Iron Fertilization

Coale KH, et al. 2004. Southern ocean iron enrichment experiment: carbon cycling in high- and low-Si waters. Science. 304:408-414

Nasa Earth Observatory. 2008. Aquatic dead zones. Available at http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=44677 (accessed Mar. 20, 2013)

Half the information and no direction

Word Count: 478

The iron fertilization hypothesis was the basis behind a decision made by a small village on Haida Gwaii to dump 120 tons of iron sulfate dust into international waters off Canada’s west coast (FNEHIN 2012) in October 2012. Though the small village did not act alone, it was guided by Russ George, who is the CEO of a company which also attempted to dump iron into the waters off the Galapagos Islands (ETC Group 2012). The village was worried about the declining salmon stocks and took it upon themselves to solve the problem. The iron fertilization hypothesis suggests that iron enriched sea water can produce a boom of zooplankton productivity, or an algae bloom as most know it (Coale 2004). This increase in zooplankton, a common food source for fish, was thought would encourage the return of salmon to the area. It is also believed that the increase in algae will decrease CO2 in the atmosphere; however, this is not the whole truth (Coale 2004). There could be many very negative effects of adding such large amounts of iron without the proper information or procedure.

This increase of iron does indeed cause an algae bloom, but eventually that normally limited resource runs out and the algae die. The detritus then falls to the bottom of the ocean and can form a dead zone (NASA 2008). This reduces the biodiversity and biomass in the area, which will only decrease the likelihood that the salmon will return.

So, not only was this a stupid idea, but I’m not convinced it was totally legal. Who has the right to drop that much of anything into international waters? Especially off of some of the most pristine and bio diverse areas along our coast. I feel it is unfair to fully blame this small village, as there should be a governing body that regulates and deals with these type of issues. The village was only trying to maintain their livelihood through increasing the salmon return, and the CEO...well maybe he is to blame. Who knows if he fully understood the consequences of his actions. This example brings to the forefront of my mind two major problems, the first is a lack of information and guidance, and the second is a lack of direction or governing. There are many news articles on this event and it is interesting to see all the varying opinions, if you want to read a couple I have added some links below.

Photo source: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090128183744.htm

News stories:

http://www.fnehin.ca/index.php/news/ontario_pesticide_ban_letter_may_9_2008/

http://bc.ctvnews.ca/scientists-warn-iron-dump-could-seriously-harm-ocean-1.1003778

http://www.etcgroup.org/content/full-press-coverage-2012-ocean-fertilization-scheme-near-haida-gwaii

Mountain Pine Beetle

Management of mountain pine beetle outbreaks: The good, the bad, and the unsolvable

 

References:

Carroll AL, Shore TL, Safranyik L. 2006. Direct Control: Theory and Practice. The Mountain Pine Beetle: a Synthesis of Biology, Management, and Impacts on Lodgepole Pine. p. 155-172. 

BC Government Mountain Pine Beetle Informational Website. Updated Feb. 2008. Accessed Mar. 6, 2013 from: http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/mountain_pine_beetle/bbbrochure.htm

 

Safranyik L, Linton DA. 1982. Mortality of spruce beetle broods in bolts submerged in

water. Journal of the Entomological Society of British Columbia. 79:8-11.

Photo Source: http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/mountain_pine_beetle/bbphotos.htm

 Word Count: 480

 

An effective management of the mountain pine beetles has yet to be discovered. Naturally, a long cold spell during winter can kill off the larva stages and control the population, however, with the ever increasing temperature and the shorter and milder winters, this population regulation is not occurring (BC Gov Website).  

Preventative control to minimize the spread of mountain pine beetles includes thinning pine stands; however, this tends to have a negative economic effect (Carroll et al. 2006). Direct control of beetle population involves attacking the beetles; there are three main direct control programs in place. These programs include (1) mechanical and cultural tactics, (2) chemical tactics, and (3) semiochemical tactics (Carroll et al. 2006). 

Mechanical and cultural tactics include fire, bark removal, and felling infested trees (Carroll et al. 2006). The first two tactics are only really effective when the infestation is small and contained in an area. Felling trees and processing them right away causes beetle mortality; however, if not processed right away the larva may survive and continue wreaking havoc. When testing methods for spruce beetle management the most effective mechanical tactic is falling the trees and submersing them in water for 6 weeks (Safranyik and Linton 1982). 

Chemical tactics include using a variety of insecticides, however, they currently are rarely used due to their toxicity to other insects and plants (Carroll et al. 2006). Semiochemicals are chemicals which act as pheromones and attract the beetles to certain locations. These tactics are generally used in mechanical tactics to kill the beetles (Carroll et al. 2006). 

Based on Carroll’s paper (2006) it seems as though the mechanical removal of the beetles appears to be most effective. However, the infestation is at a large enough scale that if these trees were all removed then this would have radiating effects on the entire forest ecology.  For example, as more pine trees die and are salvaged logged, more ground is exposed to precipitation. As talked about in class, this means there is increased melting rate of snow, increased erosion, and extreme variations in water flow (BC Gov Website).

So as it seems, our forests are hooped. How can we control this epidemic without destroying our water ways and forests? Another horrible part of these infestations is that the beetles prefer old growth pine trees, which we know houses many different species of animals and plants that are already at risk.

Effects of by-catch

Effects of by-catch

Hall MA, Alverson DL, Metuzals KI. 2000. By-Catch: Problems and Solutions. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 41:204-219

Read AJ, Drinker P, Northridge S. 2005. By-catch of Marine Mammals in US and Global Fisheries. Conservation Biology. 20(1):163-169

The unintentional catching of many marine mammals is having profound effects on marine ecosystems around the world. A study done by Read and colleagues estimated the by-catch for 125 different marine mammal populations in three geographical US water regions (Atlantic-Gulf of Mexico, Pacific, and Alaska).  The data collected in this study was taken from observers which were placed on different fishing vessels from 1990-1999. They also used this data to estimate the total global marine mammal by-catch.

Photo 1 source: http://www.bycatch.moonfruit.com/

They found that the average annual by-catch of marine mammals in US waters was approximately 6,215 +/- 448. They used this information to estimate that approximately 653,365 marine mammals are accidentally captured a year globally. However, these numbers are only approximations as the major downfall to their methods is that they are using information from log books and observers. Many by-catch animals are assumed to not be reported by fishermen, or are grossly understated.

Though the current estimates of by-catch in the US and globally may seem unbelievable, this is actually a huge reduction in numbers. According to a study done by Hall et al. (2000) it was believed that in the 1960’s several hundreds of thousands of dolphins alone were caught while fishing for tuna. The major decrease in mortality rates was due to introduction of fishing acts and by-catch laws put in place (Hall et al. 2000). 

Some gear improvements has helped to reduce by-catch. Some fishermen use “pingers” which are electrical devices which deter many animals which use echolocation as their mode of sensing there environment. However, these methods are not as successful when it comes to other species of animals such as sea birds, turtles, and pinnipeds (Read et al. 2005). Thicker mesh, selective lines and baits are also some mechanisms put in place to avoid by-catch. But by far the most effective method of reducing by-catch is through public awareness and political policy placement (Hall et al. 2000). 

Photo 2 source: http://www.thedolphinsoflosgigantes.org/index.asp?page=girl_calendar 

Though it is great to know that the annual by-catch numbers have decreased substantially over time, I still think there is room for improvement. It seems that a major problem with dealing with by-catch is the lack of knowledge and the low accountability of the data. Though fishers are required by law to record any by-catch, this is not always what happens. Having more programs with observers on board fishing vessels and also more research may help bring realistic numbers out into the open. With these numbers it will help drive further research and investigation into improving policies, fishing gear, and training of fishermen to help avoid by-catch.  

Word Count: 468