Final Draft of Research: A Look into the Jeopardy of Birds

A Look into the Jeopardy of Birds

We say something is as dead as a dodo. What is a dodo? It’s a kind of bird that has extinct. The same thing is happening to various birds around the world. Although birds we see may be abundant in amount, at the present they are jeopardized because of alien species and diseases, pollution and unlimited logging, and cats’ threat.

The species distribution around the world has been restricted by the vastitude of oceans and other natural barriers keeping species from invading other species’ environment for eons. However, activities conducted by human beings have circumvented these natural barriers, and, as a result, species are invading other species’ habitat, leading to major disasters. Alien invasions can lead to bad disturbance to forest ecosystems. It can even cause severe socioeconomic impacts.

As is told in Lebbin ‘s book, an invading organism does not always turn into a pest. Though people bear considerable worry over alien species, certain animals, such as the brown tail moth, never became a pest that generated severe impacts in USA.  Some pest’s impacts are overestimated. For example, the scleroderris pathogen that was discovered in the Northeastern U.S. led to impacts to local environment, but the pathogen never spread beyond the area due to climatic restriction.

Some of alien species lead to tremendous impacts on forest resources. The way they generate ecological and economic impacts are similar to that of native pests. Tree growth, mortality, and reproduction can be significantly affected by forest pests. Some alien pests can even impose long-term effects on forest ecosystems, which is spectacular. For example, the chestnut blight fungus has eliminated American chestnut that was a dominant species throughout the eastern U.S. The elimination has forever changed forest ecosystem in America.

As is told in Pimentel‘s article, the invading forest pests’ threat lies in their ability to die out endangered species or endangered ecosystems where endangered species live. We can take the balsam woolly adelgid for example. Feeding by this pest and interactions with atmospheric deposition has caused dying out of Fraser fir in the southern Appalacian Mountains. If the impacts go on, those firs will extinct finally. This kind of fir is favorite habitat for certain birds, especially when these birds are incubating babies. Great decrease of this kind of fir can contribute to the decrease of birth rate of bird babies.

Birds are threatened by diseases around the world. As is told in Di Mauro’s article, West Nile Virus has been closely connected to jays, crows, hawks and other birds. Bird flu is also a common bird disease that can be infected to human beings. It is also called avian influenza technically. Avian influenza is flu infection among birds. The mutation of the virus can start a deadly worldwide epidemic. As is told in Gurjar’s article, the first avian influenza virus emerged in Hongkong in 1997.  The virus has spread around the world till now. Hundreds of people have become sick with this virus, with 60 percent of which died. Diseases such as avian botulism, West Nile Virus and avian influenza that have been mentioned above can spread quickly and may put birds to death in a rather short period.

In the era of globalization, infectious disease thrives due to the movement of goods, labor, and transportation. Epidemics and the diseases started long ago, but they never transmitted as fast as today. As the global economy ties countries closer together, it becomes easier for diseases to spread over borders and cross vast oceans. Those alien virus may be more deadly than domestic ones, which can lead to elimination of local birds.

Pollution is common today, and we can see it all around us. We can find it in the water we drink, the food we eat, and the air we breathe. Bird, as a major resident on the earth, is in crises due to pollution.

Many people prefer peaceful and quiet environment. In terms of this, birds are similar to human beings. Scientists have proved that noise do have effects on birds’ habits. When there is too much noise, birds’ ability to communicate will be significantly weakened. Birds that communicate at low frequencies always find that their voice are drowned out by noise, which can lead to behavior of disturbance.

Water birds are greatly affected by oil pollution that takes place due to oil spill. As is told in Al-Azab’s article, the oil covers the feathers of the birds and sticks feathers together. When the feathers are covered in oil, their original ability to provide waterproof for water birds are weakened. As a result, the water birds’ skin is exposed to sea water and oil that may jeopardize them. When the birds feel uncomfortable, they will try to clean their feathers, but they end up taking in oil and may die from that. Pesticides and heavy metals that are washed into water can also contribute to decrease in the amount of birds. Fishes take in toxic particles in water. Once they are eaten as food of the water birds, those toxins will accumulate in the birds’ body, which eventually poisons the birds to death.  What’s more, as is told in Al-Azab’s article, water pollutants can reduce oxygen rate in waters, and, as a result, the amount of fishes will decrease. Then the water birds hunting fishes will migrate to other areas, causing natural unbalance.

Due to industrialization, people are generating air with poor quality by emitting poisonous gas into the air. The air mixed with smog and noxious gases have a devastation effect on the bird population in industrial areas. Moreover, as is told in Bhaskar ‘s article, these pollutants have even lifted up to arctic region. Birds lived in arctic region can be greatly affected, especially those birds bearing high respiratory rates because high respiratory rates make them more susceptible to pollutants in the air and to airborne impurities.

As we all know, forests are birds’ favorite habitat to live. Birds can’t live without forests. It’s common sense. However, we human beings also need forests as resources for products like paper and furniture. In many areas around the world, due to the absence of watchdog, unlimited hagging activities happen. To make things worse, a protection afterwards to recover forests doesn’t get executed. People even cut down original trees to grow new species of trees that can produce more wood, but birds won’t live on the latter trees. As a result, birds lost their resource of food and their habitats, and a lot of them migrate to other areas, and a lot of them dies due to incompatibility with new environment.

Cats are also a factor playing an important role in birds amount decrease. Cats, as people’s favorite pets and excellent hunters, have been brought to every continent and island humans have set foot in and they survived in most cases. The first recorded domestic cat was in Egypt, 3,600 years ago. In the words of researcher William Reville, “Cats witness the prosperity of Egypt and then they reached Greece, from where they spread throughout the Roman Empire. They spread to the east about 2,000 years ago along trade routes. The Mayflower brought cats to the US and cats reached Australia with European explorers in the 1600s” (Reville). Despite our familiarity with cats, they were actually introduced species to many continents.

Cats have become pests to a good many countries on every continent, due to their survival skills and superior fertility. Cats are pests because they cause ecological disequilibrium through killing and diversion of resources from native species. Cats’ instincts of hunting are extremely strong. Unlike some endangered species, for example panda, cats’ strong curiosities enable them to learn fast and dependently. Owners may have noticed that their lovely baby cats are becoming a sufficient hunter only by following its hunter’s natural instincts. Cats are species that will still hunt even though we dote on them.

Cats kill whether or not they are feral or someone’s pet. It is undeniable that owned domestic cats kill large numbers of birds. The originator and coordinator of the “Cats Indoors!” campaign, Linda Winter, argues that at estimate, hundreds of millions of birds and more than a billion small mammals are killed by domestic cats each year in the US alone (Winter). Also, a questionnaire survey of the numbers of animals brought home by domestic cats Felis catus was conducted by a group of biological scientists of University of Bristol in Britain, which revealed that birds were a primary food resource for cats: “A total of 14,370 prey items were brought home by 986 cats living in 618 households. Mammals made up 69% of the items, birds 24%, amphibians 4%, reptiles 1%, fish<1%, invertebrates 1% and unidentified items 1%. A minimum of 44 species of wild bird, 20 species of wild mammal, four species of reptile and three species of amphibian were recorded” (Woods et al).

In the United States, there are over 66 million pet cats (Winter). Also, even in a country like Australia where cats are mainly pests, there were 2.6 million pet cats in 1.8 million houses households (26% of households in Australia) in 1998 (woods et al). What influence could domestic cats have on the native environment in such large population? Ornithologists had noticed the declining of bird population years ago. Lepczyk has also noted, “Since the mid-1960s, long-term data on breeding birds have indicated that many species are declining or fluctuating throughout the Midwest and Eastern United States” (Lepczyk et al 191). And a new study shows that one of humans’ specific behaviors that could negatively impact breeding birds is allowing domestic cats to go outside.Cats frequently kill birds and the combined impact of predation by millions of cats may have a substantial effect on the amount of birds.

Too many cat lovers mistakenly believe their animals are innocent bystanders in the slaughter, says Erin Luther of the Toronto Wildlife Centre (Kalinowski). And they probably don’t have much chance of noticing their own putty tat from going after the birds at the neighbour’s feeder either, says Erin Luther (Kalinowski). These bird feeders are placed in order to help native bird and migrating bird populations recover, but turned out to be a slaughter place. Cats just need to hide behind the feeders and wait, and what a trap! Domestic cats are savaging the North American songbird population, with some U.S estimates suggesting cats kill 1 billion birds a year (Kalinowski). We brought our pets to a place where they don’t deserve to be. We once promised that we will never abandon them, but cat owners are abandoning cats when they can’t afford to give them a warm home. In the US alone, hundreds of cats are being abandoned every day, nowadays (CCTV). We are in common with cats at the point of inconstancy in some degree. We still hope our pet cats can make a living by themselves and they have, but the costs are heavy. Cats can survive without our care and flourish their lineage due to their prolificacy. An owner may never think of what kind of problem could be caused by abandoning a cat, especially when it hasn’t been desexed. One female can breed 30 baby cats at most in one year. Only in 7 years her descendants will exceed 3 million (CCTV).

Measures must be taken before it’s too late. According to the discussion above, birds are jeopardized by us. Birds lose their habitats because of pollution and unlimited logging. We human beings are also generating global warming, which is another disaster for birds. Birds are adept to certain environment, but, at the present, we human beings are destroying it. We may not realize that because our negative effects on birds are not direct, but we actually significantly impact their life and jeopardize them due to the things we are doing. Cat is also a source of jeopardy. Cats are born predators. They may be killing birds when we thought they are wandering cozily outside. Cats like predating birds and they are of large amount, so it is quite reasonable that cats are great threat to birds. It’s time to limit our behavior and to make some change. Only by doing this can we save those lovely birds.

Works Cited

Al-Azab, M.; El-Shorbagy, W.; Al-Ghais, S. (2005). Oil Pollution and its Environmental Impact in the Arabian Gulf Region. Elsevier Science. Retrieved October 04, 2011

“Behavior & Traning.: Spend the Day with a Behavior Counselor.” Cats magazine.  01 April.         2000: 18. ArticleFirst. OCLC. Web. 23 Nov. 2009.

Bhaskar, P. (2009). Air Pollution and Plant Biotechnology. Mangalam Publishers. Retrieved October 04, 2011

Blackburn, Tim M.; Lockwood, Julie L.; Cassey, Phillip (2009). Avian Invasions : The Ecology and Evolution of Exotic Birds. OUP Oxford. Retrieved October 04, 2011

“Cat.” Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 1 Oct. 2009: 1-2. Academic Search Premier.     EBSCO.

Di Mauro, Filippo; Dees, Stephane; Lombardi, Marco J (2010). Catching the Flu from the United States : Synchronisation and Transmission Mechanisms to the Euro Area. Palgrave Macmillan Ltd.. Retrieved October 04, 2011

Gurjar, Bhola R. (2010). Air Pollution : Health and Environmental Impacts. CRC Press. Retrieved October 04, 2011

“Keep Cats Inside — and Entertained.” USA Today. Aug 10.2009. Academic Search            Premier. EBSCO. Web. 23 Nov. 2009.

Krautwald-Junghanns, Maria-Elisabeth; Pees, Michael; Reese, Sven; Tully, Thomas (2010). Diagnostic Imaging of Exotic Pets : Birds, Small Mammals, Reptiles. Schlutersche GmbH. Retrieved October 04, 2011

Lebbin, Daniel J.; Parr, Michael J.; Fenwick, George H.; Franzen, Jonathan (2010). The American    Bird Conservancy Guide to Bird Conservation. The University of Chicago Press. Retrieved October 04, 2011

Lepczyk, Mertig, et al. “Landowners and cat predation across rural-to-urban landscapes.”           Biological Conservation 115.2 (2004):191.

Michael Calvera, Sandra Thomasa, Stuart Bradleya, Helen McCutcheonb. “Reducing the             Rate of Predation on Wildlife by Pet Cats: The efficacy and practicability of    collar-mounted pounceprotectors.” Biological            Conservation 137.3(2007):341-348.   Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 19 Nov. 2009.

Pimentel, David (2011). Biological Invasions : Economic and Environmental Costs of Alien Plant, Animal, and Microbe Species. CRC Press. Retrieved October 04, 2011

Reville, William. “Evidence Suggests It was Cats Who Chose Humans.” Irish Times 16 July.           2009. Newspaper Source. EBSCO. Web. 20 Nov 2009.

Rock, Michael T. (2002). Pollution Control in East Asia : Lessons from Newly Industrializing Economies. RFF Press. Retrieved October 04, 2011

Sims Victoria, Karl L. Evans, Stuart E. Newson, Jamie A. Tratalos and Kevin J. Gaston

“Avian Assemblage Structure and Domestic Cat Densities in Urban Environments.”          Diversity & Distributions 14.2 (2008):387-399. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web.          19 Nov. 2009.

“Speak to your cat: Never abandon.” CCTV: Podcast community Sep 3. 2008. Nov 20.2009.         (http://search.cctv.com/tv/tv.php?type=video&q=%E8%AF%B7%E5%AF%B9%E4%BD   %A0%E7%9A%84%E7%8C%AB%E8%AF%B4%E6%B0%B8%E4%B8%8D%E9%81        %97%E5%BC%83.)

Tess, Kalinowski. “Outside Kitties a Catastrophe for Birds.” Toronto Star. 24 Aug.2009.     Newspaper Source. EBSCO. Web. 23 Nov. 2009.

Tameka Brockbank. “Importer Set for a Cat Fight to Claw; Back Compensation for Pet Ban”       Gold Coast Bulletin, 04. Aug. 2008. Print.

Winter, Linda “Cats indoors!.” Earth Island Journal 14.2 (1999): 25. Academic Search       Premier. EBSCO. Web. 18 Nov. 2009.

Woods, Michael, Bobble. Mcdonald, and Stephen Harris “Predation of Wildlife by            Domestic Cats Felis Catus in Great Britain.” Mammal Review 33.2 (2003): 174-188.    Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 13 Nov. 2009.

Research Final Draft: Better Living Through Lack of Convention

Ashliegh M. Ariss

English 213X

Better Living Through Lack of Convention

Choosing organic has its many benefits to local famers, the people that consume the food and the environment that it is grown in. Not only is the consumer supporting healthy eating but they are supporting a healthy earth. Eating organic foods used to be a way of life before science and conventional farming methods were introduced to mass produce larger quantities of goods to consumers. Preservatives were introduced as a method of keeping food fresher for a longer period of time. Preservatives change the structure of the food that is packaged for resale in order to get to consumers in groceries stores before spoiling and having longer shelf life. What some consumers fail to realize is that preservatives kill other living cells. Organic farming is healthier and provides more nutrients to the consumer and soil.  Although consumers are paying more by purchasing organically farmed foods, it is healthier to the consumer and the environment.  Most consumers may not know the actual price that it costs the earth’s surface and the environment when purchasing goods that are not organic and filled with harsh chemicals. Industrialized farming methods cause a great deal of harm to the ecosystem and surrounding habitats. Although eating organic food appears to be more expensive it is actually cheaper in the long run because the food that is consumed has no preservatives, it lacks pesticides and chemicals that kill living organisms and erode the earth’s surface, and it uses less energy than conventional farming.

Often time’s people do not think of the effects of farming foods and the environment when shopping for their weekly grocery list. Cassetty (2010) states that “organics are generally pricier than conventionally produced food” (p.51) and therefore, can become an increasing expense in a household budget for food items. The organic section in the grocery store is often smaller than the rest and costs consumers a considerable amount more to purchase then food with a sticker or label that states, organic (Crawford, 2010 p. 102). What people fail to realize is the effect of farming foods that are not organic and the harm that it costs the environment versus industrialized farming. Organic means that you are purchasing a food or a product that contains no additives aimed at increasing the shelf life of a product, whereas  non-organic foods often have extra ingredients aimed at helping the product last longer or appear more attractive to the consumer, (Barnard, 2010, p. 26). Zevnik (2009) states that “the basic requirements for organic labeling are avoidance of synthetic chemicals, genetically modified organisms, irradiation, and the use of sewage sludge, farmland that has been free of chemicals for a prescribed number of years; detailed written records; and periodic on-site inspections” (p. 45). Chappell (2008) states that “Strawberries are on the Environmental Working Group’s “dirty dozen” list of conventionally grown fruits and vegetables that contain the most pesticide residues” (p.96). Conventional farming uses large amounts of preservatives to keep food from rotting over longer periods of times. However, the side effects that is hard to the earth to produce mass quantities of food at a cheap price to the consumer come at a greater cost to the environment. There are antimicrobial food additives; other preservatives contain ethanol and methylchloroisothiazolinone, propionic acid, and MSG (Masjedi, 2003, p. 149). These preservatives cause not only health concerns for the consumers but also kill the living cells of other plants or insects that surround them. MSG is a common preservative that causes major health concerns and is usually posted where it is commonly used. It can cause the consumer headaches, difficulty breathing, chest pain, drowsiness, and nausea (Moore-Thorpe, 2009, p.147). Long term health concerns for the use of preservatives also include respiratory problems, anaphylactic allergic reactions, cancer, and noted birth defects (Palmer, 2010, p. 2). Most packaging material for products also contains preservatives. Sulfide is a common preservative on packaging material. Many consumers are finding that they are allergic to the sulfide in the packaging. Now, the FDA has made the food industry state on the packaging if the material contains sulfide.

Many foods that are not organic contain pesticides and chemicals that are harmful to the environment and harmful to the consumer (Crinnion, 2010, p. 6).  Dangour (2010) states that “certified organic farmers produce foods according to a strict set of specified standards, which control the use of chemicals in crop production and medicines in animal production, and are required to pay particular attention to the impact of their farming practices on the wider environment” (p. 1). Many pesticides and chemicals kill livestock and other animals. Pesticides are used to destroy or prevent insects, weed, birds, and other things from killing the crop. However, pesticides are very toxic to consumers and very toxic to the land and other animals if consumed.  “Price Perspective” (2010) states that “ the non-profit organization Environmental Working Group published its “Dirty Dozen” list o the conventional produce mostly highly contaminated with pesticides: celery, peaches, strawberries, apples, blueberries, nectarines, bell peppers, spinach, cherries, kale/collard greens, potatoes, grapes (imported)” (p. 3). Pesticides can cause water pollution and other contamination of soil and vegetation. Rich (2008) states that “chemical pesticides dampens the mobilization of a plant’s own defenses” (p. 27). Crop dusters often spray the pesticides on a field and further pollute the environment with the gases that hurt the ozone layer. Farmers use the pesticides to prevent their crop from being destroyed by insects and other weeds and plants. But, the pesticides are toxic to not just the insects and weeds that they are trying to prevent from ruining their crop. They are also very harmful and toxic to other agriculture and vegetation that does not need to be compromised by the chemical (Williamson, 2007, p. 104).

Pesticide drift is something that is people are starting to research and learn more about as well. While the crop dusters spray the area for the crop with the pesticides they do not take into consideration where the pesticides fall as long as the crop gets dusted with the chemical. Pesticides can often drift with the direction of the wind and can spread across several miles of land. This can also lead to contamination of the water table which can negatively impact the environment and water source for human consumption and animals. Spedding (2006) states that “‘organic’ is better nutritionally and that their production methods are better for ‘the environment’ and especially wildlife” (p. 187). Pesticide drift can also cause toxic effects to other foliage and animals by contaminating their ecosystem. Spray drift is often a type of pesticide drift that is supposed to be sprayed directly onto the crop and can often times float to surrounding homes and forestry and other ecosystems. Volatilization drift is also dangerous and occurs when the pesticides vaporizes off the plant or soil several days later and then creates a cloud of vapor that can drift off into nearby neighborhoods and other plants and water sources. Conner (2003) states that “the NOP requires organic producers to maintain buffer zones of sufficient size or other features (e.g., windbreak or diversion ditch) to prevent contamination of their fields (p. 5). These methods seem not only difficult to maintain but also almost impossible to enforce. Not only can both of these types of pesticides make people, animals, and other ecosystems sick but it is also very toxic to the land and the plants and is often hard to recover (Spedding, 2006, p. 189). Regardless of whether pesticide drift is intentional or not, it happens. Pesticides cause more harm and deter healthy soil and land from growing.

Lastly, fossil fuels are used to create and make the pesticides that are used to spray the crop. Fossil fuels create green house and methane gases which pollute the earth and ruin the ozone layer. Pesticides are also distributed by airplane or a crop-duster and thus use fuel and pollute the earth, the air, and the air quality further. Pesticides then deplete the top soil. Depleting the top soil causes erosion to the land. This then creates poor soil and growing conditions and causes less nutrient in the food. Most consumers do not realize the effect that it causes on their food. Soil erosion can be life threatening to the habitats that live within that ecosystem and can also be irreversible. Once some ecosystems are gone, they can never be recovered. Nor, do they realize that the growing conditions often have a negative effect on their food and create fewer nutrients for consumption. Soil is the safety net for many different ecosystems. When the soil has been polluted by pesticides it causes friction for those life forms and their inhabitants (Castelo-Grande, 2010, p. 439). The chemicals from the pesticides causes an ecosystem or habitat that other life forms are unable to survive in and therefore ends up killing everything except for that crop or vegetation.

Pesticides and fossil fuels also increase energy consumption. Organic foods are raised completely pesticide and chemical free. Organic food uses renewable energy sources whereas conventional or factory farming uses non-renewable energy sources. For instance, some vegetables and other crops are able to be grown in a green house which absorbs energy from the sun. Whereas, other conventional farming methods grow their crops by using non-renewable electrical energy to boost their grow rates and rapid marketing. Organic food also uses natural fertilizers. All of the fertilizers are naturally occurring such as manure, slurry, and worms. Organic fertilizers also have increased nutrient content. Therefore, it is better for richer soil and the environment as well as healthier for the consumer. Organic fertilizers also create healthier soil. Natural compost contains more vitamins and minerals which then are able to provide it to the vegetation and the land without compromising other habitats. Due to the fact you are using existing nutrients from the soil rather than an artificial influx brought on by pesticides and preservatives. Is also helps to prevent topsoil erosion whereas pesticides and other chemicals actually cause top soil erosion and create soil that is not good for farming. The great dust bowl of the 1930’s is a perfect example of what can happen to top soil that is harvested carelessly. The costs for organic fertilizer are also a factor that should be considered. Pesticides and fuel cost a great deal of money whereas organic fertilizer is naturally occurring and cheap if not free. Cows are able to graze on land which then creates manure. For instance, the manure is then able to fertilize the land and creates great and rich soil that is ideal for growing crops and other vegetation for the land. Although naturally occurring fertilizers often take a longer time for the crop to grow it costs the land less because it does not damage the soil, the agriculture, the consumers, the plants, and the other animals that graze or live in that ecosystem (Scollan, 2006, p. 43).

Eating organic is more than a preferred choice of healthy eating. It costs consumers more financially, but in the end, it is less expensive to the environment and it pays for a healthier lifestyle for people and surrounding ecosystems. Factory farming contains a large amount of preservatives and chemical pesticides. These chemicals kill living organisms, are toxic to the land, the ecosystems, plants, wildlife, the soil, and the water table. Pesticides are not a chemical that only affects the plant or organism that has been sprayed. It affects the entire ecosystem and cannot be washed away after harvesting that plant for the season.  Although eating organic may appear to be more expensive in the short run, it costs the environment and the ecosystem a great deal less in the long run. Pleasant (2010) states “systemic pesticides are in the plant not on it When we make the plant itself poisonous to predators, one has to wonder what (or who) else it’s poisoning” (p. 16). Before consumers go to their local market and purchase goods that do not state organic, they should stop to think what their wallet is really paying for and who pays for it.

References

Barnard, N. D. (2010). why go organic?. Vegetarian Times, (379), 26-27. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Cassetty, S. B. (2010). ORGANIC FOOD: what’s really worth it. Good Housekeeping, 251(5), 51-59. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Castelo-Grande, T., Augusto, P. A., Monteiro, P., Estevez, A. M., & Barbosa, D. (2010). Remediation of soils contaminated with pesticides: a review. International Journal Of Environmental Analytical Chemistry, 90(3-6), 438-467. doi:10.1080/03067310903374152. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Chappell, M. (2008). strawberries. Vegetarian Times, (359), 96. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Crinnion, W. J. (2010). Organic Foods Contain Higher Levels of Certain Nutrients, Lower Levels of Pesticides, and May Provide Health Benefits for the Consumer. Alternative Medicine Review, 15(1), 4-12. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Dangour, A. D., Allen, E., Lock, K., & Uauy, R. (2010, April). Nutritional composition & health benefits of organic foods — using systematic reviews to question the available evidence. Indian Journal of Medical Research. pp. 478-480. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Hayes, S. (2010). The Organic Option. Scholastic Parent & Child, 18(2), 102. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Masjedi, K. K., Ahlborg, N. N., Gruvberger, B. B., Bruze, M. M., & Karlberg, A. T. (2003). Contact Dermatitis and Allergy Methylisothiazolinones elicit increased production of both T helper (Th)1- and Th2-like cytokines by peripheral blood mononuclear cells from contact allergic individuals. British Journal Of Dermatology, 149(6), 1172-1182. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2133.2003.05750.x. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Moore-Thorpe, A. P. (2009). Organic 101. Essence (Time Inc.), 40(1), 147. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Palmer, S. (2010). An Ounce of Prevention against Toxins in the Food System. Environmental Nutrition, 33(11), 2. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Pesticides and Genetic Drift: Alternative Property Rights Scenarios. (2003). Choices: The Magazine of Food, Farm & Resource Issues, 18(1), 5-7. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Pleasant, B. (2010). Systematic Pesticides: Chemicals You Can’t Wash Off. Mother Earth News, (242), 16-18. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Price Perspective on Organic Foods. (2010). Environmental Nutrition, 33(11), 3. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Rich, D. (2008). Not All Apples Are Created Equal. Earth Island Journal, 23(1), 26-30. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Scollan, D. (2006). Beyond Organic. E: The Environmental Magazine, 17(1), 42-43. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Spedding, C. (2006). Organic food production. (Cover story). Biologist, 53(4), 187-189. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Williamson, C. S. (2007). Is organic food better for our health?. Nutrition Bulletin, 32(2), 104-108. doi:10.1111/j.1467-3010.2007.00628.x. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Zevnik, N. (2009). the ORGANIC CONUNDRUM. Better Nutrition, 71(9), 44-46. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Research Final: Cleaning Up: Lets Recycle!

“Cleaning Up: Lets Recycle!”

by: Kimberlyn Sheldon

ENGLISH 213

FINAL

We, as the caretakers of our earth, must take seriously these three simple words: reduce, reuse, recycle. Many people believe that these three vital steps to improving our living and our world, are neither important nor very successful. What is reducing, reusing, and recycling exactly? Well to begin reducing, simply means to make less the amount of disposable products used in everyday life. This does not necessarily have to be a very dramatic change, all it takes to contribute to the silent movement is gradual and a clear decision to make an effort to become more aware of the waste produced by yourself. Reusing is a pretty self-descriptive word. People can make use of things that are made to reuse, things like sturdy grocery bags that would replace plastic ones. Plastic bags can even be reused for numerous jobs around the house, or in stores. The last “R” in the environmentally friendly steps, is recycle. Recycling is made easy for many people in cities and suburbs. There are many facilities that take recyclable trash, and some places even offer money for things like cans and plastic bottles. Some neighborhoods have programs that allow you to separate waste from recyclable items. The recycle-friendly trash is picked up weekly, this is probably the most convenient way to live a “green” life. For people, like myself, who live in secluded areas that have very little or even no existing recycling projects available, a simpler version of recycling could be used. This could be reusing items in creative and useful ways, this would help you save money and become more efficient. Although many people think that it does not matter if they do not reduce, reuse, and recycle they are wrong because, reusing items such as water bottles save money, recycling waste saves the environment, such as trees, and the world will be a little bit less polluted and degraded.

Many Americans today feel that their own lives are much too hectic to be bothered with silly things such as recycling.They do not see the overall positive impact their contributions, no matter how small, to the green movement could have on our environment and country. In some areas of the country recycling would cost more and use more energy than creating a new product. Other towns and villages do not even provide the equipment, or resources necessary to begin a recycling program. Many people are not informed of the ways creating a huge amount of waste has on the world around them. Trees are cut down, cities are littered with stray garbage, and our oceans are filled with waste that contaminates sea life. Too much waste is being distributed in our world, every effort to clean it up counts.

Mortality rates go up along with the pollution rates. The highest mortality levels occur when the hottest, but not the most polluted, air mass is present in each city (Smoyer 1.) In 2009, Americans generated about 243 million tons of trash and recycled and composted 82 million tons of this material, equivalent to a 33.8 percent recycling rate (Municipal Solid Waste Generation 1.) Although statistics show that the amount of people recycling is becoming higher and higher, there are still dramatic changes that need to happen in order for this country to become more environmentally friendly. The average person creates 4.5 pounds of trash per day, and over 1.5 tons of waste per year (Greenwaste.) The EPA states that 75% of waste is recyclable, but only about 30% of that waste is actually recycled. According to Greenwaste,

In 2004, 55 billion aluminum cans were landfilled, littered or incinerated, that’s 9 billion more than were wasted in 2000. This is enough cans to fill the Empire State Building twenty times. It is also a quantity equivalent to the annual production of three to four major primary aluminum smelters.

These statistics are both disturbing, and sad. Together, as a country, the people of The United States should invest more time and money into reducing, reusing, and recycling. There are lots of ways to change the statistics to more positive ones. Finding ways to recycle is as easy as typing “recycling” into the Google search engine and clicking “enter”.

There are many organizations today that dedicate all their time and money to utilizing the three Rs: reduce, reuse, and recycle. It is as simple as searching on Google, or Bing to find hundreds of worthy causes that go towards making our world cleaner. Most websites accept donations to help fund their causes, others give you the option of creating an account with them. After the account is made, the person is able to send in recyclable items, some sites even accept waste that was previously non-recyclable. The action of reusing non-recyclable waste, is called “up-cycling”. Terracycle.net is one example of a website organization that will accept waste for upcycling. The website sells recycled and upcycled products, accepts waste, and accepts donations that go toward projects run by the organization.

Now days there are even ways for teenagers and kids to get involved in living the green life. Many schools have different trash bins for recyclable items and waste. Parents and teachers could also get together to begin a recycling program in their school, this would allow both students and their parents to make a difference.

For people wanting to get rid of large items such as, wood, drywall, roofing, concrete etc., http://www.lautenbachrecycling.com is the perfect place. The website takes large items out of your hands and recycles them. People are able to drop off the items at their sites, or send them in. All the projects are listed on the site and it is easy to contact the organization. Projects like this allow all people to recycle. There are so many ways to help our environment, no one can have an excuse not to get involved.

There are lots of ways to utilize the three Rs, some examples would be: using a water filter system in the place of store bought bottles of water, reducing the amount of disposable items you buy daily, and even purchasing merchandise that is completely made of recycled items. There are lots of websites that offer tips and even a quick and simple way to get rid of waste in a healthy way. Many of these sites require a membership, which is relatively easy to set up. This would be a great way for rural Alaskans, like myself, to contribute to the cleaning and conserving of our world and resources. People living in the city have much more recycling opportunities, even the car that a person chooses to drive can have a positive impact. Putting the car away and pulling out the bicycle and helmet would not only help clean up our air, it would also help with getting in shape and creating a healthier life. There are numerous options that allow everyday citizens to take part in the global movement towards a better world.

Reusing everyday items may be the most important of the “Three Rs.” There are many ways to reuse everyday items that helps save money and save wildlife. Things such as plastic store bags can be used as trash bags for small garbage cans. Seeds from fruits and vegetables can be planted in order to grow food right in the comfort of home. Things such as unwanted pens and pencils can be donated to local schools. Clothes are easily reused by donating them to a charity. Everyday people have endless options when it comes to living “green.” Search new ideas through Google, ask a friend or start a recycling/reusing group of your own!

No person can make the excuse that they simply cannot take part in a cleaner world. Even people living in tiny villages are able to make the smallest contribution, such as picking up trash they see on the ground and getting more people to help. Picking up the litter does not cost any money, and it prevents wildlife from trying to consume this trash, not to mention the earth looks a lot prettier litter free. If everyone does their part to reduce the amount of waste they produce, reuse handy items they might throw away, and recycle waste, the world will become a much better place. The oceans will be cleaner, whales decontaminated, fish healthy, and trees will thrive. If you think you cannot, will not, or are not able to help with a cleaner earth, you are very mistaken.

Works Cited:

Facts About Reducing, Reusing, and Recycling. (2011, March 31). Livestrong.com: The Limitless Potential of You. Received from http://www.livestrong.com/

Garbage: How Can my Community Reduce Waste?. (2011). Interactives. Received from http://www.learner.org

How does Recycling Affect the Environment?. (2008). Energy Saving Site. Received from http://www.energysavingsite.info/

Know Your Trash Facts. (2011). Environmentalists. Every Day. American’s Solid Waste Industry.. Received from http://www.environmentalisteveryday.org/

Reusing and Reducing Waste. (2011). Ezine Articles. http://ezinearticles.com/

Reduce & Reuse. (2011, July 26). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Received from http://www.epa.gov/

Recycling is Important. (2011). Recycling Guide. Received from http://www.Recycling- guide.org.uk/

Recycling Statistics and Facts. (2011). all-recycling-facts.com. Received from http://www.all-recycling-facts.com/

Reusing vs. Recycling. (2011, August 14). About My Planet. Received from http://www.aboutmyplanet.com/

The Importance of Recycling. (2004). NSF. Received from http://www.nsf.org/

The Toxic Truth About Landfills. (2010, June 16). Bright Hub. Received from http://brighthub.com/

U.S. Food Waste Facts. (2011). Island Wood. Received from http://www.islandwood.org/

Waste & Recycling Facts. (2010). Clean Air Council: Protecting Everyone’s Right to Breathe Clean Air. Received from http://www.cleanair.org/

Waste Reduction. (2011). Department of Energy & Environment Protection. Received from http://www.ct.gov/

Why We Should Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle. (No date). Preserve Our Parks. Received from http://www.preserveourparks.com/

Recycling Stats. (2010). greenwaste. Received from http://www.greenwaste.com/

Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in the United States: Facts and Figures for 2009. (2009). EPA.Received

from http://www.epa.gov/

Smoyer, K. E., Kalkstein, L. S., Greene, J. S. and Ye, H. (2000), The impacts of weather and pollution on human mortality in Birmingham, Alabama and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. International Journal of Climatology, 20: 881–897. doi: 10.1002/1097-0088(20000630)20:83.0.CO;2-V

Research Final Draft: Deadly Air: Making it through Childhood

Research Final Draft: Deadly Air: Making it through Childhood

By Kimberly Johnson

English 213

                                                         Academic Writing Social and Natural Sciences

The childhood survival rate is dropping in the United States due to air pollutants. About 3 million tons of toxic chemicals are released into the environment in the United States alone, contributing to cancer, birth defects, immune system defects and many other serious health problems (Lang, 2007). Each year 3 million people are killed due to air pollution related exposure. Air pollution has been linked to many respiratory damaging effects. Children’s physical development and long-term health can be greatly affected by exposure to air pollutants. Those children exposed to pollutants known as ozone and particulate matter (PM) are more likely to have asthma and/or a recent asthma attack. It has also been suggested that chronic (12-month) exposure to ozone and particles is related to asthma outcomes among children in metropolitan areas throughout the US (Akinbami, 2010). The levels of air pollutants currently in the environment are affecting human health; many side effects are even starting in the womb. Air pollutants are increasing around the world. Although current programs are in place to lower air pollutants, high levels of air pollutants cause damage to children because of greater exposure, weaker immune systems and physical development.

Exposure to ozone and PM create greater damaging effects to children due to current levels of the air pollutants, PM and ozone, being too high. Ozone is a gas that cannot be seen when inhaled. It consists of three oxygen (O₃) molecules covalently bonded together making it less stable and more reactive, and thus causing many health problems to those who inhale it. The troposphere is the atmospheric level which animals and plants breathes from and is also the level where the damaging ozone air pollutant is located. However, this air pollutant is typically human-made. Ozone can come from car exhausts and industrial emissions. The process that makes the hazardous ozone air pollutant is from Nitrogen Oxide gases (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOC). When these two compounds come together and are exposed to the rays of the sun, they form O₃. The process is said to be anthropogenic because two of the three components that form ozone, NOx and VOC, come from industrial living (Gary, 2008).

Another harmful form of air pollutant is PM 2.5. PM 2.5 is the particle matter that has been determined by the U.S Environmental Protection Agency to be extremely dangerous. Particulate matter is formed by exhausts, aerosols, factories, power plants and other man-made systems (Boen, 2007).  PM 2.5 is a naming mechanism for identifying the particulate matter. PM 2.5 means that the particulate matter that are in the air are 2.5 microns or smaller. The problem with PM 2.5 is that they are particles that are small enough to be inhaled by humans and cause damage. PM 2.5 is inhaled deep into people’s lungs and does not come out easily making it detrimental to the health of those exposed. PM 2.5 is so easily inhaled that when PM levels are 2.5 or lower, outdoor activity becomes dangerous and even outdoor exercise should be avoided. Children tend to have greater exposure to outdoor pollutants such as ozone and PM because they are more likely to do outdoor activities. This creates greater exposure to the air pollutants Ozone and PM and also accounts for greater risk of pollutant related health problems in children than adults.

Not only is PM an outdoor pollutant, but it also poses a major health risk indoor as well. In a study of urban Syracruse, New York, it was found that there was a significantly higher risk of infant wheezing in developing infants who were exposed to PM indoors (Hunt, 2011). The American Lung Association released a report stating that about 154 million Americans, or half the country’s population, live in areas where it could be dangerous to breath. These high levels are often unknown to many inhabitants in major cities. Smaller cities have less cars and factories that produce these harmful air pollutants and also have less people to be exposed to these lower levels of pollutants. Clearly, as a result of how ozone and PM are formed, it is the major cities that have the highest probability of daily pollutant exposure and higher risk of health problems. These high levels affect a large amount of the population, many of which are unaware. With these dangerous levels indoors and outdoors, major cities are affecting children’s health due to air pollutants. It has been found that there are higher rates of wheezing, excessive phlegm and other asthma and bronchitis symptoms in children that live in and go to schools in neighborhoods with higher levels of motor vehicle pollution compared with other children in the study (Kay, 2004).

Another major concern with air pollutants is the health effects it has on the development of exposed children. Human development is a delicate and important phase. As such, developing children are affected the most from air pollutants. Some examples of obstacles children face over adults include children’s lungs not being completely developed, children tending to experience greater exposure to environmental pollutants than adults do and the higher doses of varied composition may remain in their lungs for a greater duration. Air pollution can begin effecting children as early as fetal development. It was found that levels of air pollutants such as ozone and PM have been correlated to reduce birth weight of newborns in mothers in late pregnancy (Darrow, 2011). Particulate matter has also been suggested to have a harmful, long-term effect. Exposure to particulate at the levels found in major cities worldwide can alter affective responses and impair cognition (Fonken, 2011). Altogether, the negative effects of air pollutants on pulmonary and neurological function place children at a greater risk of air pollutant-induced exacerbation of asthma for the duration of their lives (Tzivian, 2011).

Even with current knowledge, the degree of health defects that are caused to children due to air pollutants is still unknown. New research is finding more health problems as a result of ozone and PM exposure. Studies have found that many effects start with the mother breathing in the air pollutants during pregnancy. There have been multiple birth defects that have been suspected to be developed in part due to the mother’s exposure to air pollutants. Some effects that have been correlated to maternal exposure to air pollutants include inflammation, direct toxic effects to the fetus and placenta, and DNA formation errors. PM has also been directly related to maternal exposure, causing low birth weight babies, premature births and higher infant mortality rate (Shah, 2011). It has been found that certain times during pregnancy exposure to air pollutants can harm the fetus at higher levels. During the first and second month of pregnancy, exposure to outdoor air can increase the fetus’s risk to develop a cleft pallet. The levels of pollutants that increase the risk for cleft pallets are found globally, impacting a large number of pregnant women (Bing-Fang, 2008).

Regulations around the world managing the levels permitted of ozone and PM are still insufficient. Air pollutants are still affecting the health of adults and especially effecting childhood development. It is becoming increasingly difficult for pollution to be controlled. Controlling pollutants such as ozone and PM with the increasing population is strenuous. The more people there are, the more exhaust emitting vehicles, factories and products created and used daily. This also makes it difficult to keep up with current air quality standards and create future standards. More people are becoming aware of the effects air pollutants are having on citizens and demanding stricter regulations for air pollutant levels. Creating a greater push for better regulation programs to be implemented is being sought after more and more as more research is showing the effects that current levels are having on citizens especially children. Current regulations for ozone are 75 parts per billion. A new proposal was requested to make the standard of ozone allotted to be between 60 and 70 parts per billion (Shaw, 2011).  Increasing studies based on who is affected most due to air pollutants revealed that living in the low socioeconomic level is highly correlated with the proximity of the school to pollution sources (Mejía, 2011) resulting in low income children at higher risk for air pollutant health effects. Many people do not realize that lower income has been correlated to such findings involving air pollutants, along with the health affects that can occur as well.

EPA is trying to raise awareness of air pollutants such as ozone and the health effects (McKone, 2009). Concerned environmentalists are attempting to pass laws that lower the “safe” amount of ozone in the air. Tightening the standards for the amount considered safe to breathe of ozone continues to be attempted to pass into a new standard of regulation. Industries are the major component for resisting a tougher standard on ozone emission, as their companies would have to find solutions to lower the emissions. This would inevitably result in an increased financial burden on these companies that are currently barely under current standards, which would also lower profits that the companies are currently making. Through EPA studies, it has been found that the current federal standards are not healthy enough and should be changed.  Despite this evidence demonstrating the need for companies to help lower the levels of air pollutants in the air, companies do not want to have to implement costly emissions lowering equipment. EPA has found that with current levels young children are especially vulnerable, even more so than healthy adults that are outdoors exercising and working (Wertheimer, 2011). The recently proposed level of safe ozone, between 60 and 70 parts per billion, was not passed. President Barack Obama decided not to allow and pass the tougher standards to be implemented to law requiring companies to invest in methods that lower the pollutants they are currently creating.  It is clear that current levels are affecting the health of children and adults. Federal regulations have not been changed in response to current studies showing today’s standards of insufficient levels of healthy breathable air for people. There are many areas that are even falling short of the current regulation standards. Studies such as those that have been done in Texas are conforming rises in pollutant are unable to keep up with current regulation (Schade, 2006).

It is important for the standards to be raised as studies and organizations prove change is necessary. Air pollutants such as ozone and PM are continually being proven to be too high with current regulations resulting in health effects to all ages, even the unborn children. The United States however, is under hard economic times. With difficult economic issues, new regulations, despite being beneficial to citizen’s health, are ignored to avoid costing industries more money while they are struggling through a recession. Although economics is a major role in society, health should be the main factor running our nation’s air pollution standards. Ozone and PM are health causing issues that will only be resolved if people are made aware of the effects and demand stricter regulations. Everyone is affected around the world by air pollutants. Ironically, everyone is also contributing to the rise in air pollutants and is finding unhealthy air standards as acceptable. It is important to start raising awareness of the health effects of ozone and PM. People have to start demanding higher standards. It should be the peoples right to desire and make the necessary strides for everyone to breathe healthy, clean air without fear of harmful pollutants. Living a fear free lives of the quality of air people are breathing is possible by keeping up standards. Pregnant woman deal with the health effects to their young right away. Children grow running indoors and outside through harmful air pollutants, and adults are suffering from a life time of effects that can occur from ozone and PM. This cycle of health affects can stop. This lifetime exposure, which is hindering the development of the young, calls for an urgent change in standards.

 

Reference List:

Akinbami, L., Lynch, C., Parker, J., & Woodruff, T. (2010). The association between childhood asthma prevalence and monitored air pollutants in metropolitan areas, United States, 2001-2004. Environmental Research, 110(3), 294-301. Retrieved from http://p8333metalib5.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com.proxy.library.uaf.edu/V/EVC5J5J7KBG3YVMDRXHYJ4B9F7KDT3LE86Y16HFS7CVM2JSNU4-29419?func=quick-3&short-format=002&set_number=001460&set_entry=000009&format=999

Boen, J. (2007, June 1). Residents get air quality warnings: susceptible children, adults should take steps to lessen risk, officials say. News-Sentinel. Retrieved from http://p8333-metalib5.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com.proxy.library.uaf.edu/V/E2Y99XQ3E9XP8USE8AJ45GENVHYSXTDYYFPI7L59KKE8CIAEB7-22841?func=quick-3&short-format=002&set_number=001336&set_entry=000012&format=999

Bing-Fang , H., & Jaakkola, J. J. K. (2008). ozone and other air pollutants and the risk of oral clefts. Environmental Health Perspectives, 116(10), p1411-1415. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.uaf.edu/ehost/detail?vid=32&hid=8&sid=ca4811fa-3b28-4478-b0f4-df1b006bfb52@sessionmgr11&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ==

Darrow, L. A., Klein, M., Strickland, M. J., Mulholland, J. A., & Tolbert, P. E. (2011). Ambient air pollution and birth weight in full-term infants in Atlanta, 1994-2004. Environmental Health Perspectives, 119(5), 731-737. Retrieved from http://p8333metalib5.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com.proxy.library.uaf.edu/V/QPXTB1KUN569I56X8SBCJVG5CYTSFV1UQ19FKDS5IIU16VSEUM-81486?func=quick-3&short-format=002&set_number=001429&set_entry=000048&format=999

Fonken, L., Xu, X., Weil, Z., Chen, G., Sun, Q., Rajagopalan, S., & Nelson, R. (2011). Air pollution impairs cognition, provokes depressive-like behaviors and alters hippocampal cytokine expression and morphology. Molecular Psychiatry, 16(10), 987-995. Retrieved from http://p8333 metalib5.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com.proxy.library.uaf.edu/V/FTCUCP55BLJRREKIMLI3MJ7PU31RNGTVK678M6K472K8D2QBNH-10552?func=quick-3&short-format=002&set_number=001242&set_entry=000010&format=999

Gray, I. (2008, April). Air pollutants types and classification. Retrieved from http://www.tropical-rainforest-animals.com/Air-Pollutants.html

Hunt, A., Crawford, J., Rosenbaum, P., & Abraham, J. (2011). Levels of household particulate matter and environmental tobacco smoke exposure in the first year of life for a cohort at risk for asthma in urban syracuse, ny. Environment International, 37(7), 1196-1205 . Retrieved from http://p8333-metalib5.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com.proxy.library.uaf.edu/V/FTCUCP55BLJRREKIMLI3MJ7PU31RNGTVK678M6K472K8D2QBNH-02186?func=quick-3&short-format=002&set_number=001226&set_entry=000009&format=999

Hutchison, J. (2011, May 18). Area air quality improving. News-Herald Ohio. Retrieved from http://p8333metalib5.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com.proxy.library.uaf.edu/V/E2Y99XQ3E9XP8USE8AJ45GENVHYSXTDYYFPI7L59KKE8CIAEB7-21103?func=quick-3&short-format=002&set_number=001336&set_entry=000005&format=999

Kay , J. (2004, October 10). Bay area / respiratory ills in kids linked to traffic pollution. San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved from http://p8333metalib5.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com.proxy.library.uaf.edu/V/FTCUCP55BLJRREKIMLI3MJ7PU31RNGTVK678M6K472K8D2QBNH-78481?func=quick-3&short-format=002&set_number=001145&set_entry=000003&format=999

Lang, S. (2007, August 2). Water, air and soil pollution causes 40 percent of deaths worldwide, cornell research survey finds. Cornell Chronicle Online. Retrieved from http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/Aug07/moreDiseases.sl.html

McKone, T. E., Ryan, B. P., & Özkaynak, H. (2009). exposure information in environmental health research: Current opportunities and future directions for particulate matter, ozone, and toxic air pollutants. Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology, 19(1), p30-44. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.uaf.edu/ehost/detail?vid=27&hid=8&sid=ca4811fa-3b28-4478-b0f4-df1b006bfb52@sessionmgr11&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ==

Mejía, J. F., Chow, S. L., Mengersen, K., & Morawska, L. (2011). methodology for assessing exposure and impacts of air pollutants in school children: Data collection, analysis and health effects – a literature review. Atmospheric Environment, 45(4), p813-823. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.uaf.edu/ehost/detail?vid=33&hid=8&sid=ca4811fa-3b28-4478-b0f4-df1b006bfb52@sessionmgr11&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ==

Schade, G. W., Khan, S., Park, C., & Boedeker, I. (2011). rural southeast texas air quality measurements during the 2006 texas air quality study. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, 61(10), p1070-1081. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.uaf.edu/ehost/detail?vid=32&hid=8&sid=ca4811fa-3b28-4478-b0f4-df1b006bfb52@sessionmgr11&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ==

Shah, P., & Balkhair, T. (2011). Air pollution and birth outcomes: a systematic review. Environment International, 37(2), 498-516. Retrieved from http://p8333-metalib5.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com.proxy.library.uaf.edu/V/E2Y99XQ3E9XP8USE8AJ45GENVHYSXTDYYFPI7L59KKE8CIAEB7-23751?func=quick-3&short-format=002&set_number=001360&set_entry=000007&format=999

Shaw, M. (2011, September 29). Officials plan ahead to control ozone pollutants. Standard-Examiner. Retrieved from http://p8333-metalib5.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com.proxy.library.uaf.edu/V/FTCUCP55BLJRREKIMLI3MJ7PU31RNGTVK678M6K472K8D2QBNH-00380?func=quick-3&short-format=002&set_number=001214&set_entry=000002&format=999

Tzivian, L. (2011). Outdoor air pollution and asthma in children. Journal of Asthma, 48(5), p470-481. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.uaf.edu/ehost/detail?vid=33&hid=8&sid=ca4811fa-3b28-4478-b0f4-df1b006bfb52@sessionmgr11&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ==
Wertheimer, L. (2011, July 24). Epa seeks to tighten ozone standards. Weekend Edition Sunday . Retrieved from http://p8333metalib5.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com.proxy.library.uaf.edu/V/FTCUCP55BLJRREKIMLI3MJ7PU31RNGTVK678M6K472K8D2QBNH-13007?func=quick-3&short-format=002&set_number=001266&set_entry=000003&format=999

 

 

 

Workshop #2 for K.JOHNSON

Thesis:
1. Restate the thesis in your own words. If the thesis is a question and not an assertion, make it an assertion. If the claim is a fact vs an opinion, then tell the author that s/he needs to make the claim an opinion as we cannot argue facts. Make sure the words “although” and “because” are in it. Are there 3 reasons in the because clause?

Although organizations are making it a point to lower air pollutants, levels f pollutants in the air, such as PM and ozone, are much too great, this mainly causes

damage to children because of the high exposure, weak immune systems and physical development.

5. Is the thesis the final sentence of the first paragraph? Is it underlined or bolded?

Yes.

Audience:
Who is the author’s audience? Will the audience already agree with the author, or is the author writing to the opposition? How can you tell? Give specific examples.

The audience is generally everyone. The author seeks to persuade the reader that there is a problem.

Counterargument:
List the counterarguments (arguments of the author’s oppositions) used in the paper (there should be at least three). Does the author adequately address these arguments? Do you think there are other arguments that could be addressed? Do you see any logical fallacies?

1. There is no solid evidence
2.
3.

Title:
Does the paper have an interesting title? If not, help author come up with one.

Yes

Introduction:
Is there a catchy lead sentence? What is it? If there isn’t one, what would you suggest?

Yes

Conclusion:
How does the author conclude the paper? What do you think of it?

I think the author concludes the paper in a very final way, but she also restates her thesis in a new way.

Flow/Transitions:
Does each paragraph expand upon the thesis? Do the paragraphs flow? Which paragraphs have bumpy transitions?

Nice transitions.

Research Paper part 5: Fate forecast of the Sea Bear

Fate forecast of the Sea Bear

 

The sun shone brightly as it continued to rise in the cold spring morning. The ice flows drifted by slowly with the currents. Drops of salty water fell as the seals continued to play, gliding through the water like a bird flying in the air, swift and full of joy. As the day continues on, another decides to join in the harmonious gathering. Head held high, the majestic polar bear appears. As he approaches, all others scatter for they know the real beast hidden behind the welcoming disguise. These mighty mammals have lived in the arctic along with their only enemy, humans, for ages. They have had none else to worry about until the changing climate started melting the ice environment they need for survival. The native group of the North Slope, known as the Inuit, say polar bears will do fine with all the changes. However, scientists have stepped in with their studies saying that polar bears are facing a dilemma that may wipe them out entirely. Although Alaskan Natives disagree with it, the polar bear should remain on the endangered species list because their changing environment negatively influences their hunting, energy, and reproduction.

Polar bears are very unique creatures to both the animal kingdom and their bear family. They live in the Arctic Circle area of the world. The polar bear’s Latin name, Ursus Maritimus, means sea bear, which corresponds well with them because they spend so much time out in the ocean or the ice above it (Animals and Pets—National Geographic Kids). Polar bears swim very well and very fast with the help of their large paws. According to “National Geographic” (n.d.), males normally weigh in a range of 720-1700 pounds, while females, being smaller, range from 500-600 pounds. They can grow to be as tall as ten feet high when standing and have a rough skin surface on their paws to keep from slipping while walking on ice. These creatures are masters of surprise attacks. They are able to walk as quietly as the falling snow on a calm day and use a method called stalking when hunting their prey (A. Brower, personal communication, fall 2007). Their white fur helps them stay camouflaged while hunting. The hair strands are hollow, which allows their fur to appear white because it the air within them scatters light that hits (Everyday Mysteries, 2010). Underneath the thick coat of fur is black skin that allows them to keep warm by absorbing the heat from sunlight (the hollow fur may also contribute to this because it lets the sunlight reach the skin instead of blocking it out). Their diet consists of a number of different meats including walrus, fish, beluga whale, bowhead whale, bearded seal, ringed seal, as well as a few others. Most polar bears are “left handed,” meaning that they use their left paw to strike and kill their prey (Animals and Pets – National Geographic Kids).

Climate change is the result of something called the greenhouse effect. Lee, Lester, Lambert, and Jean-Baptiste (2007) define the greenhouse effect as the warming of the Earth’s atmosphere from captured chemical compounds, such as methane and carbon dioxide, etc., that pose as greenhouse gases and hold in the radiation that usually passes through the atmosphere (p. 117). It is something that happens naturally. However, this effect has been increased through human activity and furthermore caused the earth to warm more rapidly. Factories, cattle farms, landfills, and other things that emit water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and chlorofluorocarbon gases are all human-based causes for the intensified greenhouse effect (Lee et al., 2007). Unfortunately, the rapid warming from these amplified effects is taking a toll on the arctic environment

The arctic environment is a home to many species of animals including the polar bear, but as the temperature rises; the environment transforms to meet the new climate conditions. Prowse, Furgal, Wrona, and Reist (2009) report “As the climate continues to change, there will be consequences for biodiversity shifts and for the ranges and distribution of many species with resulting affects of availability and quality of resources…” (p. 282). One can see that Prowse has just described what is going on in the arctic now. It is well known that the effects of climate change are seen more prominently in the arctic. This is because the arctic is a rather cold place, containing ice in much of the territory, and warmer temperatures would obviously have an affect on ice. Studies have shown that the sea ice extent has been decreasing at an amount of about nine percent per decade (Derocher, Lunn, Stirling, 2004. p.164). That may seem like a small amount, but as time continues, it adds up and may disappear sooner than expected. Especially if the temperature rises more than it already has. It is true that more ice is formed over winter. According to Scheirmeier (2008), a great deal of the ice seen out in the Arctic Ocean is newer, or first year ice (266). Although it sounds like a good thing, it poses as more of a threat than an advantage because first year ice is not strong. New ice melts easier due to its weaker and thinner characteristics while aged ice is able to last as a result of piling up and strengthening throughout a number of years (Scheirmeier, 2008). Since the new ice melts so effortlessly, it leaves the aged ice for polar bears to depend on.

Polar bears need the ice in order to hunt. As mentioned earlier, polar bears hunt seals. The ringed seal is their main prey with the occasional bearded seal. Ringed seals live with the ice. Wherever the ice goes, seals follow. In order for polar bears to get to their prey, they must swim long distances during the summer months. The trip may be perilous to some because the ice flow is smaller and now farther from land. In January of this year (2011), Los Angeles Times’ Kim Murphy reported on a female polar bear that was forced to swim about 426 miles from shore just to reach an ice floe. She started off with a cub, but sadly the cub was not strong enough to make it the whole way. This was merely one report on one polar bear and her cub. There are probably many others that have attempted the exhausting swim to the pack ice and failed. However, Native Alaskans believe

Continuing on, ice is a necessary element for polar bears while hunting because it helps them stay camouflage and it assists with their hunting techniques. Having transparent fur, these creatures count on light to make their fur appear white and thus camouflage themselves with the surrounding ice and snow.  The ability to be camouflage is especially helpful when polar bears wait near a seal’s breathing hole and while using their stalking hunting method. When the ice is too far to reach or not available, polar bears are forced to hunt from land or while swimming. Catching prey is much more difficult when the predator can be seen from a ways back. It gives the seals time to hide or swim away and makes the bears work harder to get a successful catch. Harder work means more energy is used and needed to keep these bears going.

Energy becomes an increasing problem as climate change continues. Not only does climate change weaken the ice, but it also causes the spring break up to occur in earlier months than it normally used to. Engelhaupt (2009) explains, “In spring, the Arctic sea ice begins to melt and break apart. Over the past 25 years, the timing of this melting has become less predictable as a consequence of warming in the Arctic, varying by more than a month.” That time of the year is very important for polar bears because they are storing energy and getting ready for the summer months. Summer is a time of fasting for polar bears. They journey throughout the land and water, but they do not eat much. Springtime is also the preferred time of year to hunt seals because mothers and cubs have then recently emerged from their dens and their long sleep and need to eat. Derocher (2004) reported that since break up is occurring earlier, polar bears do not have the time necessary for consuming a decent amount of food to have enough energy to make it throughout the summer. It is important for them to eat as much as possible before summer begins because during that time, they mostly rely on their stored fat as a source of energy, rather than eating.

Furthermore, the amount of energy needed to survive the summer has grown because of the shrinking ice. During this time, a polar bear’s body “recycles urea and keeps creatine levels up, which means they use up their fat and conserve protein” (Gillis, 1991). Since the shrunken ice is much smaller than it used to be, the extra amount of energy required to swim is drained much quicker than it should be. Even so, polar bears still insist on embarking on the long journey. They love their ice so much they would die in the attempt to reach it. In Barrow this year, we had several polar bears arrive to shore. As soon as they landed they plopped down on the beach and slept. We could tell they were so exhausted by the way they acted when we tried to scare them down the beach, which was done so they would not be within the town area. It was as if they did not even care that we were near them. The Department of Wildlife Management bear watchmen stood nearby with guns and town residents drove by with all-terrain vehicles, which usually spooks bears enough to run the other way. That is how tired they were.

The trouble continues when the depleted ice affects polar bear reproduction, causing their population to decrease. Like most other animals, it is important for a pregnant female to consume larger amounts of food to have enough nutrients and energy to continue the pregnancy. As mentioned before, the shrinking ice causes problems for hunting bears. Like a chain reaction, the dwindling amount of food consumed affects the energy and nutrient intake of the polar bear to result in a miscarriage. “Hunting troubles along with the substantial changing of the environment creates stress for polar bears and may cause reproduction complications,” as Courtland (2008) explained in her article.  It not only affects the reproduction rate, but also how long it takes for a cub to wean off the mother’s milk. “Female polar bears normally keep offspring for 2.5 years and therefore, given that the cubs survive until weaning, breed every three years” (Derocher, 2010. p. 940). So females should usually breed every three years after their cubs have weaned off milk and have learned to hunt on their own.

During the winter, pregnant female polar bears dig dens within the ice or snowdrifts where they sleep until spring arrives. It is during this sleep that they give birth to their cubs, who stay in the den until it is time for the mother to climb out and start hunting for food (Armstrup, McDonald, Nielson, & Simac, 2004). Once they emerge from the den, the mother takes her cubs and searches for food. She must eat enough to produce a great amount of milk to feed her cub, while at the same time keeping herself healthy through the summer. Since spring has been occurring earlier than normal, it allows warmer temperatures to cause collapsing dens. In 1989 a female polar bear and her two newborn cubs were found dead because the den had collapsed (Clarkson and Irish, 1991). If they were able to collapse twenty years ago when the climate was not as warm, dens may be weakened easier today.

Even after all this, the native people of Alaska still disagree with listing the polar bear as an endangered species. They believe that polar bears are live and well, saying that polar bear population numbers are higher than ever and that because they do not see any bears with malnutrition there must not be any (Howe, 2010). It may not be apparent to them, but what they see can be an illusion, in that the abundance of polar bears they are seeing is from bears coming to land as a result of the lack of ice they are able to land on. The article “Polar bear listing to affect ANWR and Alaskan arctic” (n.d.) says “…the Arctic Native population does not support listing due to perceived inaccurate science…, threats to cultural ways of life, and lack of consultation in the decision making process…”  They say it threatens the cultural way of life because listing the polar bear would prohibit the hunting of them as well. On the other hand, it would protect them from being overhunted. The prevention of hunting may be one of the main reasons they do not like the idea of being listed on the endangered species list.

As I have pointed out, the shrinking ice has become a big problem for polar bears. As it shrinks, the polar bear’s hunting becomes more difficult and results in a decrease of food consumed, which sets off a kind of chain reaction that in turn affects their energy levels and on to reproduction. Since such changes are endangering the polar bear population, they should be kept on the endangered species list. As for the native Alaskans, the best thing to do in order to have the best of both worlds may be to allow hunting of polar bears but with a quota. That way, overhunting would not take place and there would still be enough polar bears to keep their population somewhat stable. Also, maybe they can request to be included in the decision making process and use their passed down knowledge of polar bears combined with scientific knowledge to come to a conclusion. It is a decent compromise to think about.

 

References

Animals and Pets — National Geographic Kids. (n.d.). National Geographic

                    Kids. Retrieved November 5, 2011, from http://kids.nationalgeographic.com

 

Armstrup, S. C., York, G., McDonald, T. L., Nielson, R., & Simac, K. (2004).

Detecting denning polar bears with forward-looking infrared (FLIR)

imagery. BioScience, 54(4), 337-344. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com

 

Clarkson, P. L., & Irish, D. (1991). Den collapse kills female polar bear and

two newborn cubs. Arctic, 44(1), 83-84. Retrieved December 6, 2011,

from http://arctic.synergiesprairies.ca/arctic/index

 

Courtland, R. (2008). Polar bear numbers set to fall. Nature, 453(7194),

432-433. Retrieved October 20, 2011, from

http://search.proquest.com/

 

Derocher, A., Lunn, N., & Stirling, I. (2004). Polar bears in a warming

climate. Integrative and Comparative Biology, 44(2), 163-176.

doi:10.1043/1540-7063(2004)44<163:PBIAWC>2.0.CO;2. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com

 

Derocher, A. E., Anderson, M., Wiig, O., & Aars, J. (2010). Sexual

dimorphism and the mating ecology of polar bears (Ursus maritimus)

at Svalbard. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 64, 939-946.

doi:10.1007/s00265-010-0909-0. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com

 

Engelhaupt, E. (2009). Climate change and the arctic diet. Environmental

                  Health Perspectives, 117(7), A292. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/

 

Gillis, A. M. (1991). Polar bears preserve protein. Bioscience, 41(8), 537.

Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/

 

Howe, L. E. (2010). Temporality and reconciliation. Administrative Theory &

                  Praxis, 32(4), 611-611-619. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/

 

Lee, O., Lester, B. T., Li, M., Lambert, J., & Jean-Baptiste, M. (2007).

Conceptions of the greenhouse effect and global warming among

elementary students from diverse languages and cultures. Journal of Geoscience            

              Education, 55(2), 117-117-125. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/

 

Everyday Mysteries: Fun science facts from the Library of Congress. (2010,

August 23). The Library of Congress. Retrieved December 6, 2011,

from /rr/scitech/mysteries/polarbear.html

 

Murphy, K. (2011, January 29). Bear’s long swim illustrates crisis; with arctic

sea ice shrinking, one female bear swims through open water for 9

days before reaching a floe. Los Angeles Times, p. A.12. Retrieved

October 20, 2011, from http://search.proquest.com/

 

Polar bear listing to affect ANWR and Alaskan arctic. (n.d.). Arctic Power –

                   Arctic National Wildlife Refuge – Home. Retrieved December 6, 2011,

from http://anwr.org

 

Prowse, T. D., Furgal, C., Wrona, F. J., & Reist, J. D. (2009). Implications of

climate change for northern canada: freshwater, marine, and

terrestrial ecosystems . Ambio, 38(5), 282-289. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/

 

Schiermeier, Q. (2008). The long summer begins. Nature, 454(7202), 266-

269. Retrieved October 20, 2011, from http://search.proquest.com/

 

 

 

Research Final Draft:The meaning behind the forest

On 05 June 2011, the world environment day, a theme was put forward——forest: nature at your service. It seems those common plants around us are regarded and this is not a good news. One third of the earth’s land mass is covered by forests, and 1.6 billion people depends on forests for their livelihoods. Losing forests means we are destroying our earth. (Thesis:) Although humans have already realized that the value of the forest, the losing of the forest causes many environmental problems because forests stand for an important role in the climate change, forests are home to more than half of terrestrial species and forests help decrease the impacts of debris flow and floods, whilst helping control desertification of land.

The forest acts as heat and water pumps in the climate system, which likes the heart in our body. Bloods will bring the oxygen to our organs from heart and finally return to the heart. Forests release moisture into the atmosphere and it will return to the ground as rain. We all know we can’t live without heart, because our organs will die without oxygen. But in the common situation, we will get sick at first. For example, when we get a fever, our body temperature will increase. It sounds like the climate change. The environment system is like human’s body, the climate change is the performance of environmental deterioration. As a huge system; the earth can’t run without heart. So the forest really plays an important role in the climate change, especially the tropical forests, which are described as “the lungs of the Earth”.

Global warming is one of the biggest environment problems in the world and carbon dioxide emission can be seen as the main reason of global warming. As christenson, l. m., mitchell, m. j., groffman, p. m., & lovett, g. m. (2010) show it in their research “In 2007, U.S. forests offset more than 900 million tons or 12.7% of the nation’s CO2 emissions (Perschel et al., 2007; EPA, 2009). According to the EPA (2007), net carbon sequestration increased by 16% from 1990 to 2005, mainly due to an increase in the rate of net carbon accumulation in forests. Significant potential exists for forests to offset more CO2 emissions, as some could increase their carbon storage by as much as 50% (Yardley, 2009)”. So the forest plays an important role in absorbing the carbon dioxide.

When the forest is stopping the global warming, the global warming is also destroying the forest at the same time. For example, the temperature increase is one part of the climate change, and it will cause a huge influence in the environment. Daniels, T. L. (2010) indicates that the temperature of North American and the world have been increasing in the last century, the changes on local scales are more indicative of impacts to regional ecosystems (Hayhoe et al., 2006). These increases will increase the freezing temperatures, especially during nondaylight hours over the winter.

We can’t look to the forest to help us to prevent the global warming. Seppälä, R. (2009) says that climate change will change the distribution of forest types and tree species. Globally, under growth and fast growth scenarios, all forest ecosystems will have difficulties in adapting to the impacts of climate change. Forest ecosystem services are expected to be significantly altered, particularly in submesic, semi-arid and arid climates, where productivity could decline to the extent that forests are no longer viable.

So even we do nothing with the forest, it is still disappearing every day.

The forest is also the home of amount of species. According to the research, about 40 to 75 present species are living in the tropical forest, and there may be millions of species of plants, insects and microorganisms still not discovered in the tropical forest. For example, if We described the tree species diversity and floristic composition of a tropical seasonal rainforest located in Xishuangbanna, south-west China, a total of 1283 families, 125 genera and 207 species were recorded in this place(Lü, X. T., Yin, J. X., & Tang, J. W. 2010).Those species may contain many invaluable things such as medicines and foods. So the tropical forest is a collection of valuable things.

Why do amount of species decide to live in the tropical forest? They can’t live in the cold and dry environment. That’s why we can’t see coconut trees in the Alaska. Tropical forests provide a perfect environment for those species to live. However, because of the global warming, the temperature of the tropical forest is increasing. It also means we are losing the forest. Even in the tropical forest, the temperature is not the same. The center of the forest and the edge of the forest are totally different. The center of the forest has more plants than edge of the forest, so the humidity of in the center of the forest is stronger than edges, and it also release more heat. This small temperature different may cause a big problem for the forest. Different plants have different growing environment. Some seeds can’t grow up in the high temperature environment. For those forests that grow above the sea level, the influence of the temperature is more obvious. When the sea level goes up, the temperature will always go down. But the global warming makes the temperature around world goes up, and it makes some plants be hard to live in this sea level. What will happen is some plants will die, and some species will also decrease. So it is same as the butterfly effect, and we can’t ignore that the forest is changed by the global warming. In Good, P., Jones, C., Lowe, J., Betts, R., Booth, B., & Huntingford, C. (2011) research shows that the carbon dioxide that is produced by the forest is reducing those years. It means even we do nothing with the forest, the forest is still decreasing.

The hardest thing is that we can’t do much with the rainforest. Actually, almost all the forest can be described as an ecosystem. It is hard for us to change the structure of the ecosystem. What we can do is stopping destroying the environment. Although the forest can stop the global warming, it can stop the global warming forever. So how to control the carbon emission is still a big problem for us.

What about species? We know most of the species live in the forest, especially in the rainforest. It looks like human beings. We want to live in the warm and comfortable place, so do the species. In summer, we can use air condition to reduce the room temperature. In winter, we can also use heating system to keep the room temperature. If there is a place that the temperature doesn’t change or only change a little, that’s the place we want to live forever. So many people choice to live near the coast and it can explain that why only a few people live in Alaska. Animals also want to live in a comfortable and warm place, so they chose to live in the forest, especially in the rainforest.

Peter, K., & Andreas, H. (2004) also advised that there is evidence that tree recruitment in the tropics might be endangered in the future. Up to 80% of the dominant trees in South-East Asia belong to the dipterocarp tree family. Their recruitment mechanisms prevail over seed predation through mass flowering followed by mast-fruiting events on a 2–10 yr basis. The mastfruiting strongly depends on the El Ni˜no Southern Oscillation (ENSO) (Ashton et al., 1988; Curran et al., 1999). The anticipated temperature increase of about 1 ◦C proposed over the next 50 yr in the tropical regions by climatic change (Houghton et al., 2001) might change the time and frequency of the necessary low nighttime temperatures which trigger this mast-fruiting (Yasuda et al., 1999). Human pressure in the form of land-use change or tree logging might lead to the migration of huge populations of seed predators and thus the number of ingrowing seedlings might be reduced by several orders of magnitude (Curran et al., 1999).

The meaning of species shift to cool refuges is the amount of species in the tropical forest will decrease, and some species may extinct.

Another thing will make species decline is deforestation. From the history, the area of rainforest is always decreasing. For example, If we use the pictures from the Brazilian Amazon Basin for 1978 and 1988, deforestation, fragmented forest, defined as areas less than 100 square kilometers surrounded by deforestation (Giles, P. T., & Burgoyne, J. M. 2008, Skole, D.L. and Tucker, C.J. 1993). Until now, we can’t stop deforestation, and we still are losing forests every day.

Because of the deforestation, species don’t have enough places to survive. On the other hand, deforestation will also change the climate in the forestry. These two factors will also influence the species in the forestry. The research shows that the relative influence of land use and climate change on environmental conditions was examined using analysis of similarity and principal components analysis. Deforestation in the region has resulted in a decrease in suitable habitat of between 78% and 93% for the Atlantic forest birds included here. Further, Atlantic forest birds today experience generally wetter and less seasonal forest environments than they did historically. Models of future environmental conditions within forest remnants suggest generally warmer conditions and lower annual variation in rainfall due to greater precipitation in the driest quarter of the year.(Loiselle, B. A., Graham, C. H., Goerck, J. M., & Ribeiro, M. 2010). A

As the forest keeping the species in diversity, the forest is also protecting our land to decrease the impacts of debris flow and floods, whilst helping control desertification of land.

It is common to see debris flow around mountain areas. A debris flow is a fast moving, liquefied landslide of unconsolidated, saturated debris that looks like flowing concrete. The debris flow can carry many large materials such as clay, boulders, and also some woods. Debris flows are extremely destructive to life and property, and claim thousands of lives world-wide (wiki). We can’t stop debris flows, what we can do it to prevent debris flows. The effective way is to plant trees, so the forest can prevent debris flow effectively.

Debris flows generally form when material becomes unconsolidated and unstable. Most of the time debris flows may begin with the mud flow and it often happens in a raining day or storm. Those saturated materials can be set by plant’s roots. The root-solid system can strongly make solid become unmoved. Turk and Graham do a study about the relationship between roots and solid. The result shows plants’ roots can do a great job to prevent debris flows (Turk and Graham).

Another natural disaster is flood. Debris flows have a strong destructive power, but it always finds in the mountain areas. Floods may occur in the large areas. Humans always build their home around the river, because water can’t be replaced in their life. So compared with mountain areas, floods are more dangerous than debris flows.

Floods can be explained by water expansion. If a water system submerges land, we can call it flood. Flood can cause a huge effect on ours’ life. Flood damages property and endangers the lives of humans and other species. Rapid water runoff causes soil erosion and concomitant sediment deposition elsewhere. We may cost a lot to recovery what floods destroy. For example, financial losses due to floods are typically millions of dollars each year, with the worst floods in recent U.S. history having cost billions of dollars (wiki). There are also many ways to prevent floods, and forest is still a good choice. The root-solid system is still one of the reasons. It can help solid to store more water, and trees can stand as protective screen to prevent floods.

In conclusion, the forest stands for an important role on this planet. While we are producing more carbon dioxides, forests help us to absorb it; while we are hunting animals, forests give species a good place to live; while we are suffering the punishment from the natural, forests form a good protective screen to protect us. Forest can be described as a mother in this planet. But at the same time, she is becoming weaker and weaker. I can’t imagine the world without forest. It seems like the color of green has disappeared from the earth. So we need protect forests.

 

Work Cited

Peter, K., & Andreas, H. (2004). Simulating growth dynamics in a South-East Asian rainforest threatened by recruitment shortage and tree harvesting. Climatic Change, 67(1), 95-117. Retrieved from EBSCOhost

WRIGHT, S., MULLER-LANDAU, H. C., & SCHIPPER, J. (2009). The Future of Tropical Species on a Warmer Planet. Conservation Biology, 23(6), 1418-1426. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01337.x

Good, P., Jones, C., Lowe, J., Betts, R., Booth, B., & Huntingford, C. (2011). Quantifying Environmental Drivers of Future Tropical Forest Extent. Journal of Climate, 24(5), 1337-1349. doi:10.1175/2010JCLI3865.1

Seppälä, R. (2009). A global assessment on adaptation of forests to climate change. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 24(6), 469-472. doi:10.1080/02827580903378626

Daniels, T. L. (2010). Integrating Forest Carbon Sequestration Into a Cap-and-Trade Program to Reduce Net CO2 Emissions. Journal of the American Planning Association, 76(4), 463-475. doi:10.1080/01944363.2010.499830

CHRISTENSON, L. M., MITCHELL, M. J., GROFFMAN, P. M., & LOVETT, G. M. (2010). Winter climate change implications for decomposition in northeastern forests: comparisons of sugar maple litter with herbivore fecal inputs. Global Change Biology, 16(9), 2589-2601. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2009.02115.x

Lü, X. T., Yin, J. X., & Tang, J. W. (2010). STRUCTURE, TREE SPECIES DIVERSITY AND COMPOSITION OF TROPICAL SEASONAL RAINFORESTS IN XISHUANGBANNA, SOUTH-WEST CHINA. Journal Of Tropical Forest Science, 22(3), 260-270.

Giles, P. T., & Burgoyne, J. M. (2008). Skole, D.L. and Tucker, C.J. 1993: Tropical deforestation and habitat fragmentation in the Amazon: satellite data from 1978 to 1988. Science 260, 1905-1910. Progress In Physical Geography, 32(5), 575-580. doi:10.1177/0309133308096755

Loiselle, B. A., Graham, C. H., Goerck, J. M., & Ribeiro, M. (2010). Assessing the impact of deforestation and climate change on the range size and environmental niche of bird species in the Atlantic forests, Brazil. Journal Of Biogeography, 37(7), 1288-1301. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2699.2010.02285.x

Debris flow. (2011, November 14). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 08:45, December 13, 2011, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Debris_flow&oldid=460592620

 

Turk, J. K., & Graham, R. C. (2009). Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Accumulation in a Forested Debris Flow Chronosequence, California [electronic resource]. Soil Science Society Of America Journal, 73(5), 1504-1509.

 

Flood control. (2011, December 9). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 09:38, December 13, 2011, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flood_control&oldid=464908752

 

Flood control in the Netherlands. (2011, December 11). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 09:58, December 13, 2011, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flood_control_in_the_Netherlands&oldid=465303548

 

Forest. (2011, December 12). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 09:58, December 13, 2011, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Forest&oldid=465465437

 

Flood. (2011, December 7). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 09:58, December 13, 2011, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flood&oldid=464574888

Research Final Draft: Ethanol is Not Cool

Ethyl alcohol, more commonly known as Ethanol, is the most widespread type of alcohol that is found on the market today. Currently, it is often used in fuels, beverages, and solvents. In recent years, a desire to lower our need for foreign oil has driven the demand for this alcohol and its use as a biofuel. Producing ethanol from corn is a complicated and costly process involving converting starch into sugar, fermenting, distilling, and separating. There are two common blends of ethanol fuel in use today. E10 is composed of 10 percent ethanol and 90 percent gasoline. E85 is composed of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline. Running a vehicle on pure ethanol is not conventional. Ethanol is incredibly common in Midwestern states because of the agricultural sector in the surrounding areas. Ethanol is also produced in other areas around the world from different crops such as sugar cane. The seemingly increased popularity of these fuel blends is largely due to new government mandates in the United States requiring its use. Although the use of corn-based ethanol in vehicles may seem like a good idea, the actual benefit to the environment and vehicles is almost nothing because ethanol production is wasteful, bad for vehicles, and too expensive.

One of the most important things to consider in any production process is the efficiency of the process. An inefficient process should be examined and fixed. Ethanol used in the US largely comes from corn. Corn is also a food. Food under no circumstance should ever be used to fuel vehicles. What is basically happening when we use ethanol to power a vehicle is we are burning food. Burning food to power vehicles is unsustainable. Right now, a large percentage of corn is also used for livestock feed. Together, corn that is destined for ethanol manufacturing and livestock feed raises the price for the corn that is sold as food. False demand for ethanol creates an inflated supply which would not exist without mandates.

Growing corn requires vast amounts of land. The amount of land required to produce a single gallon of ethanol is staggering. A crop of corn must be planted, grown, harvested, processed, and then be turned into ethanol. Each step involves time, money, and energy. The total cost which is required to produce ethanol is higher than comparable fuels, which is why the government must subsidize the production in order to keep the price competitive. These subsidies result in the desire to keep the price of ethanol down and the need to support the agricultural sector. One gallon of ethanol only contains about 1905 BTUs while a gallon of gas contains about 2830 BTUS (Wald, 2007). When we look at the amount of energy required to produce ethanol is becomes clearly apparent that it is not an efficient process. Simply heating ethanol in the various steps of production requires 36,000 BTUs of energy which only produces 80,000 BTUs of energy in the resulting barrel of ethanol (Wald, 2007).

Ethanol is not good for vehicles. An internal combustion engine that is designed for gasoline cannot run pure ethanol. Most conventional modern new vehicles that are sold in the US today are capable of running with a maximum 10% ethanol blend. Any vehicle that is over 15-20 years old and uses a carburetor usually cannot run anything more than a 10% ethanol blend. These types of vehicles will usually be able to run an ethanol blend of about 5% (Ballinger, 2008). Engines must be designed to run on different fuels. Burning ethanol blends in vehicles is not efficient compared with conventional petrochemical fuels. E10 and E85 especially contain less energy and will result in increased fuel usage and more frequent refueling.

Federal government mandates requiring the manufacture and sale of ethanol compliant engines have resulted in an increase in availability of these types of vehicles (Szulczyk, 2010). Many people buy a new vehicle not realizing it is a “flex-fuel” vehicle and can run on E85 or gasoline. The majority of the existing vehicles on the road are not E85 compatible. Research and development costs of E85 compatible engines are passed directly onto the consumer who buys the vehicle. Because ethanol has a lower energy density compared with gasoline, fuel efficiency is lowered and every gallon of ethanol will provide fewer miles traveled. A higher cost of fuel is not something that consumers are interested in.

Ethanol is more expensive than other fuels. Compared with a gasoline powered car, a vehicle running E85 will achieve 15% less miles per gallon. Altogether E85 will be 8% more expensive (“True” 2006). The entire process of producing ethanol is more expensive than gasoline. Consumers may not be able to tell the difference when pumping fuel into their car, but if the total costs over the long term are looked at it is readily obvious because of the resulting lower miles per gallon. Some studies have also shown that the actual distillation plants that produce ethanol would not be successful financially without subsidies (Amigun, 2011). Financial subsidies are allotted for ethanol distillation plants which end up producing ethanol which is subsidized again so it can be sold. This is extremely poor financial oversight.

Environmental damage and health issues are other topics which must be considered. With government mandated corn-based ethanol production, a false demand is forced on the economy. While ethanol is technically a sustainable fuel, the entire process involved in production is just as bad if not worse than any other petrochemical process. Plants that manufacture ethanol produce methanol, carbon monoxide, and carcinogens which are pumped into the atmosphere (Miller, 2007).

A study that was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that if every vehicle in the United States was running on E85, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and ozone levels in the atmosphere would increase. Butadiene and benzene levels would decrease (Hampton, 2007).  Ethanol is not any safer or cleaner than regular gasoline. Many people submit to a false sense of approval over the use of this fuel because it is renewable. Subsidies are enough of an incentive for farmers to switch from growing other types of food and start growing corn targeted for ethanol production.

The cost to our economy is enormous. Creating subsidies and paying them to corn farmers destroys the natural balance of the agricultural sector’s supply and demand. These subsidies result in an artificially low price for this commodity. Government subsidies are paid for by taxes, just like any other spending. Therefore, this artificially low ethanol price is not really low; we are all paying for this, even if we choose not to use it. Ending subsidies would most likely result in a dramatic market shift toward the most economical available fuels (Tyner, 2008). The total cost for production and transportation of ethanol is higher than regular petroleum based fuels (Szulczyk, 2010).

Blending ethanol into gasoline is an inefficient method of reducing our dependence on foreign oil. While we have not reached peak oil yet, oil reserves are not sustainable and will eventually run out. There are other methods available today that can help lengthen the availability of oil. With increased fuel economy standards, today’s engines are more fuel efficient than ever before. Other technologies such as electric propulsion, hydrogen, natural gas, and biodiesel are better alternatives. There is absolutely no good reason to use ethanol in fuel blends that are destined for vehicles. If there is another option when comparing ethanol to another fuel source, the other source is usually the better choice. Ethanol production is expensive and wasteful. We must end these subsidies and government mandates which require ethanol use. Until there is a better option than gasoline, diesel, or other petroleum based fuels, ethanol should be kept out of our fuel supply.

Aillery, M., Weinberg, M., & Malcolm, S. A. (2009, November). Ethanol and a Changing Agricultural Landscape. Retrieved fromhttp://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/ERR86/ERR86.pdf

Amigun, B., Petrie, D., & Görgens, J. (2011). Economic risk assessment of advanced process technologies for bioethanol production in South Africa: Monte Carlo analysis. Renewable Energy: An International Journal, 36(11), 3178-3186. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2011.03.015

Ballinger, R. (2008). Can my car use ethanol blended fuel E10? Retrieved from http://www.flexfuelkit.com.au/articles/8/1/Can-my-car-use-ethanol-blended-fuel-E10/Page1.html

Brasher, P. (2011, September 19). Tight grain supplies bring calls to weaken ethanol mandates. USA Today, p. 06b.

Cavalcanti, M., Szklo, A., Machado, G., & Arouca, M. (2012). Taxation of automobile fuels in Brazil: Does ethanol need tax incentives to be competitive and if so, to what extent can they be justified by the balance of GHG emissions?. Renewable Energy: An International Journal, 37(1), 9-18. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2011.06.005

Cooper, C., Huff, S., Knoll, K., Orban, J., Thomas, J., & West, B. (2009). Effects of Mid-Level Ethanol Blends on Conventional Vehicle Emissions. Retrieved fromhttp://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/46570.pdf

Dalidd, J. (2010, November 30). Al Gore admits supporting corn ethanol subsidies was a mistake [Web log post]. Retrieved fromhttp://green.autoblog.com/2010/11/30/al-gore-admits-supporting-corn-ethanol-subsidies-was-a-mistake/

Davidson, S. (2004). Ethanol what’s it all about?. Ecos, (119), 14-18. Retrieved fromhttp://www.ebscohost.com

Demirbas, A., & Gupta, R. B. (2010). Gasoline, Diesel and Ethanol Biofuels from Grasses and Plants. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Glynn, M. (2011, September 16). Future of biofuels seen as hinging on long-term strategy. The Buffalo News, p. 5b

Hampton, T. (2007). Ethanol-Fueled Vehicles Could Pose Health Risk. JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association, 297(19), 2068. Retrieved fromhttp://www.ebscohost.com

Hilton, B. B., & Duddy, B. B. (2009). The effect of E20 ethanol fuel on vehicle emissions. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers — Part D — Journal of Automobile Engineering (Professional Engineering Publishing), 223(12), 1577-1586. doi:10.1243/09544070JAUTO1188

Kim, S., & Dale, B. E. (2005). Environmental aspects of ethanol derived from no-tilled corn grain: nonrenewable energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.Biomass & Bioenergy, 28(5), 475-489. doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2004.11.005

Loveday, E. (2011, September 30). U.S. ethanol output dips to lowest level in 2011 [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://green.autoblog.com/2011/09/30/u-s-ethanol-output-dips-to-lowest-level-in-2011/

Miller, S. (2007). E85 is Running on Fumes. Brandweek, 48(32), 28. Retrieved fromhttp://www.ebscohost.com

Szulczyk, K. R., McCarl, B. A., & Cornforth, G. (2010). Market penetration of ethanol. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 14(1), 394-403. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2009.07.007

Thomas, C. (2011, September 25). Biofuels from boom to bust to business. St. Joseph News-Press, p. A2.

True or False: Ethanol Is Cheaper. (2006). Money, 35(9), 24. Retrieved from http://www.ebscohost.com

Tyner, W. E. (2008). The US Ethanol and Biofuels Boom: Its Origins, Current Status, and Future Prospects. Bioscience, 58(7), 646.

Wald, M. L. (2007). IS ETHANOL FOR THE LONG HAUL?. Scientific American, 296(1), 42-49. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Research Paper Final Draft– Commercial Fishing: The Only Cause for the Decline in Returning Salmon?

Commercial Fishing: The Only Cause for the Decline in Returning Salmon?

By David Mondok

English 213

Academic Writing Social and Natural Sciences

After years of discussions about the decline in returning salmon, I have begun to contemplate the reason for the decline. With all the research that has been done on the harvesting numbers and trending the decline of returning fish, we have seen poor numbers in the returns even with the Emergency Closures on harvesting seasons. Being a fisherman, I have seen and experienced some of the  factors that may be impacting the fisheries across the state. Which factors impact the fisheries the most? Although  commercial salmon harvests may be contributing to the decline of returning numbers, other factors are also having an effect on the salmon fisheries, because of increased recreational activity, sports fisherman harvests, and the introduction of an invasive predator.

While there is no way to have exact numbers in the salmon populations, we can provide rough estimates of population numbers and annual averages allowing us to make informed decisions on the management of our natural resources. To narrow down this topic I am going to focus on three of Alaska’s rivers the Kenai River, Copper River, and Deshka River. These rivers receive steady pressure throughout Alaska’s salmon fishing season and also have commercial fleets that harvest fish in the ocean near the mouth of these rivers (Tarbox, et al.).  They have also been monitored for several years with fish counters to provide biologists with relatively accurate information on the types of fish as well as the numbers.

On the Deshka River, fish biologists have been counting the returns of salmon to determine a 15 year average of 26,170 Chinook salmon and a 14 year average of 27,846 Coho salmon. Over the last 5 years, the Chinook population has fluctuated from 18,800 in 2007 to 19,100 in 2011, but dipped as low as 7,550 in 2008. Chinook salmon’s life cycles usually run 4-5 years which likely means that the Chinook run in 2012 will have a very poor outlook. The Coho runs over the last 5 years have seen similar fluctuation from 10,600 in 2007 to 7,550 in 2011, but had a spike in 2009 at 27,400. Coho salmon’s life cycle usually span 3-4, so in 2012 the Coho run maybe substantially higher than the previous years. In the last 5 years, the average run of Chinook salmon is 15,182, which is a decline of 12,664 from the 15 year average; while the Coho salmon’s average run over the last 5 years has been 13,709, which is a decline of 14,137 from the 14 year average (ADF&G, 2011a).

The Kenai River has been monitored very similarly to the Deshka River; however, due to receiving multiple runs of the same species the data is more difficult to keep concise, however the data can be converted into overall sums of the species runs. The 23 year average of Kenai River Chinook salmon for the early and late run combined is 57,935. Between 2007 and 2010 the Chinook runs average was 37,950 but due to no longer having an early run count, I cannot accurately provide an average for 2011. The late Chinook run count for 2011 was approximately 35,000 fish; however even without the early run count from 2011, the 5 year average is 36,475. The Sockeye salmon 21 year average is estimated to be 1,273,388. Over the last 5 years, Sockeye salmon runs have been remaining fairly steady ranging from 1,230,000 in 2007 to 1,599,300 in 2011, with 2008’s run being the lowest at 917,200. Between 2007 and 2011, the Sockeye salmon run average was 1,226,248. The Kenai River also receives runs of Coho salmon, but their numbers are not monitored as extensively as the Chinooks and Sockeyes. So, in the last 5 years, the average run of Chinook salmon is 36,475, which is a decline of 21,460 from the 23 year average. While the Sockeye salmon’s average run over the last 5 years has been 1,226,248, which is a decline of 47,140 for the 21 year average (ADF&G, 2011a).

The Sockeye run is the only run that is counted on the Copper River. The 11 year average for the Copper River Sockeye salmon run is 786,825. Over the last 5 years, 3 of the runs have stayed fairly steady from 926,500 in 2007 to 914,300 in 2011, but in 2008 and 2009 the salmon numbers were poorly recorded to sonar counter operations. With the 3 of the last 5 year runs being over the 11 year average, it appears that the Copper River Sockeye population is doing well or at least able to sustain steady numbers (ADF&G, 2011a).

Out of the 3 different rivers across the Alaska and 3 species of salmon, it appears that the Deshka River Coho salmon have seen the most drastic decline in numbers. There may be several reasons for this ranging from harvesting to invasive species of fish in the water ways. Throughout Alaska, salmon are harvested for personal and commercial use, both of which are regulated by Alaska Fish and Game by maintaining an open season. However, of the 3 species of salmon, only two of the species have set date for an open and a close of season and those species are Chinook and Sockeye salmon.

Commercial fishing is regulated by the length of fishing season, hours during the day, and days of the week that salmon can be caught. During the time that commercial fishing is authorized, there are few limits to the amount of fish that they can harvest. Commercial fishing, harvest fish by the ton and not the individual fish, which removes hundreds of thousands of potentially successfully spawning salmon from the water ways. For instance, the average Sockeye salmon in the Kenai River weighs 8 pounds, so it would take a total of 250 average-sized Sockeye to make one ton of salmon. In 2011, the commercial harvest numbers were reported at 794,838,000 pounds of fish and a combined total 176,127,000 salmon of all Alaskan caught salmon species (ADF&G, 2011c). While commercial fishing is regulated, the industry takes a substantial toll on the sustainability of the salmon population.

Across most of the state, it is legal to harvest Coho, Chum, and Pink salmon during the entire year, leaving high harvest numbers by sports fisherman. The regulation on sports fishing is more defined in some areas than others. Sports fishermen are restricted to 5 Chinook salmon for their annual harvest. However, during the course of the fishing season, they may keep up to 3 salmon of any other species a day. In certain areas, those numbers may even increase due to Emergency Orders if the Department of Fish and Game feel the escapement numbers are reached. Hypothetically, if a fisherman were to fish for 30 days of the fishing season, he could potentially harvest 90 salmon; if an Emergency Order isn’t released that increases the number of fish he can harvest a day to 6. If such an order was published, half-way through the season, he may harvest as many as 135 fish for personal use. This is a scenario that is very realistic in areas of the state with numerous people achieving similar numbers. So, while the state is restricting the harvest of Chinook salmon, other species of salmon are subjected to extremely high harvest rates from sports fisherman as well as commercial fishing companies.

There are also factors other than harvesting that may be causing the decline in salmon populations from human activities and predators. Humans have been utilizing the same streams and rivers that the salmon spawn in for rafting, boating, fishing, gold mining and even off-roading.  These activities disturb the stream beds kicking up rocks, silt, and even salmon eggs, which are either covered by the dislodged debris or eaten by the native fish that live in the waterways all year long (Levasseur, et al. 2006). If even, one salmon redds was destroyed nearly a 1,000 eggs could be lost, lowering the returning population even more.

Out of the human activities that have been listed above, the two most detrimental ones are boating and off-roading. Boating on shallow streams that salmon spawn in can destroy almost all the redds in the path of the boat, but may also damage those that the boats prop wash or jet out-put does come close to by the wake of the boat causing erosion of the banks, which will reduce the water circulation within the redds, limiting the oxygen that reaches the developing embryos (Levasseur, etc. 2006). Off-roading may not affect as many redds along the streams but will have the same effect on those downstream. While it is enjoyable to play in the outdoors, there is no need to take a large boat up a stream that is only a few feet deep or drive a vehicle across a creek bed.

In Alaskan rivers, salmon fry or smolt’s natural predators are trout, birds, and some mammals like river otters (Scheuerell, et al. 2007). In some areas of Alaska they face a new predator in the ecosystem and that is the Northern Pike, a very aggressive predatory fish that can consume over half a dozen smolts in one day (ADF&G, 2011b). Humans have caused some of the pike infestations in salmon streams by releasing them with the intent of sports fishing (Alaska Fishing Spots & Ideas, 2011). In areas where pike are now present, the salmon numbers have begun to decline; the Deshka River is one such area (Dalton, 2002). Pike tend to prefer slower, more vegetated waterways that also happen to be the habitat for the salmon fry. Pike have very few natural predators; the largest threats to pike are larger pike. With pike consuming large numbers of smolt in the rivers, it reduces the number of salmon that will face the open ocean and reach mature spawning age.

While it is an ever revolving cycle of life, the age old adage holds true, “Which came first the chicken or the egg?” As harvesting salmon targets the mature spawning fish, it reduces the number of eggs that turn into smolt, the factors that reduce the number of smolt that make it to the ocean reduces the return of spawning fish. While it is important to have a healthy escapement of adult salmon, it may be even more important to reduce the disruption of the salmon redds were large numbers of eggs are vulnerable.

Over the last decade, the amount of salmon that is harvest of the coast of Alaska has grown drastically (Irvine, J. R., & Fukuwaka, M., 2011). With the entire world looking to have a piece of this nutrient rich food, the demand for salmon has increased (Irvine, J. R., & Fukuwaka, M. 2011). Commercial companies are not just harvesting salmon by the ton but by thousands of tons a year. By placing a limit on the amount of fish one company can harvest and shipped from Alaska the massive quantities of fish that are caught and sent around the world would be reduced. It may seem to be a selfish act, but these companies are taking away from the resources of Alaska and reducing the population of salmon across the board. In order to enforce this proposal, it would cost Alaska millions of dollars in law enforcement but would also create more jobs along the coast, bringing more stability to Alaska’s economy.

While reducing the number of salmon harvested may be important, the state would have to impose seasonal catch limits on salmon species similar to those that regulate Chinook salmon harvests. By putting a seasonal limit on sportsman harvest instead of just a daily limit, the state could regulate the number of salmon each individual harvests during the year. In the subsistence areas of Alaska, this would be difficult to implement without allowing for an additional supplement. The other factors that would arise from a seasonal limit is determining the number of fish that would be allowed by one individual to harvest and how to enforce the recording of the harvests, which would cost the state more money supporting wildlife enforcement.

The most important aspect of preserving any species is allowing for a larger number of the population to breed. By placing restriction on the use of the waterways that are used by the salmon to build their redds, the species receives the greatest chance for their numbers to rebound. It will be difficult to get the approval of Alaskans in order to put restrictions on the waterways, but the easiest way to gain approval is by doing a trial phase on rivers across the state, where the activities that cause the most disruption to the river bed are restricted to certain parts of the river and times of the year. By running a trial period of 5 years, on the selected river it would be possible to see how the restrictions have benefited the population of salmon in the area over 2 or possibly 3 life cycles of salmon. A boating restriction program has already been implemented on certain areas of the Kenai River in 2008 by the Department of Natural Resources (Kosto, 2008), so why would it not be possible in other areas of the state?

The only ways to begin controlling the outbreak of northern pike in Alaska’s salmon streams is by offering a bounty on the fish or encourage kill-or-capture movement in those areas. By enlisting the help of the anglers in the state and offering an incentive, the state may be able to reduce the number of pike affecting the salmon population. Similar programs have initiated to control the population of Northern Pikeminnows (BPA’s Fish and Wildlife Department, 2011). With pike’s aggressive nature, they are a very entertaining fish to seek because of their explosive power on top-water lures and their fighting strength (North Country Canoe Outfitters, 2011). By drastically reducing the number of pike that live in the salmon streams, the prey on which they feed will begin to rebound. Unfortunately, it seems the only way to completely remove pike from these waters would be to conduct a fish kill, which would decimate ecosystems along the rivers and even in the ocean, of course removing this as a viable option.

The regulations that are in place to protect the salmon population have been enough to prevent a complete failure of the ecosystem but have not been as effect as they need to be. Through having harvest regulations for the entire state of Alaska and utilizing Emergency Orders to either close the areas that salmon runs have been weak or encourage more harvesting in areas with high salmon returns, the state has been able to slow the downward spiral of one of its vital resources. However, I do not feel that it has been successful enough to sustain the population and the resource indefinitely. The Alaskan government needs to do more to ensure the survival of its greatest renewable resource.

While the Alaska Department of Fish and Game is having a difficult time trying to devise and implement ways to sustain the state’s salmon population, it is possible for the residence of Alaska to start protecting their lifestyle, by avoiding activities that can disturb the eggs of spawned salmon, minimize the harvesting to only the amount they will need during the year, and try to curb the population and spread of pike by harvesting as many as is allowed. There is no sure fire plan or way to prevent the decline of Alaska’s salmon population but there is a way to give the salmon a fighting chance and that is everyone in Alaska to do their part.

 

References

ADF&G, (2011a). Alaska Department of Fish and Game Fish Counts. Retrieved from website: http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/sf/FishCounts/index.cfm?ADFG=main.LocSelectYearSpecies

ADF&G, (2011b). Why Use Rotenone. Retrieved from website: http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=rotenone.why

ADF&G, (2011c). 2011 Alaska Commercial Salmon Harvests — Exvessel Values. Retrieved from website:  http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/fishing/PDFs/commercial/11exvesl.pdf

Alaska Fishing Spots & Ideas. (2011, November 29). Northern pike invading alaska. Retrieved from http://alaskabestfishing.org/northern-pike-invading-alaska.html

BPA’s Fish and Wildlife Department. (2011, NOVEMBER 08). How to save a salmon (and make money doing it). Retrieved from http://www.pikeminnow.org/index.html

Dalton, R. (2002). Pike pests ravage Alaska’s salmon. Nature, 418(6901), 907. Retrieved from http://www.ebscohost.com

Irvine, J. R., & Fukuwaka, M. (2011). Pacific salmon abundance trends and climate change. ICES Journal of Marine Science / Journal du Conseil, 68(6), 1122-1130. doi:10.1093/icesjms/fsq199

Levasseur, M., Bergeron, N. E., Lapointe, M. F., & Bérubé, F. (2006). Effects of silt and very fine sand dynamics in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) redds on embryo hatching success. Canadian Journal of Fisheries & Aquatic Sciences, 63(7), 1450-1459. doi:10.1139/F06-050

North Country Canoe Outfitters. (2011). Fishing for Northern Pike in the BWCA. Retrieved from http://boundarywaters.com/fishing_northern.html

Scheuerell, M. D., Moore, J. W., Schindler, D. E., & Harvey, C. J. (2007). Varying effects of anadromous sockeye salmon on the trophic ecology of two species of resident salmonids in southwest Alaska. Freshwater Biology, 52(10), 1944-1956. Retrieved from http://www.ebscohost.com

Tarbox, K. E., & Thorne, R. E. (1996). Assessment of adult salmon in near-surface waters of Cook Inlet, Alaska. ICES Journal Of Marine Science / Journal Du Conseil, 53(2), 397-401. Retrieved from http://www.ebscohost.com

Kosto, J. Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks & Outdoor Recreation. (2008). New motor & boat regulations kenai river special management area. Retrieved from website: http://dnr.alaska.gov/mlw/factsht/kenai_river_boat_motor_regulations.pdf

Research Final Draft: Fish on a Farm

Fish on a Farm: The Result of a Fish Farmer

While fishing concerns are prominent in the state of Alaska, aquaculture is a hot topic all across the world.  With the dangers it causes and effects it has on both the environment and human health, it seems appropriate for such a topic to be frequently discussed.  Both positive and negative outcomes are deliberated, but fish farming continues to take place.  Although many nations rely on aquaculture as a source of food production, the fish farming industry is a continuous threat because of the pollution it creates in inland and coastal waters, the negative impact the farming has on natural fish stocks, and the health hazards it creates for humans.

One of the harshest effects from fish farming lie directly in the waters fish call home.  Through many actions, inland and coastal waters are polluted to the point that fish are continuously breathing in unhealthy and risky water.  The overfeeding of fish can cause threatening changes in the water including benthic community structure.  The increase of mineral and organic nutrients, a process known as eutrophication, has also been shown to harm fish culture.  The fight to control the pollution of inland and coastal waters continues, but with much struggle to protect these fish.

Farmed fish are constantly being overfed, which unfortunately results in much of the food going uneaten.  As food is added to the surface of the water, fish begin to consume it as the food makes its way down through the channels of water.  Because of the limited tight space the grown fish have to move, it becomes a struggle to eat enough of the food before it reaches the bottom.  Seeing this, fish farmers overfeed them in order to ensure the fish are eating enough.  After the fish have eaten what they can, the excess food continues to the seafloor.  It is here that organisms, known as benthos, decompose the remaining food.  Craig Emerson, Supervising Editor of Aquatic Sciences ASFA, Oceanic (1999), notes that this change of the natural food web structure can greatly impact the environment of fish.  Guzel Yucel-Gier, Filiz Kucuksezgin, and Ferah Kocak (2007) write about a similar problem found in Turkey.  Fish farms were investigated in Engeceli Bay due to effects the farm had on the benthic community structure.  Unfortunately, this effect alone is creating concerns for fisheries across the world.

Hand in hand with overfeeding, a process known as eutrophication endangers farmed fish and its waters.  The Fish Site (2010) states that this process has become one of the largest threats to fish species.  Eutrophication is the increase of phytoplankton in a body of water, which in this case, is the water in which farmed fish are living.  Nutrient levels are raised when excess food and fish fecal matter combine.  As a result, a suitable environment for algal blooms is created.  As more excess food and fish excretion is produced, more algal blooms form, further harming the fish environment.  As algal blooms die, they settle to the seafloor and deplete oxygen as they are decomposed.  In addition, toxins are likely to be emitted into the waters before death; these toxins are deadly to fish.

As overfeeding and eutrophication continues to play a role in fish farming, pollution control strives to do its part, as well.  Because inland and coastal waters are so diverse, separate measures must be taken.  Inland waters are easy to control because of the outflow management.  Waste treatment systems are more convenient to set up in order to reduce the fish waste found in the water.  In an Aquacultural Engineering article, Zhang et al. (2011) describes an integrated recirculating aquaculture system set up to filter the water and reduce pollution in fish farms.  Coastal waters have a different way of controlling its pollution.  Sea cucumbers can be used to feed on the organisms causing the pollution.  Various plants and water creatures can spread other nutrients, as well.  Another effective way of reducing water pollution is by reconstructing the feeding systems for fish.  Alfredsen, Holand, Solvang-Garten, and Uglem (2007) agree that overfeeding has become a main source of pollution in the waters.  Emerson (1999) mentions, “feed pellets are designed to stay longer in the water column,” which slows them down from reaching the bottom before fish are able to eat them.  While pollution is impossible to avoid entirely, these small steps can become huge in controlling the amount of pollution farmed fish are exposed to.

While inland and coastal waters remain a threat to farmed fish, these fish are endangering the natural fish stocks, as well.  Through farmed fish, parasites and disease are becoming a larger risk to natural fish culture for various reasons.  Sea lice are a dominant threat to both farmed fish and natural stocks due to the overcrowding within farms.  Furthermore, farmed fish feed is jeopardizing the lives of natural fish stocks by taking natural fish out of waters in order to provide for the farms.  All in all, both fish stocks are suffering primarily from the farms themselves.

Farmed fish are being infected with parasites and disease left and right.  After taking a look at all they are exposed to, it only makes sense.  Organic Guide (2010) mentions how severe these diseases are, as they are shown to wipe out large amount of fish at a time.  Sea lice have been found in most fish farms and are not specific to salmon farms; however, Mark Costello (2009) claims that they are the most infectious parasite found in salmon farms.  Sea lice attach themselves onto fish and feed on their flesh.  They weaken the fish, making the fish unable to balance their salt-to-water ratio.  Unfortunately, sea lice are the cause of death for most farmed fish.  Likewise, this harmful parasite attacks natural fish, as well.  Because fish farms are located near natural fish routes, sea lice are easily able to escape the farm and attach themselves to small juvenile fish that have yet to develop scales to protect them.  They are then the cause of sea lice transportation into natural waters and these fish are easily killed. Frazer’s (2009) article reports that the decline of wild fish can only be reduced by taking fish farms out of natural waters.  Studies continue as researchers find the various types of sea lice found in farmed fish.  In a 2007 article, authors Saksida, Constantine, Karreman, and Donald write about a study taken place from 2003 to 2005 where two types of sea lice were found: Lepeophtheirus salmonis and Caligus clemensi.  These reports continue to concern researchers in finding ways to cure this problem.

In addition to sea lice, farmed fish are also the result of other diseases spread to natural fish stocks.  The most prominent cause of these diseases is the overcrowding taking place in farms.  Thousands of fish are trapped in small areas to grow and live for years.  As the fish grow larger, the space for them to swim and survive becomes tighter.  Their individual space is limited, causing stress and aggression in the fish.  Compassion in World Farming (2011) states that, “overcrowded fish are more susceptible to disease […] and physical injuries such as fin damage.”  Their bodies rub against each other as they struggle to move and weakness arises, which creates opportunity for disease to step in.  Grescoe (2009) writes in his periodical about a salmon anemia outbreak in Chilean fish farms caused by overcrowding.  Unfortunately, Grescoe is not the only one that is concerned about water quality.  Findlay, Podemski, and Kasian (2009) write their own article on the negative impacts aquaculture is having on the waters.  In addition, reducing the quality of the water decreases their oxygen and the fish begin to fight for survival.

Despite sea lice, this is not the only issue natural fish stocks face.  Unfortunately, natural fish are easily snatched from their waters and become feed for the farms.  Emerson (1999) explains, “fish meal and fish oils from natural stocks are the primary components of artificial compounded feed.”  Unfortunately, this means that natural fish are being pulled from their waters to feed hungry farmed fish.  Commercial fishermen catch thousands of unwanted fish in their nets called bycatch.  Bycatch has become a large controversy among sport fishermen as they argue what is done with these extra fish.  They are unable to be returned to their waters so a decision must be made.  Fish meal for fish farms comes from bycatch, meaning that farmed fish consume their own kind.  It has been found that a fish will ingest between 5 and 10 kilograms of the same type of fish (as cited in Sabaut, 2002). In the end, this results in a loss of protein, unhealthy to consumers.  The fight for artificial feed continues as natural fish struggle to remain in its waters.

Farmed fish are endangering themselves, as well as natural fish stocks.  Nevertheless, the main concern is the danger to its consumers: the human race.  In the lifespan of one farmed fish, it is exposed to many deadly toxins, chemicals, parasites, and diseases.  Consumers remain concerned as to what these effects may have on them.  Some studies claim that farmed fish cause cancer while others promote antibiotics and vaccines.  When it all boils down to it, consumers are scared of the health hazards farmed fish may present.

As mentioned earlier, many toxins and chemicals are pumped into farmed fish.  Remick (2007) references color-enhancing chemicals to be only one of the many chemicals farmed fish ingest.  These chemicals are packed within the feed pellets provided to the fish in order to boost their coloring, making them more appealing to buy when put in the market.  Due to disease and weakness caused by the farming, fish would look grey and unpleasant to the eye if not for these chemicals.  In a way, these chemicals are used to hide the evidence of the actual health in farmed fish.  Mansfield (2011) points out that producers are also concerned of these chemicals, as it poses a problem in selling the seafood.  In addition to color-enhancing chemicals, antibiotics surround farmed fish.  Like those chemicals, antibiotics can also be found in feed pellets, used to control the spread of parasites and diseases.  Sadly, this does not always work.  The Coastal Alliance for Aquaculture Reform (2011) claimed, “escaped fish caught in a Broughton Archipelago stream carried bacteria known to cause a range of human maladies that were resistant to 10 different antibiotics.”  Because these fish are resistant to antibiotics, they continue to carry disease and parasite outside the farm and onto the plate of its consumer.

The effects of chemicals and antibiotics injected into farmed fish have claimed to be harmful to the human race.  The Georgia Strait Alliance (2011) discusses the threat of PCBs being “cancer-causing chemicals.”  In addition, higher levels of soy in feed pellets for farmed fish have been reported dangerous, a cause of heart disease in humans.  Antibiotics in fish have shown negative effects, as well.  Sapkota et al. (2008) discusses the heavy reliance of antibiotics in aquaculture.  While fish may be resistant to these antibiotics, humans have also been seen to resist antibiotics.  Sørum observed furunculosis, or boils, in a 1999 study and reported, “36% of furunculosis bacteria were resistant against one or more antibiotics.”  Bellona (2009) further comments that this turn off to antibiotics will grow to “create new problems for human health.”  This simple act of pumping fish with antibiotics is coming back to the human race with equal effects: an unhealthy immune system.

Fish farming will never come to a complete halt; many rely on it for their source of fish.  On the downside, fish farming will continue to harm the environment and the people living within it.  Its pollution of inland and coastal waters caused by overfeeding and eutrophication, its impact on the natural fish stocks through parasites and fish meal, and the health hazards it creates for humans such as diseases and antibiotic resistance are only a few of the dangers it can generate.  It is important that people recognize these threats and do all they can to decrease the risk that is upon them.  Fish farming is a growing industry and people need to be warned.

References

Alfredsen, J., Holand, B., Solvang-Garten, T., & Uglem, I. (2007). Feeding activity and opercular pressure transients in Atlantic salmon ( Salmo salar L.): application to feeding management in fish farming. Hydrobiologia, 582(1), 199-207. doi:10.1007/s10750-006-0554-9

Bellona. (2009). Antibacterial agents in farm fishing. Retrieved from http://www.bellona.org/aquaculture/artikler/Antibiotics

Coastal Alliance for Aquaculture Reform, The. (2011). Sea lice. Retrieved from http://www.farmedanddangerous.org/salmon-farming-problems/environmental-impacts/sea-lice/

Compassion in World Farming. (2011). Welfare issues for farmed fish. Retrieved from http://www.ciwf.org.uk/farm_animals/fish/welfare_issues.aspx

Costello, M. J., (2009). How sea lice from salmon farms may cause wild salmonid declines in Europe and North America and be a threat to fishes elsewhere. Proceedings Of The Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 276(1672), 3385-3394.

Emerson, C. (1999). Aquaculture impacts on the environment. Retrieved from http://www.proquest.com/

Findlay, D. L., Podemski, C. L., & Kasian, S. M. (2009). Aquaculture impacts on the algal and bacterial communities in a small boreal forest lake. Canadian Journal of Fisheries & Aquatic Sciences, 66(11), 1936-1948. doi:10.1139/F09-121

Fish Site, The. (2010). Impacts of fish farming on marine ecosystems. Retrieved from http://www.thefishsite.com/articles/858/impacts-of-fish-farming-on-marine-ecosystems

Frazer, L. (2009). Sea-cage aquaculture, sea lice, and declines of wild fish. Conservation Biology, 23(3), 599-607. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.01128.x

Georgia Strait Alliance. (2011). Impacts and issues: Threats to human health. Retrieved from http://www.georgiastrait.org/?q=node/442

Grescoe, T. (2009). THE TROUBLE WITH SALMON. Best Life, 6(4), 90. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Mansfield, B. (2011). Is fish health food or poison? Farmed fish and the material production of un/healthy nature. Antipode, 43(2), 413-434. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Organic Guide. (2010). Conventionally farmed fish. Retrieved from http://www.organicguide.com/organic/food/conventionally-farmed-fish/

Remick, Page. (2007). Seven reasons to avoid farm raised salmon. Retrieved from http://www.purezing.com/living/food_articles/living_articles_7salmon.htm

Sabaut, J. (2002). Feeding farmed fish. Retrieved from http://www.feap.info/production/feeds/sabautcipa_en.asp

Saksida, S., Constantine, J., Karreman, G. A., & Donald, A. (2007). Evaluation of sea lice abundance levels on farmed Atlantic salmon ( Salmo salar L.) located in the Broughton Archipelago of British Columbia from 2003 to 2005. Aquaculture Research, 38(3), 219-231. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2109.2007.01651.x

Sapkota, A., Sapkota, A. R., Kucharski, M., Burke, J., McKenzie, S., Walker, P., & Lawrence, R. (2008). Aquaculture practices and potential human health risks: Current knowledge and future priorities. Environment International, 34(8), 1215-1226. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Sørum, H., & L’Abée-Lund, T. (2002). Antibiotic resistance in food-related bacteria—a result of interfering with the global web of bacterial genetics. International Journal Of Food Microbiology, 78(1/2), 43.

Yucel-Gier, G., Kucuksezgin, F., & Kocak, F. (2007). Effects of fish farming on nutrients and benthic community structure in the Eastern Aegean (Turkey). Aquaculture Research, 38(3), 256-267. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2109.2007.01661.x

Zhang, S., Li, G., Wu, H., Liu, X., Yao, Y., Tao, L., & Liu, H. (2011). An integrated recirculating aquaculture system (RAS) for land-based fish farming: The effects on water quality and fish production. Aquacultural Engineering, 45(3), 93-102. doi:10.1016/j.aquaeng.2011.08.001