March 2005

The CSI International Environmental Educator Award has been given to an Alaskan biologist, Kathy Turco, of Fairbanks (see http://www.conservationinstitute.org/awardturco.htm). Although her work as a field researcher and laboratory biologist is impressive, Kathy received the Educator Award for

her dedicated work collecting and use of natural sound recordings. Her sounds and interviews have been featured in 29 documentaries, 13 soundtracks for museums and visitor centers, 10 commercial CDs of natural sounds, and 9 radio programs (hear her shark piece right here at http://www.conservationinstitute.org/sharkaudio.htm. Her science education programs has also been featured on the web sites of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, the University of Tennessee, the National Science Foundation, NOAA Fisheries, the University of Alaska, the University of Texas, the North Slope Borough, and Pulse of the Planet.

I once met Kathy in Prince William Sound where she was using a doublely labeled water technique (using deuterium and O-18) as a way of measuring average metabolic rate and energy requirements of black-legged kittiwakes. Unlike the other biologists, Kathy also packed hundreds of pounds of high-tech sound equipment which she used to record the noisy birds and to do interviews with other field scientists. These sounds were later worked and teased at her Fairbanks studio to produce internationally recognized science education programs. You can hear more of Kathy's sounds at www.alaskas-spirit.com, and learn more about the CSI International Environmental Educator Award at http://www.conservationinstitute.org/edaward.htm. We welcome nominations for this award at anytime.

I'm pleased to announce CSI has a new fellow; Malin Jennings is the founder of The Aujaqsuittuq Project, an initiative to record traditional Inuit knowledge about Arctic climate change. Malin will circumnavigate the Arctic in 2006, visiting six Inuit communities and recording residents' stories about changes to Arctic climate, wildlife and related systems. Malin is interested how those changes are affecting Inuit lives and culture (see http://www.conservationinstitute.org/fellowjennings.htm). The project's goals are to gather information that may be of use now in understanding the effects of global warming on the far north and to provide a record for the future of life in the Arctic during this period of dramatic change.

We would also like to welcome the new Predator Conservation Network Manager, Mary Sweeters. Mary earned a degree at the University of California, Santa Cruz in environmental studies and biology. The Predator Conservation Network is dedicated to revealing the importance of predators and dispelling myths about these important species. Mary will be leading this effort for the Conservation Science Institute.

Phil Schempf and I recently had a paper published on bald eagles. The paper was spawned from a 1990 symposium. In the subsequent compendium of bald eagle papers Schempf and I were the editors. The citation is: Wright, B.A. and P. Schempf. 2005. The book on bald eagles. pages 8-14. in: Wright, B.A. and P. Schempf (Eds.). 2005. Bald Eagles in Alaska. Bald Eagle Research Institute. The book is available at Alaska libraries and will soon be available online at the CSI web site.

The global warming and global climate change debate seems to get louder with each passing day. I believe it's important for us to keep our perspective about global warming, though a serious threat to humans and ecosystems, is not the only notable environmental issue worthy of notice and study. Remember, carbon dioxide is one of thousands of human-produced pollutants. Learn about some of the other forms of pollution at http://www.conservationinstitute.org/pollution.htm. On Sunday, March 13, 2005 I'm scheduled to participate on a BBC broadcast about global warming. The show broadcasts between 6 and 7pm GMT (0800 Alaska time) and can heard at http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/programmes/discovery.shtml. The subject of the interview will be regime shifts - what they are, what they mean on both environmental and economic levels, and how they link to climate change.

A mountain range that was created by the virtue of geographic transition is the mighty Himalayas. The huge landmass called Pangea broke apart. When India crashed into Asia the Himalayas were created. Himalayas is a Sanskrit (Indian language) word meaning, "Abode of snow". For the Himalayas, it is roughly estimated that 10-20% of the area is covered by glacial ice, and 30-40% by seasonal snow cover. The International Commission for Snow and Ice (ICSI) in its recent study on Asian glaciers reported that the glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 is very high. The melting of the Gangotri Glacier in India is accelerating with an average rate of retreat of 30 meters annually. The rate between 1935 and 1990 was 18 meters per year and 7 meters annually between 1842 and 1935. Scientists had expected the five-kilometer-long Dokriani Bamak glacier in Himachal Pradesh to grow after a severe winter in 1997. Instead, it retreated by 20m in 1998, compared to an annual average of 16.5m over the past five years. The Mount Everest Glacier has retreated 3 miles since the 1953 ascent of Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay.

The melting of these same glaciers produces the lifeblood of fresh water for great south Asian rivers such as the Ganges and the Indus, upon which hundreds of millions of people depend. Due to the melting these huge masses of ice, villagers at the foothills of the Himalayan Mountains, from Nepal and Bangladesh to India, fall prey to frequent avalanches, floods and landslides. The past 100 years have been the hottest period in 1,000 years in the Himalayas' upper elevations. The giant glaciers of the Himalayas are melting so quickly that within five years dozens of glacial lakes could burst their banks and kill tens of thousands in their path, a report from the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) warns.

This trend poses other risks to life and property. If the glaciers continue to retreat at the current rates, many rivers and freshwater systems could run dry, threatening drinking water supplies as well as fisheries and wildlife. The Himalayan glaciers feed seven of the great rivers of Asia (the Ganges, Indus, Brahmaputra, Salween, Mekong, Yangtze and Huang He) and ensure a year-round water supply to 2 billion people. In the Ganges, the loss of glacier melt water would reduce July-September flows by two thirds, causing water shortages for 500 million people and 37% of India's irrigated land.

Over the past few decades the demand for organic food has increased dramatically. This demand has caused a significant expansion of organic farms and organic farming methods. Many people equate organic farming with simply not using chemicals and pesticides. But resent research indicates that organic farming does more than just eliminate chemicals, it may significantly increase biodiversity as compared to conventional farming methods.

Few human activities have had a more deleterious impact on biodiversity than modern agriculture. As the global human population increases, the projections for agricultural expansion to meet worldwide food demands in the next 50 years, with the accompanying inputs of water, chemicals, and pesticides, will have a tremendous impact on biodiversity.

This expansion will require the accommodation of species on lands used for production. Governments, the EU, and private landholders are devoting substantial resources to promote organic farming as a means of increasing biodiversity on farmland. The concept of organic farming incorporates promoting biodiversity, but does organic farming actually increase biodiversity?

Hole et al (2005), in a study published in Biological Conservation, set out to explore that question. They looked at 76 published studies that compared conventional and organic farming to assess what differences exist between the two methods, in terms of biodiversity.

Although methodological problems exist in comparing organic and conventional farming, the initial evidence clearly suggests that organic farming does lead to a higher level of biodiversity than conventional farming does. The 76 studies indicate that all types of organisms benefit from organic farming practices. Non-crop plants are more abundant, which may lead to higher insect populations, which in turn attract bats and other species. Soil microbes, fungi, earthworms, spiders, and arthropods all seem to fair better. Several studies indicate butterflies fair better in organic farm settings.

Organic farms, which often include hedgerows and other non-crop areas, seem to benefit small mammals, as well. Perhaps most significantly, organic farming may prove especially helpful for bird species. Not only does abundance go up, but also many of the bird species found in one study had declined nationally for some time. Organic farming could help stabilize populations and halt the downward decline many species currently face.

The findings in this study do not necessarily prove that organic farming does indeed dramatically increase biodiversity. Some of the papers used in the study found some species fairing better on conventional farms. But the evidence seems to favor the notion that organic farming fairs much better at increasing biodiversity. At the very least, these findings warrant additional research on organic farming and provide hope for balancing food production and conservation goals in the future.

For decades, scientists have documented the loss of biodiversity caused by human activities and development. Many countries have taken steps to address the issue since then. The United States, for example, passed the Endangered Species Act in 1973 in an attempt to protect species, habitat, and biodiversity. Other countries followed suit and protections, in one form or another, exist to protect biodiversity in a number of countries. Those protections have not been universally accepted. Many countries still have no protections for species and ecosystems, and biodiversity continues to decline as a result.

Many scientists now estimate that our current biodiversity crisis could represent the sixth major extinction event in earth's history. This revelation has caused the global community to reevaluate efforts to protect biodiversity. The World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg called for a significant reduction to the current rate of biodiversity loss by 2010, at the global, regional, and national levels. This lofty goal will require an integrated and standardized system of monitoring to assess the current and ongoing status of biomes and their biota worldwide. A group of British researchers argue that such a system does not currently exist.

Biodiversity studies in the past have often used existing data to make projections. As a result, these assessments, not studies, provide information on biodiversity levels at a particular time. Scientists across the globe perform studies that utilize particular measurements in specific locations. While all these efforts reveal important information, they do not collectively mesh in a way that allows for the monitoring of biodiversity changes on a global scale over time.

The authors suggest that the ability to monitor biodiversity globally, and to assess the efficacy of actions taken to heed the call of the WSSD, does not currently exist for several reasons. Programs to measure biodiversity loss exist primarily in developed countries, while developing countries harbor the most biodiversity. Most programs have national objectives that do not fit within a global framework, and many rely on existing data collected for other purposes than to assess biodiversity trends.

To remedy these problems the authors put forth a framework they believe will shore up deficiencies in current monitoring programs. This framework consists of three stages: scoping, design, and implementation and reporting. The process would involve a review of current biodiversity monitoring by interested parties (governments, NGO's, scientists). Such a review would evaluate existing data collection and determine which monitoring programs yield results valuable for global biodiversity indexing. Such a review would also identify those monitoring programs that have shortcomings.

From that point, the authors suggest creating a model for assessing biodiversity change. The model will allow for the selection of measurements to use to assess population numbers. Sampling, whether through on the ground studies, satellite imagery, or some other method, will allow for model simulations to assess biodiversity change over time.

A relatively standardized reporting and assessment system will allow for the dissemination of useful information to interested parties. This type of system will produce a more reliable assessment of whether or not implemented programs meet specific biodiversity objectives. Without this type of framework, assessing progress towards limiting global biodiversity loss by 2010 will be all but impossible.

The recovery of the California condor (Gymnogyps californianus) presented one of the first test cases for the emerging discipline of conservation biology. During the mid to late 1980's, few conservation stories garnered more scientific, political, and media attention than did the plight of this ancient bird. Although forgotten by many, the tale of the California condor persists and sheds important light on the evolving science of conservation.

As described in an article by Peter Alagona, 10,000 years ago populations of the California condor flourished in present day Southwest USA, but also extended north to Canada, south to Mexico and east to Florida. Over time, glaciers receded, climate changed, food supply decreased, humans colonized the continent and the species began to decline.

Large populations remained in the southwest, particularly in California, until the mid 1800's. But the California gold rush, and the influx of settlers, marked the beginning of the end for the condors. A century and a half later, in 1987, biologists captured the last remaining wild California condor and transported it to the San Diego Zoo where they began an intense captive breeding program.

In the decades that preceded the eventual capture of all the wild condors, conservationists debated what action to take to save the species. One camp supported habitat protection as the best means to recovery. With sufficient protected habitat, they argued, the birds would have the ability to recover on their own. Others pointed out that many areas retained suitable habitat, yet condor numbers continued to decline. The only viable action, they argued, had to be captive breeding.

With both sides entrenched in their positions, the plummeting population bottomed out at one remaining breeding pair in the mid 1980's. Poisoning, long known as one of the primary causes of condor deaths, posed a significant threat, one that habitat preservation could not remedy. This realization led to the capture all 27 remaining wild birds and the inception of an experimental captive breeding program. After five years, the population had grown to 52 individuals, enabling reintroduction to commence. Beginning with just two birds, the number of condors in the wild rose to over 75 in 2003.

Although the California condor recovery program proved successful in staving off certain extinction of a species, it does not necessarily serve as a model for all endangered species. Other species may not respond to captive breeding, pose a more impending threat to ranchers and resource extraction interests, or simply cannot generate the kind of interest necessary to initiate costly recovery programs.

As species across the globe decline in numbers, the story of the California condor provides an interesting perspective on the role conservation science can play in species recovery. It also raises questions about the role humans should take in the recovery of species and the protection of biodiversity in general. Although conservation science continues to grow and make great strides, it remains important to reflect upon and learn from past interventions. And the story of the California condor provides a good place to start.