ANAMAR News

A 2018 study published in the peer-reviewed journal Gulf and Caribbean Research represents a collaborative effort between ANAMAR biologist Jason Seitz and colleagues at the University of New England and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute.  Southern stingrays (Hypanus americanus, previously Dasyatis americana) were sampled and measured at fishing tournaments from 2004 and 2012 in Charlotte Harbor, Florida.  Vertebral centra obtained from the stingrays were sectioned and mounted on slides, and their growth bands were counted by two independent readers.  A total of 18 female southern stingrays, measuring from 412 to 1127 mm disc width (DW) were aged.  Ages ranged from 0 to 17 years.  The results suggest that southern stingrays obtain relatively old ages (17 years) and large sizes (to at least 1127 mm DW).  The results are comparable to other large stingray species such as the brown stingray (Bathytoshia lata; to at least 24 years and 1790 mm DW) and the common stingray (Dasyatis pastinaca; to at least 16 years and 1140 mm DW).  The results are also comparable to size-at-width data from a captive population of southern stingrays (13 years for a 1000-mm DW captive female, compared to an estimated 12 years for a 1005-mm DW wild female in this study).  The age-at-width estimates given in the 2018 study provide a preliminary foundation for future studies on age and growth of southern stingrays for the generation of mortality rates, production rates, and growth models, such as a Von Bertalanffy growth function or a Gompertz function, once ages of each life stage are obtained.  This study is the first investigation of the age-at-widths of wild southern stingrays. 

Here is a link to the open-access paper: Southern-stingray-age-and-growth-FINAL-2018

Source

Hayne, A.H.P., G.R. Poulakis, J.C. Seitz, and J.A. Sulikowski.  2018.  Preliminary age estimates for female Southern Stingrays (Hypanus americanus) from southwestern Florida, USA.  Gulf and Caribbean Research 29:SC1–4.  DOI:10.18785/gcr.2901.03  

An anonymous letter to The Pennsylvania Journal in December 1775 describes how the writer observed an image of a rattlesnake depicted on a drum belonging to a Marine with the words ‘Don’t Tread on Me’ spelled underneath the snake’s image.  The writer went on to theorize as to why this symbol was chosen by the Marine and its intended meaning.  The writer began by outlining the characteristics that distinguish rattlesnakes from other animals and supposed why these same properties may be appropriately used to symbolize the United States of America:

“I recollected that her eye excelled in brightness, that of any other animal, and that she has no eye-lids.  She may therefore be esteemed an emblem of vigilance.  She never begins an attack, nor, when once engaged, ever surrenders: she is therefore an emblem of magnanimity and true courage.  As if anxious to prevent all pretensions of quarreling with her, the weapons with which nature has burnished her, she conceals, in the roof of her mouth, so that, to those who are unacquainted with her, she appears to be a most defenseless animal; and even when those weapons are shown and extended for her defense, they appear weak and contemptible; but their wounds however small, are decisive and fatal.  Conscious of this, she never wounds ‘till she has generously given notice, even to her enemy, and cautioned him against the danger of treading on her.

       -An American Guesser”

Although the above paragraph was written anonymously, history scholars believe the writer to have been Benjamin Franklin.  The entire letter can be viewed at http://greatseal.com/symbols/rattlesnake.html.

This short blog will consider the venom attributes of rattlesnakes.

What is the Purpose of Rattlesnake Venom?

There are two main categories of venoms: those that are intended to subdue prey and those that are intended to dissuade predators.  Rattlesnakes evolved their venom to subdue prey and to begin the process of digestion.  Figure 1 shows a timber rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus) in the act of consuming an eastern gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) after subduing it with venom.  They have a special suite of proteins and enzymes to help accomplish this task.  Unfortunately, although rattlesnakes evolved their venom for use in obtaining food rather than as a defensive measure, a defensive bite nonetheless has the effect of these digestive compounds tearing through bodily tissues and causing pain, swelling, and necrosis. 

Figure 1.  This timber rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus) was photographed by the author while it consumed an eastern gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) in Alachua County, Florida, after subduing it with venom.  This snake is among the population thought to have a higher concentration of neurotoxic venom than populations north of Interstate 10.

Photographed and copyrighted by the author, Jason Seitz

What Is Rattlesnake Venom Composed of?

The venom of rattlesnakes is a mixture of hemotoxins and neurotoxins, but are mostly hemotoxins.  Hemotoxins target tissues and blood, causing hemorrhaging and necrosis.  Their venom is really a cocktail of chemical elements.  Neurotoxins target the nervous system, some of which can cause paralysis.  While each species of venomous snake has its own particular cocktail of proteins and enzymes compared to other species, there is some evidence to suggest that the relative concentration of neurotoxins to hemotoxins may vary regionally even within a given species of snake.  For instance, a significant percentage of the timber rattlesnakes south of Interstate 10 (I-10) in Florida are believed by some researchers to have a higher concentration of neurotoxic venom than do timber rattlers north of this corridor.  The various proteins and enzymes in rattlesnake venom have a synergistic effect that has evolved to trigger total cardiovascular collapse of the snake’s intended prey.  When a rattler bites in defense, the effects are watered down due to the large size of a person compared to their prey (typically a rodent).

Some recent works by scientists have found that some forms of hemotoxic venoms are not immunogenic, meaning that they do not trigger an immune response by the victim.  They slip by the immune system of the envenomated animal so no antibodies are produced to fight the toxins.  This is troubling since antivenoms are produced by injecting venom into a large animal, typically a horse, and later harvesting the antibodies created by the horse that can be later used to treat bite victims. 

Hemotoxin venoms such as those of rattlesnakes begin to disassemble the structural components of blood vessels and tissues as soon as they are injected.  This is done by metalloproteases, which are proteases enzymes that use a metal as a catalyst in the hydrolysis of peptide bonds.  Because these enzymes break down even the proteins responsible for keeping the cell walls of blood vessels intact, localized hemorrhaging results, sending blood into surrounding tissues.  The same metalloproteases also act to break down skeletal muscles.  Another component of rattler toxin, phospholipases cause the death of muscle tissue by attacking their cellular membranes.  Some of these phospholipases have enzymes that create holes in the muscle cell walls by breaking apart the phospholipids that hold the membranes together.  Other phospholipases use as‑yet‑unidentified means of destroying muscle cells. 

There are still other enzymes contained within rattler venom that cause destruction.  These include hyaluronidases and serine proteases, each having its own type of destructive mechanism.  Some chemical compounds from the venom travel far from the site of the bite and wreak havoc on blood vessels and skeletal muscles elsewhere in the body. 

In addition to the destructive actions of the venom components themselves, some proteins trick our own immune system to fight against our own cells.  Specifically, the actions of metalloproteases and phospholipases trigger an immune response at the site of the wound.  Immune cells such as leukocytes signal an increased immune response by releasing messengers such as interleukin-6.  Since the venom components are not a cohesive force, and with no bacteria to attack, the immune system instead launches an attack that adds to the destruction of our own tissues.  The damage done by our own immune system is doubly troubling considering that antivenom does not help to mitigate its effects.  Studies have found that, when the immune system is shut down, necrotic effects of snake venom are greatly reduced.  The use of Benadryl, for instance, can lessen the swelling and edema associated with envenomation.

A Note on Conservation

Although snakes are often feared and persecuted throughout much of their ranges in the United States and elsewhere, they nonetheless occupy a valuable place in the ecology of many ecosystems.  There are hundreds of species of snakes in the U.S., but only a small portion of them are venomous.  For example, in Florida there are 50 species of snakes but only 6 (12%) of those species are venomous.  Venomous snakes can be safely and effectively avoided by using common sense.  If a snake is thought to be venomous, or if it is not known whether it is venomous, the safe thing to do is to leave it alone.  Remember that most bite victims are bitten because they are attempting to handle or kill the snake. 

Snakes perform valuable services such as controlling rodents and other pests.  A recent study has shown that timber rattlesnakes may reduce the incidence of Lyme disease in the northeastern U.S. by preying on the host (rodents) that carries the tick that spreads the disease.  An estimated 2,500 to 4,500 ticks were removed from the northeastern U.S. study areas each year by timber rattlesnakes consuming their mammal hosts.  

Recent research suggests that rattlesnakes may help disperse the seeds of grasses and other plants.  Rodents eat grass seeds and those of other plants, but the seeds do not normally survive through the digestive process of rodents.  However, rodents often carry the seeds in their cheek pouches, and if the rodent is then killed and eaten by a rattlesnake, these seeds are capable of passing through the snake’s digestive tract and remaining viable.  Three species of desert-dwelling rattlesnakes were found to have consumed rodents with seeds in their cheek pouches and that the seeds are capable of germinating in the snake’s colon and may be passed with the snake’s feces, allowing dispersal of the plant propagules.

Rattlesnakes and many other species of snakes are experiencing declines in populations in the United States due to loss of habitat, continued persecution, and emerging diseases such as the snake fungus Ophidiomyces ophiodiicola.  The eastern diamondback rattlesnake (Crotalus adamanteus) (Figure 2) has declined to the point where the species has been petitioned for protection as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act.

Figure 2.  The eastern diamondback rattlesnake (Crotalus adamanteus) is one of the more well-known (and often persecuted) rattlesnake species.
Photographed and copyrighted by the author, Jason Seitz

A Fun Way to Report your Amphibian and Reptile Sightings Using Citizen Science

Use the HerpMapper mobile phone app to record and submit your amphibian and reptile sightings!  It’s fun, simple, and easy to do.  See the website https://www.herpmapper.org/ for more information and to download the app.

Sources

Adkins, C.L., D.N. Greenwald, D.B. Means, B. Matturro, and J. Ries.  2011.  Petition to List the Eastern Diamondback Rattlesnake (Crotalus adamanteus) as Threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Petition submitted 08/11/11 to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Washington, D.C., and USFWS Region 4, Atlanta, GA.

Brown, W.S.  1993.  Biology, Status, and Management of the Timber Rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus): A guide for Conservation.  Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles, Herpetological Circular No. 22, The University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS.

Kabay, E., N.M. Caruso, and K.R. Lips.  2013.  Timber Rattlesnakes May Reduce Incidence of Lyme Disease in the Northeastern United States.  98^th Annual Meeting of the Ecological Society of America, 08/06/13, Minneapolis, MN.  Accessed online 02/05/18 at https://eco.confex.com/eco/2013/webprogram/Paper44305.html.

Lorch, J.M, S. Knowles, J.S. Lankton, K. Michell, J.L. Edwards, J.M. Kapfer, R.A. Staffen, E.R. Wild, K.Z. Schmidt, A.E. Ballmann, D. Blodgett, T.M. Farrel, B.M. Glorioso, L.A. Last, S.J. Price, K.L. Schuler, C.E. Smith, J.F.X. Wellehan, Jr., and D.S. Blehert.  2016.  Snake fungal disease: an emerging threat to wild snakes.  Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 371: 20150457.  Accessed online 02/13/18 at http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/royptb/371/1709/20150457.full.pdf.

Reiserer, R.S., G.W. Schuett, and H.W. Greene.  2018.  Seed ingestion and germination in rattlesnakes: overlooked agents of rescue and secondary dispersal.  Proceedings of the Royal Society B: 285: 20172755. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2017.2755.

Robertson, M.  2017.  pers. comm. regarding regional differences in neurotoxins in the timber rattlesnake.

Wilcox, C.  2016.  Venomous, How Earth’s Deadliest Creatures Mastered Biochemistry.  Scientific American / Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, New York, NY.

A synopsis of Jason Seitz and Jan Jeffrey Hoover’s evaluations of two large private collections of sawfish rosta (saws) has been published in the latest issue of ESR, an online-only international and multidisciplinary open-access journal on endangered species research.

Click here to read the article.

This article was first written and posted in 2015. We decided to dust it off and repost it. Enjoy!

This article discusses the species of introduced herpetofauna (amphibians and reptiles) of Florida’s terrestrial and aquatic habitats along with a general discussion of the possible effects of biological invasions on native wildlife and habitats.  The first part of this three-part series was on introduced fishes in the state.  The final part of the series will be on introduced mollusks (bivalves and gastropods, or clams and snails & slugs) of Florida. 

As of this writing, at least 110 species of nonindigenous herpetofauna (colloquially called ‘herptiles’ for short) representing 34 families have been introduced to Florida (Exhibits 1 and 4).  Of the species introduced to Florida, about 43% are now considered to have established breeding populations in one or more counties (Exhibit 2).  This amounts to 47 established herptile species in Florida as of this writing.  Both urban and natural areas of Florida are affected by these biological invaders.  For example, the first reticulated python (Python reticulatus) observed in Florida was during the 1980s, where it was seen living under a house in Miami.  This species has since been observed and (or) collected in several other areas of Florida, although it is not known whether the species has established self-sustaining breeding populations (Exhibit 3).   Lizards are the most successful group and account for the majority (72%) of established herptiles in Florida today.  The list in Exhibit 4 below contains the species known to have been introduced, although it is important to note that new species are introduced on a regular basis in Florida, so the list is constantly expanding.  Most introduced herptiles are native to the tropics (Wilson and Porras 1983).  The fact that Florida’s climate is subtropical is a major reason why many introduced species have successfully established themselves in the state.  Nonindigenous herptiles have been introduced via a variety of mechanisms:

• Stowaways in shipments of ornamental plants or produce
• Intentional or accidental release by pet dealers or owners
• Intentional or accidental release from zoological parks
• Intentional release by government agencies to combat nuisance organisms

Exhibit 1.  Percentages per group of introduced species of amphibians and reptiles in Florida today.  Sources: Florida Museum of Natural History (http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/herpetology/florida-amphibians-reptiles/checklist-atlas/), USGS Nonindigenous Aquatic Species online database (http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/SpeciesList.aspx?group=Amphibians&state=FL&Sortby=1), Krysko et al. (2011), J.C.Seitz unpublished data.

Exhibit 2.  Percentages per group of introduced species of amphibians and reptiles that are known to have established self-sustaining breeding populations in Florida today.  Sources: Florida Museum of Natural History (http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/herpetology/florida-amphibians-reptiles/checklist-atlas/), USGS Nonindigenous Aquatic Species online database (http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/SpeciesList.aspx?group=Amphibians&state=FL&Sortby=1), Krysko et al. (2011), J.C.Seitz unpublished data.

Exhibit 3.  Several sightings and captures of the reticulated python (Python reticulatus) have occurred in Florida counties since the late 1980s, including Broward, Collier, Manatee, Miami-Dade, and Pinellas counties. 

The red pin-shaped symbols above represent the location of a sighting or capture.  The black numbers surrounded by red denote locations where more than one sighting or capture was recorded.  Modified from the UF Department of Wildlife Ecology & Conservation (http://ufwildlife.ifas.ufl.edu/snakes/reticulatedpython.shtml).

Wilson and Porras predicted in the early 1980s that southern Florida would eventually be overrun with introduced exotic wildlife.  The current trends in established and spreading introduced species suggest that these authors may have been right. 

Reducing the effects of invasive nonindigenous species is an important part of restoration and management efforts in natural areas of Florida, United States, and worldwide, as these species cause significant stress to native ecosystems (Adams and Steigerwalt 2010) and biological invasion is widely viewed as a major cause of the reduction in native plant and animal diversity (Elton 1958, Wilcove et al. 1998).  Invasive species are known to affect most natural areas of the United States (Villazon 2009) and worldwide (Sala et al. 2000).

It should go without saying that the intentional introduction of any nonindigenous species, whether it be a plant or animal and regardless of size or assumed innocuousness, should never be attempted.  The reasons are many and the costs can be severe, both in terms of biological effects and economic impacts.  Nonindigenous species introduced to new areas have the capacity to explode in numbers and outcompete native species for limited resources such as food, water, and shelter.  Native species are at a competitive disadvantage because they have not had time to evolve defense mechanisms that would otherwise allow them to successfully compete against the introduced species.  The competition between native and nonindigenous species can result in the extinction of native species, the spread of diseases and parasites, displacement of whole communities, and may even cause physical changes to the environment. 

Exhibit 4.  Nonindigenous amphibians and reptiles recorded in Florida.

Sources: Florida Museum of Natural History (http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/herpetology/florida-amphibians-reptiles/checklist-atlas/), USGS Nonindigenous Aquatic Species online database (http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/SpeciesList.aspx?group=Amphibians&state=FL&Sortby=1), Krysko et al. (2011), J.C.Seitz unpublished data.

Sources:

Adams, C.R. and N.M. Steigerwalt.  2010.  Research Needs and Logistic Impediments in Restoration, Enhancement, and Management Projects: A Survey of Land Managers. Publication ENH1161 [online resource].  Environmental Horticulture Department, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.  Accessed 11/21/10 at: http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/ep423.

Elton, C.S.  1958.  The Ecology of Invasions by Animals and Plants.  Methuen and Co., Ltd., Strand, London.

Florida Museum of Natural History.  2014.  Checklist & Atlas of Amphibians and Reptiles in Florida [online resource].  Accessed 02/24/15 at http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/herpetology/florida-amphibians-reptiles/checklist-atlas/.

Krysko, K.L., K.M. Enge, P.E. Moler.  2011.  Atlas of Amphibians and Reptiles in Florida.  Project Agreement 08013, report submitted to Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Tallahassee, FL.

Sala, O.E. F.S. Chapin, J.J. Armesto, E. Berlow, J. Bloomfield, R. Dirzo, E. Huber-Sanwald, L.F. Huenneke, R.B. Jackson, A. Kinzig, R. Leemans, D.M. Lodge, H.A. Mooney, M. Oesterheld, N.L. Poff, M.T. Sykes, B.H. Walker, M. Walker, and D.H. Wall.  2000.  Global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100.  Science 287:1770–1774.

U.S. Geological Survey.  2015.  NAS – Nonindigenous Aquatic Species [online resource].  Accessed 03/03/15 at http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/CollectionInfo.aspx?SpeciesID=963&State=FL.

Villazon, K.A.  2009.  Methods to Restore Native Plant Communities after Invasive Species Removal: Marl Prairie Ponds and an Abandoned Phosphate Mine in Florida.  MS thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.

Wilcove, D.S., D. Rothstein, J. Dubow, A. Phillips, and E. Losos.  1998.  Quantifying threats to imperiled species in the United States. Bioscience 48:607–615.

Wilson, L.D. and L. Porras.  1983.  The Ecological Impact of Man on the South Florida Herpetofauna.  The University of Kansas Museum of Natural History Special Publication No. 9, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS.

This article is a repost from 2015. It discusses the species of introduced fishes in Florida’s freshwater and marine habitats, along with a general discussion of biological invasions as a potential driver of loss-of-habitat functions.  Future articles in the series will discuss introduced mollusks (bivalves and gastropods) and herptiles (amphibians and reptiles) of Florida.

Waterbodies such as streams, lakes, ponds, and oceans are well known for their habitat functions, especially their ability to support aquatic wildlife by providing sustenance and shelter.  A myriad of animals, from tiny arthropods to 12-meter-long whale sharks, rely on native organisms as food.   Many waterbodies support some of the most productive habitats in the world, providing food and shelter for mollusks, crustaceans, fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals, and often serve as vital nursery grounds for these species.  Others are nutrient-poor and relatively unproductive.  Nevertheless, hundreds of imperiled species require aquatic habitats for survival.  Along with their threatened or endangered wildlife, waterbodies themselves are threatened in many ways.  Anthropogenic disturbances include groundwater depletion, reallocation of surface water, nutrient inputs, habitat fragmentation, fire suppression, pollution, land use changes, overharvesting, climate change, dredging, and the introduction of nonindigenous plants and animals (Exhibit 1).

Reducing the effects of invasive nonindigenous species is an important part of restoration and management efforts in natural areas of Florida, the United States, and worldwide.  These species cause significant stress to native ecosystems (Adams and Steigerwalt 2010), and biological invasion is widely viewed as a major cause of the reduction in native plant and animal diversity (Elton 1958, Wilcove et al. 1998).  Invasive species are known to affect most natural areas of the United States (Villazon 2009) and worldwide (Sala et al. 2000), and aquatic habitats are particularly susceptible to nonindigenous species due in part to the fact that aquatic habitats act as biological sinks, receiving plant and animal genetic material from upstream sources.

As of this writing, at least 192 species of fishes representing 42 families have been introduced to Florida (Exhibit 2).  Nearly all waterbodies are affected by fish introductions, from small wetlands to the Atlantic and Gulf coasts of Florida.  The list below contains the species known to have been introduced, although it is important to note that new species are introduced on a regular basis in Florida, so the list is constantly expanding.  Many species ultimately fail to gain a foothold in Florida, while a smaller number of species successfully establish themselves.  Some have spread like a cancer across the state.  The Brown Hoplo (Hoplosternum littorale) is an example of an introduction that is now established throughout the peninsula of Florida, much to the detriment of native aquatic species that have not had time to adapt to this new competitor for limited resources.  Marine habitats are not immune to biological invasions.  The detrimental effects of the (likely intentional) introduction of two species of invasive lionfishes (Red Lionfish and Devil Firefish [Pterois volitans and P. miles]) are still being determined but likely include direct predation on native fishes, crabs, and shrimps and competition with native reef species for limited resources.  Red Lionfish and Devil Firefish are now firmly established throughout the Atlantic coast of Florida and are actively invading much of the Gulf of Mexico.  The spread of lionfishes throughout the western North Atlantic Ocean is occurring at an unprecedented rate (see Exhibit 3) (Schofield 2010).  Many of the introduced fishes in Florida are from tropical or subtropical areas of Asia and South America, and to a lesser extent, Africa (Idelberger et al. 2010).  The fact that Florida’s climate is also subtropical is a major reason why many introduced species have successfully established themselves in the state. 

It should go without saying that the intentional introduction of any nonindigenous species, whether it be a plant or animal and regardless of size or assumed innocuousness, should never be attempted.  The reasons are many and the costs can be severe, both in terms of biological effects and economic impacts.  Nonindigenous species introduced to new areas have the capacity to explode in numbers and outcompete native species for limited resources such as food, water, and shelter.  Native species are at a competitive disadvantage because they have not had time to evolve defense mechanisms that would otherwise allow them to successfully compete against the introduced species.  The competition between native and nonindigenous species can result in the extinction of native species, the spread of diseases and parasites, and the displacement of whole communities, and may even cause physical changes to the environment. 

Exhibit 2.  Freshwater and marine nonindigenous fishes recorded from Florida.

Sources: Schofield (2010), USGS Nonindigenous Aquatic Species online database (http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/SpeciesList.aspx?group=Fishes&state=FL&Sortby=1)

Below is a link to an interactive map showing the spread of the Red Lionfish and the Devil Firefish in the western North Atlantic from the 1980s to 2013:

http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheets/LionfishAnimation.aspx

Sources:

Adams, C.R. and N.M. Steigerwalt.  2010.  Research Needs and Logistic Impediments in Restoration, Enhancement, and Management Projects: A Survey of Land Managers. Publication ENH1161 [online resource]. Environmental Horticulture Department, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. Accessed 11/21/10 at: http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/ep423.

Didham, R.H., J.M. Tylianakis, M.A. Hutchison, R.M. Ewers, and N.J. Gemmell. 2005. Are invasive species the drivers of ecological change? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 20(9):470–474.

Elton, C.S. 1958. The Ecology of Invasions by Animals and Plants. Methuen and Co., Ltd., Strand, London.

Idelberger, C.F., C.J. Stafford, and S.E. Erickson.  2011.  Distribution and abundance of introduced fishes in Florida’s Charlotte Harbor estuary.  Gulf and Caribbean Research 23:13–22.

Sala, O.E. F.S. Chapin, J.J. Armesto, E. Berlow, J. Bloomfield, R. Dirzo, E. Huber-Sanwald, L.F. Huenneke, R.B. Jackson, A. Kinzig, R. Leemans, D.M. Lodge, H.A. Mooney, M. Oesterheld, N.L. Poff, M.T. Sykes, B.H. Walker, M. Walker, and D.H. Wall. 2000. Global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100. Science 287:1770–1774.

Schofield, P.J.  2010. Update on geographic spread of invasive lionfishes (Pterois volitans [Linnaeus, 1758] and P. miles [Bennett, 1928]) in the western North Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico. Aquatic Invasions 5, Supplement 1:S117–S122.  http://www.aquaticinvasions.net/2010/Supplement/AI_2010_5_S1_Schofield

U.S. Geological Survey.  2015. NAS – Nonindigenous Aquatic Species [online resource].  Accessed 01/23/15 at http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/CollectionInfo.aspx?SpeciesID=963&State=FL.

Villazon, K.A. 2009. Methods to Restore Native Plant Communities after Invasive Species Removal: Marl Prairie Ponds and an Abandoned Phosphate Mine in Florida. MS thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.

Vitousek, P.M., C.M. D’Antonio, L.L. Loope, and R. Westbrooks. 1996. Biological invasions as global environmental change. American Scientist 84:468–478.

Vitousek, P.M., H.A. Mooney, J. Lubchenco, and J.M. Melillo. 1997. Human domination of Earth’s ecosystem. Science 277:494–499.

Wilcove, D.S., D. Rothstein, J. Dubow, A. Phillips, and E. Losos.  1998.  Quantifying threats to imperiled species in the United States. Bioscience 48:607–615.

This Saturday, January 28, from 9:00 am to 1:00 pm, the City of Gainesville will host the 3rd annual “Great Invader Raider Rally”. The rally is a 1-day volunteer-powered event to remove trash and non-native invasive plant life from around Gainesville’s city parks. The first portion of the event will be the clean-up effort and will take place from 9:00 to 11:00 am in pre-selected natural areas around Gainesville. The second portion of the event will be the celebration and will take place from 11:00 am to 1:00 pm at Morningside Nature Center. The celebration will feature live music from local band “Wax Wings” as well as prizes from local businesses to honor the top volunteers of 2016. All volunteers in this event must be registered. Registration ended January 27 with a whopping 913 participants registered! As a thank you, all participants will receive a commemorative Raider Rally t-shirt designed by local artist Molly Kempson and will feel gratified in knowing that local plant life now has a better chance to prosper.

The “Great Invader Raider Rally” is part of the “Gainesville Greenway Challenge” (GGC), a community/volunteer based invasive species removal effort, with participants meeting the first Saturday of every month. GGC funding is provided by a grant from Environmental Solutions for Communities, which is a $15 million 5-year initiative launched in 2012 by Wells Fargo Bank and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF).

“We are excited to have 913 volunteers to help remove extensive amounts of Coral ardisia tomorrow morning! With this many volunteers we can really put a dent in the invasive species population, which will allow our native ecosystems to thrive once again!”

-Kentucky Costellow

Recreation Leader

Parks, Recreation and Cultural Affairs Department

City of Gainesville

On January 22, 2015, EPA released proposed revisions to the National Contingency Plan; specifically Subpart J (Product Schedule) which governs the use of spill-mitigating substances (including dispersants and other biological and chemical agents) in response to oil discharged into navigable U.S. waters. The agency’s proposal adds new criteria to the NCP Product Schedule, revises toxic testing protocols; amends requirements for authority notifications, monitoring, and data reporting; and clarifies the evaluations needed to remove products from the schedule. The last revision to the National Contingency Plan occurred in response to the passage of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. To learn more, check out the Subpart J Proposed Rule Summary.

Public comments will be accepted only through the official docket: EPA-HA-OPA-2006-0090.

Photo above courtesy of NASA's Tara Satellites. The photo was taken on May 24, 2010 of Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill.

ANAMAR’s recent work with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers–Jacksonville District to sample Jacksonville Harbor has been profiled in International Dredging Review.  The project is part of the Jacksonville Harbor Deepening, one of the five major ports mentioned in President Obama’s “We Can’t Wait” initiative from 2012.  Check out the International Dredging Review news article to learn more!

The following information was taken directly from Appendix C of the SERIM (EPA and USACE 2008; see the reference at the end of the article) and is required for completion of an MPRSA Section 103 evaluation.

Information should not be repeated, but referenced where material is needed for more than one part of the evaluation documentation.

1. Dredging and Disposal Project Information

a.  A map showing dredging locations/boundaries and delineating dredging units. Shall include range stations to adequately delineate project limits

b.  Core boring logs (if available) and other historical and current sampling stations keyed to the map

c.  Volume of material to be dredged by dredging unit

d.  Percentage of fine-, medium-, and coarse-grained material by dredging unit

e.  Bathymetric information for the channel to be dredged with the project dredging depth contour highlighted

f.   Design depth (including overdredge depth or advance maintenance) and width for each dredging unit or project reach

g.  Expected method(s) of dredging, transport, and disposal of material

h.  Expected start, duration and end of dredging, transport, and disposal of material

i.   Proposed disposal location (or zone) within the ODMDS

j.   Historical compliance with ODMDS site designation and SMMP conditions

2. Exclusionary Criteria - 40CFR §227.13(b) [Tier I]

a.  Rationale for meeting the exclusionary criteria (choose one):

i.   The dredged material is composed predominately of sand, gravel, rock, or any other naturally occurring bottom material with particle sizes larger than silt, and the material is found in areas of high current or wave energy

(1)  Grain sizes of the dredged material (from 1d above)

(2)  Current data from current meters or tide gauges (if available)

ii.   The material is substantially the same as the substrate at the disposal site and the dredging site is far removed from sources of pollution so as to provide a reasonable assurance that such material has not been contaminated by such pollution.

(1)  Grain sizes of the dredged material (from 1d above)

(2)  Grain sizes of the material at the disposal site

(3)  Locations to (keyed map), quantities, and types of pollutants discharged upstream of the dredging area (see Section 3.1.1 of the RIM for data sources)

(4)  Results of previous testing in the area demonstrating lack of contamination

b.  If one of the exclusionary criteria is met, items 3 through 6 below need not be addressed.

3. Need for Testing (Tier I)

a.  Site history narrative including potential sources of contamination

b.  Locations (keyed to map), quantities, and types of pollutants discharged upstream of the dredging area (see Section 3.1.1 of the RIM for data sources)

c.  History of dredging in area

d.  Summary of the past physical, chemical, and biological tests including a narrative description of past suitability determinations

e.  Maps showing all past sampling stations (from 1b above)

f.   Description of any events that have occurred since the last sampling or dredging event that might influence sediment chemistry or bioassay results

4. Water Column Determinations - 40CFR §227.6(c)(1) and 227.27(a) and Suspended Particulate Phase Determination - 40 CFR §227.6(c)(2) and 227.27(b) [Tiers II-III]

a.  Evaluation of the Liquid Phase - Water Quality Criteria Choose one of the following:

i.   Sediment Chemistry Screen

(1) Table showing for and analyte: sediment chemistry value, each station estimated elutriate concentration, background concentration, applicable marine water quality criteria or standard, and the required dilution to achieve the criteria/standard

(2) ADDAMS STFATE result (if required) for the contaminate requiring the most dilution

(3) Sediment testing report (or)

ii.   Elutriate Analysis

(1) Table showing for each station and analyte: elutriate concentration, background concentration, applicable marine water quality criteria or standard, and the required dilution to achieve the criteria/standard

(2) ADDAMS STFATE result (if required) for the contaminate requiring the most dilution. Include any special disposal practices (e.g., minimum distances from site boundaries, tidal state, current magnitude/direction) that must be instituted to assure compliance.

(3) Elutriate chemistry testing report

b.  Liquid and Suspended Phase Bioassays

i.   Comparison of 100% dredged material elutriate control and dilution water (if not significantly more toxic, items ii and iii below are not required)

ii.   LC50/EC50 for each station where 100% elutriate is toxic

iii.  ADDAMS STFATE results for station with lowest LC₅₀/EC₅₀. Include any special disposal practices (e.g., minimum distances from site boundaries, tidal state, current magnitude/direction) that must be instituted to assure compliance

iv.  Elutriate bioassay testing report

5. Benthic Screen (optional) [Tier II]

a.  Tier II tests for benthic impact evaluation should be used only to screen out sediments that are not likely to meet the criteria or to assist in selecting a compositing or testing scheme under Tier III.

i.   Theoretical Bioaccumulation Potential (TBP) calculation

ii.   Sediment testing report

6. Benthic Determinations - 40 CFR§227.6(c)(3) and 227.27(b) [Tier III]

a   Benthic Toxicity Evaluation

b.  Benthic Bioavailability Evaluation

i.   28-day bioaccumulation exposure

ii.   Tissue chemical analysis

iii.  Comparison with FDA Action Levels and tissues exposed to the reference and risk-based analysis as required

iv.  Sediment testing report

7. Non-Testing Related Regulatory Issues: Subparts B,C,D and E of 40CFR§227

a.  Subpart B - Environmental Impact

i.   §227.4 Criteria for Evaluating Environmental Impact

ii.   §227.5 Prohibited Materials

iii.  §227.7 Limits established for specific wastes or waste constituents

- address presence of pathogens, biological pests, non-indigenous species

iv.  §227.8 Limitations on the Disposal Rates of Toxic Wastes; §227.11 Containerized Wastes; and §227.12 Insoluble Wastes

v.  §227.9 Limitations on Quantities of Waste Materials

- include project volumes

- provide site capacity if determined

vi.  §227.10 Hazards to Fishing, Navigation, Shorelines, or Beaches -reference appropriate section(s) of the site designation EIS/EA if necessary

b.  Subpart C - Need for Ocean Dumping

i.   For federal projects, provide authorization and reference Feasibility Study or other NEPA document providing assessment of disposal alternatives.

ii.   For non-federal projects, the alternative disposal alternatives should be summarized and assessed. The final determination is made in the USACE Statement of Findings on whether or not to grant the permit.

c.  Subpart D - Impact of the Proposed Dumping on Aesthetic, Recreational, and Economic Values

i.   Reference appropriate section(s) of the site designation EIS/EA to address potential impacts of disposal at the site on recreational fisheries, commercial fisheries, shore recreation, and cultural resources with regard to disposal of dredged material at the site.

ii. Address visible characteristics.

iii. Address presence of toxics and bioaccumulative chemicals (reference 6 above).

iv. Address pathogens (reference 7.a.iii above).

d.  Subpart E - Impact of the Proposed Dumping on other Uses of the Ocean -reference appropriate section(s) of the site designation EIS/EA

8. MPRSA Section 103 Conditions

a.  Requirements (management options) to meet the Ocean Disposal Criteria

i.   Disposal zones or minimum distances from the disposal site boundaries

ii.   Ambient disposal conditions (e.g., current or tidal conditions)

iii.  Limits on disposal vessel size or discharge rates

b.  Requirements necessary to meet site designation conditions

i.   Grain size limitations

ii.   See 40CFR Section 228.15(h)

c.  Requirements necessary to meet the requirements of the disposal site SMMP.

i.   Disposal zones

ii.   Limits on oceanographic conditions for disposal

iii.  Disposal monitoring requirements

iv.  Reporting requirements

d.  All conditions must be implemented through permit conditions or contract specifications for federal projects. The draft permit conditions/contract specification must be included as part of the MPRSA Ocean Disposal Evaluation Documentation. These are typically available from the SMMP.

Citation:

USEPA/USACE. 2008. Southeast Regional Implementation Manual (SERIM) for Requirements and Procedures for Evaluation of the Ocean Disposal of Dredged Material in Southeastern U.S. Atlantic and Gulf Coast Waters. EPA 904-B-08-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 4 and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division, Atlanta, GA.

In 2007, hundreds of migratory birds were mysteriously found stranded or dead in Monterey Bay, California.  This was the beginning of a quest that brought together specialists who helped discover the link between algae blooms and bird strandings. A red tide caused by a type of marine plankton called Akashiwo sanguinea had been occurring during this massive bird mortality event in Monterey Bay, but researchers were finding it hard to link the two events and identify the actual culprit until tests were performed on an abundant substance found throughout the bay area--sea foam. Tests performed on the foam determined that the algae was in fact nontoxic, but the foam created by the churning of decaying organisms was impairing the water repellency of the birds’ feathers (similar to the effect detergent would have on them) and allowing the underlying skin to be exposed, thus leading to hypothermia.

Because of research following events such as the 2007 incident in Monterey Bay, many organizations and government agencies now understand the significance of monitoring our ocean currents and algae blooms in real time, which in turn will hopefully lead to better mitigation of future scenarios. You can read more about the Monterey Bay study at PLOS One, an online research journal.

Sources:

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/seafoam.html

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/news/weeklynews/mar09/algalfoam.html

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0004550

Recently, there has been considerable interest and research regarding the laurel wilt disease, which affects members of the Lauraceae family, most notably red bay (Persea borbonia) and swamp bay (Persea palustris).  This article attempts to summarize the aspects of this disease that are of particular interest to land owners and land managers of Florida and elsewhere in the southeastern United States.

The Story of the Ambrosia Beetle, a Symbiotic Fungus, and the Disease Called Laurel Wilt

The disease Laurel wilt is spread by a nonindigenous beetle called the Asian red bay ambrosia beetle, Xyleborus glabratus.  This beetle measures only about 2 mm in length and is cigar-shaped and amber-brown to black in color.  This species has significantly less hair on its dorsal surface and is shinier than other species of ambrosia beetles.  The female ambrosia beetle spreads a nonindigenous fungus, Raffaelea lauricola, into the sapwood of a tree by boring pinhole-sized holes into the branches or trunk and either actively or passively depositing spores of the fungus in the tunnels.  The fungal spores are carried by the beetle in specialized pouch-like structures called ‘mycangia’ that are located at the base of each mandible.  Both adult and larval ambrosia beetles feed on the fungus growing in the tunnels.  Larvae are white with an amber-colored head.  Unlike most other species of ambrosia beetle, which attack dead or dying trees, the Asian red bay ambrosia beetle attacks healthy trees.  The native range of the fungus includes India, Japan, Taiwan, Burma, Bangladesh, and Myanmar.  As you probably guessed, the Asian red bay ambrosia beetle is native to Asia, including the same countries that the fungus is native to. 

The exact mechanism that causes death to a tree infected with the fungus and symbiont ambrosia beetle to die is unknown.  In simplified terms, the death of the tree is the result of it over-reacting to the presence of the pathogen.

The ambrosia beetle and associated fungus are thought to have arrived in the United States from Asia in untreated wood (such as wooden pallets) or in logs.  They were first detected in the United States in Port Wentworth near Savannah, Georgia, in May 2002.  The disease has since spread throughout the Southeast, from North Carolina south to Florida and west to Mississippi.

Relative Infestations of Laurel Wilt Disease among Infected States

What Tree Species Does Laurel Wilt Infect?

Although the beetle is named Asian red bay ambrosia beetle, it actually infects several other species, including both native trees and introduced trees of importance to the agricultural and ornamental plant industries.  Below is a list of species known to be susceptible to Laurel wilt.

Trees and Shrubs Known or Suspected to be Susceptible to Laurel Wilt Disease

Summary of the Biology and Symptoms of Laurel Wilt Disease

The female ambrosia beetle, attracted to the smell of a red bay tree, bores into the branches or trunk of the tree and deposits spores of the fungus in the tunnels.  Initial symptoms are wilting of the leaves.  Often, wilting is seen in all the leaves associated with the distal portion of an infected branch.  More and more leaves begin to wilt over time as the disease progresses.  Mild discoloration may be seen in the sapwood and can escalate to extensive black/brown streaking over time.  Frass tubes, looking like white bent straws sticking out from the bark, begin to appear months later as beetle activity increases.  It can take as little as a week for a tree to die from laurel wilt during the warm summer months.

Both adult ambrosia beetles and their larvae feed on the fungus growing in the tunnels.  It takes some 30 days from the time the eggs hatch to the development of adult ambrosia beetles.  Males are smaller than females, lack wings, and are haploid.  Females are winged and are diploid.  The fungus can remain alive inside a standing dead tree for at least 1 year according to recent research.  The biology of laurel wilt disease remains poorly understood, and there is significant research to be done to understand the mechanisms involved in susceptibility and resistance.

Management and Prevention of Laurel Wilt Disease

It is no longer logistically feasible to eradicate or stop the progression of the disease considering how widely distributed it is in the southeastern United States.  However, one way to slow the spread on a given site is to cut down and chip dead trees killed by the disease and place the wood chips into piles.  The fungus was found to die about 2 days following chipping, and the ambrosia beetle population of the tree was found to be reduced by 99% following chipping.  The chipping will also reduce the wood available for female beetles to reproduce.

Use of the fungicide propiconazole (Alamo^®), injected into the tree, was found to be only mildly effective (approximately 60% survivorship) at protecting red bay trees from the disease.  This treatment is expensive and testing for use against Laurel wilt has been limited so far.  Best results are achieved by systemic injection before any symptoms of the disease are observed on the tree and the pruning of any diseased areas following treatment.  Another method of injecting fungicide, developed by Arborjet^®, involves delivering smaller amounts of fungicide using microinjectors.  The results of the effectiveness of the Arborjet^® method have not been published as of this writing.  Similarly, the results of the effectiveness of applying fungicide to the soil around a tree have yet to be published.  Fungicides should be administered only by a knowledgeable professional or by the homeowner and in accordance with the instructions and mixing rates on the label.

Insecticides are unlikely to be useful at protecting a tree again the ambrosia beetle.  Broadcast spraying would be harmful to the environment and to beneficial insects, is not likely to be effective against the ambrosia beetle, and is therefore strongly discouraged. 

An attempt was made to protect some trees in Volusia County, Florida, by spraying Pinesol^® as a way of “hiding” the trees from detection by the ambrosia beetle.  Pinesol^® spraying took place at about 6‑ to 10‑week intervals.  However, all treated trees eventually contracted the disease and subsequently died.  It is possible that baits may be developed in the future that may be more attractive to the beetles than are the trees, but at this point in time no compounds have been identified for use as baits.

Anyone can help reduce the spread of the ambrosia beetle and the associated Laurel Wilt disease.  Refrain from moving untreated firewood far distances.  The State of Florida prohibits movement of untreated firewood farther than 50 miles within the state.  When camping, buy only local firewood or use certified firewood rather than bringing your own.  When traveling abroad, do not bring back untreated wood products or raw plant parts (including seeds or fruits).

Laurel wilt disease is one of at least a dozen tree diseases and insect pests within Florida or neighboring states.  Minimizing the movement of untreated wood and firewood can help reduce the spread of insect pests and diseases such as the emerald ash borer (kills ash trees), Asian longhorned beetle (kills maples), oak wilt and bot canker of oaks (kills oaks), spiraling whitefly (kills several native and ornamental trees), walnut twig beetle and thousand-cankers disease (kills walnuts), sudden oak death (kills oaks), and others.  The reader is encouraged to visit the website www.dontmovefirewood.org for more information.  

Sources and Further Reading:

Global Invasive Species Database.  2010.  Global Invasive Species Database, Raffaelea lauricola (fungus) [online database].  Accessed 10/17/2014 at http://www.issg.org/database/species/ecology.asp?si=1549&lang=EN.

Global Invasive Species Database.  2010.  Global Invasive Species Database, Xyleborus glabratus (insect) [online database].  Accessed 10/17/2014 at http://www.issg.org/database/species/ecology.asp?si=1536.

Spence, D. and J. Smith.  2013.  The status of Laurel Wilt.  Palmetto 30(3):4–5, 8–10. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.  2013.  Laurel Wilt Distribution Map [online resource].  Accessed 10/17/2014 at http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/foresthealth/laurelwilt/dist_map.shtml.

It has never been easier to gain perspective of the changes in Earth’s climate, be it past, present, or future. Scientists today use proxies such as tree rings, corals, ocean and lake sediments, cave deposits, ice cores, fossils, boreholes, and glaciers to calculate historical changes. According to NOAA, the one steady factor that Earth’s climatic records indicate is constant change. The compilation of these changes with present-day data can begin to paint a diagram for the rate at which temperature will progressively change.

NOAA has been conducting studies using various data to compile a graph to present a pattern of temperature variability over the last 500 to 2000 years. The graph pictured shows temperature patterns over a nearly-2000-year span.

Source:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html

Cicadas bring me back to a nostalgic moment in my life, so I will start this blog with a personal anecdote. It was the summer of 92’. I was 7 years old and staying for the summer at my grandparents’ farmhouse in south Georgia. The song “Neon Moon” had just come out and was all the rave. I was standing next to a huge oak tree staring at a cicada shell and wondering if it was alive, wanting to touch it, but scared it would bite me!

The Call

Florida is no stranger to the mesmerizing cicada mating calls, which are produced with timbals (drum-like structures on the sides of the basal abdominal segments) and in most species, only the males have timbals. However, females do occasionally produce soft sounds with their wings. According to the University of Florida’s Featured Creatures, there are 19 known cicada species in Florida. To help identify your neighboring “tree cricket” friends, check out this site for the calls of Florida’s cicadas.

Life Cycle

Some female Florida cicadas lay their eggs on dead twigs where they may not hatch until the next year.  Depending on the species of the mated male, the eggs may be laid on living twigs and will hatch the same year. After hatching, the tiny, pale, ant-sized nymphs will drop to the ground, burrow, and feed on xylem sap from the roots of neighboring plants. While underground, all cicadas molt four times, after which they begin to make their way above the ground where they will anchor their tarsal claws to grasses, forbs, stems, or tree trunks, depending on the size of the cicada. At this point, they will begin their fifth and final molt, leaving their nymphal shell behind. From this final molt, an adult cicada will develop and have the ability to fly and mate. After shedding their final shell, cicadas will continue to feed on plant xylem for the duration of their lives, which is seldom more than a few weeks.

Interesting Facts about Cicadas

Cicada eggs can be quite a nuisance by causing damage to various plant life. Some cicada species remain underground for 13 to 17 years before emerging and becoming adults. Cicadas are eaten in some cultures—their shells are considered ‘Chantui ’ in Chinese medicine and are comprised of an abundance of chitin, which is high in glucosamine and acetylglucosamine. ‘Chantui’ is used to treat such ailments as fever, spasms, convulsions, red eye, Bell’s palsy, measles, skin allergies, tetanus, fever, cataracts, and nephritis.

Sources:

University of Florida, Entomology Department; Featured Creatures ‘Cicadas’. http://entnemdept.ufl.edu/creatures/misc/bugs/cicadas.htm

http://entnemdept.ufl.edu/walker/buzz/c700fl1.htm

Institute of Traditional Medicine; ‘Chantui’. http://www.itmonline.org/arts/chantui.htm

EPA has won a ruling in the Supreme Court on proposing emission guidelines for greenhouse gases emitted by fossil-fuel-fired electric generating units. Although there are limits at power plants for pollutants such as arsenic and mercury, there are no national limits on carbon emissions. On June 2, 2014, under President Obama’s Climate Action Plan, EPA proposed a Clean Power Plan to cut these emissions. According to EPA’s website, power plants account for one-third of all domestic greenhouse gas emissions. Within the power sector, the plan is predicted to cut back the emissions by 30% from 2005 levels. The plan will also cut pollutants that cause soot and smog by more than 25% by 2030. According to the website, the plan estimates the public health benefits to be worth an estimated $55 billion to $93 billion in savings by the year 2030.  Included is the prevention of 2,700 to 6,600 premature deaths and 140,000 to 150,000 asthma attacks in children. The plan is also predicted to shrink power bills by 8% by 2030. During the week of July 28, 2014, EPA will hold four public hearings on the proposed Clean Power Plan in Atlanta, GA; Denver, CO; Pittsburgh, PA; and Washington, DC.

EPA is now holding a public comment period. All public comments on the Clean Power Plan Proposed Rule must be received by October 16, 2014. Directions for how to comment on the Clean Power Plan Proposed Rule can be found here.

The Federal Register contains a copy of EPA’s Clean Power Plan Proposed Rule and can be found here.

During June through October, NOAA’s ocean exploration team will begin their 2014 expedition spanning from the Gulf of Mexico to the Caribbean Sea. The team will be live-broadcasting their travels aboard the ocean explorer ship Nautilus and will be using two remotely operated vehicles to obtain an assortment of data from the oceans floor using various methods, including acoustical mapping from high-resolution sonar devices. This mission will delve into various scientific curiosities such as the impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill of 2010, various Gulf of Mexico shipwrecks, and geological hazards in the Caribbean Sea.

You can meet the team and follow the explorations starting June 11 at  www.nautiluslive.org.

 Nadia Lombardero is in San Francisco at the 33rd PIANC World Congress where the theme is “Navigating the New Millennium.” Nadia is co-presenting a paper with EPA Region 4 entitled “Monitoring, Assessment and the Remediation of Elevated PCB Levels at a Deepwater ODMDS.”  Ocean Dredge Material Disposal Sites (ODMDS) are critical components of the nation’s navigation requirements and national security.  Disposal site monitoring is a requirement of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (MPRSA) and is conducted to ensure the environmental integrity of a disposal site and the areas surrounding the site to ensure that contaminants are kept out of the food chain and in compliance with the law.

Humpback Whales and Bubble Net Feeding

One peculiar hunting strategy that humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) use involves the coordinated effort of a few whales, a shoal of fish, and bubbles.  The technique starts with one whale singing an eerie, high-pitched feeding call beneath a shoal of fish while the rest of the whales circle the fish and release bubbles that creates a net-like barrier that disorients the prey.  The combination of high-pitched noise and bubbles drives the prey into a tight group near the surface of the water.  Then the fruition of this coordinated effort occurs when the whales swim together directly up through the middle of their gathered prey with their mouths open, thus yielding a hefty bite.  Now that’s teamwork!

The Stoat and the Freak-out

The stoat (Mustela erminea), also known as the short-tailed weasel, when hunting an animal such as a rabbit, which can be much larger in size, uses a technique that is sometimes informally referred to as the ‘weasel war dance.’  During this performance, the stoat flips around making erratic movements while also honing in on its mesmerized prey, eventually switching gears from the nutty neighbor to the hungry slayer.

Cats in the Cradle

The margay (Leopardus wiedii), a neotropical cat native to Central America, has been observed mimicking the vocalizations of rodents, birds, and even primates in order to attract its prey.  Cats are known for their physical agility, but this vocal manipulation of prey species indicates a psychological cunning which merits further study," said study researcher Fabio Rohe, of the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS).

Sources:

• http://encountersnorth.org/wildexplorer/humpbackwhale/songs-and-sounds.html
• http://www.primate-sg.org/storage/PDF/NP161_L.p.%20wiedii%20and%20S.%20bicolor_Calleia%20et%20al.pdf
• http://www.livescience.com/6718-wild-cat-mimics-monkey-sounds-capture-prey.html

(Excerpted from the Southeastern Regional Implementation Manual [SERIM])

7.3   Data Reporting for Chemical Testing

All chemical data should be summarized and presented in tabular format. Additionally, all laboratory data should be provided in the Testing Report (see Appendix D) and in electronic tabular format (e.g., spreadsheet, delineated text file). Analytical data reported by the laboratories [with National Environmental Laboratory Association Conference (NELAC) standard qualifiers] must be included in the appendix section of the report.

PCB congeners should be reported as individual congeners as well as total PCBs. Total PCBs should be reported as EPA Region 4 PCBs and as NOAA PCBs. EPA Region 4 PCBs represents the sum of all the PCBs listed in Table 5-6. NOAA PCBs represents the sum of the PCB congeners identified by an asterisk in Table 5-6 and are calculated by the following equation:

              (NOAA, 1989)           [Eq. 7-1]

In addition to the individual PAHs, total PAHs should also be provided as total low molecular weight (LMW) PAHs and total high molecular weight (HMW) PAHs, as described in Table 5-5.

Organotin must be reported as the individual compounds and total organotin. Total organotin should be reported on a tin basis as follows:

[Eq. 7-2]

Refer to Section 5.2 for information on reporting data to the TDLs and LRLs. All data should be certified to be accurate by the analytical laboratory or by a third-party data validator.

Source:

USEPA/USACE. 2008. Southeast Regional Implementation Manual (SERIM) for Requirements and Procedures for Evaluation of the Ocean Disposal of Dredged Material in Southeastern U.S. Atlantic and Gulf Coast Waters. EPA 904-B-08-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 4 and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division, Atlanta, GA.

Ten species of marine vertebrate were found buried in four separate levels of sedimentation, suggesting their carcasses had washed ashore in what were then tidal flats during four time periods nearly 6 to 9 million years ago. Scientists suggest that the deaths were likely caused by harmful algae blooms. Among the species found were now-extinct walrus-like whales, aquatic sloths, baleen whales, sperm whales and seals.

For more information on these findings, check out the Smithsonian press release:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2014-02/s-sss022514.php

In May 2013, the Polynesian Voyaging Society (PVS) and a Hawaiian canoe club called ʻOhana Wa‘a began a 45,000-mile, 5-year circumnavigation of the world using only traditional Polynesian navigation methods (stars, clouds, waves, wind) unaided by conventional navigational instruments. One of which, the Hōkūle‘a, is double-hulled, 62 feet long, and was designed as a replica of traditional Polynesian canoes. Over the course of the journey, the crew will be partnering with scientists from the University of Hawai’i to conduct five research projects that study fish population, marine acoustics, hydroponics, and the importance of plankton in marine life. In a statement on www.hokulea.org, apprentice navigator Haunani Kane said,

“The way that we’re trying to bridge that gap is we’re conducting high-tech modern science on a traditional platform with a traditional mindset. If we can tie it to our culture and try to explain it in a way that’s important to not only Hawai’i but to other parts of the world as well, then we can really try to grab other people’s interest and help them to understand why it’s important to care for the ocean. A lot of the researchers are used to working on these big ships that have a lot of electricity, or freezers, or refrigerators to store their samples, so for us it’s really been about how do we conduct science in a way that doesn’t require a lot of energy and is safe and can be done not just by a scientist, but also by a crew member.”

PVS and ʻOhana Wa‘a are ultimately hoping to build a worldwide network called ‘Tomorrow Ancestor’ compiled of indigenous scientists from around the world.

Check out the Polynesian Voyaging Society’s website to learn more about this circumnavigation: http://hokulea.org/

 'Tomorrow Ancestor' on Tumbler.com: http://tomorrowancestor.tumblr.com/.