Search results

The Denizli Basin in the West Anatolian Extensional Province in western Turkey is known for its numerous Quaternary travertine occurrences. Travertine morphology is often dependant on the relative position of the deposition with respect to basin-bounding faults. The travertine occurrences examined in this study are situated at the intersection of the locally E–W oriented Denizli Basin and the adjacent NE–SW oriented Baklan Graben in the NE. Based on an extensive field campaign, including LIDAR scanning, several high-resolution fault/fracture maps of five large quarries (> 300 m in length and > 60 m in height) are constructed in which this world-class travertine deposit is currently excavated. A structural analysis is performed in order to determine the tectonic overprinting of the travertine body and to derive the stress states of the basin after travertine deposition. The mostly open, non-stratabound joints are several tens of metres long and often bifurcate creating a dense fracture network. Minor infill of the joints resulted in the presence of a few colour-banded calcite veins. Based on the E–W, NE–SW and NW–SE orientation of three dominant joint sets it is concluded that the joint network is caused by local N-S extension, alternated by NW–SE and NE–SW extension exemplifying the presence of stress permutations in the Quaternary. High angle E–W to WNW–ESE faults cross-cut the quarries. Faults are filled with travertine debris and clastic infill of above lying sedimentary units indicative of the open nature of the faults. The specific E–W fault orientation in the locally E–W trending Denizli Basin indicates that they initiated as normal faults. A paleostress inversion analysis performed on kinematic indicators such as striations on the clayey fault infill and the sinistral displacement of paleosols shows that some of the normal faults were reactivated causing left-lateral deformation in a transient strike–slip stress field with a NE–SW oriented σ1.

Synthesis of species distributions and hotspots of endangerment is critical for setting conservation priorities to address the acute worldwide biodiversity crisis (Feeley and Silman 2011). Such a synthesis requires enormous efforts to access and unite widely dispersed biodiversity data and to establish open data archiving as a standard scientific practice. The essential first steps in this endeavor are locating primary biodiversity data—where, when, how, and by whom species have been observed or collected—and mak- ing this basic data available to the scientific community. Here, we report on a coordinated initiative of freshwater journals to stimulate a culture of publishing primary biodiversity data. Although freshwaters are tiny in their extent, they harbor a very large fraction of the global species richness, and they have experienced alarming rates of biodiversity decline (Dudgeon et al. 2006). However, freshwater biodiversity is generally neglected or grossly underrepresented in data- mobilization efforts. The importance of broad biodiversity compilations, however, has been increasingly recognized, especially in light of the establishment of the Intergovernmental Science–Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services and the Group on Earth Observations’ Biodiversity Observation Network, and standards and tools have already been put in place to manage large sets of primary biodiversity data. In particular, the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF; www.gbif.org) collates and centralizes biodiversity information through its participant nodes, which include large topical initiatives such as the Ocean Biogeographic Information System (Costello and Vanden Berghe 2006) and the distributed database network for vertebrates, VertNet (Constable et al. 2010). BioFresh (www.freshwaterbiodiversity.eu), a European Union–funded project, serves the same purpose for the freshwater realm. Recent calls for data archiving in ecology (Whitlock 2011), together with the increasingly common requirement by funding agencies to deposit research data, will be instrumental in making primary biodiversity data available. There is no doubt, however, that scientific journals can and should also play a key role in promoting data-sharing policies (Huang and Qiao 2011). Consequently, we developed the following statement in collaboration with freshwater journal editors to strongly encourage the submission of species-distribution data: “Authors are encouraged to place all species distribution records in a publicly accessible database such as the national Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) nodes (www.gbif.org) or data centers endorsed by GBIF, including BioFresh (www.freshwaterbiodiversity.eu).” This statement is posted on http:// data.freshwaterbiodiversity.eu/submit data.html along with further instructions and will be widely published in the journals’ instructions for authors and on their Web sites. The editors and publishers of the following journals have approved the statement: Aquatic Botany, Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, Aquatic Ecology, Aquatic Sciences, Ecology of Freshwater Fish, Freshwater Biology, Freshwater Reviews, Fundamental and Applied Limnology, Hydrobiologia, Inland Waters, the International Review of Hydrobiology, Freshwater Science (formerly, the Journal of the North American Benthological Society), the Journal of Fish Biology, the Journal of Limnology, the Journal of Plankton Research, Limnetica, Limnologica, Marine and Freshwater Research, and River Systems. Discussions are in prog- ress with an additional nine major journals in the field. What is the benefit to authors in following the recommendations for publishing primary biodiversity data? Certainly, promoting large-scale bio- diversity syntheses is an important idealistic motivation. However, as was outlined by Costello (2009), embrac- ing data-publishing practices also leads to increased recognition of scientists’ work. Papers connected to publicly available data are cited significantly more often, because the data become available for inclusion in broad-scale analyses (Piwowar et al. 2007), which are increasingly gaining importance. Importantly, the publication of primary biodiversity data is technically straightforward and quick, which minimizes the burden on authors. This is achieved by restricting submissions to a minimal standard set of fields, similar to the requirements for sequence submission to GenBank, a hugely successful database with great potential for supporting biodiversity science as well. Endorsement of the proposed data-publishing policy by most major freshwater journals will doubtlessly spur submission of primary biodiversity data, because it would raise awareness and could establish a culture of data publication. It should also encourage a wider range of journals in other areas of ecology and related fields to join the initiative. This would be of great benefit to scientific progress and to biodiversity conservation alike.

Invasive mosquito species (IMS) and their associated mosquito-borne diseases are emerging in Europe. In Belgium, the first detection of Aedes albopictus (Skuse 1894) occurred in 2000 and of Aedes japonicus japonicus (Theobald 1901) in 2002. Early detection and control of these IMS at points of entry (PoEs) are of paramount importance to slow down any possible establishment. This article reviews the introductions and establishments recorded of three IMS in Belgium based on published (2007–2014) and unpublished (2015–2020) data collected during several surveil- lance projects. In total, 52 PoEs were monitored at least once for the presence of IMS between 2007 and 2020. These included used tyre and lucky bamboo import companies, airports, ports, parking lots along highways, shelters for imported cutting plants, wholesale markets, industrial areas, recycling areas, cemeteries and an allotment garden at the country border with colonised areas. In general, monitoring was performed between April and November. Mos- quitoes were captured with adult and oviposition traps as well as by larval sampling. Aedes albopictus was detected at ten PoEs, Ae. japonicus at three PoEs and Aedes koreicus (Edwards 1917) at two PoEs. The latter two species have established overwintering populations. The percentage of PoEs positive for Ae. albopictus increased significantly over years. Aedes albopictus is currently entering Belgium through lucky bamboo and used tyre trade and passive ground transport, while Ae. japonicus through used tyre trade and probably passive ground transport. In Belgium, the import through passive ground transport was first recorded in 2018 and its importance seems to be growing. Belgium is currently at the invasion front of Ae. albopictus and Ae. japonicus. The surveillance and control management actions at well-known PoEs associated to long-distance introductions are more straightforward than at less-defined PoEs associ- ated with short-distance introductions from colonised areas. These latter PoEs represent a new challenge for IMS management in Belgium in the coming years. Aedes albopictus is expected to become established in Belgium in the coming years, hence increasing the likelihood of local arbovirus transmission. The implementation of a sustainable, structured and long-term IMS management programme, integrating active and passive entomological surveillance, vector control and Public Health surveillance is therefore pivotal.