I'm interested in people who have traveled the world, learning from the diversity of human adaptations and health responses.
Esther Gokhale
Weston A. Price
Jaws: The Story of a Hidden Epidemic
Thursday, December 26, 2019
Logging to Save a Forest from Climate Change
A good article about logging in the forest where I did my graduate research in northern Michigan. Researchers are using funding from a timber contract with Louisiana-Pacific to cut the aspen trees on part of the experimental forest. They will study the soil and water impacts of cutting the trees, as well as looking at species composition changes.
In the article, a researcher is quoted as saying that it would be irresponsible not to cut the trees because of climate change. "Aspen in the Great Lakes region are considered “climate change losers,” according to Nave, and are not expected to fare well as the region’s climate continues to warm in the coming decades."
"The high-emissions scenario projects an 11.2-degree Fahrenheit summer temperature increase in the assessment area by the end of the 21st century. At the same time, summer precipitation is projected to decline by 3.8 inches under that scenario. "
"It will take a decade or more to know which of the aspen-management treatments was most effective, Nave said. It is expected that future generations of Biological Station researchers and students will carry on with the work, he said."
In the article, a researcher is quoted as saying that it would be irresponsible not to cut the trees because of climate change. "Aspen in the Great Lakes region are considered “climate change losers,” according to Nave, and are not expected to fare well as the region’s climate continues to warm in the coming decades."
"The high-emissions scenario projects an 11.2-degree Fahrenheit summer temperature increase in the assessment area by the end of the 21st century. At the same time, summer precipitation is projected to decline by 3.8 inches under that scenario. "
"It will take a decade or more to know which of the aspen-management treatments was most effective, Nave said. It is expected that future generations of Biological Station researchers and students will carry on with the work, he said."
Thursday, December 19, 2019
Glyphosate Fear-Mongering
Despite recent court cases, glyphosate is not recognized as a carcinogen or toxin as these terms are normally understood in environmental toxicology. Yes, there is some research linking glyphosate with increased cancer risk, but that is not the scientific consensus.
I don't think this blog post on glyphosate can be counted as scientifically accurate, even though it does cite scientific research. Websites that sell fear based on a few studies while ignoring the body of scientific literature are not reliable sources for decision-making.
I am writing as a concerned science-lover. For me (and I could be wrong), I see glyphosate fear-mongering as no different from conspiracy theories about vaccine harms or global warming. Yes, there are scientific papers showing that vaccines cause autism and that global warming is not happening, but any article that only cites those papers without weighing (or at least mentioning!) the current scientific consensus would be misleading at best.
Focusing on glyphosate seems especially misguided given the other chemicals used in agriculture and commonly found in our food supply (e.g. chlorpyrifos). While glyphosate may be the popular boogeyman of the year, science-based reporting should at least acknowledge that it is probably the least toxic of any chemical pesticides currently being used.
A better approach than just selling fear: promote solutions, such as better testing of all chemicals in our food supply.
Wednesday, December 18, 2019
Plant Interactions Versus Integrated Vegetation Management (IVM)
Questions: does existing vegetation help or hurt the
IVM goal of creating a self-sustaining, compatible plant community? Do
some compatible species tend to facilitate or inhibit the establishment and
growth of incompatible species? And do these plant interactions vary
systematically across ecosystems?
These questions fall into the domain of “Community
Ecology”. This
looks like a good review paper but I don’t have access to it. Ecology
is notoriously unsystematic, so (without reading the review) I bet the answer
is “Its complicated” and “It depends.”
Here are some papers I was able to
access:
Paper: The role of plant interactions in the restoration of
degraded ecosystems: a meta‐analysis across life‐forms and ecosystems
Relevant Conclusions: Inhibition predominates in
herbaceous communities typical of early‐successional stages, whereas
facilitation prevails in communities dominated by shrubs and trees.
My Comment: IVM that leaves shrubs (like in Sonoran desert)
would probably not create inhibition for tree growth, whereas IVM that leaves
grasses (like Ponderosa habitats) would be expected to inhibit tree growth.
Paper: Is the change of plant–plant interactions with
abiotic stress predictable? A meta‐analysis of field results in arid
environments
Relevant Conclusions: Density data showed that the net
effect of plant neighbours was positive at low abiotic stress and negative at
high abiotic stress levels. However, none of our meta‐analyses indicated
that the magnitude of the net effect provided by plant neighbours, whether
positive or negative, was higher under high abiotic stress conditions, and
facilitation does not therefore appear to increase in importance with abiotic
stress.
My Comment: Results are mixed, but in general deserts do not
show more importance of “nurse plant” facilitation.
Wednesday, August 07, 2019
Rosemont mine delayed by 1872 Mining Law
Quotes from Arizona Daily Star:
In his 37-page decision, Soto hammered almost exclusively at the Forest Service’s approval of Hudbay’s plan to dump mine waste rock and tailings from its 955-acre pit onto 2,447 acres of nearby public land on the Santa Ritas’ eastern slopes.
Opponents’ lawsuits argued that only public lands directly above valuable mineral deposits are covered by the federal 1872 mining law’s definition of mining rights.
Soto wrote in his decision that for Hudbay to gain access to valuable copper, molybdenum and silver from the pit, the company would need to extract about 1.2 billion tons of economically worthless waste rock and about 700 million tons of mine tailings.
The Forest Service's primary error in this case was to accept, without question, that Hudbay's unpatented mining claims on those 2,447 acres were valid, thereby allowing them to be used for placement of the waste rock and tailings, he wrote.
Source.
In his 37-page decision, Soto hammered almost exclusively at the Forest Service’s approval of Hudbay’s plan to dump mine waste rock and tailings from its 955-acre pit onto 2,447 acres of nearby public land on the Santa Ritas’ eastern slopes.
Opponents’ lawsuits argued that only public lands directly above valuable mineral deposits are covered by the federal 1872 mining law’s definition of mining rights.
Soto wrote in his decision that for Hudbay to gain access to valuable copper, molybdenum and silver from the pit, the company would need to extract about 1.2 billion tons of economically worthless waste rock and about 700 million tons of mine tailings.
The Forest Service's primary error in this case was to accept, without question, that Hudbay's unpatented mining claims on those 2,447 acres were valid, thereby allowing them to be used for placement of the waste rock and tailings, he wrote.
Source.
Wednesday, July 10, 2019
Bark Beetles
The Threat
Records dating back as far as 1750 indicate a consistent record of intermittent outbreaks of aggressive bark beetles in various forest types across the West. Over the past 10-15 years, however, the frequency, severity, and extent of bark beetle outbreaks have increased.
The current bark beetle outbreaks differ from previously recorded infestations because of:
Their intensity — bark beetles are killing trees in larger numbers, at a faster pace, and over longer time periods
Their extent — bark beetle outbreaks are occurring in numerous ecosystems from Alaska to northern Mexico
Their synchroneity — bark beetle outbreaks are occurring concurrently across western North America
The Characters: all beetles in the subfamily Scolytinae
Dendroctonus sp (Bark beetles) Outbreaks are usually associated with drought (Page, 1981). The beetle also responds to fire-damaged trees, but not those killed by fire.
Ips sp. (Pine engraver beetles): Species within the genus Ips, such as the piñon ips and
Arizona fivespined ips, also can kill their hosts, although typically they are not considered major disturbance agents. In recent years, however, elevated population levels of a number of Ips species have coincided with drought, resulting in large areas of mortality, particularly in piñon and ponderosa pine forests of the southwestern U.S.
The above beetles are distinguished from Ambrosia beetles as they only attack and consume live trees, whereas Ambrosia beetles can bore into heartwood even after a tree is dead and dry.
Ambrosia beetles (several species): Classed as wood borer beetles that attack weakened, dying, and
recently cut or killed trees. They can attack freshly cut lumber and lumber in decks before it is dried, and they can cause pinhole defects and dark staining in the outer wood. Galleries are formed in the sapwood or heartwood and damage the wood. Because ambrosia beetles tunnel into the wood, they are considered wood borers rather than bark beetles.
Management Considerations
When live trees are blown down, their phloem can remain suitable for bark beetle development up to a year later. Stressed pine trees emit volatile compounds (terpenes). Bark beetles have evolved to detect these compounds and use them to identify suitable host trees.
Bark beetles are also attracted to freshly cut wood. Freshly processed chips emit the same volatile compounds (terpenes) as susceptible host trees. These chips will attract bark beetles during their active periods. The bark beetles cannot utilize the chips as a food source, but the attracted bark beetles may then colonize suitable host trees adjacent to the chips piles.
Fresh dead and down material (slash) can be a refuge for bark beetles, allowing them to breed, and possibly colonize nearby healthy trees. Lop and scatter can let slash dry out, killing any beetles in the bark and preventing new beetles from feeding on it.
Wood that has been debarked is not suitable for colonization by bark beetles. Only freshly cut, logs or slabs that have not been debarked are at risk of colonization.
Dead trees that do not have bark beetles in them and that do not pose a safety hazard can be left in the forest to be used by wildlife. Dead trees do not necessarily pose more of a fire hazard than live trees.
Records dating back as far as 1750 indicate a consistent record of intermittent outbreaks of aggressive bark beetles in various forest types across the West. Over the past 10-15 years, however, the frequency, severity, and extent of bark beetle outbreaks have increased.
The current bark beetle outbreaks differ from previously recorded infestations because of:
Their intensity — bark beetles are killing trees in larger numbers, at a faster pace, and over longer time periods
Their extent — bark beetle outbreaks are occurring in numerous ecosystems from Alaska to northern Mexico
Their synchroneity — bark beetle outbreaks are occurring concurrently across western North America
The Characters: all beetles in the subfamily Scolytinae
 |
| Figure from Bentz, 2005. |
Dendroctonus sp (Bark beetles) Outbreaks are usually associated with drought (Page, 1981). The beetle also responds to fire-damaged trees, but not those killed by fire.
Ips sp. (Pine engraver beetles): Species within the genus Ips, such as the piñon ips and
Arizona fivespined ips, also can kill their hosts, although typically they are not considered major disturbance agents. In recent years, however, elevated population levels of a number of Ips species have coincided with drought, resulting in large areas of mortality, particularly in piñon and ponderosa pine forests of the southwestern U.S.
The above beetles are distinguished from Ambrosia beetles as they only attack and consume live trees, whereas Ambrosia beetles can bore into heartwood even after a tree is dead and dry.
Ambrosia beetles (several species): Classed as wood borer beetles that attack weakened, dying, and
recently cut or killed trees. They can attack freshly cut lumber and lumber in decks before it is dried, and they can cause pinhole defects and dark staining in the outer wood. Galleries are formed in the sapwood or heartwood and damage the wood. Because ambrosia beetles tunnel into the wood, they are considered wood borers rather than bark beetles.
Management Considerations
When live trees are blown down, their phloem can remain suitable for bark beetle development up to a year later. Stressed pine trees emit volatile compounds (terpenes). Bark beetles have evolved to detect these compounds and use them to identify suitable host trees.
Bark beetles are also attracted to freshly cut wood. Freshly processed chips emit the same volatile compounds (terpenes) as susceptible host trees. These chips will attract bark beetles during their active periods. The bark beetles cannot utilize the chips as a food source, but the attracted bark beetles may then colonize suitable host trees adjacent to the chips piles.
Fresh dead and down material (slash) can be a refuge for bark beetles, allowing them to breed, and possibly colonize nearby healthy trees. Lop and scatter can let slash dry out, killing any beetles in the bark and preventing new beetles from feeding on it.
Wood that has been debarked is not suitable for colonization by bark beetles. Only freshly cut, logs or slabs that have not been debarked are at risk of colonization.
Dead trees that do not have bark beetles in them and that do not pose a safety hazard can be left in the forest to be used by wildlife. Dead trees do not necessarily pose more of a fire hazard than live trees.
 |
| Figure from Bentz, 2005. |
Additional Resources
Diana L. Six, Ryan Bracewell, Bark Beetles, 2015
Monday, June 10, 2019
Friday, May 10, 2019
Pollinators Fight Allergies
In the US, people often mistakenly blame the conspicuous goldenrod flower for allergies. Since this plant is entomophilous (its pollen is dispersed by animals), its heavy, sticky pollen does not become independently airborne. Most late summer and fall pollen allergies are probably caused by ragweed, a widespread anemophilous plant.
Arizona was once regarded as a haven for people with pollen allergies, although several ragweed species grow in the desert. However, as suburbs grew and people began establishing irrigated lawns and gardens, more irritating species of ragweed gained a foothold and Arizona lost its claim of freedom from hay fever.
Anemophilous spring blooming plants such as oak, birch, hickory, pecan, and early summer grasses may also induce pollen allergies. Most cultivated plants with showy flowers are entomophilous and do not cause pollen allergies.
Larger pollen grains are more likely to be transported by pollinators, whereas smaller pollen is more likely to be wind-dispersed.
This page lists pollen size by plant family.
Source:
Wikipedia and MNN.com
Arizona was once regarded as a haven for people with pollen allergies, although several ragweed species grow in the desert. However, as suburbs grew and people began establishing irrigated lawns and gardens, more irritating species of ragweed gained a foothold and Arizona lost its claim of freedom from hay fever.
Anemophilous spring blooming plants such as oak, birch, hickory, pecan, and early summer grasses may also induce pollen allergies. Most cultivated plants with showy flowers are entomophilous and do not cause pollen allergies.
 |
| Scanning electron microscope image (500x magnification) of pollen grains from a variety of common plants: sunflower (Helianthus annuus), morning glory (Ipomoea purpurea), prairie hollyhock (Sidalcea malviflora), oriental lily (Lilium auratum), evening primrose (Oenothera fruticosa), and castor bean (Ricinus communis). |
Larger pollen grains are more likely to be transported by pollinators, whereas smaller pollen is more likely to be wind-dispersed.
This page lists pollen size by plant family.
Source:
Wikipedia and MNN.com
Friday, March 01, 2019
Thursday, August 16, 2018
Proposed Changes to Regulations Implementing the Endangered Species Act
Reference: https://www.fws.gov/endangered/improving_ESA/regulation-revisions.html
Regulations for Listing Species and Designating Critical Habitat
Economic Impacts: "the Services will continue to make determinations based solely on biological considerations. However, there may be circumstances where referencing economic, or other impacts may be informative to the public"
Foreseeable Future: use definition set forth in 2009, where foreseeable "extends only so far into the future as theServices can reasonably determine that the conditions potentially posing a danger of extinction ... are probable."
Delisting species: clarifies that the standard for listing or delisting is the same. Important because FWS does not have to "demonstrate that all of the recovery plan criteria had been met before" delisting. Because: Section 4(a)(1) of the Act provides the Secretary `shall' consider the five statutory factors when determining whether a species is endangered, and section 4(c) makes clear that a decision to delist `shall be made in accordance' with the same five factors.”
Not Prudent Determinations: FWS may decide not to designate critical habitat when it is “not prudent”. Currently this can only occur under two circumstances, but the change would allow the Service more discretion. "We anticipate that not-prudent determinations would continue to be rare." This is an effort to avoid lawsuits.
Designating Unoccupied Areas: clarify that the service can do so "When a critical habitat designation limited to geographical areas occupied would (1) be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species, or (2) result in less-efficient conservation for the species." Further, "In order for an unoccupied area to be considered essential, the Secretary must determine that there is a reasonable likelihood that the area will contribute to the conservation of the species....Because the only regulatory effect of a designation of critical habitat is the requirement that federal agencies avoid authorizing, funding, or undertaking actions that may destroy or adversely modify such habitat, the likelihood that an area will contribute to conservation is, in most cases, greater for public lands and lands for which such federal actions can be reasonably anticipated than for other types of land."
Regulations for Prohibitions to Threatened Wildlife and Plants
(This proposed revision has received the most comments on regulations.gov)
Summary: for newly listed species, there would be no legal penalty for “take” of threatened species. Section 7 consultation would still be required. This change would reduce the potential legal liability of APS, while not lessoning our consultation requirements.
“Currently, there are species-specific protective regulations for threatened wildlife in subpart D of part 17, but the Service has not adopted any species-specific protective regulations for plants. The proposed regulations would not affect the consultation obligations of Federal agencies pursuant to section 7 of the Act. Species listed or reclassified as a threatened species after the effective date of this rule would have protective regulations only if the Service promulgates a species-specific rule (also referred to as a special rule).”
This proposed change brings the USFWS regulations in line with the NMFS.
Section 7 Interagency Cooperation
“Nothing in these proposed revisions to the regulations is intended to require that any previous consultations under section 7(a)(2) of the Act be reevaluated….The Services anticipate that the proposed changes, if finalized, will improve and clarify interagency consultation, and make it more efficient and consistent, without compromising conservation of listed species.”
Destruction or Adverse Modification of Critical Habitat: This is a determination that is similar to a determination of Jeopardy for the species as a whole. For clarity, USFWS proposes adding the phrase “as a whole” to the current definition of Destruction or Adverse Modification: “`Destruction or adverse modification' means a direct or indirect alteration that appreciably diminishes the conservation value of critical habitat for the conservation of a listed species.”
The intent is that, “while an action may result in adverse effects to critical habitat within the action area, those effects may not necessarily rise to the level of destruction or adverse modification to the designated critical habitat. In adding the phrase “as a whole” to the proposed revised definition, we intend to clearly indicate that the final destruction or adverse modification determination is made at the scale of the entire critical habitat designation…..Just as the determination of jeopardy under section 7(a)(2) of the Act is made at the scale of the entire listed entity, a determination of destruction or adverse modification is made at the scale of the entire critical habitat designation.”
In each biological opinion, the determination regarding destruction or adverse modification is made by evaluating the effects of the proposed action on the species in light of the overall status of the species, the baseline conditions within the action area and any cumulative effects occurring within the action area.
Effects of the Action: “Confusion regarding application of terms has resulted in time being spent determining how to categorize an effect, rather than simply determining what the effects are regardless of category…. We collapsed the various concepts of direct and indirect effects, and the effects of interrelated and interdependent actions, into the new definition that the effects of the action include all effects caused by the proposed action.”
“The revised definition notes that these effects include “the effects of other activities that are caused by the proposed action.” It includes a distinction between the word “action” which refers to the action proposed to be authorized, funded, or carried out, in whole or in part, by the Federal agency and brought in for consultation with the Services, and “activity” or “activities,” which refer to those activities that are caused by the proposed action but are not included in the proposed action. Under the current definition, these activities would have been considered under either “indirect effects” or “interrelated” or “interdependent” activities. An effect or activity is caused by the proposed action when two tests are satisfied: First, the effect or activity would not occur but for the proposed action, and second, the effect or activity is reasonably certain to occur. “
“Under the first of these two tests, if an effect or activity would occur regardless of whether the proposed action goes forward, then that effect or activity would not satisfy the “but for” test and would not be considered an effect of the action.”
“As a practical matter, application of the “reasonable certainty” standard is done in the following sequential manner in light of the best available scientific and commercial data to determine if incidental take is anticipated: (1) A determination is made regarding whether a listed species is present within the area affected by the proposed Federal action; (2) if so, then a determination is made regarding whether the listed species would be exposed to stressors caused by the proposed action (e.g., noise, light, ground disturbance); and (3) if so, a determination is made regarding whether the listed species' biological response to that exposure corresponds to the statutory and regulatory definitions of take (i.e., kill, wound, capture, harm, etc.). Applied in this way, the “reasonable certainty” standard does not require a guarantee that a take will result, rather, only that the Services establish a rational basis for a finding of take.”
Environmental Baseline: The Services propose a stand-alone definition for “environmental baseline” as referenced in the discussion above in the proposed revised definition for “effects of the action.” The definition for environmental baseline retains its current wording. Moving it to a stand-alone definition clarifies that the environmental baseline is a separate consideration that sets the stage for analyzing the effects of the proposed action on the listed species and critical habitat within the action area by providing the foundation upon which to build the analysis of the effects of the action under consultation.
“It has sometimes been challenging for the Services and Federal agencies to determine the appropriate baseline for those consultations involving ongoing agency actions. The complexities presented in these consultations include issues such as: What constitutes an “ongoing” action; if an ongoing action is changed, is the incremental change in the ongoing action the only focus of the consultation or is the entire action or some other subset reviewed; is the effects analysis different if the ongoing action has never been the subject of consultation as compared to if there is a current biological opinion for the ongoing action; if a change is made to an ongoing action that lessens, but does not eliminate, the harmful impact to listed species or critical habitat, is that by definition a “beneficial action”; and can a “beneficial action” ever jeopardize listed species or destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Further, the Services request comments as to whether the following language would address these issues: “Environmental baseline is the state of the world absent the action under review and includes the past, present and ongoing impacts of all past and ongoing Federal, State, or private actions and other human activities in the action area, the anticipated impacts of all proposed Federal projects in the action area that have already undergone formal or early section 7 consultation, and the impact of State or private actions in the action area which are contemporaneous with the consultation in process. Ongoing means impacts or actions that would continue in the absence of the action under review.””
Programmatic Consultation: “used to evaluate the effects of multiple actions anticipated within a particular geographic area; or to evaluate Federal agency programs that guide implementation of the agency's future actions by establishing standards, guidelines, or governing criteria to which future actions will adhere.”
Applicability: USFWS proposes to add language clarifying that consultation is not required when a proposed action will not negatively affect listed species or critical habitat in any real, or measurable, significant way; or that are beyond the jurisdictional control of the consulting agencies.
Biological Opinions: “USFWS proposes that the Service may adopt all or part of a Federal agency's initiation package or the Services' analyses and findings that are required to issue a permit under section 10(a) of the Act in its biological opinion. This provision would allow the Services to utilize portions of these documents in the development of our biological opinion to improve efficiency in the consultation process and reduce duplicative efforts. Adoption or incorporation by reference is typically done during consultations, and this provision codifies that approach.”
Expedited Consultation: “ Informal consultation has been an available optional process for 30 years and is most often utilized to address proposed actions that are not likely to adversely affect listed species or critical habitat. In contrast, expedited consultations are a new process and likely involve proposed actions that would otherwise go through the regular formal consultation process and require an incidental take statement. This consultation process is proposed to provide an efficient means to complete formal consultation on projects ranging from those that have a minimal impact, to those projects with a potentially broad range of effects that are known and predictable, but that are unlikely to cause jeopardy or destruction or adverse modification. “
Reinitiation of Consultation: “We propose to clarify that the duty to reinitiate does not apply to an existing programmatic land management plan prepared pursuant to the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) or the National Forest Management Act (NFMA). when a new species is listed or new critical habitat is designated. In contrast, specific on-the-ground actions that implement the plan are subject to their own section 7 consultations if those actions may affect listed species or critical habitat.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)