View
5
Download
1
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
SUCCESSFUL INCO-DEVArtemia Biodiversity Workshop
SUCCESSFUL INCOSUCCESSFUL INCO--DEVDEVArtemia Biodiversity WorkshopArtemia Biodiversity Workshop
THANKS TO THE GENEROUS SPONSORS:EU/Research DirectorateARC/GentIROSTIran Dept. of EnvironmentWest Azarbaijan Governor’s OficeShahid Kalantary ProjectBonab Research Center, AEO-IranIran Fisheries Org.
CONGRATULATIONS TO:Dr. Naser AghGooya HarirchiISMO, AAARC, UU, IFRO, andeveryone else who assisted in the excellent organization of the conference Non-Alcoholic!
ARTEMIA RESOURCE ASSESSMENTARTEMIA RESOURCE ASSESSMENTARTEMIA RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
GREAT SALT LAKE PROGRAMINVE: Brad Marden and Jaimi Curl
USGS: Dave NaftzSIBERIAN LAKES PROGRAMS
Siberian Research and DesignInstitute of FisheriesAlexander LitvenenkoLudmilla LitvenenkoMarina Vdovchenko
Elena BoykoSiberian Fisheries Project/Altai Branch
Galina TsarevaINVE Kurgan
Nina LitvinenkoARAL SEA UZBEKISTAN PROGRAM
Aral Artemia CompanyKakabay Hankuliev
Saparbay KazakhbaevIskandar Mirabdullaeyev
Zuri MustafaevaIliya Zholdasova
ARAL SEA KAZAHKSTAN PROGRAMIMBR
Ali KurtulusFedya Kalimov
Specific Outcomes of Today’s Workshop:•INCO Resource Assessment Principles and Methods available on INCO website•Cooperative projects that link ecology and life histories with strain characterization and adaptation.•Cooperative project on Artemia population dynamics and production models
Artemia Task Force (ATF)Resource Assessment:
Structure and Methodology
•Develop standardized sampling and testing methods on GSL•Train science team in other geographical locations
•Central data collection location•Standardized reporting and analysis format
•Distribute data to relevant groups and individuals on regular intervals
ATF Resource AssessmentStrategic Approach
Artemia population dynamicsCyst quality assessment
HydrochemistryWeather data & forecasting
Regular ATF Report
ATF RESOURCE ASSESSMENTPROGRAM
ATF RESOURCE ASSESSMENTPROGRAMPROGRAM
ARTEMIA:2X VERTICAL PLANKTON NET TOWDISCRETE HORIZONS IN WATER COLUMNAGE CLASS REPRODUCTIONSEX RATIOS
CYST QUALITY CHARACTERIZATIONHATCHING TESTSDIAPAUSE STATUSBUOYANCYOTHER MEASURES OF QUALITY (eg., Cracked Shells)CYST MORPHOMETRICSPERCENTAGE SHELLS
ATF RESOURCE ASSESSMENTPROGRAM
ATF RESOURCE ASSESSMENTPROGRAMPROGRAM
HYDROCHEMISTRY AND ABIOTIC MEASUREMENTS:MICRO-NUTRIENTS (essential elements)SALINITYDISSOLVED OXYGEN TRANSPARENCY (SECCHI DISK)TEMPERATURE AT DISCRETE INTERVALSINORGANIC COMPOUNDS
MICROALGAE:RELATIVE ABUNDANCEABSOLUTE ABUNDANCEBIOVOLUME
CHLOROPHYLL A
ATF RESOURCE ASSESSMENTPROGRAM
ATF RESOURCE ASSESSMENTPROGRAMPROGRAM
WEATHER CONDITIONS:LOCAL WEATHER CONDITIONS (Temp., Precip, Wind Speed, Barometric Pressure)LONG-RANGE WEATHER FORECASTSWATERSHED STATUS (Drainage Basin)
ATF REPORT:GSL: WEEKLYOTHER LOCATIONS: GOAL = BIWEEKLY TO MONTHLYINCLUDING HARVEST FORECASTCOMMENTS ON MANAGEMENT AND OTHER RELEVANT MATTERS
(IF TIME ALLOWS WE CAN REVIEW AN ATF REPORT)
WR-5
MN-2SE-9
GS-4
PP-3
CB-4
HI-2
MC-2
BR-1WC-6 EC-8
ML-8
SK-5.5
SB-3.5
RB-3
IC-8GI-2
•12 Sampling Locations
•Sample Frequency
•Artemia- weekly
•Phytoplankton-biweekly
•2 Plankton Net hauls per site
•Dissolved Oxygen
•Salinity
•Conductivity
•Water Transparency--SecchiDisk
•Water Temperature
•12 Sampling Locations
•Sample Frequency
•Artemia- weekly
•Phytoplankton-biweekly
•2 Plankton Net hauls per site
•Dissolved Oxygen
•Salinity
•Conductivity
•Secchi
•Water Temperature
•Comparative net hauls: DWR vs. USAH
•Artemia
•Population structure and dynamics
•Biomass
•Reproductive endpoints
•Morphological characteristics
•Cyst quality
•Vertical distribution in water column
•Phytoplankton population composition
•Chlorophyll-a analysis
USAH R&D DATAPopulation Dynamics 2003
Cysts and Nauplii
GSL Artemia Population Trends 2001-2004
020406080100120140160
Janu
ary 6
, 200
4
Nove
mbe
r 19,
200
3
Oct
ober
20,
200
3
Sept
embe
r 25,
200
3
Augu
st 2
0, 2
003
July
23, 2
003
June
18,
200
3
May
14,
200
3
April
17,
200
3
Mar
ch 1
0, 2
003
Janu
ary 1
7, 2
003
Dec
embe
r 10,
200
2
Nove
mbe
r 12,
200
2
Oct
ober
9, 2
002
Augu
st 2
6, 2
002
July
24, 2
002
June
5, 2
002
May
2, 2
002
Mar
ch 2
1, 2
002
Janu
ary 9
, 200
2
Dec
embe
r 6, 2
001
Oct
ober
29,
200
1
Sept
embe
r 26,
200
1
Augu
st 2
2, 2
001
July
17, 2
001
June
14,
200
1
May
17,
200
1
April
4, 2
001
Febr
uary
22,
200
1
Dec
embe
r 10,
200
0
DATE
Coun
t per
Lite
r
Nauplii
Meta-nauplii
Total Nauplii
True Cysts
ATF DATAGSL Population Dynamics
Juvenile, Pre-adult, and Adult Population Trends 2001-2003
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
Num
ber p
er L
iter
Juveniles
Pre-Adults
Males
Females
Total Adults
ATF RESEARCH ON THE GSLCyst Abundance from 1999 to 2003
CYST/SHELL DYNAMICS1999 to 2003
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
Augu
st 2
5, 1
999
Oct
ober
21,
199
9
April
4, 2
000
July
24, 2
000
Nov
embe
r 3, 2
000
Febr
uary
22,
200
1
April
4, 2
001
May
8, 2
001
June
14,
200
1
July
17, 2
001
Augu
st 2
7, 2
001
Oct
ober
18,
200
1
Nov
embe
r 20,
200
1
Janu
ary
16, 2
002
April
11,
200
2
May
28,
200
2
July
24, 2
002
Sept
embe
r 11,
200
2
Oct
ober
23,
200
2
Dec
embe
r 4, 2
002
Janu
ary
17, 2
003
Mar
ch 2
1, 2
003
April
30,
200
3
June
4, 2
003
July
23, 2
003
Augu
st 2
8, 2
003
Oct
ober
7, 2
003
Nov
embe
r 12,
200
3
Janu
ary
6, 2
004
Full
Cys
ts p
er L
iter
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
Full
Cys
t Per
cent
age
Adjusted Mean Cysts/Liter
%Full Cysts
Reproductive Mode2002-2004
2002-2004 Reproductive Mode
0.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0%70.0%80.0%90.0%
100.0%
Apr
il 11,
200
2
May
11,
200
2
June
11,
200
2
July
11,
200
2
Aug
ust 1
1, 2
002
Sept
embe
r 11,
200
2
Oct
ober
11,
200
2
Nove
mbe
r 11,
200
2
Dece
mbe
r 11,
200
2
Janu
ary
11, 2
003
Febr
uary
11,
200
3
Mar
ch 1
1, 2
003
Apr
il 11,
200
3
May
11,
200
3
June
11,
200
3
July
11,
200
3
Aug
ust 1
1, 2
003
Sept
embe
r 11,
200
3
Oct
ober
11,
200
3
Nove
mbe
r 11,
200
3
Dece
mbe
r 11,
200
3
Janu
ary
11, 2
004
Date
Per
cent
age
of A
ll G
ravi
d Fe
mal
es
%FE/Gravid F
%FC/Gravid F
%FN/Gravid F
Diapause Status of Cysts
GSL Water Column Cyst Quality Characteristics: Hatching Percentage
0.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0%70.0%80.0%90.0%
100.0%
Dec
embe
r 1, 2
001
Dec
embe
r 15,
200
1D
ecem
ber 2
9, 2
001
Janu
ary
12, 2
002
Janu
ary
26, 2
002
Febr
uary
9, 2
002
Febr
uary
23,
200
2M
arch
9, 2
002
Mar
ch 2
3, 2
002
April
6, 2
002
April
20,
200
2M
ay 4
, 200
2M
ay 1
8, 2
002
June
1, 2
002
June
15,
200
2Ju
ne 2
9, 2
002
July
13,
200
2Ju
ly 2
7, 2
002
Augu
st 1
0, 2
002
Augu
st 2
4, 2
002
Sep
tem
ber 7
, 200
2S
epte
mbe
r 21,
200
2O
ctob
er 5
, 200
2O
ctob
er 1
9, 2
002
Nov
embe
r 2, 2
002
Nov
embe
r 16,
200
2N
ovem
ber 3
0, 2
002
Dec
embe
r 14,
200
2D
ecem
ber 2
8, 2
002
Janu
ary
11, 2
003
Janu
ary
25, 2
003
Febr
uary
8, 2
003
Febr
uary
22,
200
3M
arch
8, 2
003
Mar
ch 2
2, 2
003
April
5, 2
003
April
19,
200
3M
ay 3
, 200
3M
ay 1
7, 2
003
May
31,
200
3Ju
ne 1
4, 2
003
June
28,
200
3Ju
ly 1
2, 2
003
July
26,
200
3Au
gust
9, 2
003
Augu
st 2
3, 2
003
Sep
tem
ber 6
, 200
3S
epte
mbe
r 20,
200
3O
ctob
er 4
, 200
3O
ctob
er 1
8, 2
003
Nov
embe
r 1, 2
003
Nov
embe
r 15,
200
3N
ovem
ber 2
9, 2
003
Dec
embe
r 13,
200
3D
ecem
ber 2
7, 2
003
Janu
ary
10, 2
004
Janu
ary
24, 2
004
DATE
Net Cysts HO% +H2O2Net Cysts HO% AS IS
Median or Adjusted Mean?
Adjusted Mean and Median Comparison: Full Cysts Per Liter
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
140.0
Janu
ary
7, 2
003
Janu
ary
21, 2
003
Febr
uary
4, 2
003
Febr
uary
18,
200
3
Mar
ch 4
, 200
3
Mar
ch 1
8, 2
003
Apr
il 1,
200
3
Apr
il 15
, 200
3
Apr
il 29
, 200
3
May
13,
200
3
May
27,
200
3
June
10,
200
3
June
24,
200
3
July
8, 2
003
July
22, 2
003
Aug
ust 5
, 200
3
Aug
ust 1
9, 2
003
Sep
tem
ber 2
, 200
3
Sep
tem
ber 1
6, 2
003
Sep
tem
ber 3
0, 2
003
Oct
ober
14,
200
3
Oct
ober
28,
200
3
Nov
embe
r 11,
200
3
Nov
embe
r 25,
200
3
Dec
embe
r 9, 2
003
Dec
embe
r 23,
200
3
Janu
ary
6, 2
004
Janu
ary
20, 2
004
Cys
ts P
er L
iter
Adjusted Mean Cysts/Liter
Median Cysts/Liter
DISSOLVED OXYGEN AND TRANSPARENCY
Great Salt Lake Dissolved Oxygen and Water Transparency2001-2003
020406080100120140160180200
Janu
ary
6, 2
004
Nov
embe
r 25
, 200
3
Nov
embe
r 4,
200
3
Oct
ober
14,
200
3
Sep
tem
ber
25, 2
003
Aug
ust 2
8, 2
003
Aug
ust 7
, 200
3
July
16,
200
3
June
18,
200
3
May
20,
200
3
Apr
il 30
, 200
3
Apr
il 9,
200
3
Mar
ch 1
0, 2
003
Janu
ary
24, 2
003
Dec
embe
r 30
, 200
2
Dec
embe
r 4,
200
2
Nov
embe
r 12
, 200
2
Oct
ober
15,
200
2
Sep
tem
ber
19, 2
002
Aug
ust 1
4, 2
002
July
24,
200
2
June
18,
200
2
May
17,
200
2
Apr
il 23
, 200
2
Mar
ch 2
1, 2
002
Janu
ary
16, 2
002
Dec
embe
r 19
, 200
1
Nov
embe
r 20
, 200
1
Oct
ober
29,
200
1
Oct
ober
3, 2
001
Sep
tem
ber
7, 2
001
Aug
ust 6
, 200
1
July
17,
200
1
June
19,
200
1
May
31,
200
1
May
8, 2
001
Apr
il 4,
200
1
Mar
ch 7
, 200
1
Janu
ary
24, 2
001 P
erc
en
t o
f A
tmo
sph
ere
01234567
Se
cch
i D
isk
in M
ete
rs
DO Bottom
DO Surface
Secchi Disk(m)
WATER TEMPERATURE AND POPULATION SIZE
Total Artemia and GSL Water Temperature2001-2003
020406080100120140160
January
6,
Nove
mber
Octo
ber
Septe
mber
August
20,
July
23,
June 1
8,
May 1
4,
April 17,
Marc
h 1
0,
January
Decem
ber
Nove
mber
Octo
ber
9,
August
26,
July
24,
June 5
,
May 2
,
Marc
h 2
1,
January
9,
Decem
ber
Octo
ber
Septe
mber
August
22,
July
17,
June 1
4,
May 1
7,
April 4,
Febru
ary
Decem
ber
DATE
Ind
ivid
ua
ls p
er
Lit
er
-5.00.05.0
10.015.020.025.030.035.0
Su
rfa
ce
Te
mp
era
ture
in
C
Total Artemia/LSurface Temp
VERTICAL PROFILE:Cysts,Temperature, Salinity, DO
12
34
56
78
9
AUGU
ST
SEPT
EMBE
R
OCTO
BER
DECE
MBER
JANU
ARY
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Cysts
Per
Liter
DEPTH (m)MONTH
VERTICAL PROFILE:Dissolved Oxygen
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0.5
1
2
4
6
7.5
VERTICAL PROFILE:Salinity in ppt
160.5 161 161.5 162 162.5 163 163.5 164 164.5 165 165.5
0.5
1
2
4
6
8
VERTICAL PROFILE:Temperature in Degrees C
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
0.5
1
2
4
6
8
Cyst Morphometrics: Floating & Sinking CystsFloating Cyst Diameter
020
4060
80100
120140
185
198
210
223
235
248
260
273
285
298
310
323
335
348
360
373
385
Minimum 174.6Maximum 315.7Mean 237.6Stdev 15.8Sterr 0.4Count 1501Confidence95% 236.8Lower Quartile 227.7Upper Quartile 238
Statistics
Minimum 168.2Maximum 317.8Mean 237.3Stdev 14Sterr 0.4Count 1501Confidence95% 236.6Lower Quartile 229.7Upper Quartile 237.9
StatisticsSinking Cysts Diameter
020406080
100120140
185
198
210
223
235
248
260
273
285
298
310
323
335
348
360
373
385
Cyst Morphometrics: Sinking/Floating Cysts
SUMMARY STATISTICS
FLOATING CYSTSCyst-diameter: 237.6 ± 15.8 µmEmbryo-diameter: 217.9 ± 14.4 µmChorion-thickness: 9.85 µm
SINKING CYSTSCyst-diameter: 237.3 ± 14.0 µmEmbryo-diameter: 218.6 ± 13.0 µmChorion-thickness: 9.35 µm
CYST BUOYANCY TESTS: Oct & Nov. 2003Percentage of Floating Cysts
0.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0%70.0%80.0%90.0%
100.0%
GSL H2O 160 PPT DH2O
Water Treatment Group
Perc
enta
ge F
loat
ing Cysts Collected on Nov 25
Cysts Collected on Nov 19
Buoyancy Response Curve
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0.0 25.0 50.0 75.0 100.0 125.0 150.0 175.0 200.0 225.0
Salinity in PPT
Perc
enta
ge o
f Flo
atin
g Cy
sts
OCTOBER 7, 2003PERCENTAGE FLOATING CYSTS
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
0 30 60 90 120
150
180
210
240
Sex Ratios:1995 to 2000
Sex Ratio: Female:Male
00.20.40.60.8
11.21.41.61.8
Aug-
95
Dec
-95
Apr-
96
Aug-
96
Dec
-96
Apr-
97
Aug-
97
Dec
-97
Apr-
98
Aug-
98
Dec
-98
Apr-
99
Aug-
99
Dec
-99
Apr-
00
Aug-
00
Dec
-00
DATE
Sex Ratios:2001 an Unusual Year
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
3/20
/01
4/3/
01
4/17
/01
5/1/
01
5/15
/01
5/29
/01
6/12
/01
6/26
/01
7/10
/01
7/24
/01
8/7/
01
8/21
/01
9/4/
01
9/18
/01
10/2
/01
10/1
6/01
10/3
0/01
11/1
3/01
11/2
7/01
12/1
1/01
12/2
5/01
DATE
Rat
io F
emal
e:M
ale
Phytoplankton Trends 1996 to 2001
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Rela
tive
Abun
danc
e
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Year
Chlorophyte Diatom Other
Hydrological and Hydrochemical ResearchHydrological and Hydrochemical Research
♦Nutrient and isotopic data
♦Dissolved-gas data
♦Gage installation/discharge measurements
♦Bathymetric map update
♦Update on GSL standards/LTHO activities
♦Plans of next quarter
♦Nutrient and isotopic data
♦Dissolved-gas data
♦Gage installation/discharge measurements
♦Bathymetric map update
♦Update on GSL standards/LTHO activities
♦Plans of next quarter
Great Salt Lake Research Team
POM δ15N CHANGES AT INFLOW SITES
Feb Mar Apr May3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Farmington Bay inflow Bear River inflow Weber River inflow
δ15N,
PER
MIL
N ISOTOPE (POM/SHRIMP)
2000 2001 2002 2003 20044
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14 2267 2820 3510 4069
δ15N
GSL POM5/04
Mean input POM (Apr/May)
FB POM04/01/2004
+ 3 trophicenrichment
?N2 fixers
ARAL SEA STUDYSeasonal Dynamics of Artemia Nauplii Abundance in the
Aral Sea
0.001.002.003.004.005.006.007.008.009.00
10.00
12-A
ug-0
1
16-O
ct-0
1
15-D
ec-0
1
01-F
eb-0
2
07-A
pr-0
2
07-M
ay-0
2
04-J
ul-0
2
06-S
ep-0
2
15-N
ov-0
2
15-J
an-0
3
15-M
ar-0
3
11-M
ay-0
3
20-J
un-0
3
17-A
ug-0
3
Coun
t per
Lite
r Nauplii
Meta-nauplii
Total Nauplii
Water Temperature of Western Aral Sea by Depth
2001 to 2003
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
Jul-0
1
Sep-
01
Nov-
01
Jan-
02
Mar
-02
May
-02
Jul-0
2
Sep-
02
Nov-
02
Jan-
03
Mar
-03
May
-03
Jul-0
3Tem
pera
ture
in D
egre
es C
entig
rade 1m
20m
30m
ARAL SEA MICRO-ALGAERelative Abundance of Phytoplankton:
Aral Sea/UzbekistanJuly 21, 2003
Cyanophyta27%
Chlorophyta67%
Bacillaryophyta6%
Temporal Changes in the Algal Cell AbundanceCell Counts per ml
Aral Sea 2002 to 2003
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
Jul-0
2
Aug
-02
Sep-
02
Oct
-02
Nov-
02
Dec-
02
Jan-
03
Feb-
03
Mar
-03
Apr
-03
May
-03
Jun-
03
Jul-0
3
Cou
nts
per
ml
Cyanophyta
Bacillaryophyta
Pyrrhophyta
Euglenophyta
Chrysophyta
Chlorophyta
Bolshoye Yarovoje, SiberiaArtemia parthenogenetica .. Parthenogenic Artemia sp. + characteristics
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
17/0423/0407/0517/0528/0505/0625/0610/0724/0713/0822/0811/0916/10
Juve n.
N/a dult.
Adult.
Bolshoye Diapause Status
020406080
100
octob
erde
cembe
r10
-20/01
1-10/0
220
-30/02 ap
ril june
1996199819992000
ARTEMIA RESOURCE ASSESSMENTTOPICS OF CONCERN
ARTEMIA RESOURCE ASSESSMENTARTEMIA RESOURCE ASSESSMENTTOPICS OF CONCERNTOPICS OF CONCERN
• SAMPLING PROGRAM– Qualitative– Quantitative.
• LABORATORY STUDIES– Life History Traits– Feeding Studies– Cyst Quality Characteristics
• ECONOMICS– Cost of Production– Market Trends– Commercial Viability
• MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES AND STRATEGIES
– Sustainable Management– Ecosystem Functions
SETTING PRIORITIES AND OBJECTIVES
What do you want to accomplish?Quick surveyCommercial potentialLong-term and systematic monitoring programDetailed study on a particular aspect of Artemia
biology.
What are the most important outcomes?Artemia population/production model.Management approach.Successful commercial exploitationAdvancement of science through published
papers.Nobel Prize
Preliminary (qualitative) Sampling Program
– Collect all available reports, data, information on lake of interest.
– Identify spatial and temporal patterns and unique characteristics.
– Compartmentalize lake in terms of theoretical functional characteristics.
– Create ecological (functional) zones.– Link logical associations of ecological zones with Artemia
biology.– Define initial experimental design (use stratified random
approach)– Be realistic in terms of time, manpower, and expense– Begin small-scale sampling program – Review results and CRITICALLY examine initial assumptions.– Use results to define final experimental design.
DEFINITIVE RESOURCE ASSESSMENT PROGRAM
COMPONENTS OF PROGRAM.– Artemia population dynamics– Cyst quality assessment– Micoalgae studies.– Hydrochemistry – Weather conditions
ITERATIVE PROCESS:– Collect data, evaluate, modify and improve methods
LABORATORY STUDIES
Cyst trait characterizationMicro-algae identificationChlorophyll Hydrochemical analysesFeeding experiments
Cyst Characterization
Quality• Hatching results and optimization of hatching conditions• Diapause• Morphometrics• Buoyancy• Nutritional Profile• Shelf Life
USAH R&D DATAIn situ Cyst Quality Assessments
Hatching Percentage for Water Column Cysts
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Whi
te R
ock
Mol
lys
Gra
ntsv
ille
Spi
t
Plu
g P
eak
Car
ringt
on B
ay
Hat
Isla
nd
Eas
t Cul
vert
Wes
t Cul
vert
Bom
bing
Ran
ge
Mag
Cor
p
Sou
th E
nd
Mid
Lak
e
As Is
10ppm Peroxide
Percentage of Cracked Cysts in the Water Column on Date, 2003
0%
1%
1%
2%
2%
3%
3%
Whi
te R
ock
Mol
lys
Gra
ntsv
illeSp
it
Plug
Pea
k
Car
ringt
onBa
y
Hat I
slan
d
East
Cul
vert
Wes
tC
ulve
rt
Bom
bing
Ran
ge
Mag
Cor
p
Sout
h En
d
Mid
Lak
eEarly Breaking of Water Column Cysts
0%
1%
1%
2%
2%
3%
3%
4%
4%
5%
Whi
te R
ock
Mol
lys
Gra
ntsv
ille S
pit
Plug
Pea
k
Carr
ingt
on B
ay
Hat I
slan
d
East
Cul
vert
Wes
t Cul
vert
Bom
bing
Ran
ge
Mag
Cor
p
Sout
h En
d
Mid
Lak
e
Perc
enta
ge o
f Cra
cked
She
lls
Hatching Results by Vertical Distribution(5 ppm Peroxide)
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
0.5
2
4
6
7.5
Dep
th in
Met
ers
Hatching Percentage (H +)
AS IS
Plus H2O2
Not enough time, manpower, or money so what can be done?
• Intensive effort at critical times of year.• Reduce expectations and refine objectives.• Teamwork approach (GET HELP): Solicit
interpretations, advice, equipment, applicable research results from “Artemia Family”.
• Seek alternative funding sources.• Clone Dr. Naser Agh.
GSL CYST DENSITY (cysts/liter)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Aug
-95
Nov-
95
May
-96
Aug
-96
Feb-
97
May
-97
Sep-
97
Dec-
97
Apr
-98
Jul-9
8
Nov-
98
Mar
-99
Jun-
99
Sep-
99
Oct
-99
Nov-
99
Mar
-00
Jun-
00
Sep-
00
Oct
-00
Nov-
00
Jan-
01
DATE
NUM
BER
PER
LITE
R
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
8/3/
95
9/25
/95
2/7/
96
4/29
/96
5/31
/96
8/19
/96
11/2
0/96
3/11
/97
5/5/
97
6/23
/97
9/23
/97
11/3
/97
1/21
/98
4/8/
98
5/18
/98
7/15
/98
10/5
/98
11/1
9/98
2/12
/99
5/6/
99
6/28
/99
8/11
/99
9/28
/99
10/1
8/99
11/9
/99
11/2
9/99
1/24
/00
3/29
/00
6/12
/00
7/18
/00
9/6/
00
9/28
/00
10/2
5/00
11/2
0/00
12/5
/00
1/24
/01
DATES
NU
MB
ER P
ER L
ITER
NAUPLIIJUVTOTAL ADULTS
Sex Ratio: Female:Male
00.20.40.60.8
11.21.41.61.8
Aug-
95
Dec
-95
Apr-
96
Aug-
96
Dec
-96
Apr-
97
Aug-
97
Dec
-97
Apr-
98
Aug-
98
Dec
-98
Apr-
99
Aug-
99
Dec
-99
Apr-
00
Aug-
00
Dec
-00
DATE
Forecasting and Predictive Models:Moving Beyond Simple Descriptive Statistics
2002 Reproductive Mode
0.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0%70.0%80.0%90.0%
100.0%
May
2, 2
002
May
9, 2
002
May
16,
200
2
May
23,
200
2
May
30,
200
2
June
6, 2
002
June
13,
200
2
June
20,
200
2
June
27,
200
2
July
4, 2
002
July
11,
200
2
July
18,
200
2
Date
Per
cent
age
of A
ll G
ravi
d Fe
mal
es
%FE/Gravid F
%FC/Gravid F
%FN/Gravid F
020406080100120140160
19
87
19
88
19
89
19
90
19
91
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
Year
Pa
rts
pe
r T
ho
us
an
d
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Rel
ativ
e A
bu
nd
ance
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
YearChlorophyte Diatom Other
Utah State UniversityPopulation Growth Model
Establishes the Standard for Management
0 20 40 60 80 100SPRING CYSTS (#/liter)
-1
0
1
2
3
AN
NU
AL
POP U
LATI
ON
GR
OW
T H R
ATE
Spring, 2001
Spring, 2002
Minimum Post-harvest cyst density=21 c/l
SIMPLE FORECASTNG TOOL
Correlation between 2nd Generation and Cyst Production
y = 42.048Ln(x) - 82.914R2 = 0.8613
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
2nd Generation Nauplii Per Liter
Pre-
Harv
est C
ysts
Per
Li
ter
Correlation Between 2nd Generation and Harvest Quantity
y = 4384.1Ln(x) - 9653.9R2 = 0.9799
02000
40006000
800010000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
2nd Generation Nauplii Per Liter
Met
ric T
onne
s Ha
rves
ted
EARLY FORECAST PREDICTIONS
• EARLY FORECAST PREDICTIONS• May/June 2001
– Pre-Season Cyst Density
• Prediction = 87 c/l• Actual = 87 c/l
– Industry Harvest in Metric Tonnes
• Prediction = 8040 mt (modified in September to 8269)• Actual = 8312 mt
• May 23, 2002– Pre-Season Cyst Density
• Prediction = 92 c/l• Actual = 104 c/l
– Industry Harvest in Metric Tonnes
• Prediction = 8606 mt (not modified in September)• Actual Harvest = 11, 588 mt
ARTEMIA POPULATION MODELS
• DUE TO TIME CONSTRAINTS, AND LIMITATIONS IN SKILLS, OUR DATA INTERPRETATION HAS BEEN ALMOST ENTIRELY LIMITED TO DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS.
• IT IS ABUNDANTLY OBVIOUS THAT THERE ARE MUCH BETTER AND MORE SOPHISTICATED MODELS AND INFERENTIAL STATISTICS THAT SHOULD BE APPLIED TO THESE DATA.
• WE APOLOGIZE FOR THE LACK OF CRITICAL EVALUATION OF THE DATA.
Sustainable Exploitation and
Management Strategies• Maintain ecosystem functions of the
Artemia.• Consideration given to economic
efficiency in management objectives: limited entry, open competition, transferable harvesting quotas.
• Use the commercial development to support research and protect the ecosystem.
COMPARISON OF BOLSHOE YARAVOE
ANDTHE GREAT SALT LAKE
GENT BELGIUMAPRIL 24, 2001
GSL Brine Shrimp Industry:Demonstrated capability to harvest more than 500 MT per day.
RESOURCE MANAGEMENTScale Considerations:•Resource Size & Harvesting Capacity
ECONOMICS OF EXPLOITATIONGUIDING PRINCIPLES:• Benefit local communities.• Provide dignity and quality to life.• Use harvest fees for research and management.• Appropriate scale of development
ECONOMIC REALITIES:• Volatile pricing and demand • Substantial global competition: GSL, PRC, Central
Asia.• Production facilities are extremely costly to develop
and operate• Aquaculture industry is becoming more efficient in
use of Artemia….global consumption has decreased in recent years (from 2,300 MT to around 2,000 MT per year)
• VERY HIGH RISK BUSINESS……but with risk comes rewards.
FURTHER CONSIDERATIONSOF COMMERCIAL EXPLOITATION
DON’T EXAGGERATE EXPECTED FINANCIAL GAINS
DO EXTENSIVE RESEARCH INTO:• TRANSPORT COSTS• LABOR COSTS• EQUIPMENT COSTS (Especially Replacement Costs)• POTENTIAL HARVESTING COSTS• UNDERSTAND ALL ASPECTS OF YOUR RESOURCE• EVALUATE SHORT-TERM AND LONG-TERM MARKET TRENDS.• START SMALL AND GROW INCREMENTALLY• ALWAYS RE-EVALUATE ASSUMPTIONS
RESOURCE ASSEMENT FUNDAMENTALS
Clearly define objectivesThorough background researchIterative process:
research, design, implementation, and critical self-evaluation
Be systematicTeamwork/International cooperationUse appropriate technology and scale
ENJOY THE WORK! THERE IS TREMENDOUS SATISFACTION INECOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS.
PLEASE ASK QUESTIONS!
Recommended