Search results

Almost nothing is known about the evolution of shell colour in invertebrates. This is largely due to the ultra-rarity of fossils in which colour patterns and pigments are preserved and immediately visible, and therefore easy to identify, especially when these are hundreds of millions of years old. This hampers our understanding of the role and function of colour in extinct animals, their ecology, mode of life, interactions, development, and evolution. A good example for this ultra-rarity is the Palaeozoic of Belgium, world-renowned for its exquisitely preserved fossils of the Devonian and Carboniferous, enabling to document major transitions in ecosystem dynamics and the evolution of life on Earth (e.g. nekton revolution, terrestrialisation, major climate changes, anoxic events, biodiversity crises) but from which only a few cephalopod, bivalve and gastropod mollusc and brachiopod shells were historically documented preserving coloured traces (mostly by L.-G. de Koninck and P. de Ryckholt, mid to late 19th century). However, recently, it was discovered that many more specimens preserve these traces, in particular those from Tournaisian–Viséan shallow marine reef environments, allowing to investigate its occurrence in different evolutionary lineages of marine invertebrates exactly during one of the main periods of revolution in geologic history. In Brain project B2/P233/P2 nicknamed COLOURINPALAEO financed by Belspo, after gathering all the specimens available in the main Belgian collections, we will use different techniques (multispectral photogrammetry and spectro-imaging) to better visualise the preserved colour patterns and pigments. Furthermore, advanced spectroscopic techniques, namely Raman micro-probe spectroscopy, synchrotron trace elemental mapping and absorption spectroscopy, will be used to identify the chemical signature of the pigments as well as their mode and pathways of preservation. Some of the first results on this multidisciplinary study on a unique set of Belgian fossils will be presented.

Switching from fossil fuels to renewable energy is key to international energy transition efforts and the move toward net zero. For many nations, this requires decommissioning of hundreds of oil and gas infrastructure in the marine environment. Current international, regional and national legislation largely dictates that structures must be completely removed at end-of-life although, increasingly, alternative decommissioning options are being promoted and implemented. Yet, a paucity of real-world case studies describing the impacts of decommissioning on the environment make decision-making with respect to which option(s) might be optimal for meeting in- ternational and regional strategic environmental targets challenging. To address this gap, we draw together international expertise and judgment from marine environmental scientists on marine artificial structures as an alternative source of evidence that explores how different decommissioning options might ameliorate pressures that drive environmental status toward (or away) from environmental objectives. Synthesis reveals that for 37 United Nations and Oslo-Paris Commissions (OSPAR) global and regional environmental targets, experts consider repurposing or abandoning individual structures, or abandoning multiple structures across a region, as the op- tions that would most strongly contribute toward targets. This collective view suggests complete removal may not be best for the environment or society. However, different decommissioning options act in different ways and make variable contributions toward environmental targets, such that policy makers and managers would likely need to prioritise some targets over others considering political, social, economic, and ecological contexts. Current policy may not result in optimal outcomes for the environment or society.

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.

Many, mostly older, names of animal species are nomenclaturally problematic, either because their orthography is unstable, or they cannot be linked reliably to a taxonomic identity, due to the lack of recognisable descriptions and/or types. Yet, they represent available (sensu International Code of Zoological Nomenclature) names and must be taken into account in zoological works. This situation, with available senior, yet dubious names confounding nomenclature, is undesirable. It creates uncertainties at a time when molecular approaches are revolutionizing our concepts of species diversity, and fails us when the current extinction crisis calls for efficient, accurate, and constructive approaches to document, monitor, and conserve biodiversity. The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (The Code) provides a means to address this issue by restricting availability, application and orthography of names to those included in the List of Available Names in Zoology (LAN). The Code (Art. 79) allows an international body of zoologists in consultation with the Commission to propose a candidate part of the LAN for a major taxonomic field. We explore this possibility for 3570 species-group names of Phylum Rotifera (of which 665 are problematic), by presenting such a candidate Rotifera part of the LAN. The web site of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (http://www.iczn.org) will hold both the candidate list and a forum to facilitate consultation on the candidate list, while the list itself also can already be freely downloaded from three other Internet sites: http://fada.biodiversity.be, http://rotifer.ansp.org/LAN, and www.hausdernatur.at/rotifera. We give here an overview of the general approach and procedures applied in preparation of the candidate list, and anticipate that our effort will promote the process as well as result in a standard list of names for use in taxonomy, the Global Names Architecture and other biodiversity information initiatives.

Nearly every geological subdiscipline relies to some degree on regional geological knowledge. In the introductory section of most geological papers it is standard practice to provide regional geological background information. Stratigraphic terminology is often well defined while other disciplinary concepts rely, at least to some degree, on generally agreed definitions or hierarchical schemes, such as paleontological, structural or magmatic terminology. This, however, is much less the case for the regional geological building blocks. Their names are usually composed of a combination of a geographical locality and a geological term. A few examples from Belgium are Brabant Massif, Campine Basin, Stavelot-Venn Inlier, and Malmedy Graben. Most of these have in common that, although their importance is well recognised, their definitions are vague and sometimes even conflicting, in that their meaning may differ between contexts and authors. Even if their meaning has drifted or become less exact, as a result of their frequent historical use, they commonly remain in use today. This issue is not exclusive to Belgium, but seems to be an altogether historic and worldwide phenomenon. Recently within Europe there is a growing awareness of this issue, resulting in important but rather isolated efforts to better structure and define regional information (Hintersberger et al. 2017; Németh 2021; Le Bayon et al. 2022) which have been brought together through pan-European cooperation (GSEU – Horizon Europe 101075609). The central element that seems to encompass most geologic features, is the lithotectonic unit (a distinct unit based on its partly separate geological history; URI: http://inspire.ec.europa.eu/codelist/GeologicUnitTypeValue/lithotectonicUnit). Grabens, basins and inliers are examples of lithotectonic units. In order to define and describe these units more accurately, lithotectonic limits are introduced. These are planar features, such as faults and unconformities, that correspond to the geologic events that formed the lithotectonic unit (Piessens et al. 2024). All information is organised and linked in vocabularies (thesauri) that together not only adequately define each concept, but also determine the relations between them, placing them in space and geological time (Plašienka 1999). This outlines the core methodology, around which 2D and 3D multi-scale visualisations are built, annotations can be added, existing ontologies can be linked (such as the ICS Geological Time Scale Ontology; Cox and Richard, 2005) and newly developed extensions such as the Modified Wilson Cycle (Németh 2021). As such, the work at Belgian level is closely linked to the ongoing international developments. Making use of the ongoing developments at European level, Belgium was the first country to set up a lithotectonic working group that became operational in 2023. Its first goal is to provide a lithotectonic framework that describes a starting set of main geological units and limits in Belgium, according to emerging European standards (the work at European level is linked to the implementation of INSPIRE and 195 is in communication with the GeoSciML community), by the end of 2024. The working group meets approximately every 2 months, and organisationally resides under the National Commission for Stratigraphy in Belgium. The working group will soon be looking for additional experts (junior and senior) in its continuing effort to identify and define broad superstructures, detail the regional geology to the more local level, to tackle new types of lithotectonic elements, or better address parts of geological history. Potential candidates are encouraged to contact one of the authors or the NCS secretariat. Cox SJD, Richard SM (2005) A formal model for the geologic time scale and global stratotype section and point, compatible with geospatial information transfer standards. Geosphere 1:119. https://doi.org/10.1130/GES00022.1 Hintersberger E, Iglseder C, Schuster R, Huet B (2017) The new database “Tectonic Boundaries” at the Geological Survey of Austria. Jahrbuch der geologischen Bundesanstalt 157:195–207 Le Bayon B, Padel M, Baudin T, et al (2022) The geological-event reference system, a step towards geological data harmonization. BSGF - Earth Sci Bull 193:18. https://doi.org/10.1051/bsgf/2022017 Németh Z (2021) Lithotectonic units of the Western Carpathians: Suggestion of simple methodology for lithotectonic units defining, applicable for orogenic belts world-wide. Mineralia Slovaca 2:81–90 Piessens K, Walstra J, Willems A, Barros R (2024) Old concepts in a new semantic perspective: introducing a geotemporal approach to conceptual definitions in geology. Life Sciences Plašienka D (1999) Definition and correlation of tectonic units with a special reference to some Central Western Carpathian examples. Mineralia Slovaca 31:3–16