conservation biology

Are Zombie Vultures In Our Future?

grrlscientist — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 12:05:36 +0000

Are Zombie Vultures In Our Future?

tags: vultures, Gyps species, conservation biology, endangered species, veterinary medicine, toxicology, physiology, evolutionary biology, pharmaceutical chemistry, epidemiology, mathematical modeling, researchblogging.org,peer-reviewed research, journal club

Only thirty years ago, tens of millions of White-rumped Vultures, Gyps bengalensis,
were flying the skies of Asia. They are now classified as Critically Endangered.

Image: Marek Jobda / rarebirdsyearbook.com [larger view]

A zombie is another name for The Walking Dead -- those who are lifeless, apathetic, or totally lacking in independent judgment. But in an ecological sense, a zombie species no longer fulfills its ecological function because it is becoming extinct. This is a topic that I hope to explore further in another blog entry, but for now, today's zombie theme and vultures' delightful dining habits (they eat zombies) and my zombie icon have inspired me to focus on them.

These studies that I am highlighting are intriguing because of they illustrate the dichotomy between vultures' ability to consume rotting flesh without getting ill (and without spreading disease around the countryside via their droppings) whilst they literally drop dead within hours or days of consuming carrion that contains metabolites of a variety of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs; common drugs like ibuprofen that you typically purchase over-the-counter).

The problem I am talking about is quite spectacular: within just ten years, the populations of the three vulture species found throughout the Indian subcontinent abruptly plunged more than 95%, which is one of the most dramatic population decreases ever recorded in any bird species. Early investigations into a population of White-rumped Vultures, Gyps bengalensis (pictured, top), in Pakistan indicates that vulture mortality is the result of ingesting flesh containing metabolites of the NSAID, diclofenac. Basically, it was found that after ingesting meat tainted with diclofenac, the birds die almost immediately from a toxic build-up of uric acid in their tissues or from kidney failure. Since Asian vultures primarily dine on carcasses of domesticated animals, and because most livestock is treated with diclofenac, it appears this is a rather dire situation. But how widespread (among vulture species) are the effects of diclofenac toxicity?

Another group of researchers set out to answer this question. This group necropsied the bodies of Gyps bengalensis and Slender-billed Vultures, G. indicus, that were found either dead or dying throughout India and Nepal (Figure below):

Figure 1. Proportion of vultures with diclofenac residues, visceral gout or both (indicated by the black area of each pie chart) at 13 localities where dead or dying vultures were found. The area of circles is scaled according to the number of birds assessed per site, which is given next to each. The circle furthest to the left represents data from a previous study in Pakistan (Oaks et al. 2004 [DOI: 10.1038/nature02317]).
DOI: 10.1098/rsbl.2004.0223

Apparently, all Gyps vultures were affected. According to their postmortem findings, these birds had residues of diclofenac as well as visceral gout -- both of which are strongly associated with diclofenac toxicity in these species.

Further, this study also established that the widespread veterinary use of diclofenac is almost certainly the major (only?) cause of this tragic and rapid decline in vulture populations across the entire subcontinent: the leading wave of a huge ecological disaster. But is there an appropriate alternative drug that can be used that will not endanger vultures?

Ketoprofen, also an NSAID, was suggested to be a safe alternative drug to diclofenac. Ketoprofen was initially thought to be safe because it had not previously been reported to cause mortality in scavenging birds and because it is rapidly eliminated from livestock tissues. But upon a closer look, it was found that ketoprofen is not safe for Gyps vultures to ingest, either (Figure below):

Figure 1. Relationship between log₁₀ ketoprofen dose and uric acid concentrations in plasma at 24 h (for phase 1 denotes square symbols, phase 3 triangles and phase 4 denotes circles) and 48 h (phase 2 denotes diamonds). Unfilled symbols represent dosed birds that survived, filled symbols are dosed birds that died, and the horizontal dashed line is the average concentration of uric acid prior to dosing. The mortality in phase 3 with low values of uric acid at 24 h (filled triangle below the control values) subsequently showed a 30-fold increase in uric acid at 33 h post dosing.
DOI: 10.1098/rsbl.2009.0818

Worryingly, surveys of livestock carcasses throughout India found toxic levels (for vultures) of residual ketoprofen already present. What drugs are safe alternatives to diclofenac and ketoprofen? Or are Gyps vultures just incredibly sensitive to all NSAIDs? Are other vulture genera also as sensitive to NSAIDs? Other scavenging birds? No one knew the answer to these critically important questions.

Surveys of veterinarians and zoos were conducted, documenting the outcomes of the medical treatment of over 870 scavenging birds from 79 species with a variety of anti-inflammatory drugs (Figure below):

Figure 1. Number of cases of (a) Gyps vultures (n=6 species) and (b) other scavenging birds (n=54 species) treated with NSAIDs that did not die with gout or renal failure (grey shading) and those treated that died with visceral gout and/or renal failure (black shading). Diclofenac data is taken from Oaks et al. (2004) [DOI: 10.1038/nature02317] and Swan et al. (2006a) [DOI: 10.1098/rsbl.2005.0425]. mel, meloxicam; dic, diclofenac; asp, aspirin; car, carprofen; dex, dexamethasone; flu, flunixin; ibu, ibuprofen; ket, ketoprofen and phe, phenylbutazone. Where two drugs are indicated both were administered simultaneously or there is uncertainty about which drug was used (table 1 data not shown).
DOI: 10.1098/rsbl.2006.0554

As you can see, treatment with the NSAIDs, diclofenac, carprofen and flunixin were associated with mortality, as well as treatment with ibuprofen and phenylbutazone. In short, NSAID toxicity was reported for raptors, storks, cranes and owls, suggesting that the potential conservation impact of NSAIDs use may extend beyond Gyps vultures and could have significant impacts upon New World vultures, too.

But this study also provided hope for conservationists and veterinarians: there were no reported mortalities for the NSAID, meloxicam, which was administered to over 700 birds from 60 species. The relative safety of meloxicam supports other studies that suggest this particular NSAID is an appropriate replacement for diclofenac in Asia. At this point, saving these birds is a situation that is mainly dependent upon public and political will (for example, how expensive is meloxicam as compared to diclofenac?). However, since the populations of these birds are so low, there is concern that they might have become ecological "zombies": ecologically nonfunctional because their population densities have fallen below sustainable levels.

I am referring to Gyps vultures method of locating carcasses on which to dine. These birds, like most vultures, are sight hunters: they depend upon their fabulous visual acuity to find dying animals or to track and correctly interpret the subtle body language cues of their neighbors who are soaring a mile or so away who have detected a dying animal. As a result, if the population of vultures drops below a critical number, they will not have adequate foraging densities and they will starve. But what is the foraging density "tipping point" for Gyps vultures?

Another group helped out by developing a mathematical simulation model to examine the roles of vulture and carcass densities, a system where visual information plays a key role in foraging. They found an s-shaped (sigmoidal) relationship describing the probability of vultures finding food as a function of vulture density in the habitat (Figure below):

Figure 1. Model predictions for the probability of a vulture reaching a carcass on any given day (3 hours foraging), as a function of vulture and carcass numbers in a fixed area of 2500 km². Undiscovered carcasses can be detected at a maximum distance of 300 m, those with vultures already feeding on them at 4 km. Vultures descending towards a discovered carcass can be detected at a range of either (a) 4 or (b) 10 km. Carcasses: diamonds, 50; filled squares, 20; open squares, 10; filled circles, 3; and open circles, 1.
DOI: 10.1098/rsbl.2008.0038

This relationship suggests that there is a threshold density below which the foraging efficiency of the vulture population will drop rapidly towards zero -- the birds will slowly starve to death (they will become the walking dead, or perhaps I should instead say, the soaring dead.) But having this model is critically important.

Hopefully, politicians and veterinarians remedy their pharmaceutical contributions to this impending tragedy before it is too late. If this is the case, conservation biologists will have this mathematical model to help them design management strategies that will maintain effective foraging densities for vultures and prevent these graceful and essential birds from moving into the realm of the forever dead.

Sources:

Shultz, S., Baral, H., Charman, S., Cunningham, A., Das, D., Ghalsasi, G., Goudar, M., Green, R., Jones, A., Nighot, P., Pain, D., & Prakash, V. (2004). Diclofenac poisoning is widespread in declining vulture populations across the Indian subcontinent. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 271 (Suppl_6) DOI: 10.1098/rsbl.2004.0223

Lemus, J., & Blanco, G. (2009). Cellular and humoral immunodepression in vultures feeding upon medicated livestock carrion. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 276 (1665), 2307-2313 DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2009.0071

Naidoo, V., Wolter, K., Cromarty, D., Diekmann, M., Duncan, N., Meharg, A., Taggart, M., Venter, L., & Cuthbert, R. (2009). Toxicity of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs to Gyps vultures: a new threat from ketoprofen. Biology Letters, 6 (3), 339-341 DOI: 10.1098/rsbl.2009.0818

Jackson, A., Ruxton, G., & Houston, D. (2008). The effect of social facilitation on foraging success in vultures: a modelling study. Biology Letters, 4 (3), 311-313 DOI: 10.1098/rsbl.2008.0038

Swan, G., Cuthbert, R., Quevedo, M., Green, R., Pain, D., Bartels, P., Cunningham, A., Duncan, N., Meharg, A., Lindsay Oaks, J., Parry-Jones, J., Shultz, S., Taggart, M., Verdoorn, G., & Wolter, K. (2006). Toxicity of diclofenac to Gyps vultures. Biology Letters, 2 (2), 279-282 DOI: 10.1098/rsbl.2005.0425

Cuthbert, R., Parry-Jones, J., Green, R., & Pain, D. (2007). NSAIDs and scavenging birds: potential impacts beyond Asia's critically endangered vultures. Biology Letters, 3 (1), 90-93 DOI: 10.1098/rsbl.2006.0554

grrlscientist Thu, 07/01/2010 - 08:05

Categories

Life Sciences

Since I am not a scientist nor do I read scientific studies for pleasure I am glad that your blog is here to keep me enlightened. What a sad, destructive species we are. We keep pulling the threads of this tapestry and pretty soon it is going to flying off in the wind.

the problem is knowing where the "tipping point" for this tapestry is before we've pulled that last thread holding the entire tattered and ragged mess together.

Speaking as someone who has had a uric-acid problem, would it be helpful to give allopurinol to livestock receiving the NSAIDs? On the other hand, maybe we could give it directly to the vultures.

TEDTalks: John Kasaona Tells Us How Poachers Became Caretakers

grrlscientist — Thu, 10 Jun 2010 04:59:43 +0000

TEDTalks: John Kasaona Tells Us How Poachers Became Caretakers

tags: How Poachers became Caretakers, Namibia, conservation biology, endangered species, wildlife, poachers, John Kasaona, TEDTalks, TED Talks, streaming video

In his home of Namibia, John Kasaona is working on an innovative way to protect endangered animal species: giving nearby villagers (including former poachers) responsibility for caring for the animals. And it's working.

TEDTalks is a daily video podcast of the best talks and performances from the TED Conference, where the world's leading thinkers and doers give the talk of their lives in 18 minutes. Featured speakers have included Al Gore on climate change, Philippe Starck on design, Jill Bolte Taylor on observing her own stroke, Nicholas Negroponte on One Laptop per Child, Jane Goodall on chimpanzees, Bill Gates on malaria and mosquitoes, Pattie Maes on the "Sixth Sense" wearable tech, and "Lost" producer JJ Abrams on the allure of mystery. TED stands for Technology, Entertainment, Design, and TEDTalks cover these topics as well as science, business, development and the arts.

grrlscientist Thu, 06/10/2010 - 00:59

Categories

Life Sciences

Gulf Oil Spill Disaster: Spawn of the Living Dead for Atlantic Bluefin Tuna?

grrlscientist — Wed, 09 Jun 2010 14:59:29 +0000

Gulf Oil Spill Disaster: Spawn of the Living Dead for Atlantic Bluefin Tuna?

tags: ecology, marine biology, conservation biology, endangered species, habitat preferences, Northern Bluefin Tuna, Atlantic Bluefin Tuna, Thunnus thynnus, Yellowfin Tuna, Thunnus albacares, fisheries, PLoS ONE, researchblogging.org,peer-reviewed research, journal club

An adult Atlantic (Northern) Bluefin Tuna, Thunnus thynnus.

A recently published study, intended to provide data to commercial fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico so they maximize their catch of Yellowfin Tuna, Thunnus albacares, whilst avoiding bycatch of critically endangered Atlantic (Northern) Bluefin Tuna, Thunnus thynnus, suggests that the Deepwater Horizon oil leak may devastate the endangered Atlantic bluefin population, causing it to completely collapse or possibly go extinct.

"The population has declined 80 percent to 90 percent of what its original spawning biomass was," said the study's senior author, Barbara Block, a MacArthur Fellowship "Genius Award" Laureate and marine biologist at Stanford University.

Even though it has been illegal to catch Atlantic bluefin tuna in the Gulf of Mexico for more than 20 years, they are accidentally caught by commercial yellowfin tuna, swordfish and marlin fisheries. To avoid bycatch, it is essential to identify the spatio-temporal locations of bluefin so commercial fisheries can modify their techniques to avoid them.

It is generally known that migratory bluefin enter the Gulf of Mexico to spawn each March and stay through June before returning to the North Atlantic Ocean to forage. These giant fish, which can live to be 30 years old and weigh more than 1,400 pounds each, are thought to be similar to salmon; returning to the same area where they were born to spawn. But it is not known with certainty when nor where these fish are, so avoiding them whilst targeting their close relatives, yellowfin tuna, is not a simple matter.

A team of scientists designed a series of studies to remedy this lack of precise information. Their studies relied on two data sources, both of which required them to .. go fishing. The first data source was catch and effort data reported by fishery observers on commercial longline vessels in the Gulf of Mexico from 1992 through 2005. The second data source was the researchers' own catch and effort data collected during six scientific longline cruises in the Gulf of Mexico between 1998 and 2002, as part of their Tag-A-Giant program. The Tag-A-Giant fishing efforts were conducted for the purpose of placing electronic tags on bluefin tuna, which were then released (using methods shown on this video):

This video, filmed by videographer Bill Hitchcock in January 2009, shows Stanford University's Dr. Barbara Block electronically tagging one of the largest Atlantic bluefin tuna ever tagged off North Carolina. To date more than 1,000 electronic tags have been deployed on Atlantic bluefin by the Block Lab's Tag A Giant program, and the results are helping us to understand how these animals use their open ocean habitat.

The researchers' pelagic longline sets (n =112) consisted of 188Â±95 circle hooks baited with either squid or sardines, placed at depths of 100-200 meters (1999) or 40-120 meters (2000-2002). Circle hooks (pictured, right) are designed to decrease wounding and release mortality, while also increasing the chance of landing the fish once they take the bait. Both the commercial fisheries and Tag-A-Giant sets were made in the US exclusive economic zone from 86.06^oW to 94.90^oW in longitude and 26.67^oN to 28.5^oN in latitude (Figure 1):

Figure 1. Locations of pelagic longline sets in the Gulf of Mexico. Each grey square indicates where one or more longline sets were recorded by fishery observers on commercial longline vessels (n = 2662 sets) within the 1 x 1^o area (we are unable to show locations of individual sets due to privacy concerns). Each red circle indicates a single longline set during our laboratory's cruises on longline vessels targeting bluefin tuna for tagging (n = 112 sets).
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0010756

During these time periods, a total of 288 bluefin and 6633 yellowfin tuna were captured by 944 fishery and 112 researcher longline sets in the Gulf of Mexico (Figure 2; note that the axes are different sizes):

Figure 2. Numbers of bluefin and yellowfin tuna per longline set. Histograms show the number of (A) bluefin and (B) yellowfin tuna caught in each longline set.
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0010756

These data provided the research team with a general idea as to where these two species are located in the Gulf of Mexico. When the researchers analyzed their catch/bycatch data to determine when bluefin and yellowfin tuna were present in the Gulf of Mexico, they found that bluefin tuna are highly seasonal, whilst yellowfin are not (Figure 3):

Figure 3. Mean and relative bluefin and yellowfin tuna CPUE. Circles indicate monthly mean (A) catch per unit effort (CPUE) of bluefin (closed circles) and yellowfin tuna (open circles) in the Gulf of Mexico, and (B) mean ratio of number of bluefin to 100 yellowfin caught. Error bars indicate 1 sd (based on 1000 bootstrap samples).
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0010756

The above data show that the majority (87.4%) of the bluefin tuna bycatch occurred during their breeding season that occurs annually from March to June, peaking in April (0.472Â±0.075 fish per 1000 hooks), whilst no bluefin were caught between July through November (Figure 3A). In contrast, whilst yellowfin tuna numbers were modestly variable, with the highest numbers being caught in July (12.8Â±0.84 fish per 1000 hooks) and the lowest numbers in March (5.48Â±0.34 fish per 1000 hooks), yellowfin were consistently present in the Gulf of Mexico throughout the year. Comparisons between the rate of bluefin bycatch to yellowfin catch showed this ratio was highest for the month of April (6.4Â±1.0 bluefin caught per 100 yellowfin) (Figure 3B).

But precisely where are bluefin tuna located? Are they present everywhere throughout the Gulf of Mexico, or do they prefer specific locations? Once again, bycatch data show that bluefin tuna are much more specialized in their habitat preferences (and therefore, have a more limited range; Figure 4A) than are yellowfin tuna (Figure 4B):

Figure 4. Spatial variability of bluefin and yellowfin tuna CPUE. Catch per unit effort (CPUE) of (A) bluefin and (B) yellowfin tuna are indicated by size of circles. Crosses indicate locations where more than 5000 hooks were set but no fish were caught.
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0010756

"The bluefins' habitat requirements are relatively exact so we can predict with reasonable accuracy where bluefin tuna are likely to be spawning at any given time based on oceanographic data continually being gathered by satellites and weather buoys," said lead author Steven Teo, a conservation biologist and postdoctoral scholar at the University of California at Davis.

"Both catch data and electronic tags indicate the Gulf of Mexico along the continental shelf is the preferred habitat of this majestic fish," agreed Dr Block.

Not only were yellowfin tuna caught in some areas where bluefin tuna were not caught, but yellowfin were caught in most areas in the Gulf of Mexico throughout the year, whereas bluefin tuna were primarily caught off the continental shelf of the southern United States in relatively deep waters, and only at specific times of the year. Latitude also strongly affected bluefin range but longitude did not (data not shown): bluefin catches were primarily restricted between 25 and 28^oN.

"This is in stark contrast to yellowfin tuna, which exhibit much more generalized environmental preferences," Dr Teo added.

The research team used their data describing the habitat preferences and spatio-temporal distributions for bluefin and yellowfin tuna to develop a mathematical model to predict where bluefin and yellowfin tuna might be at a given place and time. Their model identified two main regions in the Gulf where bluefin are found; one in the eastern Gulf of Mexico to the north of the Loop Current, and the other in the western Gulf of Mexico. Both regions are along the slope where the shallow continental shelf depth plunges rapidly to the deep sea (Figure 8):

Figure 8. Expected probability of catching bluefin tuna. Colors indicate the expected probability of catching one or more bluefin tuna in the Gulf of Mexico on 15 May (A) 2002 and (B) 2005. Circles indicate actual relative bluefin tuna CPUE for May 2002 and 2005. Crosses indicate locations where at least one longline set was deployed but no fish were caught.
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0010756

It is here, where warm Gulf waters meet colder seafloor currents where cyclonic eddies are formed. Cyclonic eddies are circular, swirling areas where warm and cool gulf streams circle around each other. A counterclockwise flow of oceanic water in the northern hemisphere is a cyclonic eddy: the center of the eddy is comprised of cool, nutrient-rich waters and is lower in height (by a few tens of centimeters) than the outer lying waters. The hot-bodied bluefin tuna preferentially spawn in these rich, cool waters.

The team's findings indicate that it is possible to utilize spatio-temporal management techniques to avoid bycatch of critically endangered Atlantic bluefin tuna on their breeding grounds. The yellowfin tuna fishery could simply utilize other areas in the Gulf of Mexico during the bluefin breeding season.

"The giant bluefin only show up for about a month, and this is the time they show up," said Dr Block. "Bluefin tuna are moving to the Gulf of Mexico exactly right now to spawn."

But tragically, Dr Block continued, the Deepwater Horizon oil spill is centered in one of the bluefin's preferred breeding areas. "Many of the tuna go exactly to that region."

Further, when you compare the location of bluefin spawning areas to a video animation based on another group's oceanographic model that predicts where Deepwater Horizon's runaway oil is expected to go, you'll see that this is a looming crisis for the already seriously endangered Northern Atlantic Bluefin Tuna: the Deepwater Horizon oil rig is located in the middle of one of their preferred spawning areas. In fact, Dr Block recalls regularly seeing petroleum vessels when conducting her research in the area in the past.

According to Dr Block, until this leak occurred, it looked like the sushi craze was the fish's biggest threat. "Now, just when you need [the species] to have a nice spring so that it can spawn," she remarked, "you have this accident."

Even though these animated oceanographic models are meant to be predictive only, their predictions about where BP's oil is going are supported by other scientists' observations: bluefin larvae and young, which float near the surface of the water, are clearly in the path of the runaway oil.

"We're trying to get a look at these young fish and their abundance and their distributions before they may become impacted by the spilled oil," said Jim Franks, a senior research scientist at the University of Southern Mississippi's Gulf Coast research laboratory. Dr Franks and colleagues recently returned from a 12-day collecting trip in the Gulf of Mexico.

Larval bluefin tuna.

Image: Jim Franks, University of Southern Mississippi's Gulf Coast Research Lab.

"Where we found bluefin tuna larvae, those waters would ultimately have carried the young fish up into an area that was most likely impacted by the oil," Dr Franks reported. "I suspect the larvae and eggs won't be able to escape if they [encounter] oil.''

"Based on the magnitude and the location of the spilled oil, we think they are in a very precarious situation," Dr Franks concluded.

Even though a large adult female bluefin may produce as many as 40 million eggs, only a few will survive -- most are eaten by predators or destroyed by storms or other natural events. If oiled, the developing eggs or larvae will likely die. But chemical dispersants may also kill the eggs or larvae. Even if the dispersants don't kill them outright, since they reduce the surface tension of water, they will probably cause the eggs or larvae to sink to much deeper levels than normal, where they're less likely to survive.

"The most delicate stage of life is the larval stage of any fish, and any fish floating in oil is probably not a happy larva," agreed Dr Block, who was not on the cruise. "I would urge BP and others involved in this oil incident to invest in finding out the effect of this oil on the larval fish of North America."

"It's just depressing," added marine biologist Bruce Comyns, an Assistant Professor at the University of Southern Mississippi's Department of Coastal Sciences, who was on the voyage.

"You don't have to be a researcher, you can be just someone who has an interest in the environment," Dr Comyns continued. "We're not just talking about the surface being affected, we talking about the entire water column being affected."

But all may not be lost for Atlantic Bluefin Tuna, according to Molly Lutcavage, a research professor and director of the Large Pelagics Research Center at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. She recently spearheaded a project off the coast of Nova Scotia where she and her colleagues implanted 41 adult bluefin tuna with pop-up satellite tags. Even though that tracking data is preliminary, they suggest that bluefin may spawn at different times of the year, either in the Gulf (unlikely) or possibly in other locations.

"Many fish aren't entering the Gulf of Mexico, which supports the possibility very strongly that there are other spawning areas," Dr Lutcavage reported. "If that's the case, then the good news is that [bluefin] have much broader spawning areas than previously thought, so fewer larvae might be affected by the oil spill. That may be the only silver lining."

Of course, in view of each population's fidelity to their natal spawning areas, it still is possible that this oil leak will lead to the demise of the Gulf population of bluefin tuna.

In view of all these uncertainties, it is impossible to say for sure what this oil leak will do to the already dwindling bluefin population, but the effect of the oil and the poisonous dispersants on the more than 8,300 species of plants and animals in the region could be devastating. Scientists predict it will be years or decades before the true toll of this disaster will be known.

"There is a much larger disaster unfolding here environmentally than people realize," Dr Block warned. "There is a lot of focus on the Louisiana shoreline, but this is America's greatest fisheries nursery, and we've got to pay attention to what's going on immediately."

A schoal of Atlantic (Northern) Bluefin Tuna, Thunnus thynnus [larger view].

Source:

Steven L. H. Teo, & Barbara A. Block (2010). Comparative Influence of Ocean Conditions on Yellowfin and Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Catch from Longlines in the Gulf of Mexico. PLoS ONE, 5 (5) DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0010756.

Additional resources:

Tag-A-Giant Foundation offers a free brochure that describes the fish, their work and includes lots of colorful images and maps [PDF]

Large Pelagics Research Center awards $500 for archival tags implanted in Atlantic Bluefin Tuna [poster PDF]

grrlscientist Wed, 06/09/2010 - 10:59

Categories

Life Sciences

A very informative post on a tragedy in the making. I would also add that the ramifications obviously extend way beyond the gulf.

After the virtual death sentence on ABFT the other month, with stocks at roughly 10% or less of pre 1990, they are now heading for the Dodo collection.

The worst part is we see this happening and do basically nothing.

In perspective off the top of my head, (from memory), average catch sized fish were coming in at 4kg out in the Atlantic, where it is now a free for all - and these are some of the largest fish ever.

Very sad. The whole microbial ecology of the region of the gulf has been screwed at the worst possible time. I don't see much hope for anything in the plankton there this year, and probably not for a long time to come.

Oh, my Lord, will it never end? I despair.

It's hard not to use the language of extremists in the emotional reaction I have to events like this. On the internet you have to be taken at your word, so bandying around violent words is verboten. But god damn if it isn't tempting when people are messing up the world like this.

Invariably someone will come along in the thread to blame them damn Americans demand for oil. That isn't all of us (bus rider here) and even those of us in cars, if asked, would gladly pay more for gas if asshats in industry would prevent shit like this from happening.

No blame for the poor from me. I want to make BP executives the new Chicken of the Sea, dammit. I wanna bycatch some White Pasty Billionaires in my drift net. GRRRRAAAAAAH!

Humans just fuck everything up.

Yikes! I keep forgetting how big these things are!

Why oh why did this have to happen in Spring? Worst possible time what with the phytoplankton bloom kicking off the most productive season of the year and the ideal time for spawning of many species etc... Do you think a moratorium on any tuna fishing in the region for a year or so would help? Reducing the bycatch to 0 might help make up for this year's catastrophic mess... :s

Wow, I knew the situation was bad for the Bluefin, but this is really distressing. Thanks for such a well put together piece.

Disclaimer: European view here, think of it as an outside observer psychoanalyzing a sick patient.

Well, yes, what you say is obviously a problem. But the US domestic oil price isn't the real issue. If people would pay 10x the price, oil would still be pumped, but it would simply be more profitable.

The issue is that massive amounts of oil are needed daily, therefore the US is extremely dependent on oil. This dependency is what drives oil exploration in the Mexican Gulf and other things such as the oil-focused US foreign policy, for example in relations with the Saudi royal family, geopolitics of the Middle East, and so on.

You don't cure a drug addict by asking more money for a drug. Instead, you try to remove the need or desire to obtain the addictive substance. If there is no need/desire for the drug, the drug will not be used.

Therefore to fix the problem, the dependency to oil must be diminished.

A notable detail is that the system has to be fixed from the demand-side. The diminishing of the oil dependency cannot be left to the market alone through price-modifying mechanisms, because by the time the market has eventually worked the situation through with all the lobbying, corruption, politics and other systematic inefficiencies, oceans will be poisoned with oil, the fish will be dead and coasts will be decorated by sticky tar-like blobs.

Oil isn't a drug. Asking more money for it does, eventually, drive people to alternatives. Asking less money for the alternatives helps too.

God gave us the tools... Once again we have failed another test.

Good perspectives, Anonymous and Nathan. Yes, frankly I'd be glad to see Americans lighten the demand. But being poor, I can see how our society is really set up from square one to keep poor people from having reasonable options.

Where you live - Can't afford to live close to work.
How you commute - Can't fight the moneyed interests
to get good mass transit in place.
What you buy - Can't afford the "fair trade," gotta
keep supporting child slavery down at the Walmart.
What you eat - Transfat-laden Chorizos from the
Cash&Carry are cheaper than health food.
How you survive - Paying a few thousand here, a few
thousand there for ER visits is - if you're lucky -
cheaper than health insurance.

The people with the power to bring real change to this country need to remember what the fuck ethics are. Or how about simply paying attention to the science? If we kill the oceans, we're gonna go extinct. Checkmate, Capitalism. Thanks for playing! You don't get another quarter.

I am enclosing a letter to a Louisiana based inorganic chemist working for the USGS, detailing a real fix for the oil slick.

Dear Mr. Rosenbauer,
I have looked for, but have not found any statement by the USGS as to a mineral cure to the oil slick. There are several. I suggest that it is time you folks weighed in on this catastrophe with the gravity of your organization's long history of respected science. The solution to the 'slick' will not be a material that floats and has to be re-collected...to difficult, too expensive. The solution will not be any 'manufactured product'...due to the magnitude of the slick, that too, would be too slow to 'gear up' and too expensive. That leaves only a mineral fix to the problem, with natural reserves in sufficient quantity to address the problem. In fact, Halliburton just finished preliminary tests on a 'halloysite clay' from the Dragon Mine near Eureka, UT which possesses ample reserves. This material sinks the oil with which it comes in contact, forming an 'organoclay' compound which reduces the oil's surface tension, and is a natural conduit for microbes, leading to a enhanced bioremediation time for the sunken oil. It proved very effective, but also, too expensive. Unfortunately, the Dragon Mine is an underground mine, and their expense per ton is $185, plus due to the unique nature of their product they expect over a thousand dollars per ton total sale price. Good stuff, too expensive. Fortunately, another form of nanoclay has shown the same ability to sink oil. I own claims of a high aluminum (25%) montmorillonite (MMT), that will sink oil in five seconds. The sink-age rate of oil to very finely pulverized material is nearly one to one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sn6j_Alwe7s

Other MMT's may be just as effective, I don't have the capacity to flock test them all. Besides, you only need one to work for the right price. For this purpose I'm marketing my material for $23 per ton (half the price of a gallon of dispersant)... or... $4.75 per sunken barrel of crude. That's a total of a little over 10 million dollars (in material costs alone) to sink and bioremediate all the oil leaked so far into the Gulf. Too good to be true??? Not really, but you'll have to admit it's good bang for the buck. Please ... ask me to send you some of this MMT to test and verify what I've said. The solution to this 'slick' is long overdue, especially if it is as easy as sprinkling some dirt on it...fancy dirt I agree, but dirt none-the-less. I find that my word by itself has no 'weight', and expect that the 'weight' ascribed to USGS statements is thunderous. Perhaps someone in power will listen to you'all. Heaven knows I've been trying to get the word out before it's too late for all the southern coast, and with minimal impact.

Thank you for your consideration,

Craig Rosequist
1767 N. Apple Valley Dr.
Apple Valley, UT 84737

I might add that there is an abundance of past clinical research that identifies clay (MMT in particular) as a prime material enabling enhanced bioremediation of oil damaged beaches. The research has been done. The material is so non-toxic that health advocates ingest it daily as part of their health regimen. It has been added to Koi food as a mineral supplement by the Japanese for over a thousand years. It is safe, and has a long and impressive history of being safe for human and aquatic life.

FYI: IT'S VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO LIVE IN AMERICA WITHOUT A CAR. THIS WAS DONE BY DESIGN. LOOK UP SOMETHING AND LEARN.

*bzzzzt!* wrong-o, insanityrules. i've lived on both coasts of the USA and i only owned a car for one year (when i was 19 and lived in a rural area). i got rid of it as soon as i could and never looked back.

but in one sense, you are correct: it is nearly impossible to live in rural or farm country without a car or other vehicle. but living in a suburb or city...? no car necessary because you can (and should) rely upon walking, bicycles, and various forms of public transit to get around.

Obsession for .. Animals?

grrlscientist — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 03:59:35 +0000

Obsession for .. Animals?

tags: Obsession for .. Animals?, perfume, Obsession for Men, Bronx Zoo, Wildlife Conservation Society, conservation biology, behavioral ecology, animals, mammals, big cats, weird, strange, wow, streaming video

This fascinating video shows that Calvin Klein's "Obsession for Men" is NOT just for men! This is a great example of how careful observation of captive animals' behavior is directly impacting research with wild animals. When biologists at the Bronx Zoo started spritzing "Obsession for Men" cologne near heat-and-motion-sensitive cameras, the tigers, snow leopards, jaguars and cheetahs became curious ... very curious. And snuggly.

When zookeepers decided to get scientific about this by documenting how long cheetahs sniff a particular scent, they found that EstÃ©e Lauder's "Beautiful" occupied the cheetahs on average for just two seconds. Revlon's "Charlie" managed 15.5 seconds. Nina Ricci's "L'Air du Temps" took up to 10.4 minutes of the big cats' time. But the musky "Obsession for Men" triumphed: 11.1 minutes. That's longer than the cats usually take to savor a meal.

Wall Street Journal's Ellen Byron reports.

grrlscientist Mon, 06/07/2010 - 23:59

My cats have always liked my husband more than me, so now I know why - he uses Obsession for Men aftershave!

i guess it's time for you to start using it, also!

Oiled SeaBirds: To Kill Or Not To Kill? What Is The Ethical Thing To Do?

grrlscientist — Sat, 05 Jun 2010 05:59:34 +0000

Oiled SeaBirds: To Kill Or Not To Kill? What Is The Ethical Thing To Do?

tags: ecology, marine biology, conservation biology, endangered species, environmental toxicology, seabirds, marine mammals, researchblogging.org,peer-reviewed research, journal club

Bird rescue personnel Danene Birtell (L) and Heather Nevill (R) hold an oiled brown pelican, found on Storm Island in the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Louisiana, that will be washed at the treatment facility at Fort Jackson, Louisiana, USA. BP has contracted bird rescue groups to rehabilitate wildlife affected by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The birds are examined, thoroughly washed and then allowed to recover.

Image: Paul Buck/EPA.

British Petroleum's current disaster in the Gulf of Mexico is unfortunately one of many oil spill events that occur every year due to rampant corporate greed and systemic corner-cutting. These events result in the slow agonized deaths of millions of animals, birds and fish in addition to damage and destruction to entire ecosystems. After dead and dying animals wash up on public beaches, the public becomes alarmed and rushes to their aid, setting up rescue stations to clean and rehabilitate oiled birds and marine mammals. At least a few experts have openly advocated killing all oiled wildlife immediately, claiming that animal lovers are merely prolonging their distress and suffering.

"Kill, don't clean," recommends Silvia Gaus, a biologist at NationalPark Wattenmeer (Wadden Sea National Park) in the German state of Schleswig-Holstein. Unfortunately, despite some short-term success in cleaning birds and releasing them into the wild, few, if any, have a chance of surviving even for a few months, reports Ms Gaus, who has worked as a biologist for 20 years.

"According to serious studies, the middle-term survival rate of oil-soaked birds is under 1 percent," Ms Gaus explained. "We, therefore, oppose cleaning birds."

Um, hello? "Serious studies"?

Despite her blunt comments, Ms Gaus does have some experience with oil spills: she was reportedly part of the environmental cleanup team after a ship, the Pallas, grounded itself in October 1998, spilling 90 tons of crude into into the icy North Sea wintering area for Common Eiders, Somateria mollissima. That disaster led to the deaths of more than 13,000 birds due to drowning, freezing or stress.

When oiled, seabirds are vulnerable to drowning because their feathers' waterproofing qualities are destroyed and their downy feathers' insulative properties are lost, leading to either hypothermia or sometimes, as is the case for many Gulf birds, hyperthermia. Oiled birds lose body weight rapidly as their metabolism increases to compensate for their falling body temperature. Sticky, oiled feathers are heavy and cannot trap air between them to keep the birds buoyant, so they cannot fly and often sink into a watery grave below the waves. Thus, birds are very particular about their plumage, and use their bills and tongues to remove debris, including oil, despite its terrible taste and smell. They sometimes ingest the oil, which causes health problems, such as ulcers and damage to internal organs that detoxify the blood.

"Their instinct to clean [their feathers] is greater than their instinct to hunt, and as long as their feathers are dirty with oil, they won't eat," Ms Gaus pointed out. (Actually, it is much more likely that the birds' "instinct" to clean their feathers is simply a response to the gravity of their situation: they are not physically capable of doing anything else until their feathers are clean.)

But even lightly-oiled birds that manage to remove the oil from their feathers and restore their waterproofing qualities can suffer liver and kidney damage that leads to their premature deaths. This is because these organs remove toxins from the blood -- toxins such as those contained in oil. It is thought that low boiling point aromatic and saturated hydrocarbons contained in oil present the greatest danger to marine life and to the people who try to save them.

According to Ms Gaus, forcing oiled birds to swallow "coal" [activated charcoal] solutions (the same treatment used in hospital emergency rooms to remedy poisoning in humans) or Pepto Bismol (as animal-rescue workers are doing along the Gulf Coast) to prevent the poisonous effects of ingested oil is "ineffective." On the contrary, I think emergency room personnel would strongly disagree with Ms Gaus's assessment of one of their treatments, and one should also note that other rescue groups report "some success" for the Pepto Bismol treatment (i. e. DOI: 10.1016/S1055-937X(99)80032-2.)

Oil toxicity is not diminished by the use of chemical dispersants. Chemical dispersants are intended to protect birds and other animals by breaking up the oil slick and to keep it from making landfall. But they don't neutralize contaminants nor their poisons and worse, these dispersants contain harmful toxins of their own that add to the poisonous effects of oil.

"There is a chemical toxicity to the dispersant compound that in many ways is worse than oil," warned Richard Charter, an expert on marine biology and oil spills who is Senior Policy Advisor for Marine Programs at Defenders of Wildlife and chairman at the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council.

Even though the precise ingredients in these dispersants is a closely-guarded trade secret, a worker safety sheet for COREXITÂ®, the dispersant currently being applied to the Gulf oil spill, shows it contains 2-butoxyethanol, and a proprietary organic sulfonic acid salt with a small concentration of propylene glycol. According to the Alaska Community Action on Toxics, the use of COREXITÂ® during the Exxon Valdez oil spill caused "respiratory, nervous system, liver, kidney and blood disorders" in people -- a concern for wildlife as well as for those working to save oiled wildlife. According to the EPA, COREXITÂ® is more toxic than dispersants made by several competitors and less effective in handling southern Louisiana crude. Apparently, the choice to use COREXITÂ® instead of other, less dangerous and more effective dispersants was primarily due to profit motives: COREXITÂ® is produced by Nalco Holding Company, which is associated with BP and Exxon.

In addition to increasing the overall toxin load, dispersants concentrate oil poisons in the water. These poisons migrate great distances, poisoning and killing plankton, fish eggs and crustaceans. When consumed by fish, birds, whales and humans, these toxins cause liver and kidney damage or carcinogenic effects.

"It's a trade-off -- you're damned if you do, damned if you don't -- of trying to minimize the damage coming to shore," Dr Charter remarked. "But in so doing you may be more seriously damaging the ecosystem offshore."

Even when oiled birds are recovered alive, they often are exhausted, malnourished, dehydrated and immunosuppressed. Some individuals may not survive the added stress of being captured, handled, transported, force-fed, washed, and rehabilitated -- all of which involves close proximity to humans, experiences that presumably led Ms Gaus to her "euthanize immediately" declaration.

But Ms Gaus is not completely alone in her assessment: surprisingly, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) agree with Ms Gaus's recommendation -- but for heavily oiled birds.

"Birds, those that have been covered in oil and can still be caught, can no longer be helped," stated a WWF spokesman during the 2002 Prestige clean-up effort. "Therefore, the World Wildlife Fund is very reluctant to recommend cleaning."

The Prestige spill killed 250,000 birds off the western coasts of France, Spain and Portugal. Of the thousands of birds that were cleaned, most died within a few days, and only 600 were released into the wild. According to an oft-quoted (but unnamed, unreferenced and mysteriously unfindable) British study of the tragically mishandled Prestige spill, the median lifespan of those 600 released birds was only seven days.

A dead cormorant on the beach on Ship Island, Mississippi
as concern continues that the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico
may harm animals in its path.
It is unknown if the bird died due to the oil spill.

Image: Joe Raedle/Getty Images/AFP.

However, in contrast to those grim prognostications, "serious studies" show that many lightly-oiled birds do survive the cleaning process and are successfully released into the wild. Further, as our experience dealing with oiled wildlife (sadly) grows, increasing numbers of heavily-oiled birds (such as these) that are recovered alive are surviving their horrific ordeal.

One agency that specializes in dealing with oiled birds is the International Bird Rescue Research Center (IBRRC). Since its formation in early 1971, the IBRRC has responded to more than 200 oil spills throughout the US and its territories, and in seven other countries, caring for more than 140 species of birds, mammals and reptiles, including threatened and endangered species. Their reported release rates range from 100% to 25%, averaging between 50% to 80%.

Unfortunately, Ms Gaus ignores IBRRC data documenting that bird survival rates differ with each oil spill due to the many variables involved, including the toxicity of the oil, the warmth of the water, how rapidly the birds are collected and stabilized, the bird's condition prior to being oiled, and the species affected [IBRRC FAQ; also see DOI: 10.1016/0025-326X(82)90346-0 and DOI: 10.1016/S1055-937X(99)80032-2].

Instead of basing her opinions and comments on available data, Ms Gaus instead relies on worst-case-scenarios to dictate universal policies for dealing with oiled birds and wildlife. Not all oil spills have equally dismal release and survival rates: Tseng (1997) reports a release rate of 78% for King Eiders, Somateria spectabilis, and Leggett et al (1997) report a release rate of approximately 90% for Brown Pelicans, Pelecanus occidentalis.

Of course, released birds may die later, as the data from the mishandled Prestige oil spill indicate. But follow-up telemetry data for rehabilitated American Coots, Fulca americana, and Western Gulls, Larus spp., indicate that survival rates are much better than reported. In fact, another study of oiled gulls and an unoiled control group that were subjected to the same cleaning procedures prior to release showed identical survival (100%) for the 8 month life of the transmitters (as cited by Jessup & Mazet, 1999). Certainly, it is in our best interests (and those of wildlife) to understand why there are such wildly variable survival rates before forcing a blanket policy to "euthanize all oiled birds immediately."

Ms Gaus also conveniently ignores the fact that at least some types of birds, such as penguins, pelicans and murres, are quite tolerant to prolonged, close proximity to humans. Additionally, she doesn't even consider the fact that because some species are endangered (for example, Brown Pelicans, the state bird for Louisiana, comprise the majority of live, oiled birds turning up in rescue centers, were just removed from the endangered species list in November 2009), the loss of even a few individuals can have tremendous impacts upon the genetic diversity of their population. So it is critical to save as many oiled birds as possible, and to use the experiences from both our successes and failures to improve our techniques accordingly.

I disagree with Ms Gaus's gloomy policy. Because all people use petroleum or petroleum-related products in some form, I maintain that it is both ethical and responsible to try to save as many oiled birds and other wildlife as we can. Some wildlife management professionals argue that cleaning oiled birds isn't worth the monetary cost and effort since little or no impact can be made on a species level. But actually, we don't know this to be true. Additionally, I ask you; what amount of money and effort is too much, and who should be making those decisions anyway? Further, what do we, as scientists and as a society, gain by trying to save these unfortunate animals? Certainly, I think it is imperative to develop our technology to the best level possible so we can use it to help all birds, whether their populations are doing fine or they are threatened or endangered, so we are capable of helping them in the sad event that they are impacted by an oil spill. This requires that we continually refine and improve our techniques and equipment to do the job properly.

Even if my arguments are unacceptable, what is the alternative? The public will be justifiably outraged if government wildlife agencies, as a matter of policy, do nothing except euthanize oiled birds when they come ashore or are captured at sea -- particularly in view of ample published scientific data showing that oiled birds can be successfully rehabilitated. Additionally, many people do feel a deep concern to make their world better and will do something on their own -- why not provide the necessary training and harness that energy and put it to good use? I also think there is tremendous value in showing people the true costs of our oil dependence, so hopefully, society will begin realize that some risks are simply too great to support our endless quest to satisfy this addiction.

Last but not least, I think that each life is intrinsically valuable and that each animal is deserving of care and protection. In a world where life is not always respected and valued, I think that saving the life of even one bird sends an important message.

Sources:

International Bird Rescue Research center [also view their photostream].

Leggett R. 1997. How an oil company, Tri-State Bird Rescue, and a community saved 113 oiled brown pelicans. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on the Effects of Oil on Wildlife. Fifth International Conference, November 3-6, 1997, Monterey, California USA, 5, 76-80.

Tseng, F.S. & Goodfriend, D. 1997. Case history of an oil spill response in the Pribilof Islands. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on the Effects of Oil on Wildlife. Fifth International Conference, November 3-6, 1997, Monterey, California USA, 5, 68-72.

Tseng, F. 1999. Considerations in care for birds affected by oil spills. Seminars in Avian and Exotic Pet Medicine, 8 (1), 21-31 DOI: 10.1016/S1055-937X(99)80032-2.

Jessup, David A. & Jonna A. K. Mazet. 1999. Rehabilitation of Oiled Wildlife: Why Do It? 1999 International Oil Spill Conference.

Stowe, T. 1982. An oil spillage at a Guillemot colony. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 13 (7), 237-239 DOI: 10.1016/0025-326X(82)90346-0.

How to Help [added 6 June 2010]:

You can donate money or items to the Suncoast Seabird Sanctuary and Avian Hospital. The sanctuary is the largest nonprofit wild bird hospital in the U.S., caring for more than 8,000 injured birds each year with a trained staff on stand-by to assist with the Gulf Oil Spill Crisis, and over 700 volunteers on call if needed. If I lived in Florida, I'd work at this place!

Maybe you are a fan of Stephen Colbert? If so, he is heading up The Colbert Nation Gulf of America Fund that you can donate money to. They distribute these funds in the form of grants to nonprofits that work directly to help the people and wildlife affected by this oil spill.

IBRRC: how to help: they are not coordinating volunteer efforts, but you can donate money to their paypal account to support their efforts. If I was in the area, I'd work with this group, either as a bird cleaner or an instructor, training others how to properly clean oiled birds and wildlife.

Tri-State Bird Rescue & Research -- a partner to IBRRC in this effort -- where you can volunteer, donate money and "adopt a bird"!

USFWS Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Response has information, phone numbers to call to report oiled wildlife, and includes links to websites for coordinating volunteer efforts for the states of Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida and Alabama.

Audubon Society lists a variety of ways you can help (volunteering, donating, etc.) and also provides phone numbers to call if you see oiled wildlife.

Deepwater Horizon Volunteer Information website containing contact information and links, much of which already appears elsewhere.

Read More:

Deepwater Horizon Day 14: $?, a very interesting blog essay about the value of saving oiled wildlife [Added 7 June 2010]

grrlscientist Sat, 06/05/2010 - 01:59

Categories

Life Sciences

It's interesting to see Dr. Tseng's name come up (since I'm working with her on avian pain management research for the next year and a half). At any rate, I agree with you. The research is far from monolithic.

One area that is under research right now, and that I think will prove to be very interesting, is the role of corticosterone stress responses, as it seems like that is a better predictor of eventual mortality (or long term reproductive losses) than the actual visible damage from the spill. Michael Romero at Tufts has done a fair amount of work on it, quite a few other people as well. I can't find the article I'm thinking of now, but there was a really interesting paper on long-term reproductive losses in apparently healthy post-oiling birds.

In any event, I'm all for anything that makes the horror of these spills absolutely painfully obvious to as many people as possible. And if (as in this case) BP is required to pay for the entirety of the rehabilitation costs, good god, why not give it a try? If they have to spend $20 million to successfully release one brown pelican, I am cool with that.

The one valid point in all of that is that humane care has to be considered. There is no point in prolonging pain or distress out of naive hopes that it will end well. That said, the wildlife professionals I know are a pretty realistic lot, and very much aware of the possible issues they may be causing to their patients. If they don't think they have a shot, they're not going to try.

i am very familiar with corticosterone studies in birds. michael romero and i were in the Wingfield lab together when i was a grad student studying testosterone, and he, a postdoc, studying corticosterone. michael, who is really a sweetheart, threatened to tie me to the roof of his car for the 350-mile return trip to the university after i nearly got skunked while i was wandering around in the middle of the night in search of a bush to pee behind. (we were out in the middle of nowhere, mist-netting our research birds).

At first I thought this post was going to end on a very dismal note, but I am glad that a rationale review means we can do a little bit right.

He is a nice guy, isn't he? I tried desperately to get corticosterone assays into my master's project this year, but we just don't have time to do the ground-proofing we'd need to. His advice was still really helpful.

I am not sure I agree with Ms Gaus on cleaning vs. euthanising, but I am glad someone in the media has brought up that clean-up workers cannot simply "make it all better". I think some sections, at least, of the public have this image that, sure the oil companies are a bit naughty but it's really just a few birds and the eco-types go and deal with it anyway. There's this sense that someone is "doing something about it" so it's under control. Well, it's not.

Except for the practical problems with safe shipment, I'd suggest mailing the oiled birds found dead or which do die to BP's HQ.

Do we even have the resources, including people who will actually go and volunteer (not just say they will) to even have this discussion? Especially in regards to the fact that the spill is still ongoing?

I agree that that any wildlife involved in the spill, is "intrinsically valuable and that each animal is deserving of care and protection", but I'm asking a practical question: do we have the resources to provide these things?

The media isn't providing much information on this part of the spill, so I really don't know what the answer to my question is.

Is there anything proactive BP, volunteer groups, etc. could do to protect these birds prior to their being covered in oil?

Also.. once these birds are cleaned, when/ where are they being/ going to be released? Or will they be held somewhere?

Interesting post - all the more as I stumbled across it whilst reading the Guardian Newspapers England/Bangladesh Cricket report. Certainly some food for thought here. I have to say that I personally am not a big fan of resources being spent on rehabbing, as I think the money could usually be put to better use. Still it's hard not to have ones heart strings tugged when you see the images of these individual birds.

I stumbled across it whilst reading the Guardian Newspapers England/Bangladesh Cricket report.

Oops! MrÂ Grrl's in trouble now: The entire Grauniad-reading cricket world now knows what he was doing:

"I'm following you, sat in a cafe next to my wife whilst she writes a blog post about oiled birds," says a man with no name. "She wouldn't be impressed if she knew I was following the Test. She's American, poor dear."

True, blf. But I think only 3 people were reading today.

I missed the Bangladesh collapse because we went to a former airfield to look around (and drink beer). We even came back with a new friend.

I was interested to read that the Matter of Trust organization is collecting human hair, animal fur and fleece, feathers, and nylons to make oil-absorbent mats and booms. My work schedule doesn't allow an extended trip to Louisiana or Mississippi this summer for bird cleaning (and so far the nearby southern Texas coast hasn't received any of the oil spill mess), but I do have a dog and two horses. Between their shed hair, that of my friends' horses, and mine (plus whatever I can collect from the salon when I get mine trimmed), I should be able to send a box. The horses have shed their winter coats already (the sparrows, swallows, and mockingbirds took most of that for nests, as soon as I released it from the brushes and curry combs), but there are still manes and tails to trim. Might offer to brush out my friends' collie too, while I'm at it. Seems so simple, costs next to nothing.

All wildlife should be given a second chance. BP needs to pay for the rehabbing. They should be liable for undersea life as well. This is a catastrophic event that should not be taken lightly.

These oiled birds DO deserve a chance at life and SHOULD be cleaned and held in a safe location until it is appropriate to release them. As I understand it, there are several wildlife organizations in the area of the spill and who are working to remove the oil from these birds. Even if the birds are never able to be reproductively competent again, they will serve as mentors to new birds that come to the area in future. Yes, there life may be shorter, but life should be the chance they are given, no matter the odds. They do deserve the chance of recovery, no matter the cost to BP.

Totally OFF TOPIC....but it seems to me that most "environmentalists" and the people that agree with the blogger are usually "pro-choicers".. So how about showing the same consideration to un-born fetus' that you are showing to the beautiful birds dying out there? That last paragraph is used everyday by pro-lifers (take out "animals/birds" and put in "babies")...and most are ridiculed for it.

I didn't know that killing animals has become one of the options here. Every single animal is intrinsically valuable and therefore should be saved as much as we can. If only we can come out with a feasible model to calculate the environmental, economical and social cost and benefit, we can then make such decision with acceptable certainty. This is especially important in dealing with important environmental issues.

I am not an expert in this so I am unsure of the validity of my statement. Can anyone please enlighten us on this? Thanks.

@Amanda, poor dear, you're confusing oiled water with a uterus' amniotic fluid. FAIL...that's why we stay ON topic.

"I think that each life is intrinsically valuable and that each animal is deserving of care and protection"
I always have trouble with this sentiment when it comes to introduced animals that displace native ones (and to he honest, that they are ugly like the cane toad introduced to Australia sadly makes it even easier to dispose of them - not very pc I know)
As I become older & slightly wiser I'm trying to reconsider what my outlook should be.
Should I hesitate to kill a cane toad In Australia?
If this is too far off topic, Let me know.

As a penguin specialist who worked as a rehabilitation manager during the rescue of 20,000 oiled African penguins from the Treasure oil spill in 2000, this is a topic near and dear to my heart. It's true that, in some cases, the most humane thing to do is to euthanise the most severely compromised birds - but this does not neccessarily equate to the most heavily oiled birds. The IBRRC has stated that these birds are often in better physiological condition when rescued because, unlike lightly oiled birds, they cannot fly away to evade capture. So they are caught much earlier after becoming oiled, before the toxins in the oil have caused as much damage. Also, every species is unique in its ability to survive oiling and rehabilitation - and the type of oil makes a difference as well - so you can't really make a blanket statement as to whether euthanisia or rehabilitation is the correct response.

And in response to darchole's question about finding enough people to help - you would be surprised and inspired by the number of people who will turn out to help animals in distress. Over the course of the three-month rescue in South Africa, more than 12,500 volunteers helped out - up to 1,000 per day - at the rescue centers. They came from all around the world and donated more than half a million hours of their time and effort to save the penguins. In the end, 90% of the oiled birds were successfully released, and they have enjoyed the same survival rate as their unoiled counterparts.

Those volunteers were instrumental in saving the penguins, and the same will hold true for this disaster. While BP should obviously pay for all clean-up and rehabilitation efforts, it will undoubtedly be up to volunteers - led by a contingency of specialists - to do most of the grunt work. I have faith that - as in South Africa - enough caring people will show up to help save these oiled and traumatized animals as well.

I agree with your views, completely. Even if only one bird could be saved, our species is obligated to try, because we made this mess.

I am an IBRRC volunteer in southern California. There are a lot of good questions here in the post and in the comments, but there is another aspect of rescue that has not been mentioned:

With every bird we treat, we learn how to better treat the next one.

That is part of the reason IBRRC works year-round, not just every time there is a spill. The survival rates are improved upon, and so is our knowledge of how humans affect the wildlife.

Wonderful post based as always on science and not speculation! Totally agree with your last paragraph. I am wondering if you know of any organizations where we can send funds to specifically help with cleaning oiled wildlife. Thanks if you can post any suggestions.

janet: i added links (in answer to your question) at the end of the piece, but am also copying them here into the comment thread, just in case you don't re-read my piece a dozen times (although i don't know why not): ;)

IBRRC: how to help: they are not coordinating volunteer efforts, but you can donate money to their paypal account to support their efforts.

Tri-State Bird Rescue & Research -- a partner to IBRRC in this effort -- where you can volunteer, donate money and "adopt a bird"!

Audubon Society lists a variety of ways you can help (volunteering, donating, etc.) and also provides phone numbers to call if you see oiled wildlife.

Deepwater Horizon Volunteer Information website containing contact information and links, much of which already appears elsewhere.

Thank you dear Penguin Specialist, Dyan deNapoli, yes it is so much more complicated than we in lay people would know. I myself always tend towards the life-affirming actions first, with attempted wisdom around the impact on the collective.

Let us try our best to preserve what is good and keep our ecosystem whole.

Hi-
Great job on your post! I am currently in the Gulf heading up the Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle efforts for the Deepwater Horizon, and these issues come up daily during this response. I have also blogged on my views on many of these same issues and additionally have submitted an article entitled "Efficacy of rehabilitating oiled birds â vain attempt or positive action?" to Biological Letters with my co-author Dr. Nils Warnock on the misleading information in this and other recent articles on the fate of rehabilitated wildlife. Thank you again!

To kill or not to kill? The IBRRC data cited definitely favors life instead of death. Let's forget the birds for an instant and think about a related ethical thing to do: we need to set up a tribunal like the Nuremberg war crimes tribunal, and try all the execs and managers, especially the CEO, of BP, for crimes against humanity, or, pardon me, crimes against planet earth. Hopefully, they would all be hanged; the tribunal would have to grapple with the same ethical question: to kill, or not to kill. You will never be able to get those images of oiled and dead sea birds out of your mind.

I think its a matter of ethical responsability, and therefore we must try to clean the birds

I understand that not all birds may survive the ordeal of cleansing and rehabilitation but that is not a good reason for not trying at all. We should make the sincerest effort possible at treating the birds and setting them free. If it becomes painfully obvious that the attempts at restoring normalcy to these birds is failing greatly, then I would recommend euthanasia as well. However, I think there is one more option here.

Even if it becomes hard to rehabilitate to these birds, at least the ones that can live through the cleaning process could be accepted by zoos. Far from perfect, I know, but if the bird could talk it would probably prefer that to being killed.

I'd heard this topic mentioned before, usually from the financial point of view... wether or not it was worth all the "effort" (money and people-hours) when the results were so unsure and usually dreadful. But this is the best made analysis I've read of the question! It sure is food for thought...
Thanks for submitting it to the Oceanic Blog-A-Thon! (which will be up and running tomorrow)

cheers!

I've been here on the eruptions blog and this caught my eye as I am in the impact area (hence the name). This very subject was touched upon on the local news. I believe the rehabbed birds are being taken to south Florida. The hope is that they will stay there, although the older birds will be more inclined to try and return to their home nesting grounds.

Well, I'm glad to know that there are efforts done to help these affected creatures but damage has been done and these oil companies should be responsible enough to handle contingencies like this. The birds, fishes are so helpless that they depend so much to those who are concerned about their situation. Everytime I hear and see man made disasters due to negligence, I feel very sad to know that the people concerned seldom doesn't do anything to protect and rescue.

The birds and other animals deserve another chance. It breaks my heart to think about their unnecessary suffering. I cannot bear to see their pictures without crying. Please continue the efforts to help them by cleaning them.

I read this post with interest. In a week I am going on a vacation to the Alabama Gulf shore. Just like I have every year for the last 40, I am going down to the beach to hear the waves and feel the breeze.

Of course, this year it is different. The beautiful white sands are stained. Walking the sands and getting in the water will mean a clean-up later on, if I don't want to stain the car, the furniture, and the carpets with tar. The Great Blue Herons which come and check our coolers for bait will be in trouble. The fish that nibble our toes will have problems, too. We want to help the area that has given us such pleasure, and I thought of bird cleaning.

I am looking for some assurance that cleaning a bird is not just something I am doing to make me feel better. Not just a photo opportunity for the news. I don't want to torment a sick, scared bird, only to have it die in a few days from the fact that it is already poisoned.

Can you tell me that cleaning birds is better for them than just ending their sad lives? I must tell you that the pictures of dead and coated birds makes me sick, and clouds my eyes with tears.

Thank you for writing such an informative post on this pressing matter. I just moved from the Tampa Bay area of Florida to Coastal Georgia and I'd like to share another link with you if I may. The Suncoast Bird Sanctuary in Indian Shores, Florida is the largest wild bird hospital in the U.S., based on admissions. Their trained staff was there during the 1993 Tampa Bay oil spill, along with hundreds of volunteers.

Their avian care staff is on standby to assist Tri-State Bird Rescue and research. They are set up to immediately triage, stabilize and administer fluids to oiled, malnourished, or injured birds. The birds will then be transported to a hazardous materials cleaning site.

They already have over 700 volunteers on emergency call and are asking for more.

You can donate needed supplies/money or volunteer by visiting their website @ www.seabirdsanctuary.com, calling them @ 727-392-4291, or emailing jessicag@seabirdsantuary.com.

I do like what the IRBBC volunteer wrote: "With every bird we treat, we learn how to better treat the next one."

matt m: the images of dead, oiled birds, marine mammals and fishes make me cry, too. this is why i wrote this piece, to learn more about these animals' plights.

but to answer your questions, unfortunately (and i apologize because i know this sounds trite), there are no guarantees in life. however, according to the published data i found, MOST cleaned and rehabbed birds will survive, provided they are cleaned carefully and rehabilitated by trained people. these people learn how to rehab oiled birds based on their experience trying to save birds from previous oil spills. we are getting better at saving oiled wildlife with each oil spill that occurs, and we are getting better at training the public to assist in these efforts with each catastrophic event, too. and one thing that the public seems not to know (and the media is not communicating very well) is that cleaned birds are not just dumped immediately back into the same oily mess they came from, but are kept in captivity and observed for at least a few days to make sure they are okay before they are transported to oil-free areas where they are released.

Thank you for that assurance. I will see if I can clean a bird for you.

I would wonder if there is any need for my help in cleaning fishes, but when I ask people look at me oddly.

matt m: if you do help clean a bird, please do get photos and send them to me! i'd love to post the images and have you talk about what you are doing in each picture. i know i'd be interested, and my readers would be, too.

regarding fish .. i rather suspect that it's impossible to clean fishes, alas! the critically endangered bluefin tuna sure could use a helping hand! (i am working on a story about them now, and will publish that soon).

This post is eveything a science blog should be. It's an applicable, well-researched, incredibly informative response to an all too common viewpoint. Thank you.

darchol- As things stand right now, there is actually an excess of local volunteers in several organizations. Currently, many are asking that out of state volunteers not fly in until they are specifically requested as more people could potentially put more strain on the area. I'm still registered with the Audobon to volunteer, and the instant they need out of state volunteers I'm moving in with my gulf coast relatives to do my part. Until then, I'm donating a tenth of my admittedly small paycheck to the IBRRC.

Even IF the survival rates were as low as they have been stated, we should still be trying our best to save them. From an evolutionary standpoint, the ones cleaned and released that do survive are going to pass on genes that are positive to the survival of their offspring if they are to end up covered in oil one day. Who knows if it could make or break a species in the future.

Many people are saying that the birds should be cleaned whatever the cost, but what if more birds could saved by devoting that time and money on other aspects of clean up and prevention? It isn't simply whether the oiled birds can be saved at all, but also whether more birds would be saved by pursuing another course of action.
It's a horrible and disgusting situation.

oil spills cost far too much for it to happen over and over again. it's so heartbreaking for those affected-the animals and the people who earn their living from the sea. This is also infuriating because the companies that cause this are not held accountable, enough to finally put a stop to this!

Eleanor - while I understand the point you're making (and in fact it's a valid point of critique of much wildlife rehabilitation) - it actually doesn't apply here. BP is responsible for the cost of the spill, period; and that cost is such an infinitesimal portion of their yearly profits that we could force payment for every injured animal, rebuilding the coastline ecosystem, and returning the economy of the coastal region back to normal, and they wouldn't (in reality) have to blink an eye.

What is lacking is enforcement on the part of the government and long-term, sustained will on the part of the people. Our system of corporate accountability is disgustingly tainted.

To decide if killing or cleaning is the right way to smooth your consience you need to know all the facts of the bird cleaning:

1. If a bird feels the oil in its feathering, it tries to clean it with it's beak, in that moment the bird is already dead, because it gets poisoned and it will die very slow and very very painful!
2. If you go near to a weak oiled bird, it is so scared, that it might have a shock and die simply because of you
3. If you clean it than, it is already poisoned, terribly afraid, shocked and your brushes and other materials are so painful, that it can not bare it any longer. Imagine how difficult it is and hard to get the feathers clean again, how much pain it costs! So how is this poor creature dying? In such a terrible way, no human would want this for their child!
4. If, because of an truly miracle, your bird is still alive and you put it back into the wild, what happends? The habitat is destoyed, it is so weak that it can not even go to find food and after all it is already poisoned! So it will have all this torture for nothing, just for a worse last few hours of life
5. Not even 1% gets to the point of beeing released into the wild! NOT 1%!
Is it fear to blame the bird for your mistakes and give him the worst end of all?

I know what I'm talking about. I was a National Park Ranger on the North Sea in Europe and there we had also oiled birds... You might imagine what we did: Kept it die in peace

If you really want to do something and help: Rethink you life and you habits, be more ecological thinking and, more important, ACTING, because what caused this tragedy was US, all of us and we need to change and very quick, before the next terrible thing happens!!
I know everybody has it's own oppinion about the situation, but try to feel like this poor bird, how would you liked to be handeled?

It is just so sad, I can not look at the photos. I feel so sorry for the birds and wildlife in the gulf.

Regarding the widespread use of dispersants, which generally consist of a surfactant and a solvent and often present toxicological problems of their own -- do you know why biodegradation enhancing agents aren't used in combination with the dispersants, or in areas of lower concentrations, instead of them?

A lot of the agents used to enhance biodegradation are relatively inexpensive and innocuous things like manure, molasses, vegetable oils and fertilizers.

Are these just used less often because they're not patented and therefore less profitable than the stronger but more toxic (and more expensive) formulations?

The results of an eleven year study undertaking by the South Devon Seabird Trust in the UK has proved beyond any doubt that oiled seabirds DO survive treatment and rehabilitation. The birds in the study are auks - guillemots (murres)and razorbills. Over 1,100 were ringed upon release and subsequent post release information back from these birds indicate that in every respect they compare most favourably with non oiled birds ringed in the wild. An average of 74% of the birds admitted for treatment by the Trust are successfully released, and the number of ringing recoveries from these birds is close to that expected for non oiled sea birds. The average time to recovery is close to that for those ringed in the wild. The longest time to date being 4,596 days for a guillemot which was found alive, beached with an injured wing. May I respectfully suggest that instead of being armchair critics people roll up their sleeves and pitch in to help.

Even the IBRRC posts on their website that Penguins have done well, but Pelicans have less than a 1% Return rate. Less than 1% could be one in 100,000. This is a reputable group. Do you know think that if they had better stats that they would report them? We need to help these poor suffering animals to pass and be at peace. Please do not put them through the hell of capturing an already dying Pelican, when the trauma of capture is mentioned by IBRRC as being enough to kill it.They are suffering in agony on the beach waiting and hoping as each second passes that the end will come quickly and peacefully and we are capturing them, putting them through hell, and prolonging their agony, when they will most likely die anyway. This is sick and sadistic I fear. This whole effort only makes us feel better, not the Pelicans. Now we are not only reponsible for covering them in oil, now we are going to work to delay their death and force them to live in utter misery. Helping them along is the least that we can do for these innocent victims. BP also had their own cleaning crew I hear, most likely with the agenda of getting all of the oiled birds off the beach so they look good, but what type of pain treatmenhts are they giving these animals?

elsi: using your logic, we should euthanize every human who is suffering from a terminal illness as well because making them suffer is sick and sadistic, especially since they will ultimately die anyway. this logic is not something i agree with because just as human medicine and crisis intervention improves with each individual that we treat and try to save, so does it with birds, too. if we never tried to save anyone or anything that was suffering from a seemingly incurable affliction, injury or illness, there would be no such thing as "modern medicine."

GrrlScientist: I would completely agree with you if these animals were receiving the pain medications and individual treatment people have. And treatment is still painful even with the best medicines. There comes a point where they will remove life support when the person is suffering needlessly in the end. Plus humans have the option to say no to treatment. The Pelicans don't have that luxury. I think experimenting on these animals is a noble thing and I bless each and every person trying to do their best to save them. I just put myself in their place and I would not want to suffer like that. Believe me it is coming from my heart. There must be a way to capture these animals before they are covered in oil. Something I realize is that we all want the same thing...the best for the birds.

I'm an exotics veterinary technician who's volunteered with some wildlife rehabilitation projects locally (in Virginia), and I was very skeptical when I read Gaus's claims in another article. I wanted to see the data she'd used. Thanks VERY much for this article - it clears things up tremendously and is a fantastic rebuttal to this insanity. I just hope Obama, the EPA, whoever doesn't act on Gaus's spurious claims.

You say that it's imperative BP pay for the damage to these birds and animals. I say bp's resources are going to be exhausted well before this is resolved. Years. This money spent in vain, and keeping you employed, could be very well be the money needed to feed hungry children, whose parents are penniless from having their livlyhoods destroyed. Make no mistake, I hope this gets stopped and the gulf recovers, but it isn't looking that way. This money, many millions, just may be the difference in some of these families getting relocated somewhere else in the country and starting new lives. I fear there are going to be evacuations and relocations before this is all over. The gulf will never be the same or made whole. Ever. This is just the beginning of the beginning.

ted: you must work for the mainstream media, which is crammed full of functional illiterates (even this piece has been misrepresented by the MSM). i dare you to find where i said it is "imperative" that BP should pay for this "spill" of theirs .. this piece presents the argument about whether to kill oiled seabirds and argues there is no scientific basis to support such a drastic measure. despite your erroneous and agenda-driven assertions, nowhere do i mention or even allude to whether BP should pay for this.

Instead of spending "$20 million to successfully release one brown pelican", why not wring its neck for free, and spend the money on something worthwhile instead ? Like 13.5 million doses of the anti-river blindness drug Mectizan, or 2.5 million mosquito nets for malaria-afflicted countries or any of a million other useful things ?

@dmb: "Something worthwhile"? Like we need a few million more humans to survive the natural consequences of overbreeding? One of the reasons we have this unholy mess is too many people and the massive consumption of resources that goes with that issue. Let's undo the f***-up we've made before we work toward enlarging our population even more.

What's unclear to me is this: So we clean a few birds (far from the thousands that will be affected) and they do survive the process and we set them free. Then what? The entire gulf, it appears, is either now poisoned or about to be poisoned, and the toxins are expected to flow into the Atlantic. Where are these creatures going to go? What are they going to eat? How are they going to avoid being reoiled?

While we're talking about what BP should be paying for, maybe it should be made to build large sanctuaries for rescued wildlife, where the creatures could be sheltered for some years until the gunk clears out of their habitat. If it ever does.

The Race to Save the World's Rarest Bird: The Discovery and Death of the Po'ouli

grrlscientist — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 12:57:59 +0000

The Race to Save the World's Rarest Bird: The Discovery and Death of the Po'ouli

tags: po'ouli, Melamprosops phaeosoma, endangered species, endangered species act, conservation, extinction, birds, island species, Hawai'i, book review

For scientists, naturalists and birders, islands are the most amazing places on earth because their evolutionary legacy has provided them with their own fascinating flora and fauna that are found nowhere else in the world. But because humans also like to live on islands, along with their pets and crop plants, islands are a conservation nightmare, and certainly, the Hawai'ian islands are no exception. In Alvin Powell's book, The Race to Save the World's Rarest Bird: The Discovery and Death of the Po'ouli (Mechanicsburg, PA: Stackpole Books; 2008), we learn about one endangered Hawai'ian bird, the mysterious Po'ouli [poh oh OOO lee], Melamprosops phaeosoma, and the true story of why this enigmatic little bird disappeared forever.

The book starts late in the afternoon of 26 July 1973, when botanist Betsy Harrison was climbing a steep trail at sixty-four hundered feet above sea level. She was alone. Suddenly, the dense forest came alive with the short chik calls and flitting movements of small group of Hawai'ian Honeycreepers. Accompanying the lively and vocal honeycreepers were three small, brownish birds with black masks, all of which were nearly completely silent. Silence is quite odd for the birds of the dense forests, since they must rely their voices instead of their vision to maintain contact with each other. Suddenly, Harrison realized she was seeing something very unusual, possibly something new.

And thus begins the poignant tale of the enigmatic po'ouli, Melamprosops phaeosoma, a peculiar little snail-eating bird whose population was being savaged by a suite of invasive and deadly enemies that humans introduced onto the islands: domestic pigs and housecats, tree-climbing rats and mongooses, predatory snails competing for its food, malaria and of course, humans themselves. The tragic story of the Po'ouli exemplifies the multitudes of challenges associated with protecting and preserving endangered species in America.

Interestingly, it was quickly realized that the PoÊ»ouli was special, unlike any of the other Hawai'ian Honeycreepers. DNA-based analysis revealed this unique bird represented an ancient lineage of honeycreepers, and -- unlike all other honeycreepers -- it was without any close relatives.

This captivating true-life drama describes the struggle to save an endangered species. It captures the passion and frustrations that conservation scientists experience as they fight to save endangered species, and the personal devastation they experience when they lose the battle. But this chronicle is more than a sad story about a bird and a few biologists, it is a warning about the conflicts that ensue when there is a clear lack of public and government will to support wildlife conservation, and how this undermines the efforts of highly-qualified professionals working in the field. As the author notes;

The road hasn't always been, and still is not, a smooth one. Conservationists, scientists, members of the public -- particularly Hawaii's hunting community -- and goverment officials don't see eye to eye on the conservation of these endangered birds. To some people, Hawaiian honeycreepers are jewels of evolution, exemplars of what is possible given the right genetic raw materials, isolation and time; to others, they're just birds. [p. 69]

Even though this is Powell's first book, it quickly becomes obvious to the reader that he is a gifted writer. Powell skillfully weaves together the story of the Po'ouli and the desperate attempts to save it from extinction into the complex tapestry of the history of the Hawai'ian islands, the damage wrought by introduced animals, various conservation methods, the human factors involved in saving endangered species as well as the federal Endangered Species Act and the vagueries of enforcement and government funding for preservation of those species this law was designed to protect.

This gripping story is 280 pages long. It contains one map depicting the location of the Hanawi Natural Area Reserve on the island of Maui where the Po'ouli were found, and ends with 17 pages of endnotes filled with references for each chapter as well as a 5 page index. I highly recommend this well-researched book to all who wish to learn more about the practical challenges of conservation biology, to those who love birds and nature, fans of real-life science stories and to everyone who is fascinated by the Hawai'ian islands.

Alvin Powell is the senior science writer for the Harvard University News Office. He earned a bachelor's in journalism from UConn and a master's in biology from Harvard. He has worked either as a freelance writer, a business reporter for a variety of newspapers or as a television news reporter, and has been a member of the New England Science Writers Association since 2007. This is his first book.

grrlscientist Sun, 10/26/2008 - 08:57

Tags

Endangered Species Act

Categories

Great review, GrrlScientist! I'll put this book on my mental list of books to read.

I so appreciate you sharing this with us, GrrlScientist! I really hope more stuff comes your way that has to do with Hawaii! :) Mr. Powell should appreciate your sharing this as well!

Mr. Green Genes glows on video

sporte — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 09:47:45 +0000

Mr. Green Genes glows on video

This video from WDSU shows Mr. Green Genes, the transgenic kitty, in the dark and in the light.

There's also an interview with Dr. Betsy Dresser, who very briefly talks about the work at the Audubon Center for Research on Endangered Species.

Other than clips of the cat, and Dr. Dresser, the video mostly shows people taking frozen samples out of liquid nitrogen, but there's an interesting bit towards the end where they show a pipette transferring material into the nucleus of an egg cell. Mr. Green Genes is certainly a cute cat.

You can see more pictures from the Times Picayune: here and here.

Thanks go to David Ricks for sending links to the photos and video.

sporte Thu, 10/23/2008 - 05:47

Tags

biotechnology

Cats

cloning pets and other animals

Huh, a genetic basis for Furry Raver art...
I think I'm just going to lie down over here for a while.

On a very similar note, PETA sent me a letter recently* discussing "genetic tinkering" with pigs. Specifically, "inserting jellyfish genes into the genetic code of pigs to make the pigs glow in the dark."

See the letter here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/lloydm/2785901193/

*Don't ask me: I was flabbergasted when I saw it was from them... where do they get their marketing information?

Didn't PETA recently propose using human milk in ice cream?

Nothing they do surprises me.

Hi, Lloyd!

Isn't GFP from jellyfish? I mean, isn't that exactly what was done with Mr. Green Genes (a cute name, I'll admit)? I'm not a fan of PETA, but I'm unclear as to why that statement about inserting jellyfish genes into pigs would surprise you, especially given the topic of the blog.

I'm not attacking you, so please don't take it that way. I hate that it's so difficult to relay emotional and behavioral cues in the digital world. I just really don't understand and am curious about your reaction. Would you consider elaborating?

Is this really and example of the subject "glowing in the dark" or is it an example of fluorescence under the influence of black light? Would the subject actually glow in total darkness? Just wondering...

You do need the black light.

Hi Julia,

I agree on the digital-emotional divide. Quite frustrating at times, especially given that sometimes I find it difficult to communicate my thoughts effectively (i.e. within the constraints of a comment box).

Yes on both accounts (GFP origin and Mr. Green Genes), but my reaction (surprise/shock) had nothing to do with the actual statements made (the jellyfish-pig experiments) and was more based on the fact that PETA would send _ME_ their marketing information. I have been known to be quite vocal on my anti-PETA views and was flabbergasted that somehow their marketing department felt that _I_ was a good 'target'.

I was merely commenting to point out the similarities between our dear Mr. Green Genes and the anonymous pig that PETA are mentioning in their mail-outs, 'tis all.

I hope I'm being lucid? All the best,

Thanks, Lloyd! I get it now. Yeah, PETA has some wide reach. It's unfortunate they can't be more intelligent about their beliefs and more rational in their actions. If they weren't so extreme, they might actually be able to do considerable good through education and awareness campaigns. Then again, if they weren't so extreme, they probably wouldn't have the wide reach that they do. Catch-22.

Thanks for the explanation! :)

Love, Sex and War in the Seychelles

grrlscientist — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 12:37:35 +0000

Love, Sex and War in the Seychelles

tags: researchblogging.org, Seychelles magpie-robin, Copsychus sechellarum, behavioral ecology, conservation biology, endangered species, population dynamics, ornithology, birds

Seychelles magpie-robin, Copsychus sechellarum.

Image: Tony Randell (Wikipedia) [larger view].

Every once in awhile, I read a paper that surprises me. Today, I read one of those papers, and it surprised me because it analyzes a phenomenon that is so obvious that I wonder why no one ever thought of studying it in a systematic and rigorous way before. I am referring to a paper that was just published by a team of researchers who found that particular behaviors can damage and even reverse the recovery of endangered species under certain circumstances. In this situation, the team documented the negative effects that can occur when individuals of a social species engage in frequent battles for limited reproductive opportunities.

As you are aware, it is typical for males to fight over reproductive opportunities but these battles benefit the individual "winners" while often having negative effects upon the losers, and even for population as a whole when that population is severely limited. Why? These aggressive interactions can interrupt the breeding output of established breeding pairs. Further, it is also likely that nonbreeding individuals can decrease breeding output by harassing and interfering with breeding adults.

This makes sense, but what actually happens in a real-life conservation situation that has been designed and carefully managed to save an endangered species? A team of biologists led by AndrÃ©s LÃ³pez-Sepulcre from the University of California, Riverside, wondered if this situation could be documented and studied in a very rare bird species, the Seychelles magpie-robin, Copsychus sechellarum.

The Seychelles magpie-robin has the dubious honor of being named one of the world's most endangered birds in 1988, after its total population had reached a nadir of 7 pairs, all of which were restricted to just one island in the Seychelles archipelago in the Indian Ocean. These birds are monogamous, they breed aseasonally, and they rely on subordinate "helpers" to assist the territory-holding breeding parents with chick rearing duties.

Because of their small population size and the collapse of their range to just one island, it was possible to observe and document social and behavioral interactions for every individual. Biologists carefully observed these birds from June 1988 to December 2004 and developed a detailed database that catalogued these observations. This database is a monthly register of every individual in the population, specifically following its breeding and social status. All individuals in the population were identified by unique color combinations of leg bands (rings, refer to the photograph at the top) so their location and dominance status could be noted each month. All new birds were either banded while they were nestlings or, if the nest was inaccessible, soon after they fledged. All birds were seen and marked within 2 months of initially being observed, and only six birds moved between neighboring islands in the archipelago.

To do this work, the team first used the database to describe the monthly population fluctuations of the Seychelles Magpie-Robin found on all four of the islands that it now inhabits (figure 1);

Figure 1: Time series of Seychelles magpie robins' monthly abundances on the four islands it inhabits. Since January 2000, data for FrÃ©gate -- and hence total population -- was gathered biannually only. The arrow indicates the date when the species' recovery program was fully implemented. (Inset) A Seychelles magpie robin (photo: A. LÃ³pez-Sepulcre).

DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2656.2008.01475.x [larger view].

Next, LÃ³pez-Sepulcre and his colleagues analyzed aggressive interactions between adult birds of both sexes and found that socially dominant individuals were involved in more aggressive interactions when same-sex subordinates occupied the same territory. Further, a dominant bird was more likely to lose its position to one of those same-sex subordinates (figure 2);

Figure 2: Effect of adult subordinates on dominant individuals. The presence of same-sex subordinates is associated with (a) higher levels of aggression in dominants, and (b) higher chances of losing their dominant position. Note the similarity in the pattern of results derived from short-term behavioral observations (a) and long-term individual-history data (b). Bars indicate standard errors. Sample size n indicates the number of dominant individuals that contributed to that category (note that a same individual can contribute to several categories if its state changed over time).

DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2656.2008.01475.x.

It is important to note that territory disputes are not simple cut-and-dried events, but instead, occur over a period of time, regardless of their ultimate outcome. These aggressive interactions are sufficient to distract the adult territory-holders' attention and energies away from breeding, thereby reducing their reproductive success (both males and females of this monogamous species compete with each other for breeding territory -- see video of aggressive behavior in this species, below);

A Seychelles Magpie-Robin, Copsychus sechellarum, engaged in a territotial dispute, holding out her wings to show off the large white patches and singing. There's actually two birds singing on this video.

There's only around 200 [actually, there's 149 birds] of these birds left, just over 20 on the island of Aride, where this bird was filmed.

The researchers noted that even though territory takeovers clearly have a negative impact upon short-term breeding output, this does not exclude the possibility of longer-term benefits since territory takeovers could bring in new pairs with potentially higher reproductive success. So LÃ³pez-Sepulcre and his colleagues looked at this effect by comparing the period of time that elapsed between the last breeding attempt of the old pair (immediately before a territory turnover) with the first breeding attempt for the replacement pair (figure 3);

Figure 3: Effect of territory takeovers on breeding frequency. (a) The left half of the graph shows that the interval between two successful breeding attempts is significantly longer when there is a pair takeover in between. This delay in breeding is also significantly longer than the time between the settling of a new territory by a pair and their first successful breeding attempt, as indicated by the right half of the graph. Bars indicate standard errors. (b) Schematic representation of a territory's timeline illustrating the three first types of intervals considered in the figure above. The fourth type includes intervals where there was a takeover before the production of the first fledging of the territory.

DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2656.2008.01475.x.

The found that a territory takeover increased the time interval until the appearance of the first fledgling produced by the newly established dominant birds. The team then used a mathematical model to detemrine the overall effect upon population growth and found a significant negative effect (figure 4);

Figure 4: Simulated times to recovery of the Seychelles magpie robin. Cumulative probability of the Seychelles magpie robin meeting the criteria for being downlisted from Critically Endangered, as calculated by simulation of 1000 populations. The solid line corresponds to the control scenario. The dashed line represents the conflict-free scenario. The x-axis starts at the time of full implementation of the species' recovery program. The actual date when the species met the IUCN criteria to be downlisted is indicated by the solid circle and the end of the data by the vertical dotted line. Asterisks indicate a significant difference with respect to the control scenario at the 0.05 (*) and 0.001 (***) levels.

DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2656.2008.01475.x [larger view].

According to these data, the resulting delay in breeding translates into an average delay of 33% for the population to lose its "Critically Endangered" status, despite the fact that the study population is intensively managed and is showing a healthy rate of recovery.

This paper is very interesting because it apparently is the first study that documents the effects of very small population sizes on social behaviors that have the potential to negatively affect species recovery. This finding has important implications for predicting the time, expense and effort necessary for successful conservation efforts.

This study is also interesting because it reminds us that evolution favors behaviors that maximize the relative fitness of individuals, even when those same behaviors directly damage the absolute fitness of the population. Further, following these data to their logical conclusion, the ultimate consequence of natural selection can favor behaviors that are detrimental to the population, leading to the theoretical prediction that natural selection can actually increase the likelihood of extinction. Certainly, this study is timely because it is in line with the current worldwide economic disaster, which resulted from the behaviors of a few selfish individuals who were maximizing their relative fitness while simultaneously damaging the absolute fitness for millions, or even billions, of people.

Source

AndrÃ©s LÃ³pez-Sepulcre, Ken Norris, Hanna Kokko (2008). Reproductive conflict delays the recovery of an endangered social species Journal of Animal Ecology DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2656.2008.01475.x.

grrlscientist Thu, 09/25/2008 - 08:37

Categories

Life Sciences

I love the bling!

Hello Kitty! or Don't Eat Me, I Study Genetics!

sporte — Wed, 26 Dec 2007 10:25:00 +0000

Hello Kitty! or Don't Eat Me, I Study Genetics!

Genetics textbooks abound with stories of European royalty and the hazards of having children after you've married one of your cousins. It struck me as an interesting parallel that the lion is such a popular symbol in so many royal coats of arms. Like the royal families of Europe, certain lion populations have also suffered from a few too many copies of certain recessive genes.

I first read about the Florida panthers a few years ago while researching material for a class that I teach on using bioinformatics. It wasn't my first encounter with big cats and their DNA. Years before, while teaching a class on identifying DNA sequences, I had a run in with lots of DNA sequences from large cats. To my surprise (at the time) several hundred sequences from feline leukemia viruses unexpectedly appeared in GenBank over a weekend, confounding the nice neat story that I thought my students were going to learn about sequence identification and using BLAST.

A few years later, I read a wonderful book by Stephen O'Brien, called "Tears of the Cheetah," and learned more about this amazing story. I had hoped that the current status of the Florida panther would make this saga a perfect fit for the Ask A Science Blogger question of the week on the unsung successes of using science to guide policy. As you will learn, through, it's only been a partial success.

Let the tale begin.

In the 1960's, Floridians became concerned that the famous Florida panther was on it's way out. As the numbers of cats dropped, Fish and Game officials, concerned individuals, and environmental groups debated the best course of action. A popular cat, and the state animal of Florida, several agencies and media personnel gathered like vultures in 1992 to oversee and report on the population's collapse.

At issue were three distinctive physical characteristics that seemed to say "this is a separate species." Unlike other big cats, Florida panthers had a funny kink in their tails and a cowlick on the back of their neck. They also had white flecks of fur on their backs, close to where their neck met their shoulders.

In 1986, Melody Roelke and Stephen O'Brien started looking at the genetic diversity of the Florida panthers. DNA told the tale. With up to 94% of the panther sperm cells malformed, the panthers were in trouble. Further, many panthers had a hereditary condition where one or more testicles fail to descend. Many panthers were also plagued by inherited defects in the atrial valve of the heart and problems with infectious disease. Population bottlenecks and hard times in the panther's history left the Florida panthers with too little genetic diversity.

It was clear to the geneticists that the panthers needed new blood if they were to survive.

But not everyone agreed.

As Stephen O'Brien put it:

Left alone, the Florida panther would be remembered as a textbook exercise in how to go extinct while your abundant and vociferous advocates argue about the process.

To cut to the chase, the Florida panthers did get some "new blood" via some imported Texas cats. And, the more visible hallmarks of inbreeding are starting to disappear. This graph, from the Florida Fish and Wildlife department's 2004-2005 report shows that the proportion of panthers with kinked tails has dropped to 30% from a high of 80% (2).

Genetically, this experiment has been a success because all the evidence shows the cats are healthier. But the numbers of panthers are still lower than they need to be in order to consider the story closed. It may be a long time before the chapter about long-term survival of the Florida panther can be written.

References:

1. Stephen J. O'Brien. Tears of the Cheetah. Thomas Dunne Books, NY. 1993.

2. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. The Florida Panther Annual Report, 2004-2005.

3. Beier, P., M. Vaughan, M. Conroy, and H. Quigley. 2003. An Analysis of Scientific Literature Related to the Florida Panther. Bureau of Wildlife Diversity Conservation, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission.

technorati tags: cats, panthers, conservation biology, biology, genetics, population genetics, DNA

sporte Wed, 12/26/2007 - 05:25

Tags

Books

Cats

conservation biology

Genetics & Molecular Biology

Population Genetics

Reviews

Categories

Life Sciences

ionolsen21 Your site is very cognitive. I think you will have good future.:)

Just in time for Christmas: a virgin birth!

sporte — Thu, 21 Dec 2006 13:43:39 +0000

Just in time for Christmas: a virgin birth!

Her name is Flora and she is a single parent. Born in Miami, Flora moved to Chester, UK, as a toddler. Now, she's almost 8 years old and starting a family, all on her own.

Literally.

Four eggs have hatched and another eight are ready to go. Yet, Flora has never gotten cozy with another male dragon.

How did Flora accomplish this feat and how do we know that she's not just good at keeping secrets?

Flora's not the only one
Parthenogenesis -- reproduction without the need for fertilization by a male -- has been observed before in about 70 vertebrate species, including snakes and monitor lizards (2). But this phenomenon hasn't been observed in Komodo dragons until now. Even stranger, Flora has company. Sungai, another female Komodo, at London Zoo, UK, was also thought to have produced offspring, on her own.

How we do we know that there wasn't a male dragon involved somewhere?
Of course, there's the obvious problem of hiding a male Komodo dragon somewhere in the UK and helping him sneak into and out of the zoo. That isn't enough to convince biologists, though. The females of some species are able to store sperm for many months and use it when they're good and ready. This possibility didn't seem likely with Flora, but Sungai had lived with, and engaged in courtship behavior with her brother Kimaan, so she might have stored some sperm for future use.

What did the researchers do to show that the baby lizards didn't have a daddy?

They genotyped the babies and did some fun tricks with math.

What is genotyping?
Genotyping is the process of finding and using genetic information to distinguish between individual chromosomes. A genotype can consist of a DNA sequence, it can be the number of repetitive sequences at certain DNA position, or it can be the size of a DNA fragment. It can be any bit of genetic information that differs between individuals.

How was genotyping used in this study?

The researchers isolated DNA from dragon eggs and from Flora, and they looked at genotypes at different chromosomal positions. (We call the positions "loci" which I always considered to be synonymous with "location." A locus is kind of like a chromosomal address, complete with city (chromosome number), street (chromome arm and distance), and zip code (genus and species). The kinds of sequences that were examined are called "microsatellites." The name of the sequences isn't important, but it is important toknow that these sequences are quite variable, so that if you find one microsatellite sequence at a certain position, chances are, the microsatellite sequence at the same position on a different chromosome, is different.

How would this work?
This image below (modified from the supplemental data from ref.2) shows the loci that were examined in Flora's DNA. The different colors are used to identify loci that differ between her maternal and paternal chromosomes. If the two loci are different, we say that she's heterozygous for that locus.

As you can see from the image, five of the loci that were examined in Flora were heterozygous. Only two were homozygous.

Flora's children could inherit either locus from the pairs of loci that you see represented in this picture. At K03, they could have gotten either the blue or the purple version. If her children had a father, it's likely they would be heterozygous, at some of the loci, just like Flora.

Time for a math moment
We can even follow the same logic used by Watts, et. al. and estimate the probability that Flora's offspring would be heterozygous at one or more loci - just like their mom.

We can draw a square like this to show how the inheritance works at any one of the sites. Dragons are like humans apparently, with two copies of each chromosome. We're only considering the five heterozygous sites in this analysis.

The variability at each of the five loci is high enough, that the likelihood of having a homozygous locus is one of out four or 0.25 (1 divided by 4).

We can caluculate the probability of having homozygotes (two identical loci) at all five positions using the product rule. This probability of having all five = (prob. of locus 1) x (prob. of locus 2) x (prob. of locus 3)x (prob. of locus 4) x (prob. of locus 5). Since the probability is 0.25 for having homozygotes at any of the loci, we end up with probability of having homozygotes at all five sites = 0.25 x 0.25 x 0.25 x 0.25 x 0.25 = 0.00098, a chance of 1 out of ~~10,000~~ 1000.

Pretty low.

The chance of having heterozygous offspring, however, from a male dragon mating with a female dragon, is pretty high. This equals 100% - 0.1% = 99.9 %.

So, we have a chance of 99.9% of having heterozygotes.

Enough with the math! What were the results?

The genotyping experiments showed that all of Flora's babies were homozygous at every site.

The best explanation, is the one the zookeepers must have thought was the most obvious. The four dragon babies are indeed the result of a virgin birth.

Dragons are indeed miraculous!

References:

1. Kerri Smith, "Dragon births startle zoo keepers." Nature News Published online: 20 December 2006; | doi:10.1038/news061218-7.

2. Watts, Phillip., et al. "Parthenogenesis in Komodo dragons." Nature, 444 . 1021 - 1022 (2006).

technorati tags: Komodo dragons, virgin birth, genotyping, genetics

sporte Thu, 12/21/2006 - 08:43

Tags

Biology (Macroscopic )

conservation biology

Genetics & Molecular Biology

Thanks for the graphics re the homozygous offspring. These visuals really add to the explanation in a way that pure text can't. I have already directed a curious young relative to your page.

0.25 raised to the 5th is indeed 0.00098 as stated, but this is 1 in 1024, not 1 in 10,000. However, if those are the only eggs checked, then the probability that all three of them had a father yet were still homozygous for all 5 loci would be 0.25 raised to the 15th (or about 1 in a billion).

Yes indeed, you're right Travis, it's 1/1000. I'm much better at keeping track of those zeros when I use scientific notation and not when I type.