There is, I think, something ethereal about i —the square root of minus one. I remember first hearing about it at school. It seemed an odd beast at that time—an intruder hovering on the edge of reality.

Usually familiarity dulls this sense of the bizarre, but in the case of i it was the reverse: over the years the sense of its surreal nature intensified. It seemed that it was impossible to write mathematics that described the real world in …

I and i

Preface to the Princeton Landmarks in Biology Edition vii Preface xi Symbols Used xiii 1. The Importance of Islands 3 2. Area and Number of Speicies 8 3. Further Explanations of the Area-Diversity Pattern 19 4. The Strategy of Colonization 68 5. Invasibility and the Variable Niche 94 6. Stepping Stones and Biotic Exchange 123 7. Evolutionary Changes Following Colonization 145 8. Prospect 181 Glossary 185 References 193 Index 201

The Theory of Island Biogeography

http://netedu.xauat.edu.cn/jpkc/netedu/jpkc2009/szylyybh/content/wlzy/1/Review%20of%20Arsenic%20in%20natural%20water%20-%20Smedly.pdf

A review of the source, behaviour and distribution of arsenic in natural waters

The influence of diet on the distribution of nitrogen isotopes in animals was investigated by analyzing animals grown in the laboratory on diets of constant nitrogen isotopic composition. 
The isotopic composition of the nitrogen in an animal reflects the nitrogen isotopic composition of its diet. The δ^(15)N values of the whole bodies of animals are usually more positive than those of their diets. Different individuals of a species raised on the same diet can have significantly different δ^(15)N values. The variability of the relationship between the δ^(15)N values of animals and their diets is greater for different species raised on the same diet than for the same species raised on different diets. Different tissues of mice are also enriched in ^(15)N relative to the diet, with the difference between the δ^(15)N values of a tissue and the diet depending on both the kind of tissue and the diet involved. The δ^(15)N values of collagen and chitin, biochemical components that are often preserved in fossil animal remains, are also related to the δ^(15)N value of the diet. 
The dependence of the δ^(15)N values of whole animals and their tissues and biochemical components on the δ^(15)N value of diet indicates that the isotopic composition of animal nitrogen can be used to obtain information about an animal's diet if its potential food sources had different δ^(15)N values. The nitrogen isotopic method of dietary analysis probably can be used to estimate the relative use of legumes vs non-legumes or of aquatic vs terrestrial organisms as food sources for extant and fossil animals. However, the method probably will not be applicable in those modern ecosystems in which the use of chemical fertilizers has influenced the distribution of nitrogen isotopes in food sources. 
The isotopic method of dietary analysis was used to reconstruct changes in the diet of the human population that occupied the Tehuacan Valley of Mexico over a 7000 yr span. Variations in the δ^(15)C and δ^(15)N values of bone collagen suggest that C_4 and/or CAM plants (presumably mostly corn) and legumes (presumably mostly beans) were introduced into the diet much earlier than suggested by conventional archaeological analysis.

Influence of Diet On the Distribtion of Nitrogen Isotopes in Animals

Microplastics in freshwater systems: A review of the emerging threats, identification of knowledge gaps and prioritisation of research needs

Biotransference and biomagnification of selenium copper, cadmium, zinc, arsenic and lead in a temperate seagrass ecosystem from Lake Macquarie Estuary, NSW, Australia

Invertebrate biomarkers: links to toxicosis that predict population decline

.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 5 Introduction .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 7 Background and Need for Workshop  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .7 Workshop Purpose and Goals  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 8 Participation and Format  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 8 Workgroup Findings  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 9 Workgroup 1  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 9 Problem formulation: Context for selenium risk assessment  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 9 Selenium is a global problem  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 10 Case studies  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 10 Conceptual model  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 10 How to investigate a potential selenium problem  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 13 Recommendations  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 13 Workgroup 2  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 13 Environmental partitioning  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 13 Workgroup 3  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 19 Bioaccumulation and trophic transfer .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 19 Workgroup 4  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 21 Selenium toxicity to aquatic organisms .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 21 Workgroup 5  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 26 Risk characterization  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 26 Importance of problem formulation  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 26 Risk characterization: Unique challenges concerning selenium  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 26 Risk management .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 28 Uncertainties  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 29 Overall Workshop Summary  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 29 Appendix: SETAC Pellston Workshop Participants .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 32 List of Figures Figure 1 Conceptual model depicting Se dynamics and transfer in aquatic ecosystems  . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 Figure 2 Hierarchy of effects across levels of biological organization  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 Figure 3 Potential sources of Se to aquatic systems  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 Figure 4 Selenium species associated with major processes in aquatic systems  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 Figure 5 Partitioning of Se among environmental compartments in a typical aquatic system. . . .16 Figure 6 Selenium enrichment and trophic transfer in aquatic food webs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19 Figure 7 Selenium accumulation in different species of algae, invertebrates, and fish  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 Figure 8 Conceptual pathway of Se transfer in aquatic ecosystems and relative certainty with which Se concentrations in environmental compartments can be assessed in making accurate characterizations of risk  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28 List of Tables Table 1 Assessment endpoints and measures of exposure and effect for aquatic and aquaticlinked organisms  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 Table 2 Uncertainties and recommendations for future research pertaining to toxicity of Se species  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 Ecological Assessment of Selenium in the Aquatic Environment 4

/pdf/ecological-assessment-of-selenium-in-the-aquatic-environment-2qqkp3331t.pdf

Ecological Assessment of Selenium in the Aquatic Environment

/pdf/handbook-for-sediment-quality-assessment-35ygj1k3co.pdf

Handbook for sediment quality assessment

The toxicity of As(V) and As(III) to two axenic tropical freshwater microalgae, Chlorella sp. and Monoraphidium arcuatum, was determined using 72-h growth rate-inhibition bioassays. Both organisms were tolerant to As(III) (72-h concentration to cause 50% inhibition of growth rate [IC50], of 25 and 15 mg As[III]/L, respectively). Chlorella sp. also was tolerant to As(V) with no effect on growth rate over 72 h at concentrations up to 0.8 mg/L (72-h IC50 of 25 mg As[V]/L). Monoraphidium arcuatum was more sensitive to As(V) (72-h IC50 of 0.25 mg As[V]/L). An increase in phosphate in the growth medium (0.15-1.5 mg PO4(3-)/L) decreased toxicity, i.e., the 72-h IC50 value for M. arcuatum increased from 0.25 mg As(V)/L to 4.5 mg As(V)/L, while extracellular As and intracellular As decreased, indicating competition between arsenate and phosphate for cellular uptake. Both microalgae reduced As(V) to As(III) in the cell, with further biological transformation to methylated species (monomethyl arsonic acid and dimethyl arsinic acid) and phosphate arsenoriboside. Less than 0.01% of added As(V) was incorporated into algal cells, suggesting that bioaccumulation and subsequent methylation was not the primary mode of detoxification. When exposed to As(V), both species reduced As(V) to As(III); however, only M. arcuatum excreted As(III) into solution. Intracellular arsenic reduction may be coupled to thiol oxidation in both species. Arsenic toxicity most likely was due to arsenite accumulation in the cell, when the ability to excrete and/or methylate arsenite was overwhelmed at high arsenic concentrations. Arsenite may bind to intracellular thiols, such as glutathione, potentially disrupting the ratio of reduced to oxidized glutathione and, consequently, inhibiting cell division.

/pdf/toxicity-biotransformation-and-mode-of-action-of-arsenic-in-8nauyv3hyb.pdf

William A. Maher

Papers

Biotransference and biomagnification of selenium copper, cadmium, zinc, arsenic and lead in a temperate seagrass ecosystem from Lake Macquarie Estuary, NSW, Australia

Invertebrate biomarkers: links to toxicosis that predict population decline

Ecological Assessment of Selenium in the Aquatic Environment

Handbook for sediment quality assessment

Toxicity, biotransformation, and mode of action of arsenic in two freshwater microalgae (Chlorella sp. and Monoraphidium arcuatum)