Human's don't have to ruin EVERYTHING!

Tryjanowsky, P., Sparks, T.H., Jerzak, L., Rosin, Z.M., Skorka, P. 2013. A paradox for conservation: electricity pylons may benefit avian diversity in intensive farmland. Conservation Letters.

Available online:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/conl.12022/abstract;jsessionid=33E7AA9B53D37C9F731A9DAE75BC913D.d01t01

Humans don’t have to ruin EVERYTHING!

Over most of the semester, the feeling in the class has been, well if we didn’t screw it up in the first place, we would not have to fix it! Here is a case that shows that our development isn’t necessarily negative for every species.

Just this year, scientists in Poland did a study to show how bird biodiversity was impacted in areas near power lines. These giant power poles, also called pylons, are thought to be an ugly human interference, that get in the way of the natural beauty. In 2011, these Polish scientists did a study to determine if this was actually so. 

During the study, Tryjanowski et al. Counted nesting bird populations twice in 2011under pylons, under electricity high-voltage power-lines and in adjacent open fields. Both species number and bird abundance were significantly higher under pylons and under power lines at control points than in open fields. This could be because the birds prefer the habitat that has been altered by humans around these sites. Some bird species also use the poles themselves as nesting structures, or song posts. Bird abundance was even higher in areas around the pylons where the vegetation was allowed to develop into shrubs.

Although we typically associate human behaviour with destruction – destroying everything in our paths – this case demonstrates that sometimes man made structures are actually beneficial to wildlife. (Even if this may not be intentional!)

So there you go, not all of the repercussions for our consumerist needs are destructive! 

Word Count: 300

An ethical dillema: Power or the People?

Review of:

Fearnside, P.M. 2006. Dams in the Amazon: Belo Monte and Brazil’s Hydroelectric Development of the Xingu River Basin. Environmental Management. Available online at: http://www.internationalrivers.org/files/attachedfiles/belo_monte_dec_making_em_01136.pdf

As most of you will know, Brazil is a country that holds a special place in my heart. Having spent more than 9 months collectively there in the last 4 years, it is a country that I would be proud to call my second home.

            Brazil, like most countries, faces the common dilemma as to whether to continue to expand and develop at a rapid rate, or whether to put a stop to development in order to preserve its natural beauty and its immense biodiversity. Unfortunately, like most countries, economics typically wins out over conservation.

            In order to sustain such a rapidly growing country that depends so heavily on industries such as aluminum manufacturing plants, vast amounts of energy are required. In 1998, before the environmental assessment was finished, the building of a huge hydroelectric dam in the Brazilian Amazon’s Indigenous land began. Often times conservation topics are also very controversial political topics as well. According to Brazilian law, before anything can be done in the development of indigenous land, it first must go through a vote from all of the National representatives. After years of this dam waiting in limbo, the dam was suddenly approved with little to no public knowledge. The Belo Monte Dam has been shut down and ceased operations several times since construction began but is now being built at full steam after Brazil began putting electricity rations on their citizens in 2001. 

            Although Brazil does need the extra electricity that would be generated by the dam, the impact suffered by the Amazon would be devastating. The Belo Monte Dam by itself would have a small reservoir area or 440 km², but the upstream Altamira Dam that would regulate the flow of the Xingu River would flood 6,140 km² of the Amazon, part of which is in a provincial park. That amount of flood land required to sustain such a massive Dam would account for 3% of the Brazilian Amazon forest. 

            As we know from previous classes, the Brazilian Amazon houses intense biodiversity, and needs to be protected. Issues such as this one are faced every day from countries that need to decide what really is best for the country – protection or expansion. And as we all know, money makes the world go ‘round.

A picture of me in Brazil, hanging out with some Capibaras to lighten the mood!

Word Count: 403

And because I didn't delve into the impact of locals, watch this! And... sorry for the depressing post!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0N9ECWCmOE

The Great Pizzly Bear!

-->

Clisset, Christine. (2010) Pizzly Bears-When polar bears and grizzlies breed, they can produce fertile offspring. Why can't other species? Slate

Available online at:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2010/05/pizzly_bears.html

Höflinger, Laura (2012) In the Land of the Pizzly: As Arctic Melts, Polar and Grizzly Bears Mate Spiegel Online

Available online at:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/polar-bears-and-grizzlies-producing-hybrid-offspring-as-arctic-melts-a-859218.html

 

Struzik, Ed. (2012) Unusual Number of Grizzly and Polar Bears Spotted in High Arctic, e360 digest.

Available online at:

http://e360.yale.edu/digest/unusual_number_of_grizzly_and__hybrid_bears_spotted_in_high_arctic/3567/

Global Warming and the Great Pizzly Bear!

            It seems that now, and for the last few years, one of the biggest issues in science is global warming.  Global warming affects multiple facets of biology including animal diet, behavior, and physiological processes. Global warming has been pushing animals to adapt in many ways.

            A new phenomenon being observed in the Arctic/ Northwest Territories are Pizzly or Grolar Bears.

                                                                                                                                        Corbis

A bear believed to be a "pizzly," a hybrid between a polar bear and a grizzly bear.

Normally, Grizzly Bears and Polar Bears rarely cross paths, and if/when they do, it is not during mating season. Polar Bears typically spend their mating season on sea ice, mating between April and May (wikipedia), where Grizzly bears mate between May and early July, a little bit further south (and they don’t go on the sea ice!).

20 years ago, Grizzly bears would not dare venture to the Far North to invade Polar bear habitat, because it was far too cold and unnecessary, but global warming has increased temperatures noticeably for these bears (Struzik, 2012). It has also decreased the amount of sea ice, and how long the sea ice is available to polar bears to hunt and mate, forcing them further south to find and gather food. This has caused Polar bears and Grizzly bears to cross paths during mating season, and allowed them to interbreed.

Because Polar Bears and Grizzly bears have fairly common ancestry (Clisset, 2010), Pizzly bears, or Grolar Bears, are sexually viable – but they do not necessarily have hybrid vigor. They tend to hunt seals the same way polar bears do, but their longer claws are not very good for walking on the ice. The offspring tend to be less fit than their parents, because they do not have the same specializations to the environment that the parents display. At this point, there seems to be very little chance that the pizzly bears will outcompete their parents, because only a very small percentage of Polar Bears and Grizzly Bears actually share habitat – solely the Polar Bears venturing far south and the Grizzly Bears venturing far north (Struzik, 2012)

Hybrids are not a protected species, because they are not considered polar bears, but they are especially "prized" possessions for hunters, due to their rarity (Höflinger, 2012). This raises the same argument that we discussed in class. If hybrids are carrying polar bear genes, then why are they not protected as well?

Word Count:

422

Another week to save the owls!

BRAKES, C. R. and SMITH, R. H. (2005), Exposure of non-target small mammals to rodenticides: short-term effects, recovery and implications for secondary poisoning. Journal of Applied Ecology, 42: 118–128. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2005.00997.x

Available online at:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2005.00997.x/full

Accessed February 6, 2013

Albert, C.A., Wilson, L.K., Mineau, P., Trudeau, S., Elliott, J.E. (2009),Anticoagulant Rodenticides in Three Owl Species from Western Canada, 1988–2003. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol,DOI 10.1007/s00244-009-9402-z

Available online at:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDcQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fsccp.ca%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fspecies-habitat%2Fdocuments%2Fanti%2520coagulatn%2520rodenticides%2520in%2520three%2520owl%2520species-western%2520canada_a%2520albert%2520et%2520al%25202009.pdf&ei=_n4SUayxL4q8qAGk3oGIAg&usg=AFQjCNHZU3jCgdrVrQ0yyALgvM6jrqNBRQ&sig2=A86E-y7587glV06qQmaTqw&bvm=bv.41934586,d.aWM

Accessed: February 5, 2013

Get rid of those pesky rodents!?!?!

            It’s probably fairly common for people to hate unwanted rodents in their houses. It is a huge problem that faces rural communities, and a lot of people deal with this problem by buying rat poison, and leaving it in their houses to get discovered by their unwanted guests. The mice/rats find the poison, consume it, and then go outside to die. Problem solved, right? WRONG.

                                                Photo: Wild Wonders of Europe

            These mice go outside to die, and in their weakened state, they are very easy prey for hungry birds. The birds eat the mice, and then they get sick and/or die. A study by Albert et al., 2009, analyzed birds found in western Canada and the Yukon. They analyzed the livers of 164 dead owls looking to find different rodenticides present in their livers.

  

Table 1, above showed that of the 164 owls tested, 114 of them had rodenticide residue in their livers.

70% of all owls tested had at least one type of rodent poison in their bloodstream!

SAVE THE OWLS!

Owls aren’t the only small mammals affected by rodenticides either. A study by Brakes and Smith in 2005 showed the effect of 6 different rodenticides on other non-target mammals such as weasels, and stoats. Brakes and Smith found that there was about a 60% decrease in population of non-target mammals on farms that used rodenticides.

So what can we do?

There are several other methods devised to rid your house of mice without using harmful poisons.

1.     Live traps. People can buy live traps, in which the mouse enters, gets stuck, and later can be release outside.

2.     Sonic waves. Some companies have devised a machine that plugs into your walls emitting sound waves that mice do not like, and therefore they do not stay.

3.     Traditional mousetraps. There are hundreds of different types of mouse traps, all with the same purpose – to kill the mouse.

Although some methods are obviously more humane than others, all are effective. If people were planning on killing the mouse anyway with poison anyways, they might as well save the owls, and get rid of only the animal that they are targeting.

Word Count: 446

Logging to make a living: How to do it right

Aubry, K., Peterson, C. (2007), GREEN-TREE RETENTION IN HARVEST UNITS: BOON OR BUST FOR BIODIVERSITY?

Avaiblable online at: http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/ (Jan 24, 2012)

Isaak, D.J., Wollrab, S., Horan, D., Chandler, C. (2011), 

Climate change effects on stream and river temperatures across the northwest U.S. from 1980–2009 and implications for salmonid fishes. DOI 10.1007/s10584-011-0326-z

Available online at: http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_other/rmrs_2011_isaak_d003.html (Accessed Jan 23, 2013)

Guenther, S. M., Gomi, T. and Moore, R. D. (2012), Stream and bed temperature variability in a coastal headwater catchment: influences of surface-subsurface interactions and partial-retention forest harvesting. Hydrol. Process.. doi: 10.1002/hyp.9673

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hyp.9673/references

Galiano Conservancy, 2009. Ecological Restoration of BC Forest. Available from: http://www.watershedsentinel.ca/content/ecological-restoration-bc-forest

I come from a family who is lucky enough to live and work in one of the most beautiful place in the world. The downside, they moved there in 1945 to start a logging company. I know as well as anyone, that everyone needs to make a living, but I still feel it is my duty to help ensure that logging is done in the best way possible, and then to restore the forest once the logging has taken place.

There are many reasons why logging is negative to forests, but I will focus on two; damage to streams and rivers that run through the logging block, and uprooting of animals that were living in and depending on the trees that were removed.

                                          http://hardcoretreeplanters.com/

Forests create protection on many levels. They directly protect birds, insects and many mammals by providing food and shelter.  Also, forests protect most streams and rivers from direct sunlight, debris, and chemicals. The streams and rivers house many fish and plants, which are also effected by forest clear-cutting. When a forest is clear-cut, it destroys the protection of these rivers and animals relying on them. A study by Guenther et al in 2012 looked at the average water temperatures of a few streams between 2002 and 2005. In 2004, the area was logged and it was found that the daily temperatures of the streams rose up to 3 degrees higher. Temperature changes in streams and rivers can alter species distribution among aquatic animals because they have many physiological processes, such as the degradation of toxic chemicals and cellular respiration, that are temperature dependent, and therefore, a few degree temperature change can effect them majorly (Isaak et al, 2010).

Education and pressure to create laws against clear cutting is important. There are better ways to log, including using the thinning method (taking out only a few trees) which may actually increase forest growth by allowing sunlight to reach the forest floor and smaller trees (Galiano Conservancy, 2009). There is also the green tree retention method, which leaves some of the older, bigger trees that are thought to provide micro-climates and enhance habitat for other plants and animals (Aubry and Peterson, 2007). Another may be to think up and implement new housing within logging blocks for the displaced animals.  

Word Count: 388