text:
The Real Bounty: Marine Biodiversity in the Pitcairn Islands
Alan M. Friedlander ,
* E-mail: alan.friedlander@hawaii.edu
Affiliations Pristine Seas, National Geographic Society, Washington DC, United States of America, Fisheries Ecology Research Laboratory, Department of Biology, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii, United States of America
Jennifer E. Caselle,
Affiliation Marine Science Institute, University of California Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, California, United States of America
Enric Ballesteros,
Affiliation Centre d'Estudis Avançats de Blanes, Blanes, Spain
Eric K. Brown,
Affiliation Kalaupapa National Historical Park, US National Park Service, Kalaupapa, Hawaii, United States of America
Alan Turchik,
Affiliation Pristine Seas, National Geographic Society, Washington DC, United States of America
Enric Sala
Affiliations Pristine Seas, National Geographic Society, Washington DC, United States of America, Centre d'Estudis Avançats de Blanes, Blanes, Spain
Alan M. Friedlander,
Alan M. Friedlander Jennifer E. Caselle ... Enric Sala
In 2012 we conducted an integrated ecological assessment of the marine environment of the Pitcairn Islands, which are four of the most remote islands in the world. The islands and atolls (Ducie, Henderson, Oeno, and Pitcairn) are situated in the central South Pacific, halfway between New Zealand and South America. We surveyed algae, corals, mobile invertebrates, and fishes at 97 sites between 5 and 30 m depth, and found 51 new records for algae, 23 for corals, and 15 for fishes. The structure of the ecological communities was correlated with age, isolation, and geomorphology of the four islands. Coral and algal assemblages were significantly different among islands with Ducie having the highest coral cover (56%) and Pitcairn dominated by erect macroalgae (42%). Fish biomass was dominated by top predators at Ducie (62% of total fish biomass) and at Henderson (35%). Herbivorous fishes dominated at Pitcairn, while Oeno showed a balanced fish trophic structure. We found high levels of regional endemism in the fish assemblages across the islands (45%), with the highest level observed at Ducie (56% by number). We conducted the first surveys of the deep habitats around the Pitcairn Islands using drop-cameras at 21 sites from depths of 78 to 1,585 m. We observed 57 fish species from the drop-cams, including rare species such as the false catshark (Pseudotriakis microdon) and several new undescribed species. In addition, we made observations of typically shallow reef sharks and other reef fishes at depths down to 300 m. Our findings highlight the uniqueness and high biodiversity value of the Pitcairn Islands as one of the least impacted in the Pacific, and suggest the need for immediate protection.
Citation: Friedlander AM, Caselle JE, Ballesteros E, Brown EK, Turchik A, Sala E (2014) The Real Bounty: Marine Biodiversity in the Pitcairn Islands. PLoS ONE 9(6): e100142. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0100142
Editor: Brian R. MacKenzie, Technical University of Denmark, Denmark
Received: March 10, 2014; Accepted: May 22, 2014; Published: June 25, 2014
Copyright: © 2014 Friedlander et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: The authors confirm that all data underlying the findings are fully available without restriction. Data will be submitted to Dryad after acceptance.
Funding: Funding was provided by National Geographic, Blancpain, and Davidoff Cool Water to ES. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: I have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: The authors received funding from commercial sources (Blancpain, and Davidoff Cool Water). This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.
Pitcairn Island is perhaps best known as the home of the descendants of the infamous HMS Bounty mutineers [1]–[2], and is the last remaining British Overseas Territory in the Pacific [3]–[4]. The Pitcairn Islands consist of four remote islands and atolls (Ducie, Henderson, Oeno, and Pitcairn), situated in the central South Pacific, with the closest islands being the Gambier Group in French Polynesia, 390 km to the west. To the east, only Easter Island (1,900 km away) and Salas y Gómez (2,300 km) can be found between Ducie and South America [5]. Together, all four islands encompass only 43 km2 of emergent land, but the surrounding waters out to the 200 nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) cover ca. 836,108 km2 (Fig. 1, [6]).
Figure 1. The Pitcairn Islands Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) covers ca. 836,108 km2 and encompasses two coral atolls (Ducie [A.] and Oeno [C.]), a raised atoll (Henderson [B.]), and one high island (Pitcairn [D.]).
Black dots represent sampling locations around each island.
Of the four islands, only Pitcairn is inhabited, with a current population of 53 people [7]–[8]. Although the history of the human occupation of Pitcairn – and to a lesser extent Henderson – has received enormous attention [1], [9]–[11], relatively little is known about its natural history, especially with regard to the marine environment. Until our expedition in 2012, only lists of species and qualitative estimates of abundance were available for major groups of marine organisms [12]–[17], and no quantitative assessments of these populations had been conducted (see review [18] for a list of the expeditions conducted in Pitcairn's EEZ).
Because of its relatively high latitude and distance away from the Coral Triangle – the center of marine biodiversity [19]–[20] – the Pitcairn Islands have relatively low species richness for most marine taxa [12], [17]–[18]. This isolation and their subtropical location, however, make them interesting from a biogeographic perspective as they lie at the eastern limits of the Indo-Pacific Province [21]–[22]. In addition, remote locations with minimal human impacts are some of the last remaining places on earth where we can observe how coral reefs may have functioned in the distant past, before extensive human disturbance [23]–[24].
Here we present the first quantitative data on the community structure of shallow marine ecosystems of the Pitcairn Islands. Our surveys were designed to measure the abundance and biomass of major organisms (including algae, invertebrates, and fishes) inhabiting the coral reef ecosystems to 30 m depth, and to construct the first list of the deep-sea species to 1,600 m depth. The overall objective of this integrated assessment was to quantitatively describe the structure and function of the marine ecosystem of this remote group of islands, and establish a baseline for future comparisons.
The Government of the United Kingdom and the Pitcairn Island Council granted all necessary permission to conduct this research. No vertebrate sampling was conducted and therefore no approval was required by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee.
The Pitcairn Islands are the only emergent parts of an ancient chain of volcanoes that rose from the seafloor between 0.9 and 16 Myr ago [25], and are geologically connected to the Tuamotu and Gambier islands of French Polynesia [26]. The four islands differ in their size, geological age, and isolation [27]. Pitcairn is a high volcanic island of 450 ha with lava cliffs and rugged hills rising to a peak at 335 m. Henderson (200 km ENE of Pitcairn) is the largest island in the group with an area of 4,310 ha. Henderson was formerly an atoll, but the formation of Pitcairn 0.8–0.9 Myr ago caused an uplift of the crust, which elevated Henderson 33 m above sea level [28]. Henderson was declared a UNESCO World Heritage site owing to its unique terrestrial natural history and ecological intactness [29]. Ducie (472 km E of Pitcairn), the most southerly coral atoll in the world [30], consists of a central lagoon surrounded by four islets covering 70 ha. Oeno (120 km NW of Pitcairn) is a low coral atoll of 65 ha comprising a central low-lying island surrounded by a shallow lagoon and fringing reef (diameter ca. 4 km).
Sample Design
Sampling sites were haphazardly selected around all four islands to incorporate representative wave exposures, habitats, and oceanographic conditions (Fig. 1). At each site, SCUBA surveys were conducted at both 10 and 20 m depth. In addition, two sites at 30 m were surveyed at Pitcairn to characterize the deeper reef community, as well as surveys conducted on the patch reefs (∼5 m) in the shallow lagoon of Ducie.
Benthic communities
Characterization of the benthos was conducted along a 50 m-long transect parallel to the shoreline at each sampling depth strata. For algae, corals, and other sessile invertebrates we used a line-point intercept methodology along transects, recording the species or taxa found every 20 cm on the measuring tape. Point contact data were expressed as percent cover. For sea urchins, we counted and sized individuals in fifteen, 50×50 cm quadrats haphazardly placed along each 50 m transect line. Quadrat placement was stratified with three quadrats per 10 m segment of transect line.
Reef fishes
At each depth stratum within a site, one diver counted and estimated lengths for all fishes encountered within fixed-length (25-m) belt transects whose widths differed depending on direction of swim. Transect bearings were set along isobaths within homogeneous habitats with each transect separated by at least 5 m. All fish ≥20 cm total length (TL) were tallied within a 4 m wide strip surveyed on an initial "swim-out" as the transect line was laid (transect area = 100 m2). These included large-bodied, vagile fishes. All fishes <20 cm TL were tallied within a 2 m wide strip surveyed on the return swim back along the laid transect line (transect area = 50 m2). This included small-bodied, less vagile and more site-attached fish. In addition, all species observed outside of the transect area at each station were recorded to estimate total species richness at a site.
Fishes were identified to species [31]. Fish total length (TL) was estimated to the nearest cm and individual-specific lengths were converted to body weights. Numerical density (abundance) was expressed as number of individuals per m2 and biomass density was expressed as tons per ha. The biomass of individual fishes was estimated using the allometric length-weight conversion: W = aTLb, where parameters a and b are species-specific constants, TL is total length in cm, and W is weight in grams. Length-weight fitting parameters were obtained from FishBase [32] and other published sources [33], [34]. The cross-product of individual weights and numerical densities was used to estimate biomass density by species. Fishes were categorized into four trophic groups (top predators, herbivores, other carnivores, and planktivores) after [35]–[36].
Deep drop-camera surveys
National Geographic's Remote Imaging Team developed deep ocean drop-cams, which are high definition cameras (Sony Handycam HDR-XR520V 12 megapixel) encased in a borosilicate glass sphere that are rated to 10,000 m depth. Viewing area per frame was between 2–6 m2, depending on the steepness of the slope where the drop-cam landed. Cameras were baited with frozen fish and deployed for ca. four hours. The cameras remained sealed during the entire expedition with communications through a Subconn connector. Lighting at depth was achieved through a high intensity LED array directed using external reflectors. Depth gauging was conducted using an external pressure sensor. The drop-cams were ballasted with a 22 kg external weight that resulted in a descent rate of 1.5 m s−1. The primary release mechanism was a burn wire that was activated using onboard battery voltage. The drop-cams are positively buoyant resulting in an ascent rate of 0.5 m s−1. Drop-cams have an onboard VHF transmitter that allows for recovery using locating antennae with backup location achieved via communication with the ARGOS satellite system.
Percent substrate cover for each major functional group (corals [included the cnidarian orders Anthomedusae, Alcyonacea, Scleractinia, and Zoantharia], crustose coralline algae [CCA], erect macroalgae, turf algae, dead coral + rock [DCR], and sand) was derived for each site. Sites were stratified by depth (10, 20 m) with the 30 m sites at Pitcairn and the 5 m patch reef sites at Ducie excluded from comparisons among islands.
Correlation between geological age of the islands and coral species richness was tested with a Pearson Product Moment Correlation (α = 0.05). Differences in percent substrate cover of the four dominant functional groups (CCA, coral, erect macroalgae, and turf algae) were tested among islands and between depths using multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA). These four primary habitat functional groups comprised over 85% of the total cover and were arcsine square root transformed prior to statistical analysis to conform to the assumptions of the MANOVA. The multivariate test statistic Pillai's trace was used because it is robust to heterogeneity of variance and is less likely to involve type I errors than comparable tests [37]. We performed univariate ANOVAs when MANOVAs were significant. Unplanned comparisons between pairs of islands were examined using the Tukey-Kramer honestly significant difference (HSD) test for ANOVAs (α = 0.05).
Non-metric multi-dimensional scaling (nMDS) analysis, coupled with an analysis of similarities (ANOSIM) test, was conducted using PRIMER v6 [38] to examine differences in benthic communities and fish assemblages between islands and depth strata. Separate Bray–Curtis similarity matrices were created for percent cover of algae by species, percent cover of coral by species, sea urchin species density (no. m−2), and fish biomass in t ha−1 by species for each site and depth. Prior to conducting the nMDS, algal and coral data percentage data were arcsin square root transformed, while sea urchin density and fish biomass data were square root transformed. ANOSIM analysis generates an R statistic that scales from 0 or negative value (identical assemblages) to 1 (completely dissimilar assemblages). The resulting P value indicates the probability that the two assemblages come from a similar distribution [39]. Pairwise ANOSIM R statistics represent comparisons that are well separated (R>0.75), overlapping but clearly different (R>0.5), or barely separable at all (R<0.25). A two-way crossed ANOSIM with replication was used to compare between island and depth strata. A Bray–Curtis similarity matrix was created from the arcsin square root transformed percentage benthic cover and square root transformed mean fish biomass matrix before conducting the nMDS. The nMDS plot overlaid the primary species vectors driving the ordination using a Pearson correlation at p>0.5.
Fish species richness was estimated as the total number of species observed per station. Species diversity was calculated from the Shannon-Weaver Diversity Index [40]: , where pi is the proportion of all individuals counted that were of species i. Fish assemblage characteristics among islands were compared using two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) by island and depth strata. Numerical abundance and biomass were ln(x+1)-transformed prior to statistical analysis to conform to the assumptions of the parametric tests [41]. Normality was tested using a Shapiro-Wilk W test (P>0.05) while a Bartlett's test (P>0.05) was used to examine homogeneity of variance. Unplanned comparisons between pairs were examined using the Tukey-Kramer HSD.
To describe the pattern of variation in community structure (patterns of distribution of abundance of functional groups within the community) among the four islands, we used indirect gradient analysis. Non-linear models were most appropriate for our data because a preliminary detrended correspondence analysis showed long gradient lengths (>2 SD) [42]. To explore the spatial distribution of community structure across the archipelago we performed a correspondence analysis (CA) [42] on log-transformed data using the ordination program CANOCO for Windows version 4.0 [43]. We pooled data from all taxa into the following groups to facilitate the large-scale analysis: biomass of the four fish trophic groups, and percent cover of coral, erect macroalgae, turf algae, CCA, other invertebrates, dead coral + rock, and sand, along with density of sea urchins.
We surveyed a total of 97 nearshore locations across all four islands for algae, corals, sessile invertebrates, sea urchins, and fishes (Fig. 1, Table 1). In addition, we made 21 drop-cam deployments among all four islands to depths ranging from 78 to 1,585 m.
Table 1. Pitcairn Islands sampling locations by depth and habitat.
Community Structure.
Percent substrate cover varied significantly for each of the major functional groups by island (F12, 249 = 10.5, p<0.001), but not by depth (F4, 81 = 1.7, p = 0.15) or the interaction of the two terms (F12, 249 = 0.1, p = 0.8). A significant proportion of the variation (MANOVA, p<0.001) was explained by the four primary functional substrate groups: coral (r2 = 0.74), turf algae (r2 = 0.48), erect macroalgae (r2 = 0.42), and CCA (r2 = 0.36). Substrate cover for coral, erect macroalgae, and turf algae was not significantly different between depths (p>0.05 for all). Only CCA showed significantly lower cover at 20 m compared to the 10 m sites (p<0.05).
Coral cover was significantly greater at Ducie (56.3%±20.6 SD of the bottom) compared to the other islands, with the lowest coral cover observed at Pitcairn (5.2%±6.1 SD, Table 2). Erect macroalgae were the most prevalent benthic cover (42.1%±20.6 SD) at Pitcairn and differed significantly from the other islands, with the lowest cover at Ducie (5.8%±7.7 SD). Turf algal cover was very low at most sites except Henderson where it reached 24.0% (±17.9 SD). CCA was common at all sites and did not differ significantly among islands. CCA cover values ranged from 29.5% at Henderson to 26.2% at Ducie.
Table 2. Comparisons of benthic functional groups among islands.
Algae.
We identified 64 macroalgal taxa (21 green algae, 12 brown algae, and 31 red algae), 51 of which are new records for these islands (Table S1). Algal species richness was greatest at Pitcairn and Henderson (42 and 31 taxa, respectively), followed by Oeno (24) and Ducie (13). Fourteen species previously reported from Pitcairn Island [44], [45] were not found in our surveys (five are likely due to taxonomic uncertainty; the other nine were likely encountered in the intertidal zone or littoral pools, environments not sampled in our surveys). Only three species of algae were common to all four islands: the brown alga Lobophora variegata and the encrusting corallines Hydrolithon onkodes and H. gardineri.
Algal assemblages were significantly different among islands (Global R = 0.68, Stress = 0.15; Fig. 2A) but were indistinguishable by depth (R = 0.02). The assemblage at Pitcairn was distinct from the other three islands (all ANOSIM comparisons with Pitcairn, R>0.75). The assemblages at Henderson and Ducie were overlapping but clearly different (R = 0.72), while all other pair-wise comparisons showed even greater overlap (R>0.25 and <0.5). At Pitcairn, an erect, stipitate form of Lobophora variegata accounted for 26.7% of the total algal cover, followed by Halimeda minima (21.1%), Lithophyllum kotschyanum (12.5%), and an encrusting form of Lobophora variegata (7.1%). Hydrolithon onkodes (44.1%) was the most abundant species at Ducie, followed by encrusting L. variegata (23.0%), and Microdictyon japonicum (15.3%). The assemblage at Henderson consisted of Hydrolithon samoense (39.2%), M. japonicum (17.5%), Dasya sp. (15.1%), and encrusting L. variegata (14.4%). At Oeno, encrusting L. variegata accounted for 36.7% of the algal abundance, followed by H. onkodes (28.6%), and H. samoense (14.5%)
Figure 2. Non-metric multidimensional scaling of major benthic function groups and sampling locations among the four islands in the Pitcairn Group.
A. macroalgae, B. corals, C. urchins. Vectors are the primary taxa driving the ordination (Pearson Product movement correlations ≥ 0.5). Macroalgae species codes: D.vers = Dictyosphaeria versluysii, H.onko = Hydrolithon onkodes, H. mini = Halimeda minima, H.samo = Hydrolithon samoense, M.umbr = Microdictyon japonicum, L. vari = erect Lobophora variegata. Coral species codes: F.stell = Favia stelligera, M.aequ = Montipora aequituberculata, M.plat = Millepora plathyphylla, Sinn.sp = Sinularia sp. Urchins: D.savi = Diadema savignyi, E.mata = Echinometra mathaei, E.acic = Echinostrephus aciculatus, E.cala = Echinothrix calamaris.
Corals.
A total of 70 species of scleractinia (hard corals) were observed on quantitative benthic surveys on hard bottom substrates around the four islands (Table S2), with 23 new records for the island group. Species richness was positively correlated with geological age of the islands (r = 0.98, p = 0.02), with the oldest island Oeno (16 Mya) having the highest number of coral species (58), followed by Henderson (13 Mya: 53 species), Ducie (8 Mya: 35 species), and Pitcairn (0.8 Mya: 24 species). Nine species listed in [18] were not observed at any of the islands. Some of the species previously reported, such as Acropora humilis, are similar to species (e.g. Acropora samoensis) documented in this study, which may reflect updated taxonomy or differences in identifications.
Coral assemblages overlapped but were clearly different among islands (Global R = 0.57, Stress = 0.16; Fig. 2B) and were indistinguishable by depth (R = 0.15). The assemblage at Ducie was distinct from the other three islands (all ANOSIM comparisons with Ducie, R>0.75). The assemblage at Pitcairn overlapped but was clearly different from Oeno and Henderson (R>0. 5 for both), while Oeno and Henderson were most similar (R = 0.26). Coral cover at Ducie was dominated by Montipora aequituberculata (49.9% of the total coral cover), followed by Sinularia sp. (14.0%), Pavona sp.1 (6.7%), and Acropora valida (6.4%). The cnidarian assemblage at Oeno consisted of Millepora plathyphylla (23.9%), Pocillopora verrucosa (15.7%), and Porites lobata (11.2%). At Henderson, Pavona sp. 1 accounted for 17.0% of total coral cover, followed closely by P. verrucosa (16.6%), and M. plathyphylla (11.6%). While coral cover at Pitcairn was lower than the other islands, the community was formed by P. verrucosa (21.2%), P. lobata (18.6%), M. plathyphylla (16.7%) and Pocillopora eydouxii (16.3%).
Sea Urchin Density.
Sea urchins were the most abundant macro-invertebrate group encountered at all islands, and were represented by seven species (Table S3). Mean density ranged from 0 sea urchins m−2 for several species up to 5.4 m−2 sea urchins (±2.4 SD) for Echinostrephus aciculatus at the Pitcairn 10 m sites. At the island level, Oeno generally had the highest overall sea urchin density (7.6 m−2±2.7 SD) while Ducie had the lowest levels (2.4 m−2±2.5 SD). Urchin assemblages were similar among islands (Global R = 0.39, Stress = 0.13; Fig. 2C) and depths (R = 0.31). Despite these overlaps, Ducie was clearly different from Pitcairn (R = 0.74) and well separated from Henderson (R = 0.52) and Oeno (R = 0.51), while Henderson and Pitcairn were indistinguishable (R = 0.16).
Reef Fish Assemblages
Biodiversity.
We identified a total of 205 fish species from 40 families during the expedition with 15 new records for the archipelago (Table S4). The greatest species richness was found at Henderson and Oeno (151 species for both), followed by Pitcairn (145), and Ducie (123). The majority of the fish species observed (64%) were of Indo-Pacific origin (Table 3), followed by species with Pacific-wide distributions (14%), Pitcairn regional endemics (11%), and other areas (11%). We defined Pitcairn regional endemics as species that are only found in the southeastern tropical Pacific including southern French Polynesia (e.g., Gambier, Rapa) and Easter Island. Based on density of individuals, these regional endemics accounted for 45% of the total fish assemblage (Table 4). The highest numerical abundance of regional endemics was found at Ducie (56%) with the lowest at Pitcairn (29%).
Table 3. Biogeographic distribution of fish species observed among the Pitcairn Islands based on species presence.
Table 4. Biogeographic distribution of fish species observed among the Pitcairn Islands based on and density (no. individuals m−2).
Fish assemblage characteristics.
Species richness differed significantly among islands (F3, 91 = 39.4, p<0.001) but not between depth strata (F1, 91 = 0.1, p = 0.8) or their interaction (F3, 91 = 0.7, p = 0.5). The average number of species observed on transects was highest at Oeno and Henderson and significantly different from Ducie and Pitcairn, which had the lowest richness (Fig 3a). The mean number of individuals m−2 differed significantly among islands (F3, 91 = 68.7, p<0.001) and was more than five times higher at Henderson (4.6±1.6 SD) compared to Pitcairn (0.8±0.2) with densities at Oeno and Ducie intermediate to these locations (Fig 3b). Total biomass had high within-island variance and did not differ significantly among islands (H = 6.2, p = 0.1), although biomass was 88% higher at the highest location, Oeno (1.7 t ha−1±3.1), compared with the lowest, Pitcairn (0.9 t ha−1±0.9) (Fig. 3c). Fish species diversity (H′) differed significantly among islands (F3, 91 = 11.2, p<0.001) with the highest diversity at Oeno (2.3±0.3) compared to similar levels among the other islands (Fig. 3d).
Figure 3. Comparison of fish assemblage characteristics among islands.
A) species richness, B) numerical abundance (no. indiv. m−2), C) biomass (t ha−1), D) diversity. One-way ANOVA results for each assemblage metric are in Results. Islands with the same letter are not significantly different at α = 0.05 (Tukey's HSD tests).
Trophic and species comparisons.
Top predators and herbivores each accounted for an average 30% of the total biomass across all islands, followed by other carnivores (23%), and planktivores (17%). However, there was a strong interaction between island and trophic group (F9, 371 = 2.7, p = 0.005) with top predators more abundant at Ducie (62%) and to a lesser extent at Henderson (35%). Herbivores dominated at Pitcairn (66%), while the trophic structure at Oeno was more balanced with no single dominant group (Fig. 4).
Figure 4. Biomass (t ha−1) of reef fishes by trophic group at each island of the Pitcairn islands.
Error bars are standard error of the mean.
Grey reef sharks (Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos) comprised 46% of the top predator biomass overall, followed by whitetip reef sharks (Triaenodon obesus – 12%), and black trevally (Caranx lugubris– 10%). Biomass of herbivores consisted of chubs (Kyphosus spp. – 28%), unicornfish (Naso unicornis – 22%), and whitebar surgeonfish (Acanthurus leucopareius – 12%). The blacktip grouper (Epinephelus fasciatus) comprised 17% of the biomass of other carnivores followed by Bigeye bream (Monotaxis grandoculis – 9%), doublebar goatfish (Parupeneus insularis – 8%), and striped bream (Gnathodentex aureolineatus – 7%). The blotcheye soldierfish (Myripristis berndti) dominated the biomass of planktivores (47%), with two small (<10 cm TL) regionally endemic damselfishes (Chromis bami and Chrysiptera galba) together accounting for an additional 17% of the biomass in this trophic group.
Structure of the coral reef community (benthos and reef fishes)
The multivariate analyses showed large variability in the structure of the coral reef ecosystem (benthos and reef fishes) among sites within islands, yet obvious distinctions between islands were present (Fig. 5). Ducie was the island most clearly distinguished by the high abundance of top predators and high cover of coral. Henderson was also well separated in ordination space with other carnivores explaining most of the difference. Oeno was characterized by lower coral cover and more carnivorous fishes than Pitcairn, which was unique because of its dominance by algae. Pitcairn was the island with the highest concordance among stations. Ducie and Henderson showed the greatest variability among stations (i.e. largest spread in the plot), likely due to the large size of the islands, differences in wave exposures, and diversity of habitats.
Figure 5. Correspondence analysis on percent cover of major benthic functional groups, abundance of sea urchins, and biomass of fish trophic groups.
Deep Reefs
Fifty-seven species of deep reef fishes from 34 families were identified from drop-cam deployments, suggesting a rich deep-sea biodiversity including rare species such as the false catshark (Pseudotriakis microdon) (Table S5). Reef sharks, typically associated with shallow reefs, were observed as deep as 300 m, and one dogtooth tuna (Gymnosarda unicolor) was observed at a depth of 805 m. The '40 Mile Reef', a seamount located about 75 km SE from Pitcairn, which reached to ca. 75 m of the surface, has one of the deepest well-developed coral reefs reported worldwide and consisted mostly of Porites cf. deformis and Pocillopora sp. Reef fishes were abundant, including predators such as the groupers Epinephelus fasciatus and E. tuamotensis, black trevally, and grey reef sharks. Epinephelus tuamotensis was common between 78–200 m, and it was the most common large demersal predator observed in the drop-cam footage.
We observed the presence of crustose coralline algae (CCA) at 312 m depth (and probably 382 m) (Ballesteros et al. in prep.), 44 to 114 m deeper than previously reported [46]. The drop-cam footage showed abundant CCA and probably the endolithic green alga Ostreobium sp. below 200 m at Ducie and Henderson, and at 312 m at Ducie. Our footage also shows a potentially deeper CCA at 382 m at Henderson. The invertebrate fauna in deeper habitats was dominated by crustaceans, mostly Mysids in the water column, and crabs (Paguridae, Parapaguridae, Galatheidae) on the bottom (Table S6). Gorgonians were the most abundant Cnidarians at depths >200 m, while two taxa of scleractinian corals (Pocillopora sp. and Porites cf. deformis) were observed at depths down to 100 m.
The habitats between 800–1600 m showed a lower diversity of organisms, and the presence of fishes that were not observed shallower, such as the spiny dogfish (Squalus sp.), the false catshark (Pseudotriakis microdon), snake mackerels (Gempylidae), beardfishes (Polymixidae), grenadiers (Macrouridae), duckbill eels (Nettastomatidae), and Morid cods (Moridae) (Table S5). The presence of a dogtooth tuna (Gymnosarda unicolor), at 805 m at Pitcairn was remarkable, and dramatically expands the known depth range of the species [47].
Our results indicate that the Pitcairn Islands contain healthy coral reef communities that lie at the eastern limits of the Indo-Pacific Province. Ducie was dominated by top predators and high coral cover. Although not as high as Ducie, more than 35% of the total fish biomass at Henderson consisted of top predators. The high cover of coral, particularly at Ducie and Henderson, is noteworthy because the islands are at the southern limit of coral reef distribution in the Pacific [48]. Oeno had a healthy population of carnivores, but sharks were rare. This may suggest some fishing activity at this atoll, which is the closest in the Pitcairn Group to the inhabited islands of French Polynesia. The lower coral cover in shallow waters at Pitcairn are likely influenced by runoff and sedimentation from the island, but a healthy deeper coral reef ecosystem was found further offshore. Sharks were very rarely observed at Pitcairn, as expected from an inhabited island where sharks are still fished. The structure of the food web across the island group was clearly influenced by the degree of isolation (i.e. fishing pressure), with Pitcairn and Oeno showing lower overall fish biomass and a smaller proportion of top predators. The high endemism throughout the group highlights the isolation of these islands, particularly at Ducie, which had the highest proportion of endemics and is also the most remote island in the group.
The high dissimilarity between the algal floras of the four islands is almost certainly related to the different geomorphologies, habitats, and/or isolation of these islands. Most of the marine flora in the island group is typically tropical Indo-Pacific in origin with most species also present in French Polynesia [49]–[51]. Macroalgal beds dominated by Sargassum spp. and an erect form of Lobophora variegata, which forms extensive seaweed beds at Pitcairn Island between 5 and 18 m, are also found in Lord Howe Island, Easter Island, and other southern high islands in French Polynesia [49], [52]–[53]. Ducie, Oeno, and Henderson had relatively low cover of algae, which denotes a healthy coral reef environment with high herbivore biomass. Pitcairn had more algae and less coral since it is a more nutrient-rich environment (especially in iron) because of the high island runoff. This runoff has accelerated in recent history with land modification by the local population (including building of roads and land uses) and changes in local weather patterns.
The high coral cover at Ducie (56%) was exceptional considering this island is the southernmost atoll in the world and near the easternmost limit of coral reef distribution in the Pacific. The coral cover was comparable to several other significant high latitude reefs [54]–[55]. Consequently, Ducie should be considered a high priority conservation site given its current lack of local human impacts and the potential to be more resilient to climate change [56]. Oeno and Henderson also had significant coral cover (28% and 24%, respectively) despite being at the southern limit of coral distribution. At Pitcairn we found a deep coral reef (developing below 35 m depth) that had not been recorded previously, with a remarkable 26% of the bottom covered by live coral. The coral cover of mesophotic reefs at Pitcairn is higher than those observed at similar latitudes in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (17%, [57]) and consisted of a wide range of species. The extreme water clarity surrounding the Pitcairn Islands (measured up to 75 m at Ducie) allows for coral growth at depths greater than expected for most Pacific reefs [58]. This deeper available habitat may help build resilience into ecosystems from potential climate change impacts [59]. In addition, Pitcairn is located near the center of the South Pacific Circulation Gyre, and climate change predictions suggest that this region will show less dramatic changes in SST, carbonate, and pH than most other regions around the globe [60].
The positive correlation between coral species richness and geological age of the islands, while not surprising, highlights some intriguing biogeographical patterns. The older islands have experienced greater reef development and coral proliferation than the younger islands due to the longer colonization time. This pattern has been documented with many taxonomic groups throughout the Pacific [61] and is an important component of island biogeographic theory [62]. Holocene reef growth over the past 11,000 years would have been relatively similar among the four islands. Pitcairn likely did not benefit from prior species introductions during the Pleistocene when it was still tectonically active [63] and when Henderson was experiencing high coral reef growth [64]. The older islands were geographically closer to French Polynesia, which has higher coral species richness [65] and therefore it is reasonable to assume that coral species richness would decrease with increasing remoteness. The exception to this hypothesis is Pitcairn, which is closer to the Gambier Islands than Ducie and Henderson, yet had the lowest coral species richness. While it is possible that the uniqueness of Pitcairn (i.e. only high island coupled with anthropogenic impacts) may have contributed to the lower species richness, a more likely explanation is that Pitcairn is the only emergent island along the more southerly and geological 'hotspot' region [18]. In comparison, the other three islands lie along the more northerly geological 'hotspot' region that is parallel to Pitcairn and closer in proximity to the Gambier island group. This northern underwater ridge, with a more extensive shallow water habitat [18] than the isolated southerly ridgeline with Pitcairn, might have enhanced colonizing fauna and flora by acting as stepping stones from the Gambier island group [61]. Even though this colonization pattern is counter to the direction of the prevailing winds and currents coming from the east in the central South Pacific [21], the species distribution patterns suggests that species moved from west to east and from older islands to younger islands, inferring that the current patterns must have been reversed on occasion.
Total reef fish biomass for all islands combined was relatively low (ca. 1.4 t ha−1) compared to other uninhabited islands situated further north in the central Pacific such as the Line Islands, where unfished fish biomass can exceed 5 t ha−1 in some places [36], [66]. The relatively low biomass at the Pitcairn Islands may be due to the extremely low productivity of the waters of the Pitcairn EEZ, compared to the waters in much of the Pacific Ocean [67], [68]. The low productivity results in low plankton abundance, which results in extremely clear waters [69]. Nevertheless, the fish biomass found at the Pitcairn Islands is larger than most fished sites in the Indo-Pacific and the Caribbean [36], [70]–[72].
Total fish biomass in the tropical Pacific is determined by the background productivity of the oceanic waters [73]–[74] and possibly the level of species diversity. However, the health of the fish assemblages is determined by the degree of fishing: lower fishing pressure results in a larger proportion of the fish biomass that is accounted for by predators since fishers typically target the largest individuals in a population [75]–[76]. The 62% top predator biomass at Ducie is one of the largest recorded [23], [36], [77], which is particularly notable because it was not completely driven by a few large sharks, but rather by a large number of top predators including groupers and snappers.
The deep waters of the Pitcairn EEZ
We conducted the first survey of deep-sea life in the Pitcairn Islands EEZ (notwithstanding previous fishing surveys of the relatively shallow seamount '40 Mile Reef'). We identified 57 species of fishes in only 21 drop-cam deployments. Taking into account that the average size of the area filmed by the drop-cam is only 3 m2, the diversity of fish found on the deep habitats of the Pitcairn Islands is notable. By comparison, similar drop-cam deployments around Easter and Salas y Gomez islands, 2000 km further to the east along the Nazca Ridge, yielded only 26 fish species [53].
The abundance of groupers and sharks at depths between 100–300 m also indicates the intactness of these deep fish populations, especially at '40 Mile Reef', which harbors a high fish biomass and is one of the deepest well-developed coral reef communities currently known [78]. Seamounts worldwide are being trawled, depleted, and abandoned, and their recovery seems unlikely within our lifetime, or not at all, because many target species are long-lived, mature late, and have a small reproductive output [79]–[81]. The Pitcairn Islands seamounts appear to be relatively intact, and therefore have high global conservation value.
We found eight probable new species of reef fishes on our deep camera surveys, mostly between 100–300 m, which suggests that more extensive surveys will probably yield many more species new to science. Determining how many of these new species are endemic to the Pitcairn Islands or are regional endemics will require additional sampling and collections. In addition, the extreme water clarity allows marine plants at the Pitcairn Islands to live deeper than in any other reported location on earth. The previous depth record for benthic algae was CCA observed at 268 m in the Bahamas [82]. In summary, our findings clearly show the unique biodiversity in the deep habitats of the Pitcairn Islands EEZ and the need to explore these deeper habitats elsewhere.
Because of the nearly pristine and unique nature of most marine ecosystems of the Pitcairn Islands, its EEZ has a unique global value that is irreplaceable. There are only a handful of areas in the EEZs of the world that remain pristine, occupying probably less than 5% of the ocean [83]. These places allow us to envision what the ocean was like before heavy human impacts, to understand what we have lost in other places because of human impacts, and most importantly, to set proper conservation and management goals for our oceans [23]–[24].
Pitcairn islands and the surrounding EEZ are currently being considered for protection in what would be the largest marine reserve in the world, containing approximately 836,000 km2. In September 2012, the Pitcairn community unanimously agreed to support the creation of a marine reserve, and in January 2013 a joint proposal was submitted to the UK Government for consideration. If protection of this area proceeds, scientific research and monitoring will be established. This study, as the first to quantitatively assess the community structure of the organisms inhabiting the coral reefs on the Pitcairn islands, will provide a valuable baseline by which future changes in ecosystem components can be measured.
Table S1.
List of algal species observed during expedition to Pitcairn Island group. X = Previous documented and observed during our surveys. X = observed during our surveys but not previously documented. O = observed in previous surveys but not during our surveys.
List of coral species observed during expedition to Pitcairn Island group. X = Previous documented and observed during our surveys. X = observed during our surveys but not previously documented. O = observed in previous surveys but not during our surveys.
Sea urchin density (mean no. individuals m−2) and standard deviation (in parentheses) within each depth (m) stratum at each island. N = number of samples (sites).
Fish species list from Pitcairn Islands. Order is phylogenetic. X = Previous documented and observed during our surveys. X = observed during our surveys but not previously documented. O = observed in previous surveys (Irving et al. 1995, Randall 1999) but not observed during this survey.
Fishes observed in deep habitats of the Pitcairn islands, using National Geographic's Drop-Cams.
Invertebrates observed in deep habitats of the Pitcairn islands, using National Geographic's Drop-Cams.
We are grateful to the persons and institutions that supported or collaborated on this Pristine Seas expedition and made it successful: Spain's National Research Council, US Geological Survey, University of Hawaii, US National Park Service, University of California Santa Barbara, Nitrox Solutions, Poseidon Diving Systems, Mares, the Pew Environment Group, Nigel Jolly and the crew of the Claymore II. We are very grateful to the Pitcairners at large, who hosted us in their homes and showed to us the secrets of their island and ocean. Heartfelt thanks to the Pitcairn Island Council and the Government of the Pitcairn Islands for authorizing our stay and providing research permits.
Conceived and designed the experiments: AMF JEC EB EKB AT ES. Performed the experiments: AMF JEC EB EKB AT ES. Analyzed the data: AMF JEC EB EKB AT ES. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: AMF JEC EB EKB AT ES. Contributed to the writing of the manuscript: AMF JEC EB EKB AT ES.
1. Nordhoff CB, Hall JN (1936) The Bounty Trilogy: Mutiny on the Bounty, Men Against the Sea, and Pitcairn's Island. Boston: Little, Brown, & Company. 416 p.
2. Amoamo M (2013) (de)Constructing Place-Myth: Pitcairn Island and the "Bounty" Story. Tourism Geographies 15: 107–124.
3. Oldfield S, Sheppard C (1997) Conservation of biodiversity and research needs in the UK Dependent Territories. Journal of Applied Ecology 34: 1111–1121.
4. Hendry I, Dickson S (2011) British Overseas Territories Law. Oxford: Hart Publishing. 390 p.
5. Kingston N, Smyth N (2009) Pitcairn. In: Gillespie RG, Clague DA, editors. Encyclopedia of Islands. Berkeley: University of California Press. pp. 744–747.
6. Vlaams Instituut voor de Zee (Flanders Marine Institute) (2005) Maritime Boundaries Geodatabase. Available: http://www.vliz.be/vmdcdata/marbound. Accessed 2014 June 1.
7. Amoamo M (2011) Remoteness and Myth Making: Tourism Development on Pitcairn Island. Tourism Planning & Development 8: 1–19.
8. Government of Pitcairn (2013) Immigration policy. Pitcairn: GPI. Available: http://www.government.pn/policies/Immigration%20Policy%20approved%20March%202013.pdf. Accessed 2014 June 1.
9. Young RA (1894) Mutiny of the Bounty and story of Pitcairn Island, 1790–1894. University Press of the Pacific. 276 p.
10. Weisler MI (1995) Henderson Island prehistory: Colonization and extinction on a remote Polynesian island. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 56: 377–404.
11. Kirk RW (2008) Pitcairn Island, the Bounty Mutineers and Their Descendants. Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland & Company. 253 p.
12. Paulay G (1989) Marine invertebrates of the Pitcairn Islands: species composition and biogeography of corals, molluscs and echinoderms. Atoll Research Bulletin 326: 1–28.
13. Irving RA (1995) Near-shore bathymetry and reef biotopes of Henderson Island, Pitcairn Group. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 56: 309–324.
14. Preece RC (1995) The composition and relationships of the marine molluscan fauna of the Pitcairn Islands. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 56: 339–358.
15. Whatley R, Roberts R (1995) Marine Ostracoda from Pitcairn, Oeno and Henderson Islands. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 56: 359–364.
16. Whittaker JE, Hodgkinson RL (1995) The Foraminifera of the Pitcairn Islands. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 56: 365–371.
17. Randall JE (1999) Report on fish collections from the Pitcairn Islands. Atoll Research Bulletin 461: 1–53.
18. Irving RA, Dawson TP (2012) The marine environment of the Pitcairn Islands. A report to Global Ocean Legacy, a project of the Pew Environment Group. Dundee: Dundee University Press. 106 p.
19. Connolly SR, Bellwood DR, Hughes TP (2003) Indo-Pacific biodiversity of coral reefs: Deviations from a mid-domain model. Ecology 84: 2178–2190.
20. Bellwood DR, Hughes TP, Connolly SR, Tanner J (2005) Environmental and geometric constraints on Indo-Pacific coral reef biodiversity. Ecology Letters 8: 643–651.
21. Benton TG, Spencer T (1995) Biogeographic processes at the limits of the Indo-West Pacific Province. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 56: 243–244.
22. Irving R, Dawson T (2013) Coral Reefs of the Pitcairn Islands. In: Sheppard C, editor. Coral Reefs of the United Kingdom Overseas Territories. Netherlands: Springer Netherlands. pp. 299–318.
23. Knowlton N, Jackson J (2008) Shifting baselines, local impacts, and global change on coral reefs. PLoS Biology 6(2): e54.
24. Graham NAJ, McClanahan TR (2013) The last call for marine wilderness? Bioscience 63: 397–402.
25. Okal EA, Cazenave A (1985) A model for the plate tectonic evolution of the east-central Pacific based on SEASAT investigations. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 72: 99–116.
26. Woodhead JD, Devey CW (1993) Geochemistry of the Pitcairn seamounts, 1: source character and temporal trends. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 116: 81–99.
27. Spencer T (1995) The Pitcairn Islands, South Pacific: plate tectonic and climate contexts. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 56: 13–42.
28. Pandolfi JM (1995) Geomorphology of the uplifted pleistocene atoll at Henderson Island, Pitcairn Group. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 56: 63–77.
29. Brooke M de L (2010) Important Bird Areas: Henderson Island. British Birds 103: 428–444.
30. Nunn PD (2010) Pacific atolls: a world apart. In: Migon P, editor. Geomorphological Landscapes of the World. Netherlands: Springer Press. pp. 349–356.
31. Randall RE (2005) Reef and shore fishes of the South Pacific: New Caledonia to Tahiti and the Pitcairn Islands. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. 720 p.
32. Froese R, Pauly D (2012) FishBase. Available: www.fishbase.org. Accessed 2014 June 1.
33. Letourneur Y (1998) Length-weight relationship of some marine fish species in Reunion Island, New Caledonia. Naga ICLARM Q 21: 39–46.
34. Kulbicki M, Guillemot N, Amand M (2005) A general approach to length-weight relationships for New Caledonian lagoon fishes. Cybium 29: 235–252.
35. DeMartini E, Friedlander A, Sandin S, Sala E (2008) Differences in fish assemblage structure between fished and unfished atolls in the northern Line Islands, central Pacific. Marine Ecology Progress Series 365: 199–215.
36. Sandin S, Smith J, DeMartini E, Dinsdale E, Donner S, et al. (2008) Baselines and degradation of coral reefs in the northern Line Islands. PLoS ONE 3: e1548.
37. Green RH (1979) Sampling design and statistical methods for environmental biologists. New York, NY: Wiley Interscience. 257 p.
38. Clarke K, Gorley R (2006) PRIMER v6: User Manual/Tutorial. PRIMER-E, Plymouth.
39. Clarke K, Warwick R (2001) Change in marine communities: an approach to statistical analysis and interpretation. Second edition. Plymouth, UK: Primer-E Ltd. 177 p.
40. Ludwig JA, Reynolds JF (1988) Statistical Ecology. Hoboken, New York: John Wiley & Sons. 337 p.
41. Zar JH (1999) Biostatistical analysis, 4th edition. India: Pearson Education. 662 p.
42. ter Braak CJF, Šmilauer P (2002) CANOCO Reference Manual and CanoDraw for Windows User's Guide: Software for Canonical Community Ordination (version 4.5). Section on permutation methods. Ithaca New York: Microcomputer Power. 500 p.
43. ter Braak CJF (1994) Canonical community ordination. Part I: Basic theory and linear methods. Ecoscience 1: 127–140.
44. Tsuda RT (1976) Some marine benthic algae from Pitcairn Island. Revue Algologique (N S) 11: 325–331.
45. Mattio L, Payri CE, Stiger-Pouvreau V (2008) Taxonomic Revision of Sargassum (Fucales, Phaeophyceae) from French Polynesia based on morphological and molecular analyses. Journal of Phycology 44: 1541–1555.
46. Littler DS, Littler MM (2003) South Pacific Reef Plants. Washington, DC: Off Shore Graphic. 331 p.
47. Sivadas M, Anasu Koya A (2005) On the fishery and some aspects of the biology of dogtooth tuna, Gymnosarda unicolor (Ruppell) from Minicoy, Lakshadweep. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of India 47: 111–113.
48. Bellwood DR, Hughes TP (2001) Regional-scale assembly rules and biodiversity of coral reefs. Science 292: 1532–1535.
49. N'Yeurt ADR, Payri CE (2006) Marine algal flora of French Polynesia I. Phaeophyceae (Ochrophyta, brown algae). Cryptogamie Algologie 27: 111–152.
50. N'Yeurt ADR, Payri CE (2007) Marine algal flora of French Polynesia II. Chlorophyceae (green algae). Cryptogamie Algologie 28: 3–88.
51. N'Yeurt ADR, Payri CE (2010) Marine algal flora of French Polynesia III. Rhodophyta, with additions to the Phaeophyceae and Chlorophyta. Cryptogamie Algologie 31: 3–205.
52. Allender BM, Kraft GT (1983) The marine algae of Lord Howe Island (New South Wales): the Dictyotales and Cutleriales (Phaeophyta). Brunonia 6: 73–130.
53. Friedlander AM, Ballesteros E, Beets J, Berkenpas E, Gaymer CF, et al. (2013) Effects of isolation and fishing on the marine ecosystems of Easter Island and Salas y Gómez, Chile. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 23: 515–531.
54. Denis V, Mezaki T, Tanaka K, Chao-Yang K, De Palmas S, et al. (2013) Coverage, diversity, and functionality of a high-latitude coral community (Tatsukushi, Shikoku Island, Japan). PLoS ONE 8: 1–9.
55. Thomson DP, Frisch AJ (2010) Extraordinarily high coral cover on a nearshore, high-latitude reef in south-west Australia. Coral Reefs 29: 923–927.
56. Hughes TP, Graham NA, Jackson JB, Mumby PJ, Steneck RS (2010) Rising to the challenge of sustaining coral reef resilience. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 25: 633–642.
57. Rooney J, Donham E, Montgomery A, Spalding H, Parrish F, et al. (2010) Mesophotic coral ecosystems in the Hawaiian Archipelago. Coral Reefs 29: 361–367.
58. Kleypas JA, McManus JW (1999) Meñez (1999) Environmental limits to coral reef development: where do we draw the line?. American Zoologist 39: 146–159.
59. Carpenter KE, Abrar M, Aeby G, Aronson RB, Banks S, et al. (2008) One-third of reef-building corals face elevated extinction risk from climate change and local impacts. Science 321: 560–563.
60. Hoegh-Guldberg O, Bruno JF (2010) The impact of climate change on the world's marine ecosystems. Science 328: 1523–1528.
61. Stoddart DR (1992) Biogeography of the tropical Pacific. Pacific Science 46: 276–293.
62. McArthur RH, Wilson EO (1967) The theory of island biogeography. Monographs in Population Biology. Princeton University Press. 203 p.
63. Blake SG (1995) Late Quaternary history of Henderson Island, Pitcairn Group. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 56: 43–62.
64. Spencer T, Paulay G (1989) Geology and geomorphology of Henderson Island. Atoll Research Bulletin 323: 1–18.
65. Pichon M (1985) French Polynesian coral reefs, reef knowledge and field guides. Fauna and flora: Scleractinia. Proceedings of the 5th International Coral Reef Congress, Tahiti 1: 399–403.
66. Friedlander AM, Sandin SA, DeMartini EE, Sala E (2010) Habitat-specific characterization of the fish assemblage at a piscivore-dominated, pristine atoll in the central Pacific. Marine Ecology Progress Series 410: 219–231.
67. Behrenfeld MJ, O'Malley RT, Siegel DA, McClain CR, Sarmiento JL, et al. (2006) Climate-driven trends in contemporary ocean productivity. Nature 444: 752–755.
68. Polovina JJ, Howell EA, Abecassis M (2008) Ocean's least productive waters are expanding, Geophys. Res. Lett. 35: L03618
69. Jerlov NG (1976) Marine Optics. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 231 p.
70. Friedlander AM, DeMartini EE (2002) Contrasts in density, size, and biomass of reef fishes between the northwestern and the main Hawaiian islands: the effects of fishing down apex predators. Marine Ecology Progress Series 230: 253–264.
71. Newman MJH, Paredes GA, Sala E, Jackson JBC (2006) Structure of Caribbean coral reef communities across a large gradient of fish biomass. Ecology Letters 9: 1216–1227.
72. McClanahan TR, Graham NA, MacNeil MA, Muthiga NA, Cinner JE, et al. (2011) Critical thresholds and tangible targets for ecosystem-based management of coral reef fisheries. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108: 17230–17233.
73. Marten GG, Polovina JJ (1982) A comparative study of the fish yields from various tropical ecosystems. In: Pauly D, Murphy GI, editors. Theory and management of tropical fisheries. ICLARM Conference Proceedings 9. Cronulla, Australia: International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management, Manila, Philippines and Division of Fisheries Research, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. pp. 254–285.
74. Chassot E, Bonhommeau S, Dulvy NK, Melin F, Watson R, et al. (2010) Global marine primary production constrains fisheries catches. Ecology Letters 13: 495–505.
75. Jennings S, Kaiser MJ (1998) The effects of fishing on marine ecosystems. Advances in Marine Biology 34: 201–352.
76. Ault JS, Bohnsack JA, Meester GA (1998) A retrospective (1979–1996) multispecies assessment of coral reef fish stocks in the Florida Keys. Fishery Bulletin 96: 395–414.
77. Graham NAJ, Pratchett MS, McClanahan TR, Wilson SK (2013) The status of coral reef fish assemblages in the Chagos Archipelago, with implications for protected areas management and climate change. In: Sheppard CRC, editor. Coral reefs of the United Kingdom Overseas Territories, Coral Reefs of the World 4. Dordrecht: Springer Science+Business Media. pp. 253–270.
78. Kahng SE, Garcia-Sais JR, Spalding HL, Brokovich E, Wagner D, et al. (2010) Community ecology of mesophotic coral reef ecosystems. Coral Reefs 29: 255–275.
79. Thrush SF, Dayton PK (2002) Disturbance to marine benthic habitats by trawling and dredging: Implications for marine biodiversity. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 33: 449–473.
80. Devine JA, Baker KD, Haedrich RL (2006) Deep-sea fishes qualify as endangered. Nature 439: 29–29.
81. Althaus F, Williams A, Schlacher TA, Kloser RJ, Green MA, et al. (2009) Impacts of bottom trawling on deep-coral ecosystems of seamounts are long-lasting. Marine Ecology Progress Series 397: 279–294.
82. Littler MM, Littler DS, Blair SL, Norris JN (1985) Deepest known plant life discovered on an uncharted seamount. Science 227: 57–59.
83. Halpern BS, Walbridge S, Selkoe KA, Kappel CV, Micheli F, et al. (2008) A global map of human impact on marine ecosystems. Science 319: 948–952.
Is the Subject Area "Islands" applicable to this article?
Is the Subject Area "Coral reefs" applicable to this article?
Is the Subject Area "Marine fish" applicable to this article?
Is the Subject Area "Algae" applicable to this article?
Is the Subject Area "Corals" applicable to this article?
Is the Subject Area "Biomass" applicable to this article?
Is the Subject Area "Species diversity" applicable to this article?
Is the Subject Area "Community structure" applicable to this article?


text:
Victim Impact Statement
What is a Victim Impact Statement?
Under provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada and the Youth Criminal Justice Act, a Victim Impact Statement allows you to express in writing to a Judge how being a victim of crime has affected you and those close to you.
The purpose of the Victim Impact Statement is to describe how the crime has affected you emotionally and physically and the effect it has had on your life. If charges are laid, and if the accused person is found guilty, your Victim Impact Statement will be considered by the Judge during sentencing.
Who may prepare a Victim Impact Statement?
Anyone who is a victim of a crime may prepare a Victim Impact Statement. In a case where the victim has died or is not capable of preparing a Victim Impact Statement, the Victim Impact Statement may be prepared by a spouse or relative.
Do I have to prepare a Victim Impact Statement?
No. Your decision to prepare a Victim Impact Statement is a voluntary one. It provides you with an opportunity to participate in the criminal justice system by describing how the offence has affected you and those close to you.
Why should I prepare a Victim Impact Statement?
The Victim Impact Statement provides you with an opportunity to describe how you have been affected by the crime.
For the Court
If a charge is laid and the accused person is found guilty, your Victim Impact Statement will be considered by the Judge at the time of sentencing. Your Victim Impact Statement will help the Court understand how the crime has affected you emotionally and physically and the effect the crime had on your life.
How and when will my Victim Impact Statement be used?
After a finding of guilt, before sentencing
After a finding of guilt and before the offender is sentenced, your Victim Impact Statement will be provided to the Court. The Victim Impact Statement will be considered by the Judge at the time the offender is sentenced. The Judge, the Crown prosecutor, the defense lawyer and the offender will receive copies of your Victim Impact Statement. At the sentencing hearing, you may be cross-examined on the contents of your Victim Impact Statement.
Please note that sentencing can occur at any time
For example, if an accused person pleads guilty, sentencing could occur on short notice. In order for a Victim Impact Statement to be considered in these circumstances, it should be at the courthouse as soon as possible.
After sentencing
If the offender is sentenced to probation or jail, your Victim Impact Statement will be provided to provincial or federal correctional authorities and the National Parole Board. You may also be able to read your Victim Impact Statement at National Parole Board hearings. If you require further information, contact the National Parole Board toll-free at 1-888-616-5277.
If the accused person is found "not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder," your Victim Impact Statement will be provided to the Alberta Review Board. The Board may allow you to present your Victim Impact Statement in person. It can also take steps to protect your identity.
How do I prepare the Victim Impact Statement?
Victim Impact Statement forms are available from Police and Victim Service Units. The Victim Impact Statement is to be written in your own words and describe how you have been affected by the crime.
What is appropriate to include in a Victim Impact Statement?
How the crime has affected your mind
How the crime has affected your body
How the crime has affected you financially
Fears for your safety
You can draw a picture, write a poem or a letter to include in your statement if it helps you express the impact the crime has had on you
You can read your statement in the presence of a support person that you choose and have a picture with you that was taken before the crime.
What is NOT appropriate to include in a Victim Impact Statement?
Anything about the crime or the offender that isn't about how you were harmed
Anything that hasn't been proven in court
Anything about a crime where the offender wasn't found guilty
Anything about anyone who was part of the investigation or prosecution (police, court workers, lawyers)
You can't give your opinion about the sentence, unless asked to by the court
Any information you don't want the offender or the public to know
If your Victim Impact Statement contains any of the above, the Court may disregard it.
Click here to view the full Victim Impact Statement Tip Sheet
For more information visit the Government of Alberta Website
Community Impact Statement
A Community Impact Statement gives your community a chance to tell the court how it has been affected by a crime. Contact your local victim services unit if you have any questions about submitting your community impact statement.
Click here to view the full Community Impact Statement Tip Sheet
Restitution is a way for the offender to repay you if you have lost money, property or had extra expenses because of a crime. You have the right to have the court consider ordering restitution.
Click here to view the full Restitution Information Sheet
Inquiries about the Financial Benefits Program and requests for application forms may be addressed to:
Alberta Solicitor General & Public Security Victims Programs
10th Floor, J.E. Brownlee Building
10365 - 97 Street
Edmonton AB T5J 3W7
Toll-free through Service Alberta:
dial 310-0000 and then ask for the above number
What are financial benefits?
The Financial Benefits Program recognizes or acknowledges victims who were injured as a direct result of a violent crime in Alberta. It provides direct assistance with a one-time financial benefit based on the severity of the victim's injuries. The benefit amount is set in the regulation to the Act.
Are costs and losses paid?
No. The Financial Benefits Program does not pay compensation for costs or losses. For example, it does not cover property damage, medical expenses, loss of wages or pain and suffering. Victims may seek restitution or take civil action for the recovery of costs or losses from the offender. Information on these processes may be obtained by contacting your nearest victim services program or police service. Information is also available on the Alberta government web site for victims at www.victims.gov.ab.ca
The following are not eligible for benefits:
individuals who are charged and convicted of an offence as a result of the incident
secondary victims such as family members of the victim or witnesses to the crime
victims of motor vehicle or property offenses, such as impaired driving or break and entry
Note: Alberta Justice may provide assistance to injury victims of motor vehicle crimes. Information about this program is available through the Alberta government web site or by calling Motor Vehicle Accident Claims at 780-427-8255.
Application forms are available from the Financial Benefits Program, through local victim services programs associated with local police services or through the Government of Alberta web site. Although the form is available electronically through the web site, the program requires a paper application with original signatures to obtain the information necessary to verify the application.
In almost all cases, a completed application form is the only information you will need to submit. Financial Benefits Program staff will obtain any necessary police or medical records and reports to verify applications. All decisions on applications will be presented in writing.
Timelines vary with each file depending on the information received. To speed up the process the applicant should ensure that the forms are signed in both places and include detailed information such as police file number, hospitals attended and doctor office contact information.
Is there a review process?
The Criminal Injuries Review Board is an appointed board with the authority to conduct independent reviews of the financial benefits decisions. The decision letter provided to applicants includes information on the review process.
For more information you can visit the Government of Alberta website
Domestic Violence 101-Education and Support Group
Domestic violence can be defined as a pattern of behavior in any relationship that is used to gain or maintain power and control… Read More

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;
using System.Linq.Expressions;
using System.Threading.Tasks;
using CSC.BuildService.Model.CodeRunner;
using CSC.BuildService.Service.CodeRunner;
using CSC.CSClassroom.Model.Assignments;
using CSC.CSClassroom.Model.Assignments.ServiceResults;
using CSC.CSClassroom.Model.Assignments.ServiceResults.Errors;
using CSC.CSClassroom.Service.Assignments.QuestionGraders;
using CSC.CSClassroom.Service.UnitTests.TestDoubles;
using CSC.CSClassroom.Service.UnitTests.Utilities;
using Moq;
using Xunit;

namespace CSC.CSClassroom.Service.UnitTests.Assignments.QuestionGraders
{
	/// <summary>
	/// Unit tests for the ProgramQuestionGrader class.
	/// </summary>
	public class ProgramQuestionGrader_UnitTests
	{
		/// <summary>
		/// Verifies that the created class job has imported classes.
		/// </summary>
		[Fact]
		public async Task GradeSubmissionAsync_ClassJobHasImportedClasses()
		{
			var question = GetProgramQuestion();
			var classJobResult = GetClassJobResult(success: true);
			var submission = new CodeQuestionSubmission() { Contents = "Submission" };
			var codeRunnerService = GetCodeRunnerService
			(
				classJobResult,
				job => job.ClassesToImport.Count == 1
					&& job.ClassesToImport[0] == "package.classToImport"
			);

			var grader = new ProgramQuestionGrader(question, codeRunnerService);
			var result = await grader.GradeSubmissionAsync(submission);

			Assert.Equal(1.0, result.Score);
		}

		/// <summary>
		/// Verifies that the created class job has the correct class name.
		/// </summary>
		[Fact]
		public async Task GradeSubmissionAsync_ClassJobHasCorrectClassName()
		{
			var question = GetProgramQuestion();
			var classJobResult = GetClassJobResult(success: true);
			var submission = new CodeQuestionSubmission() { Contents = "Submission" };
			var codeRunnerService = GetCodeRunnerService
			(
				classJobResult,
				job => job.ClassName == "ExpectedProgram"
			);

			var grader = new ProgramQuestionGrader(question, codeRunnerService);
			var result = await grader.GradeSubmissionAsync(submission);

			Assert.Equal(1.0, result.Score);
		}

		/// <summary>
		/// Verifies that the created class job has the correct file contents.
		/// </summary>
		[Fact]
		public async Task GradeSubmissionAsync_ClassJobHasCorrectFileContents()
		{
			var question = GetProgramQuestion();
			var classJobResult = GetClassJobResult(success: true);
			var submission = new CodeQuestionSubmission() { Contents = "Submission %" };
			var codeRunnerService = GetCodeRunnerService
			(
				classJobResult,
				job => job.FileContents == "Submission %%"
			);

			var grader = new ProgramQuestionGrader(question, codeRunnerService);
			var result = await grader.GradeSubmissionAsync(submission);

			Assert.Equal(1.0, result.Score);
		}

		/// <summary>
		/// Verifies that the created class job has the correct line offset.
		/// </summary>
		[Fact]
		public async Task GradeSubmissionAsync_ClassJobHasCorrectLineOffset()
		{
			var question = GetProgramQuestion();
			var classJobResult = GetClassJobResult(success: true);
			var submission = new CodeQuestionSubmission() { Contents = "Submission" };
			var codeRunnerService = GetCodeRunnerService
			(
				classJobResult,
				job => job.LineNumberOffset == 0
			);

			var grader = new ProgramQuestionGrader(question, codeRunnerService);
			var result = await grader.GradeSubmissionAsync(submission);

			Assert.Equal(1.0, result.Score);
		}

		/// <summary>
		/// Verifies that the created class job has the desired tests.
		/// </summary>
		[Fact]
		public async Task GradeSubmissionAsync_ClassJobHasTests()
		{
			var question = GetProgramQuestion();
			var classJobResult = GetClassJobResult(success: true);
			var submission = new CodeQuestionSubmission() { Contents = "Submission %" };
			var codeRunnerService = GetCodeRunnerService
			(
				classJobResult,
				job => job.Tests.Count == 1
					&& job.Tests[0].TestName == "test1"
					&& job.Tests[0].MethodBody == "ExpectedProgram.main(new String[] {\"One\",\"Two\"});"
					&& job.Tests[0].ReturnType == "void"
			);

			var grader = new ProgramQuestionGrader(question, codeRunnerService);
			var result = await grader.GradeSubmissionAsync(submission);

			Assert.Equal(1.0, result.Score);
		}

		/// <summary>
		/// Verifies that an error is returned if the submission does not
		/// contain any classes.
		/// </summary>
		[Fact]
		public async Task GradeSubmissionAsync_MissingExpectedClass_Error()
		{
			var question = GetProgramQuestion();
			var submission = new CodeQuestionSubmission() { Contents = "Submission" };

			var classJobResult = GetClassJobResult(success: false);
			classJobResult.TestsCompilationResult = null;
			classJobResult.ClassDefinition = null;
			classJobResult.ClassCompilationResult = new CompilationResult()
			{
				Success = false,
				Errors = Collections.CreateList
				(
					new CompileError()
					{
						Message = "class ExpectedProgram should be declared in ExpectedProgram.java"
					}
				)
			};

			var codeRunnerService = GetCodeRunnerService(classJobResult);
			var grader = new ProgramQuestionGrader(question, codeRunnerService);
			var result = await grader.GradeSubmissionAsync(submission);
			var codeQuestionResult = (CodeQuestionResult)result.Result;
			var missingRequiredClassError = codeQuestionResult.Errors
				.Cast<MissingRequiredClassError>()
				.Single();

			Assert.Equal(0.0, result.Score);
			Assert.Equal("ExpectedProgram", missingRequiredClassError.RequiredClassName);
		}

		/// <summary>
		/// Verifies that an error is returned if the submission does not
		/// contain a main method.
		/// </summary>
		[Fact]
		public async Task GradeSubmissionAsync_MainMethodMissing_Error()
		{
			var question = GetProgramQuestion();
			var submission = new CodeQuestionSubmission() { Contents = "Submission" };

			var classJobResult = GetClassJobResult(success: false);
			classJobResult.ClassDefinition.Methods.Clear();

			var codeRunnerService = GetCodeRunnerService(classJobResult);
			var grader = new ProgramQuestionGrader(question, codeRunnerService);
			var result = await grader.GradeSubmissionAsync(submission);
			var codeQuestionResult = (CodeQuestionResult)result.Result;
			var mainMethodMissingError = codeQuestionResult.Errors
				.Cast<MainMethodMissingError>()
				.Single();

			Assert.Equal(0.0, result.Score);
			Assert.Equal("ExpectedProgram", mainMethodMissingError.ClassName);
		}

		/// <summary>
		/// Verifies that an error is returned if the submission contains
		/// a non-public main method.
		/// </summary>
		[Fact]
		public async Task GradeSubmissionAsync_NonPublicMainMethod_Error()
		{
			var question = GetProgramQuestion();
			var submission = new CodeQuestionSubmission() { Contents = "Submission" };

			var classJobResult = GetClassJobResult(success: false);
			classJobResult.ClassDefinition.Methods[0].IsPublic = false;

			var codeRunnerService = GetCodeRunnerService(classJobResult);
			var grader = new ProgramQuestionGrader(question, codeRunnerService);
			var result = await grader.GradeSubmissionAsync(submission);
			var codeQuestionResult = (CodeQuestionResult)result.Result;
			var mainMethodMissingError = codeQuestionResult.Errors
				 .Cast<MainMethodMissingError>()
				 .Single();

			Assert.Equal(0.0, result.Score);
			Assert.Equal("ExpectedProgram", mainMethodMissingError.ClassName);
		}

		/// <summary>
		/// Verifies that an error is returned if the submission contains
		/// a non-static main method.
		/// </summary>
		[Fact]
		public async Task GradeSubmissionAsync_UnexpectedStaticMethod_Error()
		{
			var question = GetProgramQuestion();
			var submission = new CodeQuestionSubmission() { Contents = "Submission" };

			var classJobResult = GetClassJobResult(success: false);
			classJobResult.ClassDefinition.Methods[0].IsStatic = false;

			var codeRunnerService = GetCodeRunnerService(classJobResult);
			var grader = new ProgramQuestionGrader(question, codeRunnerService);
			var result = await grader.GradeSubmissionAsync(submission);
			var codeQuestionResult = (CodeQuestionResult)result.Result;
			var mainMethodMissingError = codeQuestionResult.Errors
				 .Cast<MainMethodMissingError>()
				 .Single();

			Assert.Equal(0.0, result.Score);
			Assert.Equal("ExpectedProgram", mainMethodMissingError.ClassName);
		}

		/// <summary>
		/// Verifies that an error is returned if the submission contains
		/// a main method with a non-void return type.
		/// </summary>
		[Fact]
		public async Task GradeSubmissionAsync_NonVoidMainMethod_Error()
		{
			var question = GetProgramQuestion();
			var submission = new CodeQuestionSubmission() { Contents = "Submission" };

			var classJobResult = GetClassJobResult(success: false);
			classJobResult.ClassDefinition.Methods[0].ReturnType = "boolean";

			var codeRunnerService = GetCodeRunnerService(classJobResult);
			var grader = new ProgramQuestionGrader(question, codeRunnerService);
			var result = await grader.GradeSubmissionAsync(submission);
			var codeQuestionResult = (CodeQuestionResult)result.Result;
			var mainMethodMissingError = codeQuestionResult.Errors
				 .Cast<MainMethodMissingError>()
				 .Single();

			Assert.Equal(0.0, result.Score);
			Assert.Equal("ExpectedProgram", mainMethodMissingError.ClassName);
		}

		/// <summary>
		/// Verifies that an error is returned if the submission contains
		/// a main method with invalid parameter types.
		/// </summary>
		[Fact]
		public async Task GradeSubmissionAsync_WrongMainMethodParameterTypes_Error()
		{
			var question = GetProgramQuestion();
			var submission = new CodeQuestionSubmission() { Contents = "Submission" };

			var classJobResult = GetClassJobResult(success: false);
			classJobResult.ClassDefinition.Methods[0].ParameterTypes[0] = "double";

			var codeRunnerService = GetCodeRunnerService(classJobResult);
			var grader = new ProgramQuestionGrader(question, codeRunnerService);
			var result = await grader.GradeSubmissionAsync(submission);
			var codeQuestionResult = (CodeQuestionResult)result.Result;
			var mainMethodMissingError = codeQuestionResult.Errors
				 .Cast<MainMethodMissingError>()
				 .Single();

			Assert.Equal(0.0, result.Score);
			Assert.Equal("ExpectedProgram", mainMethodMissingError.ClassName);
		}

		/// <summary>
		/// Verifies that a valid test description is returned when there
		/// are no definition errors.
		/// </summary>
		[Fact]
		public async Task GradeSubmissionAsync_CorrectSubmission_ValidTestDescription()
		{
			var question = GetProgramQuestion();
			var classJobResult = GetClassJobResult(success: true);
			var submission = new CodeQuestionSubmission() { Contents = "Submission" };
			var codeRunnerService = GetCodeRunnerService(classJobResult);

			var grader = new ProgramQuestionGrader(question, codeRunnerService);
			var result = await grader.GradeSubmissionAsync(submission);
			var codeQuestionResult = (CodeQuestionResult)result.Result;
			var testResult = codeQuestionResult.TestResults.Single();

			Assert.Equal(1.0, result.Score);
			Assert.Empty(codeQuestionResult.Errors);
			Assert.Equal("Description", testResult.Description);
		}

		/// <summary>
		/// Returns a new program question.
		/// </summary>
		public ProgramQuestion GetProgramQuestion()
		{
			return new ProgramQuestion()
			{
				ProgramClassName = "ExpectedProgram",

				ImportedClasses = Collections.CreateList
				(
					new ImportedClass() { ClassName = "package.classToImport" }
				),

				Tests = Collections.CreateList
				(
					new ProgramQuestionTest()
					{
						Name = $"test1",
						TestDescription = "Description",
						Order = 1,
						CommandLineArguments = "One Two",
						ExpectedOutput = "expectedOutput"
					}
				)
			};
		}

		/// <summary>
		/// Returns a successful class job result.
		/// </summary>
		public ClassJobResult GetClassJobResult(bool success)
		{
			return new ClassJobResult()
			{
				Status = CodeJobStatus.Completed,

				ClassCompilationResult = new CompilationResult() { Success = true },

				ClassDefinition = new ClassDefinition()
				{
					Name = "ExpectedProgram",
					Fields = new List<FieldDefinition>(),
					Methods = Collections.CreateList
					(
						new MethodDefinition()
						{
							Name = "main",
							IsPublic = true,
							IsStatic = true,
							ParameterTypes = Collections.CreateList("String[]"),
							ReturnType = "void"
						}
					)
				},

				TestsCompilationResult = success
					? new CompilationResult() { Success = true }
					: new CompilationResult()
						{
							Success = false,
							Errors = Collections.CreateList
							(
								new CompileError()
								{
									FullError = "Test compilation failure"
								}
							)
						},

				TestResults = success
					? Collections.CreateList
						(
							new CodeTestResult()
							{
								Name = "test1",
								Completed = true,
								Output = "expectedOutput"
							}
						)
					: null
			};
		}

		/// <summary>
		/// Returns a code runner service that responds with the
		/// given result, when called with the given job.
		/// </summary>
		public ICodeRunnerService GetCodeRunnerService(
			ClassJobResult expectedClassJobResult,
			Expression<Func<ClassJob, bool>> expectedClassJob = null)
		{
			if (expectedClassJob == null)
			{
				expectedClassJob = job => true;
			}

			var codeRunnerService = new Mock<ICodeRunnerService>();

			codeRunnerService
				.Setup(crs => crs.ExecuteClassJobAsync(It.Is(expectedClassJob)))
				.ReturnsAsync(expectedClassJobResult);

			return codeRunnerService.Object;
		}
	}
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


In I Know Who You Are and I Saw What You Did: Social Networks and the Death of Privacy, Lori Andrews explains to what extent our virtual selves are being monitored online and how the information gathered is being used. Andrew states that many of us do not know the impact of social networks on our lives, and just how much of the information that we share with others online (even in closed online communities or websites with privacy agreements) is used to collect demographic information about people. This information is usually called behavioral advertisement, and is sold to businesses who then target you with specific advertisements based on the demographic information that is gathered about you from social networks, websites you have visited, books you have bought online, words or sentences that you have searched for using search engines and so much more.
Andrews states that even though social networks and websites have the ability to expand our knowledge about certain topics, create close knit and valuable online communities, support groups and organizations, and rapidly share worldwide news, the negative aspects at times outweigh the positive aspects. Most websites, online communities and social network sites that we think are safe, secure and private are usually not. The notion that personal information is gathered about people, and sold and bought without consent therefore undermines the positive implications of sharing. Andrews also believes that many of the actions we take online can damage our reputations, and the perception others have of us. Therefore, to make her case in the book, Andrews gathered plenty of real life cases where sharing information with others on social network sites and the consequences of data aggregation and personal information collection impacted people in very negative ways.
As social networks, websites and blogs are fairly new inventions, and since they remain more obscure and less tangible than "real life" events, the laws and regulations concerning social networks and online sharing are vague or in many cases nonexistent. Laws that help protect people from having their property illegally searched, or their phone line tapped do not apply to online usage in the same way. Often information that has been shared online (on social networking sites such as Facebook) even if it is with friends only becomes public in cases concerning the criminal justice system. For example, Andrews explains how pictures of scantily clad women, of people drinking, or of written statements that put people in a less positive light have been used in custody battles to undermine a person's parental skills, judgment or character. People have been fired from their jobs, suspended from school or been denied admission to colleges based on the online information gathered about them. Andrews states that such information should be deemed private, and should not be used to discredit a person unless there is a chance of harm (emotional, physical, mental).
Andrews therefore proposes a social networks constitution that would protect online users. This constitution is similar to constitutions of nations and clearly spells out the rights of online users. The social networks constitution can help protect people and set guidelines for users, data aggregators and for the criminal justice system. The constitutional points are: The right to connect, the right to free speech and freedom of expression, the right to privacy, the right to privacy of thoughts, emotions and sentiment, the right to control ones image, the right to a fair trial, the right to an untainted jury, the right to due process of law, freedom from discrimination and freedom of association.
Since Facebook is one of the most popular social networks (with over 750 million users), Andrews focus much attention on Facebook, especially the terms of privacy and how Facebook constantly modifies their terms of agreements and privacy settings to allow greater access for data aggregators. At the same time, some of the other online companies, networks or business that Andrews mention are not as well known. Therefore, it would be advantageous if Andrews gave more background information about these businesses so that the reader becomes more familiar with their work. At the same time, Andrews does a good job explaining and discussing the online language and the tools used to access information about users, such as data aggregation, weblining, web beacons, flash cookies, deep packet inspections and data scrapers that many people may not be familiar with in the online world or may know little or nothing about.
Even though the technical language is at times difficult, Andrews manages to write a book that is very accessible to the general public, who is also the target audience. Since a high percentage of Americans use the Internet and social networking sites the books is of use to anyone interested in maintaining privacy online, and who is interested in how data aggregators collect and sell your personal information. The book is however not only aimed at an American audience, as Andrews gives plenty of examples of European use and restrictions of online sharing. Since most European nations already have established laws concerning the collection of online information, European laws can be considered valuable examples of changes that can be made to protect people's privacy online.
Andrews also engage in an important an ongoing discussion of whether or not the information on social networks and websites is considered public or private. This distinction is important to make when using information gathered online in legal cases, when determining the right of data aggregators to collect information without expressed consent, and in cases where people do not know that their personal information is being gathered. Andrews makes a compelling case for such information being private, even though there are many who do believe the same information should be public. This discussion is unlikely to be resolved very soon as selling personal information has proven very profitable, but it is a discussion that is important to have.


I remember the first parenting course I ever took – and there have been a fair few since – in which the instructor began by asking us parents to name qualities we would like to encourage in our children as they grew.
Whereas the previous suggestions had garnered head nods and murmurs of approval, now instead there was puzzled silence.
Why would you want your kid to feel insignificant?
Why would you want them to be WEAK???
But you see, that wasn't what I meant at all.
Now, I don't know a single little kid who believes himself to be less important than anyone else. I should qualify that; every single 'normal' kid (i.e., from a loving, nurturing home) naturally thinks the whole world revolves around him. And that's the way it should be. Kids should understand their precious, unique, adored status in our lives – they should grow up with an innate sense of their worthiness of our love, respect, and care.
But that sense of entitlement to everyone's attention and adoration, and that 'me first' mentality that we are all born with? That's actually selfishness. And it's only in teaching our kids humility that they are able to put those attitudes in perspective and learn to put the needs and comfort of others ahead of their own.
So there was a subtle message about the undesirability of attempting greatness, which acted as a subconscious influence in my early childhood. And it was perhaps this attitude that led me to declare (whenever interrogated with that question asked so often of young children, "What do you want to be when you grow up?"), "I don't know what I want to be, but I know what I DON'T want to be, and that is famous. Because famous people get assassinated." Yes, I was a barrel of chuckles as a kid.
Aside from my well-exercised laziness and a general inability in the athletic arena, I consider my mother's admonition to blame for my failure to become an Olympian.
Nevertheless, remembering my place in the grand scheme of things did have its uses. I learned that praise given by others is far more satisfying than a self-induced pat on the back. I learned that it's far more fulfilling to champion those around me than to focus on all my small failures that hold might me back from 'achieving.' I learned that there is great joy to be had in diversifying my interests, rather than concentrating on one thing at the exclusion of all else: the old descriptor, 'Jack of all trades, master of none,' seems to me a recipe for a happy and balanced life.
Writing and editing are what I DO when I'm not wiping noses and bottoms and yelling at my kids and ignoring the housework – and yet MS Word regularly gives me a run for my money. Any time there's a new version or anything else out of the ordinary, I founder for days or weeks (or give up entirely and get Westley to figure it out) before it becomes functional to me again.
Automatic flush toilets, soap dispensers, faucets, pedestrian signals and other electronic devices frequently fail to acknowledge my presence. How a toilet sensor could neglect to register a derrière the size of mine is in the realm of leprechauns in terms of its unbelievability, but there you have it. Also, if I had a penny for every time I'd washed and rinsed my hands in a public restroom and then been spat on belatedly by a soap dispenser determined to undermine my sense of importance (this usually after having to hop from faucet to faucet to try to find one that will turn on for me to rinse off the suds from the first soap-dump)… And it's possible that I'm reading too much into this, but it has happened fairly often that I have been walking under a street lamp in the dusk/dark and it has extinguished itself exactly in the moment that I have stepped out of the shadows and into its illumination.
In addition to my recurring troubles with Word, West has had to intervene in another area of my computer use: he had to turn off the scroll function on my mouse-pad because I kept accidentally highlighting and deleting stuff (which somehow I have still managed to do while writing this post. So. Many. Times). That 'back' button is my hero.
I probably don't need to even mention this one, because it's probably most obvious to anyone reading this blog, but I have not yet managed to get the hang of changing fonts, or figuring out other aesthetic niceties of blog-design (even though I know that WordPress has some great tutorials). I also managed to miss publishing a recent post on time (when I had scheduled it to appear) because somehow I had saved it as a 'Draft' and so had not released it for public viewing… I didn't even know it was possible for that to happen, so it took me a while to figure out why I had zero views on my post some hours later.
On three separate occasions I have been out with the boys and other relatives on special outings and taken a good hundred digital photos before realizing that the camera was on the wrong setting and all those perfect shots were pretty much whitewashed. (In fact, you could say that my ineptitude at digital photography was over-exposed! *Ba-DOOM-Boom-CH!*) Worse yet? The second time I did it the very next day after the first time I ruined the photos this way.
When we lived in Auckland, we drove a minivan imported from Japan. It contained a navigation system but the maps were calibrated for the Land of the Rising Sun, so we always appeared to be driving somewhere in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. But more alarming than that was the propensity this device had to randomly and frantically jabber out a warning to us in the sternest Japanese. Our inability to turn this thing off (and its jarring effect on our nerves) was both mortifying and humbling.
All these 'technological advances' do nothing to advance my sense of self-importance.
In addition to this repeat program of humiliation-by-machine, I do also try to bear in mind that it is only by the grace of God that I am living in an era in which (Darwin Awards aside) my survival does not depend on my natural ability to see well and run fast (neither of which are attributes to which I can truthfully lay claim).
But, of course, on a more serious note, there is a great strength in learning the quality of humility.
It is in recognizing my insignificance in the expanse of time and history that the wonder of God's love becomes most significant. I, being practically nothing, am somehow worthy of His attention.
So this is the strange truth of humility: we are impermanent; fragile; mercurial; and unreliable in this life – in short, we are human – and yet, to Him we are everything.
Humble Pie never tasted so sweet.


I'd had the Point Reyes lighthouse on our Bay Area Bucketlist for some time now, but I never knew the town and surrounding areas would be so cute too!!
We went on a Saturday afternoon with the Fabrizio's, and the drive was longer and windier than we all thought. We stopped at In N Out on our way, because when you see one close you just have to take advantage!
On our drive to the lighthouse we saw the Point Reyes shipwrecked boat I had read so many things about. The water had built up some muddy area that MarLeice and I didn't dare jump over, but of course the boys did.
Once we finally made it to the lighthouse we still had to walk a while, and THEN take the 300 steps down (yep, they're all numbered). Funny thing... we heard a couple people saying, "Wow! It's so crazy how much harder it is on the way up".... you think?? It was a pretty, and windy view, and it was cool to be able to go inside the lighthouse too!
I have always had a fascination with ranch animals, especially with cows! I definitely made us stop to take pictures of those cute little guys! I couldn't get over how bright white the babies were!!
Really wanted to milk these poor engorged mamas!
At one point I started running towards this cow not thinking...just wanting to get a good pic, and Tanner had to yell at me (nicely of course) to be careful and not get charged at haha!
On our drive up we saw this awesome Buddha mural that people were standing in front of. Tanner promised me we could stop on the way back and he always keeps his promises!
It was a very fun and exciting day exploring with friends!


Durack College is centrally located in Ascot and prides itself on scholarship, community and opportunity. Our residents attend all the major universities across Brisbane and they enjoy being part of our welcoming and inclusive community. Many also are able to work in a variety of roles at St Margaret's AG School to support their studies.
Visit us now and finalise your tertiary accommodation in preparation for university next year. College Director Kelly Alford is looking forward to meeting with you and answering any questions that you may have.
Applications for 2019 are now open with limited places remaining.


12 in. x 5-1/2 in.
9 in. x 4-1/2 in.
7 in. x 3-1/2 in.
5 in. x 2-1/2 in.
Attractive, sturdy, and easy to use. Simply peel and stick for professional-looking signs and displays. A great way to temporarily display photographs. Single wing.


text:
Human Desire is a 1919 American silent romantic drama film starring Anita Stewart who produced along with Louis B. Mayer. It was distributed by Associated First National.

A copy of Human Desire is preserved in the Library of Congress and the Academy Film Archive.

Plot
As described in a film magazine, the orphan Bernice (Stewart) is raised almost to womanhood by the good sisters in an Italian convent. Worshiping a picture of the Madonna and Child, she is seized by a great desire to have a child she can call her own. Running away to America, where she has been told babies are plentiful, she is taken in by Robert Bruce, an artist whose wife has refused to divorce him, and poses for his projected masterpiece, a Madonna. Bernice falls in love with the baby borrowed for this posing and is filled with sorrow when the child is taken away. Robert, who has become sincerely but honorably in love with the girl, adopts a baby for her. His wife meets Bernice and the baby, believes the worst, and insults her. Bernice takes the child and leaves the house, becoming lost in the city and finally finding refuge in a hospital where the child dies. Robert learns from his wife the reason for Bernice's departure, locates the girl, and, after divorcing his wife, marries her.

Cast
Anita Stewart as Bernice
Conway Tearle as Robert Bruce
Bob Steele as Jasper Norton
Eulalie Jensen as Helen
Naomi Childers as Marguerite Hunt
Templar Saxe as Paul Stapleton
Hattie Delaro as Miss March

References

External links

DVD Human Desire(Alpha Video)

1919 films
American silent feature films
Films based on American novels
First National Pictures films
American black-and-white films
American romantic drama films
1919 romantic drama films
Films directed by Wilfrid North
1910s American films
Silent romantic drama films
Silent American drama films

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia