254
A. NELSON-SMITH
graph (1968 ; pl. 19B) of acorn-barnacles Chthamalus stellatus (Poli)
covered with crude oil “ mousse ” to the level of the shell-apertures,
but apparently healthy, and Crapp (1 969a) has treated experimental
areas of C . stellatus and Balanus balanoides (L.) with numerous monthly,
6 h, exposures to fresh and weathered crude with no evidence of
damage. However, fresh crude at Santa Barbara (Abbott and Straughan,
1969) and diesel oil from the “ Tampico Maru ” (North et al., 1964) had
marked effects on Chthamalus ,fissus Darwin and Balanus glandula
Darwin. Chipman and Galtsoff (1949) reported slowing of the cirral
beat in B. balanoides, followed by failure t o close and death in three
days, from 2% crude oil. Abbott and Straughan (1969) observed that
in the areas of heaviest pollution, barnacles were not breeding nor were
larvae settling. In Spooner’s tests (1968a), 100 p.p.m. fresh crude
killed 50% of the larvae of Elminius modestus Darwin in less than 1 h.
In the field, marine plankton seems surprisingly little affected by
catastrophic pollution. During the “ Torrey Canyon ” spill, slight
mortalities were observed amongst phytoplankton organisms netted
and cultured, but zooplankton was as abundant and varied as usual
(Smith, 1968). Preliminary reports from the Santa Barbara Channel
(Smithsonian Institution, 1969b) showed plankton there, too, to be
normal although detailed analyses are still in progress (see Abbott and
Straughan, 1969). Belikhov (1963, quoted in the Batelle-Northwest
Report, 1967) and McCauley (1966) both found many Protozoa surviving oil pollution in rivers, but believed that the more sensitive
species had been eliminated. Minter (1965) reported that the speciesdiversity of freshwater plankton in a series of refinery effluent holdingponds increased as toxicity decreased ; pollutants included phenol at
about 1 p.p.m. The diatoms Ditylum brightwelli (West) Grun.) Coscinodiscus granii Gough and Chaetoceros curvisetus C1. are very sensitive to
kerosine and fuel-oil, which are toxic after 24 h at 100 p.p.m. or less.
Melosira moniliformis (0. Mull.) Ag. and Grammatophora marina
(Lyngb.) Kutz. tolerate concentrations up to 1 % although lower levels
suppress the growth of the cultures (Mironov and Lanskaja, 1967).
Galtsoff et al. (1935) found that growth of cultures of Nitzschia closterium
E. is also retarded, but only at concentrations of oil over 25% ; lower
levels have a slight stimulating effect. Elmhirst (1922) kept cultures
of marine Protozoa (Oxyrrhis marina Duj. ; species of Amoeba, Diophrys
and Bodo) in contact with weathered tank sludge with no ill effects.
Any experimenter who has kept suspensions of fresh oil in sea water
will soon observe large numbers of ciliates feeding on or around the
droplets-see,
for example, Spooner (1968a, b). Marsland (1933)
investigated the action of a series of paraffins on Amoeba dubia
A. NELSON-SMITH
graph (1968 ; pl. 19B) of acorn-barnacles Chthamalus stellatus (Poli)
covered with crude oil “ mousse ” to the level of the shell-apertures,
but apparently healthy, and Crapp (1 969a) has treated experimental
areas of C . stellatus and Balanus balanoides (L.) with numerous monthly,
6 h, exposures to fresh and weathered crude with no evidence of
damage. However, fresh crude at Santa Barbara (Abbott and Straughan,
1969) and diesel oil from the “ Tampico Maru ” (North et al., 1964) had
marked effects on Chthamalus ,fissus Darwin and Balanus glandula
Darwin. Chipman and Galtsoff (1949) reported slowing of the cirral
beat in B. balanoides, followed by failure t o close and death in three
days, from 2% crude oil. Abbott and Straughan (1969) observed that
in the areas of heaviest pollution, barnacles were not breeding nor were
larvae settling. In Spooner’s tests (1968a), 100 p.p.m. fresh crude
killed 50% of the larvae of Elminius modestus Darwin in less than 1 h.
In the field, marine plankton seems surprisingly little affected by
catastrophic pollution. During the “ Torrey Canyon ” spill, slight
mortalities were observed amongst phytoplankton organisms netted
and cultured, but zooplankton was as abundant and varied as usual
(Smith, 1968). Preliminary reports from the Santa Barbara Channel
(Smithsonian Institution, 1969b) showed plankton there, too, to be
normal although detailed analyses are still in progress (see Abbott and
Straughan, 1969). Belikhov (1963, quoted in the Batelle-Northwest
Report, 1967) and McCauley (1966) both found many Protozoa surviving oil pollution in rivers, but believed that the more sensitive
species had been eliminated. Minter (1965) reported that the speciesdiversity of freshwater plankton in a series of refinery effluent holdingponds increased as toxicity decreased ; pollutants included phenol at
about 1 p.p.m. The diatoms Ditylum brightwelli (West) Grun.) Coscinodiscus granii Gough and Chaetoceros curvisetus C1. are very sensitive to
kerosine and fuel-oil, which are toxic after 24 h at 100 p.p.m. or less.
Melosira moniliformis (0. Mull.) Ag. and Grammatophora marina
(Lyngb.) Kutz. tolerate concentrations up to 1 % although lower levels
suppress the growth of the cultures (Mironov and Lanskaja, 1967).
Galtsoff et al. (1935) found that growth of cultures of Nitzschia closterium
E. is also retarded, but only at concentrations of oil over 25% ; lower
levels have a slight stimulating effect. Elmhirst (1922) kept cultures
of marine Protozoa (Oxyrrhis marina Duj. ; species of Amoeba, Diophrys
and Bodo) in contact with weathered tank sludge with no ill effects.
Any experimenter who has kept suspensions of fresh oil in sea water
will soon observe large numbers of ciliates feeding on or around the
droplets-see,
for example, Spooner (1968a, b). Marsland (1933)
investigated the action of a series of paraffins on Amoeba dubia