Ocean Dead Zone (Jonathan Moran)

Dead Zones – No, not when you don't have cell service, but rather areas in the ocean with high nutrient pollution caused by human activities that deplete oxygen in the water.  These areas are vast spaces that are literally “Dead Zones” where little to nothing can survive due to insufficient oxygen levels in the water.  The term commonly used in this topic is hypoxic, simply meaning low oxygen.  This lack of oxygen causes species in the waters across the globe to suffocate and die.  Currently, one of the biggest forming hypoxic zones annually is in the coastal waters in the Gulf of Mexico.  A major human cause of this is from common fertilizers.  As we have learned in class, the Mississippi watershed is a HUGE area of the United States, where a good chunk of the area is agriculture land.  Farmers (non-organic that is) use pesticides and fertilizers to speed up the process of growing crops.  These fertilizers end up in streams and rivers and eventually drain into the Gulf of Mexico.  Once the excess nutrient pollution enters into the ocean, algae grow at a rapid rate.  The algae will expand and eventually die, sink, and decompose.  The decomposition of the algae then consumes oxygen, leaving little behind for anything living.  Anything that can swim like fish or larger creatures have the opportunity to escape while they can, but coral and other living species that are slow moving or fixed, cannot and suffer a far worse fate.  These areas have such low oxygen levels where life cannot exist, turning the ocean into a deserted ecosystem with little to no biodiversity.  This is a serious problem that is happening in areas in the ocean and Great Lakes due to the high and frequent use of fertilizers.  Once these chemicals are in the ocean, the waters have no way of filtering out these nitrous chemicals.  The chemicals attack oxygen and deplete levels to where life in not possible.  In order to save the fish, we need to stop using fertilizers or come up with a process where the run-off does not contaminate waterways.  If we are able to trap these chemicals before they enter the waterways and oceans and lakes, we would have a far greater chance to save more ecosystems from collapsing and disappearing.  This process causes species to relocate, creating havoc on other ecosystems where specific species are not naturally found.  This puts pressure on other species and causes species to die due to a huge swing in the food chain.  Species when in a different habitat, whether that be a non-natural depth, or water temperature, causes species to die.  If we are not careful in how we fertilize land, these dead zones will continue to grow, and ecosystems will continue to diminish.  It is our duty to realize what we (humans) are doing to the ecosystem is not sustainable.  We then need to act and come up with a plan on how to contain the  problem and make sure it does not continue to happen.  Finally we need to regulate more closely the affect fertilizers have on the ecosystem.  I was unaware of how serious this issue is, and I am sure I am not the only one.  The need for awareness needs to continue to grow about this issue so we can save the manatees!  Who doesn't love a seacow?

Manatee eating lettuce and saying Hi Friend

COOL VIDEO Check it out if you are a visual learner like myself!

Sources:
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/deadzone.html
http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130611144922/mlp/images/6/6f/Seacow.jpg
http://media.treehugger.com/assets/images/2011/10/dead-zone-cycle-080815.jpg

Preventing the Death of the Monarch Butterfly (James Wise)

Monday, February 9th 2015, marks the day the Obama administration and conservation groups begin to stop the destruction of the monarch butterfly.  Over the past 20 years, the monarch butterfly population has dropped by 90%.  The dramatic drop in numbers has been caused by changes in farming habits.  These farming habits have removed large portions of milkweed plants from the monarch butterfly's migration routes.

Last winter, only 50 million butterflies made it to Mexico, a dramatic drop from their estimated population of 1 billion.  Dan Ashe, director of US Fish and Wildlife Service, has put forward $2 million dollars and has formed partnerships with the National Wildlife Federation and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation in order to promote the growth of the monarch butterfly.  The USFWS plans to restore the monarch butterfly's number by growing milkweed and other butterfly-friendly plants along migration routes from Minnesota to Mexico.  This effort will restore more than 200,000 acres of habitat.  Tierra Curry of the Centre of Biological Diversity believes the restoration efforts will not only help the monarch butterfly but also help future habitat renewal efforts.  She is quoted stating, "If the monarch does get protected that will open up a lot more funding to protect habitat."

The destruction of the monarch butterfly population is a product of the ever-growing human population.  As we have discussed in our "Principles of Ecology" class, the single most important influence on environmental change is the human population and its rapid rate of growth.  While this problem is not being solved by the USFWS, they are promoting sustainability.  They are working to protect an intricate part of the ecosystem.  The monarch butterfly pollinates plants and is an important part of the food web.  By attempting to repairing the damage caused by unsustainable farming, the USFWS is ensuring a sustainable future for both the monarch butterfly and the environment.

I believe this topic to be very important.  The extinction of such an important species would do significant damage to the ecosystems it thrives in.  I am very happy to see that the monarch butterfly is not the only target of this action.  Habitat restoration is crucial to the success of the monarch butterfly and will also help other species of plants and animals to flourish in areas that were not accessible.  Hopefully this plan will not only revive the monarch butterfly population but greatly increase the biodiversity in areas where the habitats are restored.

Works Cited:

Goldenberg, Suzanne. "US Launches Plan to Halt Decline of Monarch Butterfly." The Guardian. The Guardian, 9 Feb. 2015. Web. 10 Feb. 2015. <http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/09/us-launches-plan-to-halt-decline-of-monarch-butterfly>.

Picture:

http://i.guim.co.uk/static/w-1430/h--/q-95/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2015/2/9/1423489546177/7eca4b59-a116-4c50-a3e6-229337a40a90-2060x1236.jpeg

Hydrofracking, What goes into it?

Hydrofracking can be viewed as the future of the energy industry. It provides a cheep, more environmentally friendly alternative to crude oil.It is also very plentiful in the United States which could boost this country's struggling economy. However, the environmental drawbacks have been well documented and there is a very dedicated opposition. Because of the nature of the industry and how much of the dialogue is around the environment this subject fits right into the course.
While the subject of fracking is a hot topic for debate surprisingly little is known about it. The actual action of drilling a hole and extracting natural gas is simple enough and fairly common knowledge for people with a background in the field. The mystery comes from the agent's that are used to extract the gas. Fracking liquid is like hot dogs, no one knows whats in it.

The vast majority of fracking fluid is water. The water is supplemented by sand and chemicals that are designed to increase the effectiveness of the drilling. The exact combination of chemicals that goes into fracking fluid varies and is unknown to anyone who is not making it. It is very much like a secret sauce for a restaurant. The different combination are actually trademarked by the respective companies. That leads to many different combinations of highly toxic chemicals that gets pumped into the ground.

The reason for the secrecy is capitalism. The company with the best mixture is the only one that has the right to use it. That gives them an advantage over the rest of the competition and forcing them to give that up would harm business.Thus, all the trademarks. The drilling companies can put whatever they want in their fracking liquid and do not have to tell anyone about it.

That in my opinion is the real problem with hydrofracking. The environmental issue has been a difficult thing to overcome for the industry. Maybe, reveling exactly what, and how much of it, these companies are putting in the round would raise public opinion. Also, as the industry is viewed as an alternative energy source, and a way to reduce the country's dependence on foreigner oil, the effectiveness of the drilling should be maximized. It is for the betterment of the country as a whole if the best concoction was widely used. Then when better, or more environmentally friendly, compounds are developed they can be widely spread and improve the whole industry.

"What Chemicals Are Used." What Chemicals Are Used. Web. 9 Feb. 2015. <https://fracfocus.org/chemical-use/what-chemicals-are-used>.

"Environment." America's Energy. Web. 9 Feb. 2015. <http://www.energyfromshale.org/americas-energy/environment>.

Global Plastic Consumption On the Rise, While Recycling Lags Far Behind (Theresa Tremblay)

Plastic is everywhere. We buy it, use it, and then just throw it away.  From toys and packages to

The Great Pacific Garbage Patch located in the Central North Pacific Ocean. 

Source:https://gentlegreen.wordpress.com/

 batteries and textbooks, even the scissors needed to open the things we want to consume come with plastic on them.  The Worldwatch Institute recently evaluated the trend in worldwide plastic consumption.  According to the UNEP, the increasing production of plastic in the past half a century led to almost 299 million tons of plastic being produced in 2013, with at most 43 percent of that plastic now residing in landfills.  The problem will keep growing with countries like China, who currently only consume 20 kilograms per year of plastic (one-fifth the amount of the average American), are predicted to continue to grow in population and wealth.  We have successfully created an effective product but have not found a way to recycle it in a sustainable or environmentally friendly manner.  Worldwatch estimated that plastic causes about 13 billion dollars in damage to different ecosystems, as well as losses to tourism and cost of cleaning coastline every year.  

            This problem of increasing plastic consumption relates to our “Principles of Ecology” class because of the discussions of ecological footprint and overshoots as well as sustainability.   We have defined an overshoot to be when waste is created faster than the waste can be turned into resources again.  According to the United States Parks Service it can take up to 450 years for plastic to biodegrade naturally, and considering that the United States only recycled nine percent of the plastic it used in 2012, our planet has a considerable amount of work to do to clean up after us.  The growing use of plastic is only a small piece of our ecological footprint. However, using technology to create products that biodegrade faster or choosing to use less of the products that do not biodegrade at a sustainable rate can have a lasting impact.   

            I find this problem to be very interesting.  As a developed country we do not always see the physical side affects of our consumption behaviors.  We use products such as water bottles and food containers with no thought of how or where it will be disposed of.  Fortunately it is not our rivers that are overflowing with garbage and waste.  As a developed nation we have the option to send it to countries like China with limited environmental standards to be “disposed of”.  Maybe if we had polices that forced us to deal with the waste we produce we would consume at a more sustainable pace. 

As plastic continues to become a substitute for other products such as glass and metal, steps need to be taken to ensure that our use is both efficient, in that we can create it with as little waste as possible either by recycling or creating cleaner plastic energy, as well as sustainable.

Sources:

Gourmelon, Gaelle. "Global Plastic Production Rises, Recycling Lags: New Worldwatch Institute Analysis Explores Trends in Global Plastic Consumption and Recycling." Worldwatch Institute. 28 Jan. 2015. Web. 1 Feb. 2015. <http://www.worldwatch.org/global-plastic-production-rises-recycling-lags-0>.

"Time It Takes for Garbage to Decompose in the Environment." U.S. National Park Service; Mote Marine Lab, Sarasota, FL. Web. 4 Feb. 2015. <http://des.nh.gov/organization/divisions/water/wmb/coastal/trash/documents/marine_debris.pdf>.

Coral Bleaching Is Getting Worse, Not Better (Tucker Martin)

Coral as a reef is not a single organism, rather, it is a collection of individual organisms of the family cnidaria that are firmly fixed to other corals and eventually the seafloor via a calcium carbonate skeleton that it secretes constantly to both build and repair itself post damage. Depending on the specific coral species it may eat small fish or more commonly, planktonic animals and algae. In the case of coral bleaching, the algae is what is important. The algae exists symbiotically with the coral, providing it both food through photosynthesis and the color for the coral, in turn the coral provides protection and access to the light the algae needs to photosynthesize.
        The process of coral bleaching is simple, the rising ocean temperatures affect the temperature sensitive algae present in the coral, causing the coral to expel the algae, exposing the white calcium carbonate skeleton underneath to show.
         While the process is simple, the implications are complex and far reaching. After only a few days of the coral expelling the algae under the adverse ocean conditions, the coral begins to starve and after about a week, the coral dies. Depending on the coral and hypothetically assuming the ocean conditions immediately reverted back to coral-supporting conditions, it could take years to decades for the coral to grow back to its previous size since coral only grows at a rate of between .3cm to 10cm per year. Unfortunately, hypotheticals are not true and the reality is that rising ocean temperatures not only affect coral by bleaching it, they also affect the fertility rates of coral with the most severely affected coral residing close to the surface (Florida State University).
            Those are the natural implications, what may get countries to begin focusing on the problem is the economic  and social implications, as the University of Georgia states, "roughly 500 million people worldwide rely on them as a source of protein and for coastal protection, and they are responsible for billions of dollars in tourism and fisheries revenue" (University of Georgia).
        This issue relates perfectly to our Principles of Ecology course because it discusses the serious affects the environment can have on the species that reside within it, in this case how even a slight change in the average ocean temperature in a relatively small ecosystem can have drastic effects on far more than just that local ecosystem. I think that the effects of global warming are going to exacerbate the coral bleaching issue and we're going to very quickly lose one of the most beautiful sights in the world. I encourage anyone and everyone to go snorkeling or scuba diving on a living reef before they're all gone.

Works Cited

University of Georgia. "Close-up of coral bleaching event." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 3 June 2014. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/06/140603135827.htm>.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. "Coral Reef Protection: What are Coral Reefs?." EPA, 12 May, 2012.

         

Picture Credits

http://www.treehugger.com/natural-sciences/coral-bleaching-creates-a-vicious-cycle-of-further-bleaching-and-disease.html

Invasive Species: A Geographical Problem (Sean Dufort)

Invasive species are a relatively unknown problem to the general public. Most people would not even know if they walked by a type of plant that is supposed to be from South American and not here, or a bird from Europe that is here pushing out other natives species of birds. However, something even less known to most people is that invasive species can alter landscapes.  In research by Purdue University, it is stated that invasive species can "alter sedimentation rates and change stream channels; insects can modify a landscape by building mounds and burrowing; and animals can accelerate erosion by digging and trampling vegetation." Truthfully, I have taken environmental courses before this class, and not once have I heard of invasive species changing the geography of a place. People being unaware of this is not good for the environment. In this research by Purdue, there is a good example of this. "The review showed that areas where land and water systems overlap -- such as wetlands, salt marshes, coastal beaches and dunes -- are particularly vulnerable to invasive species. The dynamic nature of these areas contribute to the speed and scale with which non-native species can transform the landscape and ecology. [Songlin Fei] pointed to the example of Spartina grass, also known as cordgrass, which was intentionally introduced not coastal mudflats to prevent erosion. In China, the grass quickly transformed about 432 square miles of coastline into salt marshes. 'You basically lose your beach in about a decade,' Fei said." This change in landscape from these invasive species is a problem, and must be fixed. It was already known that many invasive species push out native species, and even some into extinction, and the news of this geographical problem shows that this problem needs to be addressed even sooner rather than later.

This problem relates to our course of "Principles of Ecology" because these findings of how invasive species change the landscape around them is a prime example of how species interact with their environment. This relationship between organisms and their environment, both biotic and abiotic, is very important and a main theme in our course. This negative relationship between these species and, other natives or the environment, is a major study in both environmental science and ecology, and something that we could look at as a class at some point during the semester.

I found this problem very interesting to read about. As I had stated early, I've taken some environmental classes before and studied invasive species but I had never heard of them changing the landscape around them or anything like that. So reading this research and putting it with the other past things I have learned about invasive species that they do negatively, it makes me feel with even more certainty that this issue needs to be addressed even more than it already is.

Works Cited

Purdue, University. "Invasive Species Can Dramatically Alter Landscapes, Study Shows." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 11 December 2014. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/12/141211115522.htm>.

Picture credit:

http://www.wilx.com/home/headlines/MSU-App-Tracks-Invasive-Species-287625121.html

Disappearing Poppies (Stephanie Mazzola)

         The poppy flower is a symbol of the lives lost in World War I.  The flower that once flourished in the former battlefields of northern France and Belgium is beginning to disappear.  Ecologists studying this issue have concluded that the cause is the dramatic change in Europe’s plant biodiversity.  Over the past 100 years, there has been a significant rise in the number of plant species in northern France and Belgium.  Dr. Nina Hautekeete of the University of Lille explains, “about one in every five to six species studied were either lost in particular regions or newly introduced”.  In other words, as invasive species are introduced to a particular area, more specialized species become extinct.  Habitat destruction due to intensive farming and urban development have also contributed to the disappearance of plant species to a given area.  Researchers have found that most new species occur in urban areas and tend to be garden plants.  Research shows that these new cosmopolitan species do not replace the complex interactions of the plant species that are disappearing or are already lost.  Dr. Hautekeete explains, “A short term increase in biodiversity could be followed by a long term decrease which may cause ecosystems to stop working properly”.  Her next step in this research is to determine where the non-native species are coming from and whether or not climate change is a factor to their relocation.

         In the “Principles of Ecology” course, we have learned about feedback loops as they relate to particular systems.  Feedback loops occur when an output is fed into the system as an input causing some type of change to occur.  In regards to the disappearance of the poppies, the new plant species are causing the poppies to disappear, which could have an effect on the overall health of our ecosystems.  We have also learned that it can take a long time for a system to respond to feedback, which we call a time delay.  Dr. Hautekeete refers to this idea of a time delay when she references the fact that we do not know the long-term effects of the disappearances of plant species.

         Poppies are disappearing from Northern Europe primarily because of other plants.  I find it very interesting that the main cause of the disappearance is not directly humans.  It seems to be a common belief that when species become extinct or endangered, humans are to blame.  However, that is not the case for the poppies.  Researchers are trying to figure out where the invasive, non-native plant species are coming from.  Whether or not this is a direct result of human behavior is still being researched.

Works Cited

British Ecological Society (BES). "Poppies fade from Flanders fields as Europe's plant life changes." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 10 December 2014. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/12/141210080458.htm>.

National Geographic. Most Popular Prints. 2015. 1 February 2015 <http://photography.nationalgeographic.com/photography/photos/most-popular-photo-gallery/#/red-poppies-daisies_26499_600x450.jpg>.