Moss Landing Marine Laboratories, Moss Landing, CA, U .S.A . 95039 Received March 22, 1983 HELM, R. C. 1984. Rate of digestion in three species of pinnipeds. Can. J . Zool. 62: 175 1 -1756.Torpid bowels or an impaction obstruction significantly retards the rate of passage of digesta in an animal and can lead to serious clinical problems. In many captive animals the approximate rate of food passage is well-known, thus allowing for rapid diagnosis and treatment if an intestinal blockage occurs. Although pinnipeds are commonly kept in captivity, the rate of passage of digesta in these animals is not known. In this study, the time period that elapsed before the initial defecation of a dye-marked meal was determined for 20 pinnipeds representing three species. This initial defecation time (IDT) serves as a good indicator of the rate of passage of digesta. The mean IDTs determined for pinnipeds were very fast averaging 5 h or less. No other medium to large carnivore or omnivore has been shown to exhibit such a rapid rate of passage. The extraordinarily fast excretion rate of these animals is even more remarkable considering that their intestine to body length ratios are among the largest in the animal kingdom. It is hypothesized that the rate of passage of digesta in pinnipeds is strongly influenced by their high metabolic rate and the high water content of their digesta.HELM, R. C. 1984. Rate of digestion in three species of pinnipeds. Can. J . Zool. 62: 175 1 -1756.Des intestins paresseux ou une occlusion retardent significativement le passage du bol alimentaire chez un animal et peuvent entrainer des problemes cliniques serieux. Chez plusieurs animaux en captivite, la vitesse approximative du passage des aliments est bien connue, ce qui permet le diagnostic et le traitement rapides d'un blocage intestinal. Bien que des pinnipedes soient souvent gardes en captiviti, la vitesse de passage des aliments chez ces animaux est demeurie inconnue. Au cours de cette etude, la duree de la Hriode entre un repas trait6 au colorant et le debut de la defication subsequente a it6 determinee chez 20 pinnipedes appartenant a trois especes. Le temps icoule vant le dibut de la defication (IDT) est un bon indicateur de la vitesse de passage des aliments. Les IDT moyens enregistres chez ces pinnipedes se sont averes tres courts, soit 5 h ou moins. Une vitesse de passage aussi rapide des aliments n'a jamais it6 enregistrie chez un omnivore ou un carnivore de taille moyenne ou grande. Ce taux particulierement rapide d'excretion est d'autant plus remarquable que chez ces animaux le rapport longueur de l'intestin : longueur totale du corps est I'un des plus eleves du monde animal. 11 est possible que la vitesse de passage du bol alimentaire chez les pinnipedes soit fortement influencee par le taux de mitabolisme ilevi de ces animaux et le contenu hydrique particulierement important de leur bol alimentaire.[Traduit par le journal]

Hazardous site management in the United States includes remediation of contaminated environmental media and restoration of injured natural resources. Site remediation decisions are informed by ecological risk assessment (ERA), whereas restoration and compensation decisions are informed by the natural resource damage assessment (NRDA) process. Despite similarities in many of their data needs and the advantages of more closely linking their analyses, ERA and NRDA have been conducted largely independently of one another. This is the 4th in a series of papers reporting the results of a recent workshop that explored how ERA and NRDA data needs and assessment processes could be more closely linked. Our objective is to evaluate the technical underpinnings of recentmethods used to translate natural resource injuries into ecological service losses and to propose ways to enhance the usefulness of data obtained in ERAs to the NRDA process. Three aspects are addressed: 1) improving the linkage among ERA assessment endpoints and ecological services evaluated in the NRDA process, 2) enhancing ERA data collection and interpretation approaches to improve translation of ERA measurements in damage assessments, and 3) highlighting methods that can be used to aggregate service losses across contaminants and across natural resources. We propose that ERA and NRDA both would benefit by focusing ecological assessment endpoints on the ecosystem services that correspond most directly to restoration and damage compensation decisions, and we encourage development of generic ecosystem service assessment endpoints for application in hazardous site investigations. To facilitate their use in NRDA, ERA measurements should focus on natural resource species that affect the flow of ecosystem services most directly, should encompass levels of biological organization above organisms, and should be made with the use of experimental designs that support description of responses to contaminants as continuous (as opposed to discrete) variables. Application of a data quality objective process, involving input from ERA and NRDA practitioners and site decision makers alike, can facilitate identification of data collection and analysis approaches that will benefit both assessment processes. Because of their demonstrated relationships to a number of important ecosystem services, we recommend that measures of biodiversity be targeted as key measurement endpoints in ERA to support the translation between risk and service losses. Building from case studies of recent successes, suggestions are offered for aggregating service losses at sites involving combinations of chemicals and multiple natural resource groups. Recognizing that ERA and NRDA are conducted for different purposes, we conclude that their values to environmental decision making can be enhanced by more closely linking their data collection and analysis activities.

This is the first of seven papers resulting from a Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) international workshop titled “The Influence of Global Climate Change on the Scientific Foundations and Applications of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry.” The workshop involved 36 scientists from 11 countries and was designed to answer the following question: How will global climate change influence the environmental impacts of chemicals and other stressors and the way we assess and manage them in the environment? While more detail is found in the complete series of articles, some key consensus points are as follows: (1) human actions (including mitigation of and adaptation to impacts of global climate change [GCC]) may have as much influence on the fate and distribution of chemical contaminants as does GCC, and modeled predictions should be interpreted cautiously; (2) climate change can affect the toxicity of chemicals, but chemicals can also affect how organisms acclimate to climate change; (3) effects of GCC may be slow, variable, and difficult to detect, though some populations and communities of high vulnerability may exhibit responses sooner and more dramatically than others; (4) future approaches to human and ecological risk assessments will need to incorporate multiple stressors and cumulative risks considering the wide spectrum of potential impacts stemming from GCC; and (5) baseline/reference conditions for estimating resource injury and restoration/rehabilitation will continually shift due to GCC and represent significant challenges to practitioners. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2013;32:13–19. © 2012 SETAC

Various international and national regulations hold polluters liable for the cleanup of released hazardous substances and the restoration/rehabilitation of natural resources to preincident baseline conditions, a process often referred to as natural resource damage assessment and restoration (NRDAR). Here, we, the authors, describe how global climate change (GCC) will challenge each of the steps of NRDAR processes and offer eight recommendations to improve these processes in light of GCC. First, we call for a better understanding of the net effects of GCC and contaminants on natural resources. Second, we urge facilities and environmental managers to plan for GCC-related factors that are expected to increase the probability of contaminant releases. Third, we suggest re-evaluating definitions of baseline and reference conditions given that GCC will alter both their trajectories and variability. Fourth, we encourage long-term monitoring to improve the quantification of baseline conditions that will change as climate changes. This will enhance the accuracy of injury assessments, the effectiveness of restoration, and the detection of early warning signs that ecosystems are approaching tipping points. Fifth, in response to or anticipation of GCC, restoration projects may need to be conducted in areas distant from the site of injury or focused on functionally equivalent natural resources; thus, community involvement in NRDAR processes will be increasingly important. Sixth, we promote using NRDAR restoration projects as opportunities to mitigate GCC-related impacts. Seventh, we recommend adaptive management approaches to NRDAR processes and communication of successes and failures widely. Finally, we recommend focusing on managing the stressors that might be exacerbated by GCC, such as pollution and habitat loss, because there is a long history of successfully mitigating these stressors, which can be more easily managed on local scales than climate change. We believe that adoption of these recommendations will lead to a more efficacious NRDAR process, despite the challenges posed by climate change. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2013;32:93–101. © 2012 SETAC

No abstract