Craig is temporarily a post-doctoral fellow at the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute who is looking for a permanent position. He spends most of his time balancing his overwhelming geekdom with normalcy so he can function in the real world. Luckily his wife likes his geekiness.
Peter Etnoyer is a Graduate Research Associate at the Harte Research Institute for Gulf of Mexico Studies, Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi. He studies deep corals and ocean fronts, and he loves to be on the water.
Kevin Zelnio is a Graduate Student Researcher at Penn State studying the ecology of hydrothermal vent and methane seep communities. He raises awareness of the plight of the spineless through folk music.
This week I have found that my cup runneth over with work. Several things around the web have caught my eye which deserve substantial commentary. That's what you pay for, right? Unfortunately, today they get a link.
First, here is a specific example of push into the deep as shallow fisheries collapse. In this case, the dwindling numbers of blue crabs in Chesapeake Bay is providing incentive for companies like Benthic Fishing Corp. to fish for the vaguely named "deep sea red crab", Chaceon quinquedens
Nautilus "owns" their seafloor mining sites. And resource owners in coastal villages adjacent to the seafloor mining operation in Madang Province have apparently received absolutely nothing, diddly, squat, zip, zilch, nada, bupkis to have their traditionally owned seafloor stripped. Why this disparity between terrestrial and seafloor extraction practices? Because Nautilus' operations are invisible in 1,600 meters of water. Out of sight, out of mind.
The identity of the Black Swan is finally revealed. You can read about the saga here, here, and here. Apparently, Spain does have rights to it as it is most likely the Nuestra Senora de las Mercedes a Spanish warship sunk by the British navy southwest of Portugal in 1804. Dare I say there has been deception by Odyssey Marine Exploration?
Hank R. points me to this post about whale conservation, economics, and the current strife between the White House and NOAA. Make sure you read the comments for some U.S.A. citizens who likely voted for Bush. My favorites...
Last time I checked, Vice President Cheney was elected by the will of the people. The bureaucrats at the NOAA were not yet they are demanding that the elected representative bow to their opinion. Seems like a legitimate difference of position where the VP trumps NOAA
and
There will always be the old maids who will want to meddle in everyone's business and tell everyone what to do. In this case it is a bunch of scientists. Most scientific evidence can be used to support any number of contradictory positions so in essence this is a political issue clothed in psuedo-science.
A new study lead by Chao in Science estimates that nearly 10,800 cubic kilometers of water are stored in artificial reservoirs. That is little over twice the volume of Lake Michigan. The authors estimate this quantity of water reduces global seal levels by -30mm, with an average rate of -0.55mm per year over the last half century.
Findings by Daniel Odess, curator of archaeology at the University of Alaska Museum in Fairbanks, suggest that whale hunting dates back at least 3,000 years. Odess's team found a piece of walrus ivory inscribed with scenes of hunters in boats pursuing whales. Wood directly adjacent to the ivory was radiocarbon dated to arrive at the age. This predates previous evidence of whaling by 1,000 years.
This is the final installment of VBS.tv's TOXIC-Garbage Island series. Part 12 is more of an epilogue of sorts. The bonus interview with Frederick vom Saal is very informative!
I would like to thank the producers and hosts of the film series. Even though I ragged on them quite a bit, the issue is very important and I am grateful they were able to go out there and document some of this stuff. They even occassionally made some very good points ; )
I also wish to thank the captain and crew of the Oceanographic rRsearch Vessel Alguita for their dedication to conservation issues. You can read more about their exploits on their blog (new rejuvenated!)
As I was catching up on all of my favorites blogs, I noticed that James Hrynyshyn at The Island of Doubt posted about the recent oddness at the Heartland Institute. To catch you up to speed the DeSmogBlog notes...
Dozens of scientists are demanding that their names be removed from a widely distributed Heartland Institute article entitled 500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares. The article, by Hudson Institute director and Heartland "Senior Fellow" Dennis T. Avery, purports to list scientists whose work contradicts the overwhelming scientific agreement that human-induced climate change is endangering the world as we know it.
One quote by a scientist particularly stuck out to me at The Island of Doubt
Why can't people spend their time trying to identify and evaluate the facts concerning climate change rather than trying to obscure them?" -- Dr. James P. Berry
So out of curiosity I went over to the "Institute" and downloaded the list of 500 scientists. Low an behold James Barry's (not Berry) name is there among 499 other scientists.
Who is James Barry? Nothing short of senior scientist at the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute who, as chance would have it, is my post-doctoral advisor. OMG, is my advisor a climate-change denialist? Am I fraternizing with a climate-change skeptic? Can I not find a faculty position because I am affiliated with Dr. Barry? Is my career over? Did I forget to read one my advisor's papers? Will he find out I didn't read is paper throughly? Does he know that I know? If I speak out against him will I come back from our next trip out to sea?
Of course all this is in jest and I cannot think of anything more absurd than the claim of the Heartland Institute. You can see Jim's publications here. More than likely the paper in question is "Climate-Related, Long-Term Faunal Changes in a California Rocky Intertidal Community" a true classic paper of marine biology. You should also note here that Jim's research has also been instrumental in understanding how the deep sea, and in general the oceans, will respond to ocean acidification as well sequestration of carbon dioxide in the deep. To summarize that research quickly...it doesn't look good for the organisms of the deep. Jim also gave the Ricketts Memorial Lecture entitled Changing the World One Breath at a Time: Humans, Climate, and Ocean Ecosystems at the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Symposium entitled Oceans of Change: Our Climate, Our Sanctuary, Our Future. Of course maybe there are two James Barry's at MBARI. Maybe one is bizzaro Jim, an evil climate-change denialist.
Now I originally planned to cover every nuance of the above seminal paper but the abstract really says it all (bold mine).
Changes in the invertebrate fauna of a California rocky intertidal community between the period 1931 to 1933 and the period 1993 to 1994 indicate that species' ranges shifted northward, consistent with predictions of change associated with climate warming. Of 45 invertebrate species, the abundances of eight of nine southern species increased and the abundances of five of eight northern species decreased. No trend was evident for cosmopolitan species. Annual mean shoreline ocean temperatures at the site increased by 0.75 degrees C during the past 60 years, and mean summer maximum temperatures from 1983 to 1993 were 2.2 degrees C warmer than for the period 1921 to 1931.
The folIowup paper to this lead by Sagarin with Jim Barry as a coauthor provides further support for this idea. Both papers document that southern species (adapted to warmer temperatures) increase in abundance at the site, whereas northern species (cold adapted) decreased. Important here is that it is not the intention of the paper to test whether the warming is the result of anthropogenic activities. Rather, the paper elegantly documents changes that occurred to an intertidal community over a 60 year period and attributes them to a well-documented temperature changes at the site.
But Avery must not of understood everything in the paper because he likely greatly construes this paragraph...
Anthropogenic impacts must also be considered but are expected to be minor. Before 1907, the site was adjacent to a Chinese fishing community that likely exerted heavy foraging pressure (30) on some invertebrates (for example, abalones, large limpets, and mussels). Since 1917, the site has been the property of HMS, with no public access, and has been fully protected as an ecological reserve since 1980.
It is COMPLETELY obvious that the anthropogenic effects here include habitat degradation and fishing pressure. I assume that Avery believes this to include anthropogenically induced climate change which it does not.
So perhaps in the future Avery should read a little more carefully or ask for some help when he gets to the "tough bits". How dare Avery besmerch the name of my advisor! All I will say is that I am ready to FREAKIN' BRING IT if the Heartland "Institute" wants to continue with this sham.
When a scientist is writing a scientific paper we look for that one quintessential figure that tells the whole story. Other figures are ancillary to fill in the specifics but the 'cardinal figure' is where all the meat of the paper is distilled to one remarkable graph. A senior scientist once told me that deciding on and constructing this figure is the hardest part of writing the paper. After the "cardinal figure" everything else writes itself.
Think of the "cardinal figure" as manuscript feng shui. An off-balance figure with improperly aligned objects lead to paper disharmony. Bad figure...bad paper moojoo.
I mention this because the paper I will expound on here presents a cardinal figure that truly exemplifies a "picture is worth a thousand words". It does so well at conveying the message little more commentary is needed. I merely, and humbly, fill in the details.
So the details not on the graphs... Whales here is killer whales. The AB Pod is a resident pod in Prince William Sound. You can clearly see both in terms of number and reproductive value they are not doing so well. You might also notice that 1989 starts the downtrend. What happened in 1989 you might ask? On March 24, 1989, the supertanker 'Exxon Valdez' ran aground on Bligh Reef in northeastern Prince William Sound, Alaska, spilling 42 million liters of crude oil, the largest oil spill in USA history.
The oil was most volatile and produced the most aromatics in the weeks immediately following the spill (Spies et al. 1996), and inhalation of oil or concentrated aromatics is extremely toxic (Griffiths et al. 1987, Geraci 1990, Neff 1990). Cetaceans are obligatory surface breathers and the large quantities of monoaromatic hydrocarbons evaporating out of the oil slick would have been most concentrated immediately above the water's surface. Monoaromatics easily cross membranes in the lungs, and will be taken up rapidly, resulting in a narcosis response well documented in humans (Ainsworth 1960, Bass 1986). The fumes themselves may not have been directly lethal, but they could easily have caused marine mammals to lose consciousness and drown (St. Aubin & Geraci 1994). The acute response could have happened in minutes if monoaromatic concentrations were high. We believe that the 7 animals missing when AB Pod was thoroughly photographed 6 d after the spill likely died as a result of inhaling oil or its vapors. The effects of vapor or oil inhalation may range from instant death to sub-lethal damage to mild irritation, depending on concentration and length of exposure (Geraci 1990). If there were acute mortalities, then sub-lethal damage should have been prevalent as well. Inhaled hydrocarbons may inflame mucous membranes, cause lung congestion, lead to pneumonia and cause neurological damage and liver disorders (Geraci 1990, Neff 1990, Lipscomb et al. 1994).
Matkin, C., Saulitis, E., Ellis, G., Olesiuk, P., Rice, S. (2008). Ongoing population-level impacts on killer whales Orcinus orca following the 'Exxon Valdez' oil spill in Prince William Sound, Alaska. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 356, 269-281. DOI: 10.3354/meps07273
Take a few moments to let the size of the Colossal Squid really sink in
In my absence for a body size evolution workshop and during Peter's coral week spectacular the media took the opportunity to spread disinformation about my favorite phyla-Mollusca. To bring you up to speed, a crack team of teuthologists* dissected both Giant and Colossal Squids at the Te Papa Museum in New Zealand last week. This is where the confusion arises as a Giant Squid AND 2 Colossal Squid were dissected. One of these was the 495kg giant caught over a year ago by fisherman in the Antarctic (oh yeah...she's a girl!). Seeing the media consistently confuse the two species greatly saddens me. But hey if the media always got it right there would be little need for DSN.
So for clarity the Giant Squid and the Colossal Squid are completely different. Below I provide a list that you can print out and keep in your wallet or purse along with your Seafood Watch card.
Continuing the series of VBS.tv's TOXIC-Garbage Island series. Contains some vulgar language. It finally gets good. In part 10, "Its totally not like the money shot, its totally worse". Says it all right there, totally. Watch the net closely in part 11, disgustingly amazing.
Craig is temporarily a post-doctoral fellow at the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute who is looking for a permanent position. He spends most of his time balancing his overwhelming geekdom with normalcy so he can function in the real world. Luckily his wife likes his geekiness.
Peter Etnoyer is a Graduate Research Associate at the Harte Research Institute for Gulf of Mexico Studies, Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi. He studies deep corals and ocean fronts, and he loves to be on the water.
Kevin Zelnio is a Graduate Student Researcher at Penn State studying the ecology of hydrothermal vent and methane seep communities. He raises awareness of the plight of the spineless through folk music.
