be considered to reduce the frequency of marine fish introduction into U.S. waters. However, the issue is more complicated than simply limiting the import of non-native species, and these complexities need to be considered simultaneously. 5) Health care providers along the east coast of the United States need to be notified that a venomous fish is now resident along the southeast United States. The introduction and spread of lionfish illustrates the difficulty inherent in managing introduced species in marine systems. Introduced species often spread via natural mechanisms after the initial introduction. Efforts to control the introduction of marine fish will fail if managers do not consider the natural dispersal of a species following an introduction. Thus, management strategies limiting marine fish introductions need to be applied over the scale of natural ecological dispersal to be effective, pointing to the need for a regional management approach defined by natural processes not by political boundaries. The introduction and success of lionfish along the east coast should change the long-held perception that marine fish invasions are a minimal threat to marine ecosystems. Research is needed to determine the effects of specific invasive fish species in specific ecosystems. More broadly, a cohesive plan is needed to manage, mitigate and minimize the effects of marine invasive fish species on ecosystems that are already compromised by other human activities. Presently, the magnitude of marine fish introductions as a stressor on marine ecosystems cannot be quantified, but can no longer be dismissed as negligible. (PDF contains 31 pages)