Search results

Improved comparability of nutrient concentrations in seawater is required to enhance the quality and utility of measurements reported to global databases. Significant progress has been made over recent decades in improving the analysis and data quality for traditional laboratory measurements of nutrients. Similar efforts are required to establish high-quality data outputs from in situ nutrient sensors, which are rapidly becoming integral components of ocean observing systems. This paper suggests using the good practices routine established for laboratory reference methods to propose a harmonized set of deployment protocols and of quality control procedures for nutrient measurements obtained from in situ sensors. These procedures are intended to establish a framework to standardize the technical and analytical controls carried out on the three main types of in situ nutrient sensors currently available (wet chemical analyzers, ultraviolet optical sensors, electrochemical sensors) for their deployments on all kinds of platform. The routine reference controls that can be applied to the sensors are listed for each step of sensor use: initial qualification under controlled conditions in the laboratory, preparation of the sensor before deployment, field deployment and finally the sensor recovery. The fundamental principles applied to the laboratory reference method are then reviewed in terms of the calibration protocol, instrumental interferences, environmental interferences, external controls, and method performance assessment. Data corrections (linearity, sensitivity, drifts, interferences and outliers) are finally identified along with the concepts and calculations for qualification for both real time and time delayed data. This paper emphasizes the necessity of future collaborations between research groups, reference-accredited laboratories, and technology developers, to maintain comparability of the concentrations reported for the various nutrient parameters measured by in situ sensors.

Camponotus herculeanus (Linnaeus, 1758) was rediscovered in Belgium near Ouren. Throughout the spring and summer of 2023, workers were collected on multiple occasions in a Picea abies stand near the Belgian-German boarder.

Ant diversity in tropical montane rainforests is globally understudied. This is true for Cusuco National Park (CNP), a cloud forest ecosystem in northwestern Honduras that supports geographically isolated and threatened habitats. The current study presents the first comprehensive ant species checklist for CNP, which is also the first ant check- list for Honduras in over a century. Species records from several projects are also com- bined and presented. Sampling occurred along an elevational range (mainly between 1170 and 2030 m a.s.l.), with methodologies and intensities varying among projects and dates. Overall, 162 ant species belonging to nine subfamilies and 60 genera are reported from the CNP. Five species are recorded for the first time in Honduras (Pheidole natalie Longino, 2019; Strumigenys cf. calamita; Solenopsis invicta Buren, 1972; Solenopsis tex- ana/carolinensis; Pseudomyrmex pallens Mayr, 1870). For the first time, male individuals are reported in Pheidole balatro Longino, 2019. For each species, we provide informa- tion on observed habitat preference, elevational range, and sampling technique. Species accumulation curves are provided for each sample technique, representing sampling intensity and community sample coverage. We also provide a key to the ant genera of Honduras to aid future taxonomic efforts in the country. Our research demonstrates that CNP harbours a surprisingly rich diversity of ant species, despite its small area, similar to many other taxa in the park. The information provided here represents baseline infor- mation for future work on ants in CNP and other Honduran cloud forests and will help guide research in these otherwise poorly explored yet highly threatened ecosystems.

De classificatie van de families van de orde Hymenoptera is de afgelopen vijf jaar aanzienlijk veranderd, onder meer door meer moleculair onderzoek. De evolutionaire geschiedenis van de orde wordt ook steeds duidelijker. Op basis van onderzoek uit recente literatuur en in lijn met nieuwe inzichten presenteren wij een nieuw familieoverzicht voor Nederland en België. In Nederland en België zijn vertegenwoordigers gevonden van 88 families. Om een idee te krijgen van de diversiteit van de verschillende families wordt een overzicht gegeven van het aantal genera en het (geschatte) aantal soorten voor elke familie. Deze cijfers zijn gebaseerd op literatuuronderzoek, websites of deskundig oordeel van specialisten. Een groot aantal foto’s toont de enorme soortendiversiteit van de wespen. Er valt echter ook in beide landen nog veel te ontdekken, vooral in de Parasitica-groep.

The DiSSCo (Distributed System of Scientific Collections) Flanders consortium, with one of the set goals being ``maturing'' (i.e., optimizing the management of) and unlocking (i.e., publishing) their DNA collections, identified 1) the need for actively sharing best practices on the management of DNA collections; and 2) a need for guidance on how to bring theory into practice.During the DiSSCo Flanders project, a DNA collection working group was created. The working group is open to all biodiversity-related DNA collections associates in Belgium, including those in diverse roles such as researchers, lab technicians, collection managers and data managers. Around 50 people from 13 organizations are currently participating. Members can be passively (reading only) or actively (joining events) engaged. The strength, as well as one of the challenges, of the DiSSCo Flanders community is that the natural science collections are created and managed in different organizational contexts: universities, museum institutes and both governmental and non-governmental research organizations. This translates to a variety of collection management decisions and structures such as: decentralized or centralized; cold or room temperature storage; managed by an appointed curator or by a lab technician.The working group organizes meetings and workshops, tours of each other's collections, and shares a mailing list and an online document space. As its principal output, the group has co-created: “The key to bringing DNA collections to the next level” (Veltjen et al. 2024) with two main results: the ``Challenges'' and the “Key”.The ``Challenges'' is a list of 23 challenges applicable to DNA collection management. For example, challenge 8: ``Select or customise collection management systems to meet the needs of DNA collections''. They are intended to spark debate and give focus to the second output: the ``Key.'' The ``Key'' lists seven yes/no questions:Do you have an up-to-date overview of all direct, internal stakeholders of the institute’s DNA collection and are you involving them in the (current) intent to “bring the DNA collection to the next level”?Is preserving a DNA collection within the scope of the institute? And is the DNA collection officially recognized within the institute?Do you have, on paper, a clear description of the scope of the DNA collection?Have you outlined the current overarching workflow of the DNA collection?Have you been able to establish your starting level on the ``DNA collection maturation chart'' and is the assessment properly logged?Level up, one level at a time, and log the process. Have you reached all of the goals in level 3 on the ``DNA collection maturation chart''?Do you have a re-evaluation strategy for your DNA collection?The ``DNA collection maturation chart'' has 11 categories (rows), three levels (columns) and 33 goals (see Table 1 in Veltjen et al. 2024). The Key provides 18 guidance chapters, which give in depth information, literature and user experiences (Suppl. material 2 in Veltjen et al. 2024).The Key is a specialized tool for DNA collections. It facilitates a standardized and holistic approach, allowing both a helicopter view of the maturation process and close-up view of specific goals. The working group aims to test the Key, whereby the process of ``leveling up'' is embedded in a community setting: sharing ambitions, setbacks, changes of plans and success stories. The output is ready in its first version. It is published as a reviewable publication, allowing post-publication peer review (Veltjen et al. 2024). The works are expected to evolve through time, depending on user feedback and user experiences.The working group and co-created output are positive examples of how a local community—sometimes managing smaller, or less conspicuous types of natural science collections—can work together and use their unique perspectives, experiences and needs to contribute to the international natural science collection and biobanking communities.