Oithona nana made up 34.43% of the total copepods and O. plumifera 12.78%. Rotifers contributed PD 332991 1.0% to the total community. During

summer, the zooplankton community (average: 23.5 ± 24.3 × 103 ind. m−3) was dominated by copepods (45.8%), protozoans (30.9%) and rotifers (16.3%). The leading species were the copepod Oithona nana and O. plumifera (17.7% and 9.8%, respectively), as well as the protozoans Favella ehrenbergii (Claparède and Lachmann, 1858) Jörgensen, 1924 (21.0%) and the rotifer Synchaeta okai (12.1%). In autumn, the average zooplankton community count was 29.6 ± 13.1 × 103 ind. m−3. Copepods clearly dominated the zooplankton assemblages, accounting for more than 87%. They were represented by 9 species. Oithona nana, O. plumifera, Paracalanus click here parvus and Euterpina acutifrons were the dominant species at all stations, constituting respectively, 22.2, 7.2, 12.8 and 12.4% of the total zooplankton. Protozoa was the second group, making up 3.6% of the total zooplankton count. It was dominated by Eutintinnus sp. and Favella ehrenbergii. Analysis of the main environmental influences on zooplankton abundances showed that pH and dissolved oxygen were the most important parameters, which positively affected the variation of zooplankton (r = 0.461; p < 0.05 and r = 0.320; p < 0.05, respectively). In contrast, salinity exercised negative

effects with total abundance and was not correlated with any of the groups except Protozoa. Shannon diversity showed significant positive correlations with the concentrations of nitrate, nitrite, ammonia, phosphate and silicate at p < 0.05 (r = 0.392; r = 0.441; r = 0.333; r = 0.361; r = 0.400, respectively). The W.H. and adjacent marine environment are under risk of discharged

wastewaters from both drains and ballast water. These pollutants cause Parvulin dysfunctions in the food web that might lead a total ecosystem imbalance, especially because of the low water exchange rate with the open sea. The turnover time of the water in the harbour was estimated to be 30 days (Hassan and Saad, 1996). Temperature fluctuations do not have an important effect on species composition, while salinity is the main physical parameter that can be attributed to the plankton diversity and acts as a limiting factor that influences the distribution of plankton community as reported by Sridhar et al. (2006). Large salinity oscillations in the harbour were recorded spatially and temporally, ranging from 22.7 PSU (St. 2) to 38.6 PSU (St. 7). Values were noticeably high in winter and autumn but drops in spring and causing a stress condition and a resultant loss of biodiversity. The marked reduction in salinity values may be due to the huge quantities of discharged water, or may be due to the disposal of ballast water.

They extract fewer kilograms per day than those who work on boats but work

for a longer period. The professionals׳ strategy is extracting as much as possible during the high season to get the most benefit. The divergence in gooseneck barnacle fishing strategies GSK126 causes competing interests among the groups, which were put forth in the focus groups. The professionals seek a shorter fishing season that adapts to their needs, no more than 3 months. On the contrary, the autonomous group is interested in year-round exploitation. In these circumstances it is up the government agency to mediate terms that will be beneficial for both parties, such as a 7-month campaign. The co-management system is ideal in these situations, since in a community management system these disagreements would be hard to mediate without an objective external agent and in an exclusively government APO866 managed system the implications of the disagreements would not be fully understood. Co-management systems allow for the incorporation of adaptive management into the guidelines. In the gooseneck barnacle fishery, which displays a high level of heterogeneity in the resource (Table 1; Fig. 1 and Fig. 3) and in resource users (see preceding section),

stakeholders agree that the flexibility of the system has been key in its performance. Constant modifications have been done throughout the 20-year history of the plan (Table 2). One example is the length of the fishing season. It is discussed before each campaign and will only be modified if there is a unanimous consensus in the entire plan and the DGPM. For example, during the Prestige oil spill the Cudillero-Oviñana and Cabo RVX-208 Peñas plans had an early closure of the fishing

season to avoid any possible contamination in the resource. There have also been a couple of successful attempts to close the fishing season a few months ahead of time in certain cofradías ( Table 2). The fine-scale in which the plan is organized has been ideal for the implementation of its adaptive management regime. Fishers׳ knowledge has led to a detailed fragmentation of the management units (Section 3.2) unique to collaborative systems, which coincides with the small-scale dispersal (tens of km) of gooseneck barnacle larvae in the Cantabrian Sea [31]. Before each campaign the cofradías and the DPGM determine where a fishing closure would be beneficial, with a level of detail down to 3 m ( Table 2). The decision on what ban to apply to each zone depends on the status of the rock during the past campaign, information that relies mainly on fishers׳ knowledge. The different management strategies for each zone require continuous and adaptive management as well as detailed up to date information on each zone. This can be observed in Fig. 5 where the trends for 3 different zones are represented, these are Cabo Cebes, Maste and Picones.