The Great Barrier Reef

/1 Comment/in , /by

By Amanda Wood, RJD Intern

The Great Barrier Reef is undoubtedly one of the most famous coral reef systems in the world. The Marine Protected Area is an important source of revenue for Australia, especially in the Queensland region. In the year 2012 alone, the reef attracted over 1.5 million visitors from across the globe with its captivating beauty and astonishing diversity.

Despite its high visitation numbers, the reef has seen better days. Located just off the northeastern coast of Queensland, the reef is in close proximity to the main agricultural region of Australia. As rivers in the catchment area flow towards the reef, it is exposed to terrestrial runoff throughout the year.

When agriculture consisted of small, local farms, runoff was not a major cause for concern. However, the introduction of chemical pesticides coupled with an increased use of fertilizers shifted traditional farming to large-scale, industrialized agriculture (van Dam et al. 2011). As a result, terrestrial runoff containing sediments, pesticides, and inorganic nutrients are transported to the Great Barrier Reef. Each of these pollutants poses a distinct threat to the reef system, and there is evidence that increasing ocean temperatures could exacerbate their effects(Waterhouse et al. 2012).

Sedimentation occurs when rivers pick up soil particles from the land (e.g. agricultural regions) and carry them to large bodies of water, in this case the Pacific Ocean. The particles are then deposited along the coast, and remain suspended in the water column until conditions allow them to settle. In the Great Barrier Reef, sediments tend to be distributed within 50km of the coastline (Devlin and Brodie 2005). While the particles are floating freely, they cause the water to become cloudy. This cloudiness, known as turbidity, makes it difficult for aquatic plants to absorb enough sunlight to conduct photosynthesis. Seagrasses, algae, and phytoplankton experience a reduced photosynthetic output as a result. As primary producers of the marine food web, these organisms are vital to the survival of a marine ecosystem. Their reduced photosynthetic abilities place stress on the many organisms that rely on them for energy and shelter.

 

SedimentationGBRcoast

The Great Barrier Reef is exposed to terrestrial runoff, as pictured above. Photo by NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, via Wikimedia Commons

Corals experience another risk as many of the corals in the Great Barrier Reef have a symbiotic relationship with tiny algae organisms called zooxanthellae. These symbionts, of the genus Symbiodinium, are housed within the tissues of corals, and give the animals their iconic colors. Through their photosynthetic processes, the algae provide corals with supplemental energy in the form of carbon, which many of the corals seem to use for reproduction and thickening of tissues.  When exposed to high levels of turbidity, the zooxanthellae cannot produce as much photosynthetic carbon, and corals suffer. Some studies have shown that corals subjected to high sedimentation rates reabsorb their eggs in order to compensate for energy deficiencies(Cantin et al. 2007).  When the corals do not reproduce, the future of the reef is at stake.

Chemical fertilizers also present a threat to marine photosynthetic organisms. Though Australia has over 200 chemical pesticides authorized for use, PS-II herbicides may be the greatest cause for concern.  These herbicides inhibit a specific electron receptor protein within chloroplasts, effectively preventing plants from synthesizing carbon. They are heavily used in the sugarcane industry of Australia to abolish weeds. Unfortunately they are also carried to the coast by terrestrial runoff, and have the undesired effect of harming photosynthetic organisms in the marine environment. These marine phototrophs, such as Symbiodinium spp., use the same PS-II protein found in land plants. Some research has shown that when corals are exposed to PS-II herbicides, the zooxanthellae fail to produce enough carbon to maintain a stable symbiotic relationship. The corals then expel the symbionts, a phenomenon known as coral bleaching (van Dam et al. 2011).

 

Bleachedbraincoral

Above, a brain coral experiences bleaching. Photo by Smckenna, via Wikimedia Commons

The final major class of marine pollutants is inorganic nutrients. The nutrients of primary concern are dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN) and dissolved inorganic phosphorous (DIP). Nitrogen and phosphorous are naturally occurring, and can be introduced to an ecosystem through upwelling and fixation by marine organisms. However, the use of agricultural fertilizers introduces more nutrients to the natural environment. Fertilizers that are applied to agricultural fields are carried by rivers to the coast, and remain dissolved in the water for extended periods of time. Some research suggests that DIP and DIN can remain present until they reach salinities of at least 25 ppt. This means that the dissolved nutrients can be retained in the marine water column as far as 200 km away from the river that deposited them. As a result, nutrients can be transported great distances, and impact countless ecosystems (Devlin and Brodie 2005).

The impacts of dissolved nutrients can be devastating. When reefs are exposed to DIP and DIN, they often experience macroalgae blooms. As macroalgae compete with corals for resources, nutrients, and substrate, a macroalgae bloom can effectively dominate corals and shift the ecological balance of the reef. The corals themselves are threatened by macroalgae, but the multitudes of animals that live among the corals also suffer from the change (Fabricius 2005).  With this in mind, the growing concentration of fertilizer use in the GBR catchment area is of grave concern to scientists.

In light of the many reports of pollution in the Great Barrier Reef system, the Australian and Queensland governments are makings strides to reduce agricultural runoff. In 2003 Australia released its Reef Quality Protection Plan with the intention of reducing the pollutant load in the GBR catchment area. The plan was revised in 2009 with more concrete goals: reduce concentrations of nitrogen, phosphorous, and pesticides 50% by the year 2013. Also, the plan aimed to reduce the load of suspended sediments 20% by 2020 (Brodie et al. 2012).

Queensland released its own “Reef Protection Package” in 2009. This package created distinct water quality guidelines for the GBR area, and made PS-II herbicides a high priority for management. A new class of environmentally relevant activity was determined for sugarcane and beef grazing, and introduced a requirement for industries to keep records of any application of chemicals and fertilizers. Also, certain high-risk operators must have an accredited environmental risk management plan (ERMP) in order to decrease their negative impact on the GBR system (King et al. 2013).

Though it is still unclear whether or not the new regulation schemes of Australia and Queensland will be effective, there is hope for the Great Barrier Reef. The reef system is not only an integral part of the economic stability of Australia, but also an exquisite example of marine diversity. As such, it has been the focus of scientific research by marine biologists, ecologists, and coral reef scientists for decades. With so much information available about the functioning and health of the reef system, Australian policy makers have a unique opportunity to save their prized resource. With a deeper understanding of reef interactions, government officials can make more informed, and ultimately more effective, decisions in regards to reef management (King et al. 2013).

 

 

References

  1. Brodie JE, Kroon FJ, Schaffelke B, Wolanski EC, Lewis SE, Devlin MJ, Bohnet IC, Bainbridge ZT, Waterhouse J, Davis AM (2012) Terrestrial pollutant runoff to the Great Barrier Reef: An update of issues, priorities and management responses. Mar Pollut Bull 65: 81-100
  2. King J, Alexander G, Brodie J (2013) Regulation of pesticides in Australia: The Great Barrier Reef as a case study for evaluating effectiveness. Agriculture, Ecosyst, and Environ 180: 54–67
  1. Cantin NE, Negri AP, Willis BL (2007) Photoinhibition from chronic herbicide exposure reduces reproductive output of reef-building corals. Mar Ecology Press Series 344: 81–93
  2. Devlin MJ, Brodie J (2005) Terrestrial discharge into the Great Barrier Reef Lagoon: nutrient behavior in coastal waters. Mar Pollut Bull 51: 9-22
  3. Fabricius KE (2005) Effects of terrestrial runoff on the ecology of corals and coral reefs: review and synthesis. Mar Pollut Bull 50:125-146
  1. Van Dam JW, Negri AP, Uthicke S, Mueller JF (2011) Ecological Impacts of Toxic Chemicals. In: Sánchez-Bayo F, van den Brink PJ, Mann RM (eds) Ecological impacts of toxic chemicals. Bentham Books, pp 187-211
  2. Waterhouse J, Brodie J, Lewis S, Mitchell A (2012) Quantifying the sources of pollutants in the Great Barrier Reef catchments and the relative risk to reef ecosystems. Mar Pollut Bull 65: 394-406

 

 

 

Photo attributions:

  1. Sedimentation of GBR: By NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (Flickr: Heavy Sediment along the Queensland Coast) [CC-BY-2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons
  1. Brain coral:  By Smckenna (Own work) [CC-BY-SA-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0) or GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html)], via Wikimedia Commons

 

Minke Whale Genetics show Adaptations for Diving

/0 Comments/in , /by

By Jessica Wingar, RJD Intern

Minke whales, Balaenoptera acutorostrata, may not be the largest baleen whale, but they are the most abundant. These whales are about thirty five feet long, 6500kg, and are black with a white stomach (Knox, G.A., 2007). This species of whale is said to be a cosmopolitan species, since they are found in many different climates of the world. Although these whales are abundant, one of their main threats is overexploitation in fisheries. In places, such as the North Pacific, their populations have been fished so much that the International Whaling Commission, the IWC, has them listed as of concern. Overfishing is not the only threat to minke whales. They are also threatened by noise, vessel strikes, and habitat disturbance. (Minke Whale, 2014).

Minke_Whale_(NOAA)

A minke whale.

 

Like many other marine mammals, minke whales have multiple techniques to catch their prey. Minke whales feed on a variety of food. These varieties are crustaceans, plankton, and small schooling fish. In order to eat some of these food types they must dive. This species can dive for up to fifteen minutes at a time. Some of the techniques that they use while diving include landing on their side on top of the prey and ingesting a significant amount of water while feeding. By side lunging they can stun their prey and by gulping a lot of water they can collect a lot of plankton that they can then sift through (Minke Whale, 2014). Once they have the food, minke whales then swallow their food whole (Know, G.A., 2007). Diving for their prey requires a lot of adaptations.

When a whale dives, a lot of changes occur internally. There are three steps that occur when marine mammals hold their breath. The first step is called hypoxia, which is the decrease in oxygen in the whale’s body. The second step is hypercapnia when the body experiences an increase in carbon dioxide. And the final step occurs when there is a build up of lactic acid in the body. All of these stages add up and prevent the animal from suffocating because they tell the body that it needs air. Thus, the whale then returns to the surface to breathe (Richardson, 2013). One of the main behaviors of minke whales is diving, and a recent study on their genetics shows how their genes are adapted for this behavior.

 

Minke whales provide a good specimen for genome sequencing because they are such a widely distributed marine mammal. This study is the first of its kind to complete a high depth genetic analysis of a marine mammal. From the study, the researchers found that there were many whale specific genes. One of the most interesting gene that was found to be expanded in minke whales was the peroxiredoxin (PRDX) family. This family is related with stress resistance. The fact that this gene family is expanded could show that these animals are prone to stress, whether from humans or from diving, and have evolved to have more stress combating genes. Another interesting finding also involved their diving physiology. O-linked N-acetylglucasominylation in many proteins has been found to multiply the response to stress. Stress occurs when a minke whale dives and experiences hypoxia. In minke whales, this gene is expanded three times. This gene is just an example of one of the many genes they found expanded that are related to dealing with hypoxia. In addition, as mentioned above, lactate can build up in the body after prolonged diving. The researchers found that the enzyme, lactate dehydrogenase, which converts pyruvate to lactate to be expanded in animals, such as minke whales. Therefore, many different objects in the minke whale genome have expanded in order to account for the behaviors most exhibited by this animal. This study was very ground breaking and will lead the way for many other marine mammal genomes to be completely sequenced (Yim, H et al, 2014).

Screen Shot 2014-04-12 at 8.56.32 PM

Expanded PRDX gene in minke whales and some other organisms.

 

Knox, G. (2007). Biology of the southern ocean. (2nd ed.). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Minke whale. (2014, January 09). Retrieved from http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/cetaceans/minkewhale.htm

Richardson, Jill. “Anatomy and Physiology Part II.” MSC 350. University of Miami, Coral Gables. Mar. 2013. Lecture.

Yim, H, Cho, Y.S., Guang, X, Kang, S.G., Jeong, J, Cha, s, Oh, H, Lee, J, Yang, E.C., Kwon, K. K., Kim, Y.J., Kim, T.W., Kim, W, Jeon, J.H., Kim, S, Choi, D.H., Jho, S, Kim, H, Ko, J, Kim, H, Shin, Y, Jung, H, Zheng, Y, Wang, Z, Chen, Y, Chen, M, Jiang, A, Li, E, Zhang, S, Hou, H, Kim, T.H., Yu, L, Liu, S, Ahn, K, Cooper, J, Park, S, Hong, C.P., Jin, W, Kim, H, Park, C, Lee, K, Chun, S, Morin, P.A., O’Brien, S.J., Lee, H, Kimura, J, Moon, D.Y., Manica, A, Edwards, J, Kim, B.C., Kim, S, Wang, J, Bhak, J, Lee, H.S. and Lee, J. 2014. Minke whale genome and aquatic adaptation in cetaceans. Nature Genetics, 46 (1): 88-94.

 

 

Climate Change and Corals: Is it too late?

/2 Comments/in , /by

By Jacob Jerome, RJD Graduate Student and Intern

There have been numerous studies that focus on the alterations that climate change can have on the marine environment and how those alterations affect corals. In the marine science field coral bleaching and the disappearance of coral reefs is widely discussed. One of the primary debates centers around whether or not it is too late to save coral reefs. But is this doom and gloom viewpoint how we should be looking at this situation? Many scientists argue that there is still hope for coral reefs.

It is important to first understand the threats that climate change pose to corals. There are two main threats: a rise in ocean temperatures and a lowering of the ocean’s pH, a process known as ocean acidification.

Higher temperatures stress corals and cause them to lose their symbiotic algae, or zooxanthellae (NOAA,2011). These symbiotic algae are what give corals their color and without them the corals turn white, an event known as coral bleaching. This bleaching can have several negative impacts on the coral polyps. Corals and their symbiotic algae have what is called a mutualistic symbiotic relationship; this is a relationship where both species benefit from interacting with one another. Corals provide their symbiotic algae with a protected environment and compounds they need for photosynthesis. The symbiotic algae, in return, provide corals with the products of photosynthesis, a suite of compounds that provide food for the corals and aid in the production of calcium carbonate. Although still alive, by losing their symbiotic algae, corals experience increased stress and are more prone to disease (NOAA, 2011).

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

A clear depiction of coral bleaching (Joe Bartoszek 2010/Marine Photobank)

Ocean acidification occurs due to the overwhelming amount of carbon dioxide that is absorbed into the ocean from the Earth’s atmosphere. When carbon dioxide is absorbed into the water, the pH of the water decreases and the water becomes more acidic. Low pH waters limit the rate at which corals can produce calcium carbonate and also increase the rate at which calcium carbonate dissolves (Andersson et al., 2014). Corals use calcium carbonate to build their hard exoskeleton. If corals are not able to produce calcium carbonate quicker than the rate at which it dissolves, they cannot grow.

Knowing these threats, many assume that corals have little hope for surviving through the end of this century. According to the Status of Coral Reefs of the World: 2008, 19 percent of the world’s coral reefs are gone or cannot recover, 15 percent are seriously threatened, and 20 percent are under the threat of loss within the next 20 to 40 years. So, is it too late for corals? Are these threats too great for us to effectively manage them? New scientific research indicates that not all corals are quite ready to give up.

Figure 2

A table summarizing the status of the world’s coral reefs in 2008 (Wilkinson, C. 2008)

Just last year, Australian scientists discovered that coral animals alone are able to produce dimethylsulphoniopropionate (DMSP), a sulphur-based molecule with properties that can provide protection on a cellular level to corals in times of heat stress (Raina et al., 2013). This was the first time that an animal had been discovered to produce DMSP. They also found that corals increased their production of DMSP when subjected to higher water temperatures (Raina et al., 2013). This new information illustrates that corals, even without their symbiotic algae, can “fight” against temperature shifts. While this does not mean that corals can entirely defend themselves against rising temperatures, it does indicate an ability to adapt, to an extent, to these changes.

In addition, a study in the Cayman Islands revealed that a coral reef system that suffered a 40 percent reduction in corals due to bleaching and diseases was able to recover seven years later (Manfrino et al., 2013). The corals in the Cayman Islands are known to be healthy and are afforded some protection from fishing and anchoring. This protection definitely aided in their recovery along with their isolation, a small human population, and a generally healthy ecology (Manfrino et al., 2013). Nonetheless, the Cayman Islands can serve as an example of what can happen when reef management is taken seriously.

In Palau, something remarkable has been discovered. By taking water samples from 9 different locations that stretched from open ocean, across a barrier reef, and into a lagoon and bays, scientists discovered that the sea water became increasingly acidic as they moved toward land (Shamberger et al., 2014). What was even more surprising was that the level of acidity was as high as scientists had predicted for the open ocean by the end of this century. Even so, healthy and diverse coral reefs were found in these areas. In fact, the corals appeared healthier in the more acidic areas than they did in the less acidic areas (Shamberger et al., 2014). While these results are incredible, caution should be taken when interpreting them. The environment surrounding the corals of Palau might create a “perfect storm” for environmental conditions that allow the corals to survive in the acidic waters. Even so, this area has been functioning the same way for thousands of years and may have unintentionally modified the corals in that area genetically. If this is the case, those corals can essentially be put in other acidic environments and survive. This discovery could have huge implications for the survival of corals.

It is important that we do not lose sight of the fact that these new discoveries do not mean that corals are safe under ocean conditions that have resulted from climate change. It does mean, however, that there is still hope for some corals. Climate change is difficult to prevent and changing human habits can be even harder. But if we can release the myriad of other stresses that are put on corals and think about our carbon footprint, corals just might stand a chance for their beauty to be enjoyed for generations to come.

 

References

Andersson, A. J., Yeakel, K. L., Bates, N. R., de Putron, S. J. (2014). “Partial offsets in ocean acidification from changing coral reef biogeochemistry.” Nature Climate Change, 4(1): 56–61.

“Coral Bleaching And Ocean Acidification Are Two Climate-Related Impacts to Coral Reefs.” How Is Climate Change Affecting Coral Reefs? Ed. National Ocean Service. NOAA, 8 Dec. 2011. Web. 10 Mar. 2014. <http://floridakeys.noaa.gov/corals/climatethreat.html>.

Manfrino, C., Jacoby, C.A., Camp, E., Frazer, T.K. (2013). “A Positive Trajectory for Corals at Little Cayman Island.” PLoS ONE, 8(10): e75432.

Raina, J.B., Tapiolas, D.M., Forêt, S., Lutz, A., Abrego, D., Ceh, J., Seneca, F.O., Clode, P.L., Bourne, D.G. Willis, B.L., Motti, C.L. (2013). “DMSP biosynthesis by an animal and its role in coral thermal stress response.” Nature, 502: 677-680.

Shamberger, K. E. F. Cohen, A.L., Golbuu, Y., McCorkle, D.C., Lentz, S.J., Barkley, H.C. (2014). “Diverse coral communities in naturally acidified waters of a Western Pacific Reef.” Geophysical Research Letters, 41: 499–504.

Wilkinson, C. (2008). Status of the Coral Reefs of the World: 2008. Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network and Reef and Rainforest Research Centre, Townsville, Australia, 296p. Reefcheck.org 3/10/2014.

Hawaiian Humpback Whale Conservation

/0 Comments/in , /by

Hannah Armstrong, RJD Intern

The world’s diverse oceans are essentially interconnected, and, in turn, what effects one ecosystem can ripple around the globe.  With countless threats impacting the oceans and its inhabitants, conservation has been a critical topic of debate among both scientists and citizens.  Research efforts are growing to find the best and most effective way to manage and maintain healthy ecosystems.  Marine Protected Areas, for example, are a means of conservation; they can restore ecosystems and allow them to thrive to their utmost potential.  In addition, by utilizing geographic information systems (GIS) and similar tools, scientists can collect and use data to observe and predict both present and future problems regarding the world’s oceans, and ultimately find solutions toward maintaining healthier, sustainable oceans.

Globally, humpback whale populations were depleted by the commercial whaling industry at the beginning of the 20th century.  In 1973, however, the United States government made it illegal to hunt, harm, or disturb humpback whales (NOAA Fisheries Office of Protected Resources).  When the Endangered Species Act was eventually passed, the humpback whale became listed as endangered.  Additional laws protect humpback whales, such as the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, various state wildlife laws, and the National Marine Sanctuaries Act.  Their protection is also extended as a resource of national significance within the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary.

In 1992, following the 1967 success of the Marine Life Conservation Districts, Congress implemented the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary to protect the whales and their habitat (NOAA National Marine Sanctuaries).  Located within the shallow warm waters surrounding the main Hawaiian Islands and constituting one of the world’s most important humpback whale habitats, the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary [HIHWNMS] is managed by both the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the State of Hawaii (NOAA National Marine Sanctuaries).  The Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary is crucial not just for protecting and conserving Humpback whale populations, but also for protecting Hawaiian monk seals, spinner dolphins, sea turtles, other species of whales and dolphins, coral reefs, reef fish, invertebrates and sea [and shore] birds.

The sanctuary has experienced success through research, education and, more specifically, through the use of GIS.  Often considered a mapping tool, GIS offers a way to “view, query, interpret, and visualize various sorts of spatial data to reveal geographic relationships, patterns, and trends (NOAA).”  Moreover, “maps, charts, and analytical reports can be derived from the data stored in a GIS as a means of documenting and explaining spatial patterns and relationships to assist in planning and decision-making processes (NOAA).”  As seen in GIS-generated maps, the density of marine life, specifically humpback whales, is significantly higher in and around the sanctuary, compared to the density outside the sanctuary boundary.  Hawaii has already developed an elaborate network of Marine Life Conservation Districts; coupled with GIS programming, the two are useful in evaluating critical habitats and relevant ecosystem processes to establish adequate boundaries for marine protected areas.

HumpbackWhaleDensity (1)

With data courtesy of Joseph R. Mobley, this GIS-generated map depicts the Hawaiian Humpback Whale density in and surrounding the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary (Mobley, Joseph R. “Humpback Whale Surface Sightings and Estimated Surface Density.” NOAA, 14 Jan. 2013)

As is evident in Hawaii, using mapping tools can contribute toward effective means of conservation.  GIS and related software is being used more frequently to map oceanic habitats, as well as things like water quality, species distribution, population, pollution, fishing grounds, and other factors that influence marine life.  Going forward into the future, the selection and establishment of marine protected areas will depend on the connectivity of targeted species, and GIS will contribute to making these decisions.

 

 

References:

“National Marine Protected Areas Center: GIS for Marine Protected Areas.” National Marine Protected Areas Center. NOAA, 28 June 2013.

“National Marine Protected Areas Center: The Hawaii Coastal Use Mapping Project.” National Marine Protected Areas Center. NOAA, 22 Oct. 2013.

“Humpback Whale (Megaptera Novaeangliae).” NOAA Fisheries Office of Protected Resources. NOAA, 5 Sept. 2013. Web. 03 Dec. 2013.

“GIS for Ocean Conservation.” Esri, Dec. 2007.

 

What’s for Dinner: Seafood Fraud

/1 Comment/in , /by

by Lindsay Jennings, RJD Intern

Whether it is a grouper sandwich, a salmon filet, or a fresh sushi roll, there is a growing demand for seafood on the global menu. Over the past years, there has been an increase in seafood consumption, as an expanding list of marine life is appearing on menus at fast-food eateries, take-out dining establishments, and fine dining restaurants.

This increase in consumption, though, has given rise to a practice known as seafood mislabeling, or seafood fraud, whereby one species of seafood is substituted with a less desirable, cheaper, or more readily available species. Typically similar in taste and texture, certain marine species are difficult to identify without diagnostic body parts such as its head, skin, fin, or shells. Once filleted and prepared, it is often difficult to decipher the exact species that is being served.

Photo 1

Species which are commonly mislabeled include Atlantic cod, grouper, swordfish, red snapper, and wild salmon. When processed, these species become extremely difficult to identify

Seafood fraud is detrimental for multiple reasons. First, it can threaten human health as certain fish species contain high concentrations of contaminants and toxins (1). King Mackerel generally contains high concentrations of mercury, and Escolar (typically sold as white tuna) produces a toxin that leads to gastrointestinal issues. Unknowingly consuming these species can pose serious health risks. Second, global fish stocks face increasing pressure daily from exploitation and overfishing. Mislabeling can create and sustain markets for illegal fishing (2). As laundering illegal species becomes easier, conservation efforts become weakened. Shockingly, according to the US Government Accountability Office, only 2% of seafood imported into the US is inspected and of that, only 0.001% is inspected for fraud (3).

Photo 2

FDA field inspectors checking shipments of imported seafood

 Mislabeling can also undermine consumer’s choices by making it difficult for them to accurately make a sustainable seafood purchase. And finally, it misleads the public about the truth surrounding the availability and conservation status of certain species (3). Instead, it gives an exploited fish species, such as Grouper, the false appearance of having a steady supply.

Fortunately, a number of studies are helping to educate and bring awareness to the severity of seafood fraud and more importantly potential solutions to counter the prevalence of this issue. Hanner et al., in 2011, found 41% of their 254 Canadian seafood samples to be mislabeled. Pacific salmon was often not designated to a species level (e.g. Coho, Sockeye, Pink), Red Snapper was commonly swapped with Tilapia, and there were instances of Patagonian Toothfish being labeled as Chilean Seabass; all of these examples of mislabeling (4).

To help study and combat this practice, researchers, including Hanner, have been using DNA barcoding, where they match genetic material of a fish sample against known genetic sequences, or barcodes, in a database. The benefit of using DNA barcoding is its ability to match barcodes from whole fish, fillets, fins, juveniles, eggs, and even samples of cooked or frozen fish! As our voracious appetite for seafood consumption outpaces the supply, global fish stocks continue to decline. DNA barcoding offers an effective way to increase transparency, fair trade, and ultimately ensure a more sustainable future for the global seafood industry and for stronger fisheries resource management.

Photo 3

NOAA scientist sampling a piece of fish for DNA analysis

Organizations like Oceana have also produced studies shedding light on seafood fraud. From 2010 to 2012, they analyzed over 1200 seafood samples across the United States, and found a mislabeling rate of 33% across 21 states (1). Popular metropolitan cities such as Miami, Washington DC, Seattle, New York City, and even land-locked cities like Austin, Denver, and Kansas City were culprits. With numbers from these studies, a conservative worldwide mislabeling rate of just 10% would indicate that there is around $24 billion in fraudulent seafood shipped worldwide annually (4)! Studies have also uncovered widespread mislabeling in Brazil, South Africa, the Philippines, Italy, and the UK, which supports the reality that seafood substitution is not confined by geographic boundaries or species.

Coupled with these studies that raise awareness about mislabeling, increased education of consumers can be another effective tool for the conservation of commercially harvested species that could be threatened or endangered. Miller et al. in 2011, examining mislabeling in the UK and Ireland, found Cod mislabeling to be about 4 times lower in the UK than Ireland. This was credited mainly to heightened consumer awareness in the UK despite the same EU policies for seafood traceability and labeling across both countries (5). Consumer education coupled with accurate labeling would allow consumers to make more informed choices and control the demand for more sustainable seafood.

As more light is being shed on this issue, programs are being developed to help combat seafood mislabeling. From edible QR codes which diners can scan to download harvesting information about their fish, to ‘trip tickets’ allowing consumers to track their seafood from harvest to plate, these initiatives are helping raise consumer awareness. Through these programs and others, consumers can gain the power to influence stricter labeling standards for the future to help enhance traceability in the global seafood trade and to help further support truly sustainable fisheries.

 

 

References

  1. “Seafood Fraud: Overview.” 2012. Oceana. Retrieved November 17, 2013, from  http://oceana.org/en/our-work/promoteresponsible-fishing/seafoodfraud/overview
  2. Carvalho, D. C., Neto, D. A., Brasil, B. S., & Oliveira, D. A. (2011). DNA barcoding unveils a high rate of mislabeling in a commercial freshwater catfish from Brazil. Mitochondrial DNA, 22(S1), 97-105.
  3. GAO, U. (2009). Seafood Fraud: FDA Program Changes and Better Collaboration Among Key Federal Agencies Could Improve Detection and Prevention.
  4. Hanner, R., Becker, S., Ivanova, N. V., & Steinke, D. (2011). FISH-BOL and seafood identification: Geographically dispersed case studies reveal systemic market substitution across Canada. Mitochondrial DNA, 22(S1), 106-122.
  5. Miller, D., Jessel, A., & Mariani, S. (2012). Seafood mislabeling: comparisons of two western European case studies assist in defining influencing factors, mechanisms and motives. Fish and fisheries, 13(3), 345-358.

Investigating the Intellectual and Emotional Lives of Cetaceans

/2 Comments/in , /by

By Heather Alberro, RJD Intern

The question of intelligence in animals other than human beings and perhaps some species of primates is a provocative and widely contested one. However, there is a growing body of evidence suggesting that cetaceans, the mammalian order that includes whales and dolphins, may possess many of the “intelligence markers” we typically ascribe to intelligent beings such as primates, including language, a sense of self, culture, and displays of emotional complexities. Despite having evolved along quite different evolutionary paths that were shaped by vastly different physical environments, both cetaceans and primates evolved the two largest brains in the animal kingdom. Consequently, as a large body of literature suggests, cetaceans display many of the signs of intelligence often exclusively attributed to the order of primates while even surpassing them in areas such as brain-to-body-size ratio. From living in tight-nit and highly structured social groups to their displays of emotional complexity and self-awareness, cetaceans are indeed evolutionary marvels that appear to be close to primates, particularly humans, in terms of the cognitive and behavioral complexities they exhibit.

Having originated from a hoofed land mammal turned aquatic inhabitant from the Paleocene nearly 50 to 60 million years ago, and despite the radically different physical environment that gave way to a different neuroanatomical structure, cetaceans have nonetheless undergone a similar brain size evolution, known as encephalization, to that of its terrestrial counterpart, the primate brain (Marino, 25). In fact, primates and cetaceans possess the highest encephalization levels in the animal kingdom. The common dolphin, a member of the cetacean sub-order odontoceti that also includes toothed whales, is known to have even higher encephalization levels than non-human primates such as chimpanzees, coming in second only to humans (Marino, 25).  In terms of EQ or “emotional intelligence value”, many modern odontoceti species have a value of 4.5, the highest in the animal kingdom apart from the average 7.0 for humans. Despite variations in neuroanatomical organization and the stark differences in the physical environments that shaped the evolutionary trajectories of primates and cetaceans, it is remarkable that encephalization levels between the two mammalian orders are in fact so similar in terms of size and complexity.

800px-Tursiops_truncatus_brain_size_modified

Comparison of the brains of a wild pig, bottle nose dolphin, and modern human.

When assessing the relative intelligence and cognitive capacities of cetaceans, particularly those of the odontoceti sub-order that include highly social species such as the common dolphin and the orca, various lines of enquiry have been pursued, such as whether or not these animals are self-aware. One test typically employed by researchers to test for advanced cognitive developments such as self-awareness is the mirror test. In her article, Convergence of Complex Cognitive Abilities in Cetaceans and Primates, Lori Marino describes a mirror test that she and a fellow researcher conducted with two bottlenose dolphins, whereby they placed marks on their bodies and allowed them to observe themselves in a mirror. Lori notes that, “both dolphins in our study used a mirror to investigate parts of their bodies that were marked [Reiss and Marino, 2001]” and that the findings of the study “open up the possibility that the emergence of self-recognition, and perhaps other forms of self-awareness, are not byproducts of factors unique to humans and great apes (29).” Indeed, the possibility that cetaceans may possess a sense of self, an attribute originally thought to be exclusively human, suggests that there is some level of cognitive complexity that warrants further research.

dolphins-mirror

Dolphin mirror test (Reiss and Marino, 2001)

Another marker of intelligence originally believed to be exclusive to humans and some non-human primates such as macaques and chimpanzees is the presence of “culture”, which is defined as the information or behavior that is shared by a population or subpopulation, and which is acquired from conspecifics through some form of social learning (Rendall and Whitehead, 2001).  As Lori Marino elucidates, “Recently, enough data has been amassed on wild cetaceans to show that many species possess cultural traditions with regard to dialects, tool use among some wild dolphin populations, methods of prey capture in killer whales, and other related social behaviors (28).” Similarly, populations of wild orcas off the west coast of Canada have been known to display various hierarchical divisions, much of which seems cultural as the primary division is between resident and transient orcas (Baird, 2000). Such displays of complex social behavior and organization bear a striking resemblance to those of primates, suggesting continuities in their intellectual lives, despite disparities in the outward physical appearance of the two orders.

The idea that cetaceans experience emotional states such as grief, joy, fear, and the like, while difficult to corroborate for the simple reason that cetaceans cannot express any feelings they may have vocally, is nonetheless frequently maintained by many researchers who have spent a number of years working with these animals. In Into the Brains of Whales, Mark Peter Simmonds cites examples such as the “prolonged grief” displayed by Orcas upon losing an infant or other family member. One case involves two male orcas that, after encountering the body of an older female they had grown up with in mind November, 1990, spent the rest of their lives isolated from other orcas and visiting old places that the female had visited when she was alive (Rose 2000a)(Simmonds 108). Simmonds also notes the prominent field biologist Denise L. Herzing’s remarks on the “joy” often expressed by her long-studied Atlantic bottlenose dolphins. Such examples, while undoubtedly inconclusive, still warrant further examination, as they suggest that cetaceans may be as emotionally complex as humans and non-human primates.

Cetaceans have been known to display remarkable behaviors such as rudimentary forms of “culture” for the transfer of information and outward displays of emotionally complex behavior such as grief and excitement. Indeed, they appear to be rather close to humans and above many non-human primates in terms of cognitive, social, and emotional complexity. In terms of the size and anatomical complexity of their brains, many members of the odontoceti sub-order come in second only to modern humans. Further research should aim at gaining a closer look at the lives of these fascinating and intelligent animals, as there is much we have yet to learn, such as whether they indeed experience emotion, whether they can develop significant emotional attachments to members of their group like humans and non-primates do, and just what exactly they are capable of, cognitively.  Such questions lead to the issue of conservation: if these animals are indeed as intelligent and self-aware as they appear to be, should they therefore be granted increased protection from pollution, habitat destruction, hunting, and other man-made dangers? As fellow sentient beings with advanced emotional and intellectual lives, do we owe them the sort of consideration often awarded to members of our own species?

 

Bibliography:

  1. Marino, Lori. “Convergence of complex cognitive abilities in cetaceans and primates.” Brain, Behavior and Evolution 59.1-2 (2002): 21-32.
  2. Rose, N.A., 2000a. A death in the family. In: Berkoff, M. (Ed.), The Smile of the Dolphin. Discovery Books, London.
  3. Simmonds, Mark Peter. “Into the brains of whales.” Applied Animal Behaviour Science 100.1 (2006): 103-116.
  4. Rendell, Luke, and Hal Whitehead. “Culture in whales and dolphins.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24.02 (2001): 309-324.

Seafloor Biomass and Climate Change

/0 Comments/in , /by

By: Patrick Goebel, RJD Intern

The bottom of the ocean is a dark and mysterious place. It was first believed that this was a lifeless barren dessert. However, in recent years our understanding of this wasteland has changed. Submersible submarines, baited cameras and core samples have shown that life can survive at these deep depths. Animals and organisms have adapted to low temperatures, extreme pressure and minimal food. On the ocean seafloor, there is a plethora of organisms that play a vital role in the marine ecosystem. The vast majority of these organisms depend on the upper ocean as a source of energy. Energy on the seafloor is derived from particulate organic carbon (POC) from the upper ocean.

A recent article, Global reductions in seafloor biomass in response to climate change, predicts that biomass will decrease in response to climate change. Eight fully coupled earth system models were used to construct a multi-model mean of export flux. The model used two different Representative Concentration Pathways, one moderate and one high. The export flux estimates are used in conjunction with published empirical relationships to predict changes in benthic biomass (Jones et al 2013).

The article predicts that the upper ocean biomass will decrease in response to climate change, which will result in a decrease of POC that is transferred to the ocean floor.  Benthic communities are already limited by food supply and further depletion could change the diversity and structure of these communities. The total seafloor biomass is predicted to decrease by 5.2%. There will also be a shift in benthic infauna toward smaller size classes. Macrofauna will decrease far more than meiofuanal and megafaunal. This is most likely due to the greater energy demand of macrofauna.

Goebel figure 1

Change in Biomass % over 90 yrs (Jones et al 2013)

Since not all oceans are the same, some will experience a decrease while others will experience an increase. The Atlantic, Pacific and Indian oceans are predicted to see a reduction in POC flux and biomass. However, the Southern and Artic Ocean are projected to experience biomass increases. There are many canyons, seamounts and cold-water corals located in these oceans that will largely be affected. More than 80% of potential deep-water biodiversity hotspots known around the world, including canyons, seamounts, and cold-water coral reefs, are projected to experience negative changes in biomass.

In conclusion, there will generally be a decrease in POC as a result of anthropogenically induced warming. However, there are other factors, such as, decreased oxygen, change in pH, and fishing pressure that could also have a negative impact on seafloor biomass.  These factors will likely contribute to a decrease in seafloor biomass and cause for under representation of the 5.2% decrease. The loss or decrease of benthic communities will have a negative impact on the ocean ecosystem, as these communities play a vital role in contributing to elemental cycling, benthic remineralization and carbon sequestration (Jones et al 2013).

 

Jones, D. O., Yool, A., Wei, C. L., Henson, S. A., Ruhl, H. A., Watson, R. A., & Gehlen, M. (2013). Global reductions in seafloor biomass in response to climate change. Global change biology.

Comprehensive Review of IUCN Shark and Ray Extinction Risk: Factors increasing risk, under-management of fisheries, and shortcomings in current conservation activities

/0 Comments/in , /by

By Kyra Hartog, RJD Intern

The natural world is changing rapidly in the face of land and coastal development, climate change, fisheries, and other human impacts. With these changes come conservation concerns for the various species that inhabit these areas impacted by human activities. The International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) Red List is a valuable conservation tool that allows scientists to determine the conservation status of various plant and animal species around the world. In their recent paper, Dulvy et. al provide a comprehensive assessment of all species of sharks and rays (chondrichthyans) under the IUCN Red List criteria, which provides insight into the rapidly changing biodiversity of the world’s oceans.

The IUCN Red List classifies species in categories ranging from “Least Concern” to “Extinct” based on certain criteria such as reduction in population size, change in geographic range, and number of reproductive individuals in a population, among other measures. Dulvy and his colleagues applied these criteria to 1,041 species of sharks and rays and evaluated each species’ status based on these criteria. They found that over a quarter of the species of sharks and rays could be classified as threated under IUCN criteria, mostly due to overfishing and habitat degradation. The found that large-bodied, shallow-water species had the highest extinction risk of the sharks and rays and that the overall risk for chondrichthyans was higher than that of other vertebrates. Though shark and ray populations have changed significantly due to overfishing and habitat destruction, it is unclear whether these changes are reversible or if they signal a larger problem regarding overall marine species extinction risk.

hartog 1

Figure from Dulvy et. al representing A) the increased reported catch of shark and ray species over time, B) the increased contribution of rays to the global reported chondrichthyan catch, and C) Shark and ray fishing nations based on % of contribution to global reported catch, number of threatened species in each area, and % of contribution to the global fin trade based in Hong Kong

Sharks and their relatives exhibit some of latest maturing and slowest reproducing species of any taxonomic group. Populations of chondricthyan fishes also exhibit extreme life history characteristics such as low population growth rates, weak density-dependent juvenile survival, and increased sensitivity to fishing mortality. Though sharks and rays are often caught as bycatch of fisheries targeting some other species, they are often kept due to the increasing value of their fins and demand for meat, liver oil, and gill rakers (from Manta and other devil rays). These fishing pressures, combined with effects of habitat degradation, make for a potentially disastrous future for chondrichthyan species. Commercial and residential coastal development, mangrove destruction, river engineering, and pollution are the main processes causing freshwater, estuarine, and marine habitat degradation. These human activities alone threaten one third of already threatened shark and ray species.

The most acute effects of these activities are seen in those species that require freshwater and those that can live comfortably in both fresh and salt water: one third of the 90 species in this category are affected severely by habitat degradation. Their risk is exacerbated by the specific nature of their habitats and their small geographic ranges. Mangrove destruction, in particular, has increasingly become an issue in Southeast Asia where mangrove forests are being clear-cut for shrimp farming operations. Human perception of sharks as dangerous has led to increased use of shark control nets at beaches and direct persecution due to shark attacks and supposed damage to aquaculture and other fishery operations. Only one species, the New Caledonia catshark, has been directly threatened by climate change but many others have been recognized as climate sensitive. Climate change hotspots like the Mediterranean Sea should also be monitored for changes in species extinction risk.

Shark and ray species are most threatened when they are large-bodied, coastal-dwelling, exposed to fisheries, and within a narrow depth range. This combination of factors is exemplified in the Sawfish family (Pristidae) and has led to their status as the most threatened chondrichthyan family, and possibly the most threatened family of all marine fishes. Other highly threatened groups include shelf-dwelling rays, angel sharks, and thresher sharks. The least threatened groups are those that are small bodied and somewhat out of reach of fishery operations such as catsharks, chimaeras, and soft-nose skates. Conservation of specific areas is prioritized based on the number of threatened species in that area, the level of expected threat for those species, and the number of threatened endemic species (found only in that area and therefore irreplaceable). Hotspots that fall under these criteria include the Indo-Pacific Biodiversity Triangle and the Red Sea. These areas, among some 15 other conservation hotspots, represent a combination of high threat, low safety, and high uncertainty in extinction risk among the chondrichthyan species that live there.

hartog 2

Level of “irreplaceability” among chondrichthyans in global conservation hotspots. Score is based on the number of small-range (endemic) species found within each area.

While there have not been any known global extinctions, 28 populations of sawfishes, skates, and angel sharks have been driven to regional or local extinction. Sharks and rays have the highest number of species classified as “Data Deficient” by the IUCN among all evaluated taxa. Fourteen percent of these species are likely to be threatened based on their life histories and distribution. Dulvy et. al made a novel observation that minimum depth limit and narrowness of depth range may be more important in determining extinction risk than geographic range, possibly due to the wide-reaching nature of fisheries today. No species can be out of reach of the current global fishing fleets but some may be able to escape capture by inhabiting deeper oceanic zones. These global fisheries represent an issue for international management agencies as it is difficult to monitor so many operations. Listing under conventions such as CITES (Convention of International Trade of Endangered Species) and effective implementation of these listings is key to reducing extinction risk of sharks and rays, globally. Repeated Red List status assessments, proper catch reporting, and sufficient management plans must also be employed on regional level in order to see significant changes in chondrichthyan conservation status. This study provides a comprehensive exposure of the under-management of sharks and rays as well as the shortcomings of various management groups in protecting these species from further exploitation. These findings will be invaluable to the future of effective and meaningful shark and ray conservation around the world.

 

References:
Dulvy, N. K., Fowler, S. L., Musick, J. a., Cavanagh, R. D., Kyne, P. M., Harrison, L. R., … White, W. T. (2014). Extinction risk and conservation of the world’s sharks and rays. eLife, 3(e00590). doi:10.7554/eLife.00590

IUCN (2013). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.2. <http://www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 2 March 2014.

Fish living in the “twilight zone” have a greater biomass than previously thought.

/0 Comments/in , , /by

By James Keegan, RJD Intern

Mesopelagic fish, fish living at depths between 200 and 1000 meters in the ocean, reside in water with very low levels of light. Although they are typically small, mesopelagic fish constitute the largest biomass of fish in the world because of their immense numbers. Previous estimates state that there are about 1,000 million tons of mesopelagic fish worldwide. However, using data collected on the Malaspina 2010 Circumnavigation Expedition, Irigoien et al. 2014 show that there are about 10 times more mesopelagic fish than previously estimated. Such an increase in an already massive fish community alters how we determine the role mesopelagic fish play in ocean food webs and chemical cycling.

Lampfish25

A man holding the mesopelagic species Stenobrachius leucopsaurus. It belongs to a family of fish commonly known as the lanternfish. (Occidental College. url: http://www.oxy.edu/sites/default/files/assets/TOPS/Lampfish25.jpg)

Previously, scientists pulled nets behind their boats in a process called trawling in order to capture fish and estimate their populations. This process is not efficient in catching mesopelagic fish and leads to an underestimation of their numbers. Instead of trawling, scientists aboard the Malaspina 2010 used an echosounder, a type of SONAR, to determine the biomass of mesopelagic fish. In this method, the echosounder emits a pulse of sound into the water and records the sound that returns after bouncing off an object. Using sound to weight ratios previously determined in other studies, Irigoien et al. 2014 were able to estimate the mesopelagic fish biomass from the recorded acoustic data. Irigoin et al. 2014 then used food web models to corroborate the estimate given by the acoustic data. Their estimates determined the mesopelagic biomass to be about 10-15,000 million tons, about 10 times higher than previous estimates.

Fig1remake copy

Caption: Acoustic data collected on the Malaspina 2010. The top of the figure represents the surface of the ocean, and the bottom of the figure represents a depth of 1000 meters. The colors in the figure show where sound bounced off marine organisms and returned to the echosounder. Between 200 and 1000 meters, the organisms are mostly mesopelagic fish. The black triangles indicate the border between ocean basins. AT stands for Atlantic Ocean, IO for Indian Ocean, WP for Western Pacific, and EP for Eastern Pacific. (Irigoien et al. 2014)

Irigoien et al. 2014 also found that mesopelagic biomass is closely tied to the plankton, miniscule, floating organisms of the ocean, that undergo photosynthesis. These photosynthetic plankton form the base of the marine food web, and other, larger plankton consume them. Mesopelagic fish then feed on these herbivorous plankton.

Diatoms_through_the_microscope

A photo of diatoms, photosynthetic plankton, under microscope. (Wikipedia. url: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Diatoms_through_the_microscope.jpg)

In the open ocean, where nutrients are poor, herbivorous plankton do not efficiently capture photosynthetic plankton. This implies that fish will not efficiently obtain their energy, which ultimately comes from the photosynthetic plankton. However, Irigoien et al. 2014 contest that the transfer of energy to the mesopelagic fish is more efficient in the open ocean because the water is warm and clear, allowing the visual fish to more easily capture their prey. Considering this argument, Irigoien et al. 2014 determined that mesopelagic fish may be using about 10% of photosynthetic plankton for energy.

Irigoien et al. 2014 showed that the biomass of mesopelagic fish, as well as their usage of energy in the open ocean food web, is much greater than previously thought. Due to the impact these two findings would have on ocean ecosystems and chemical cycling within them, scientists must make further and more accurate investigations regarding the mesopelagic fish community.

 

References:

Irigoien, Xabier, T.A. Klevjer, A. Røstad, U. Martinez, G. Boyra, J.L. Acuña, A. Bode, F. Echevarria, J.I. Gonzalez-Gordillo, S. Hernandez-Leon, S. Agusti, D.L. Aksnes, C.M. Duarte, S. Kaartvedt (2014) Large mesopelagic fishes biomass and trophic efficiency in the open ocean. Nature Communications 5, Article number: 3271 doi:10.1038/ncomms4271

 

 

 

How Climate Change Affects Marine Species, their Environments and the U.S. Endangered Species Act

/0 Comments/in , /by

By Jacob Jerome, RJD Intern

Despite a frigid winter in a large portion of the U.S., global climate change is upon us and average global temperatures are increasing. Many of us think about how climate change will affect us personally, but forget that it affects marine species too, especially those that are threatened or endangered. Seney et al published a paper in 2013 that reviewed the potential effects that climate change poses on species and ecosystems, and how it effects decision making under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

Worldwide climate change documentation indicates mean surface air temperatures are increasing, along with the upper layers of the ocean.  Due to our growing planet, the abundance of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has caused the surface waters of the oceans to become more acidic. With this type of data, projections have been made to see how our climate will change in the 21st century.  Assuming no reduction in carbon emissions, it is predicted that surface air temperatures will increase even more, the sea level will rise, and the pH of the ocean will continue to drop.

These environmental changes can affect species through habitat loss or alteration, distribution changes, geographic isolation, or changes in predator-prey interactions. Even human adaptations to climate change such as relocation or changes in fishing and agriculture could potentially impact species through habitat conversion and ecological degradation.

Jerome Fig 1

Schematic showing the multiple interactions among species, their ecosystems, and climate effects (Seney et al., 2013).

So what does all this mean for the conservation and management of marine species? In 1973 the United States implemented the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in an effort to prevent species’ extinction and promote their recovery. While this continues to be one of the United States’ best laws protecting various species, it was not originally intended to factor in climate change. Luckily, the ESA emphasizes the importance of habitats and ecosystems to endangered and threatened species and therefore can afford protection in the event of climate change. To make this happen, climate change needs to be considered in five key ESA decisions: listing determinations, designation of critical habitat, recovery planning, accessing and mitigating effects of proposed federal actions, and issuance of incidental take permits. These decisions for marine species fall to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Listing determinations refers to how a species’ status is determined, whether threatened or endangered. According to the ESA, an endangered species “is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range” and a threatened species “is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” Climate change can affect listing decisions if it can present new threats that affect species persistence or add to existing threats.

Critical habitat of listed species is “physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species and which may require special management considerations or protection.” The boundaries of critical habitat for species could change for those that modify their range when reacting to climate change. To better address this, agencies should look outside currently occupied spaces for essential habitat in the event of climate change.

Jerome Fig 2

Rising air temperatures are causing glaciers in the north to break apart and melt, a contributing factor to the rise in sea level. (Thomas Hallermann/Marine Photobank)

Recovery planning takes place for every species that is listed under the ESA, making it vital for agencies to provide guidelines on how to promote the recovery of species. Climate change was not addressed in past recovery plans, but since 2008, over half of the recovery plans drafted included climate change — information that is imperative when working to conserve the most endangered species.

When federal actions are proposed, conservation planners look to see how the action will affect species and their ecosystems. While it is difficult, projecting how those actions will look after climate change would help to better protect species against potentially harmful actions.

If agencies provide permits that allow the take of ESA listed species in connection with certain activities, they must consider the effects of climate change on future environmental conditions when determining the approval of a permit. This will help to ensure that the permit does not add a higher degree of risk to the species’ survival.

Through these actions, we may be able to strengthen the ESA, allowing even better protection for threatened and endangered species.

 

Reference

Seney, E.E., Rowland, M.J., Lowery, R.A., Griffis, R.B., and McClure, M.M. “Climate Change, Marine Environments, and the U.S. Endangered Species Act.” Conservation Biology. 27.6 (2013): 1138-1146.