Evaluation of Sperm-Activating Solutions in Atlantic Salmon Salmo salar Fertilization Tests

The use of saline solutions was tested to determine their efficacy as replacements for ovarian fluid as sperm activators and to eliminate variability encountered with the use of Ovarian fluid. We tested fertilization rate of semen from eight males on Atlantic salmon Salmo salar eggs after five sperm-activating solutions and a non-activating saline were substituted for ovarian fluid. We used solutions shown acceptable for use with other salmonid species. The six solutions tested were a non sperm-activating phosphate-buffered saline (PBS, 7.2 g/L NaCl, 1.48 g/L Na₂HPO₄, 0.43 g/L K H₂PO₄), a Tris buffer (6.99 g/L NaCl, 3.63 g/L Tris and 2.42 g/L glycine), a Borax buffer (12.2 g boric acid/L in solution 1, 76 g disodium tetraborate/L combined 100:118, then 1 L combined with 3.7 L water and 18 g NaCl), and three solutions of 9.25 g/L (125 mM) NaCl buffered to pH 6.0, 7.5, and 8.9. The latter five solutions activated sperm immediately on contact, while PBS required additional water to activate sperm. The PBS solution was the least effective (mean percent eyed eggs 37.6%) for egg fertilization. The mean percent eyed eggs for the other five saline solutions (range 78% to 86%) were not significantly different. Sperm from one male provided significantly lower egg fertilization (39.6%) when compared with the other seven males (67.2–87.4% egg fertilization). Percent egg fertilization was not related to number of live sperm cells per egg. Our results show that osmotically-balanced sperm-activation solutions, even those with a pH range from 6.0 to 8.9 provide adequate media for fertilization of Atlantic salmon eggs. Fertilization in a deactivation saline and water reactivation of sperm resulted in low egg fertilization.     

A review of models of landscape change

Models of landscape change may serve a variety of purposes, from exploring the interaction of natural processes to evaluating proposed management treatments. These models can be categorized as either whole landscape models, distributional landscape models, or spatial landscape models, depending on the amount of detail included in the models. Distributional models, while widely used, exclude spatial detail important for most landscape ecological research. Spatial models require substantial data, now more readily available, via remote sensing, and more easily manipulated, in geographical information systems. In spite of these technical advances, spatial modelling is poorly developed, largely because landscape change itself is poorly understood.To facilitate further development of landscape models I suggest (1) empirical multivariate studies of landscape change, (2) modelling of individual landscape processes, (3) explicit study of the effect of model scale on model behavior, and (4) scaling-up results of studies, on smaller land areas, that have landscape relevance.