Let’s Talk About Sex For A Change

He/She/He Limpet (Jan Delsing/BioLib)

How about that Bruce Jenner? Makes that trans-sex transformation to female and gets the exclusive and the cover of Vanity Fair which is then picked up by every major and minor news outlet in the world. Reminds me of the time a few years back when the ribbed Mediterranean limpet (Patella ferruginea) was found to be able to change its sex from male to female and back again.

Mr./Mrs. Limpet had neither the vanity nor the desire to try for the cover of Vanity Fair but was described by John R. Platt in a Scientific American blog as nearly extinct and the subject of efforts by scientists to learn how it breeds and reproduces to save it from extinction. (The Incredible Mr./Mrs. Limpet: The Endangered, Sex-Changing Sea Snail)

Most limpet species possess both male and female characteristics and change gender in their lives due to external environmental factors; Patella ferruginea, however, is unusual in changing gender then back again, scientists discovered. When and why still remains a mystery.

The scientists wrote in a paper that, this discovery provides "new direction for research into the mechanisms and factors driving sex change and its effects on the population dynamics" for the species, which may help to inform conservation strategies to keep it from extinction.

Meanwhile, in an attempt to ride the media frenzy on June 1, the endangered smalltooth sawfish muscled in on the news with the discovery that they are resorting to “virgin births” in the wild— perhaps in an effort to survive.

According to The Washington Post, “Female sawfish in Florida estuaries were found to have produced living offspring without the help of a male. Researchers found that 3 percent of sawfish in their study were the result of this unusual reproductive strategy.” (On the verge of extinction, female sawfish resort to ‘virgin births’ to survive)

In rare instances some vertebrate females have been known to switch between sexual and asexual reproduction depending on the availability of a mate. Reproducing without mating is called facultative parthenogenesis where an egg absorbs a genetically identical cell to create offspring about half as genetically diverse as the mother. These offspring often don't survive but enough are around in Florida to be counted.

OK. You read it here and in Scientific American and The Washington Post.

Vanity vanitatum, omnia vanitas.

--Mike Sato

State Extends Comment Period For Changes To Nearshore Fish Protection Rule

NEWS RELEASE/FOR IMMEDIATE USE
August 12, 2014
Contact: Amy Carey, Sound Action, (206) 745-2441

State Extends Comment Period For Changes To Nearshore Fish Protection Rule

After repeated refusals to extend a 30-day comment period, the state Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) reversed itself after last Friday’s public hearing by extending its comment period to September 15 on major revisions to the primary state regulations specifically protecting critical nearshore habitats and at-risk fish species.



The decision followed public testimony before the state Fish and Wildlife Commission on the department’s proposed rulemaking for the state Hydraulic Code which is intended to protect fish and fish habitat from in-water development impacts of bulkheads, groins, piers and marinas. The Code was established to ensure no net-loss of the state’s critical nearshore habitats.

Prior to announcing its extension of the comment period, WDFW insisted that an extension would make little difference because of the complexity of the code revisions. “[E]xtending the comment period an additional 30 days will not provide those who are relatively new to the hydraulic code an opportunity to gain a more clear understanding of the intricacies of this package,” WDFW wrote earlier and reiterated at the start of Friday’s public hearing.



Sound Action’s executive director Amy Carey thanked the department for extending the comment deadline and acknowledged the complexity of the approximately 400 pages of documents, including 150 pages of proposed rule language.  “The point, however, is that the Hydraulic Code is the state’s primary tool for Puget Sound nearshore habitat protection and the public must always be given appropriate opportunity for involvement in the development of important environmental regulations,” said Carey.

“Although the documents may be somewhat technical in nature, we have a intelligent public throughout the region that cares about the health of Puget Sound and the proposed revisions to this code. Shutting them out by only offering a 30-day comment period was a poor decision and we comment the department for taking corrective action" said Carey.



Sound Action will be working with its membership and partners in the environmental community in the upcoming month to resolve areas of concern in the proposed rulemaking language.

Some major issues include:

·      Maintain the current definition of “protection of fish life” that clearly specifies prevention of loss or injury to fish or shellfish and protection of the habitat that supports fish and shellfish populations rather than changing to language defining “protection” as merely “avoiding or minimizing impacts through mitigation.”

·      Strengthen a definition of “no net loss” by making clear that it means there shall not be a net loss of fish life or loss to the productive capacity of fish and shellfish habitat or functions.

·      Maintain statutory requirements by eliminating use of “may,” “if possible,” and “when possible,” and make clear requirements for both department and applicant actions.

·      Add protective provisions for macroalgae, which is used by herring for spawning and by juvenile lingcod, rockfish and salmonids for refuge and as supporting habitat for important prey species.

·      Strengthen forage fish protections by including protections for potential spawning areas that have never been surveyed  and by including provisions to protect adult fish from construction impacts during spawning and pre-spawning activity. Currently less than 30 percent of Puget Sound shorelines have even been inventoried by WDFW which results in a forage fish protection gap.    



·      Strengthen protections against all shoreline armoring impacts by requiring engineer’s report documenting need in all single family bulkhead proposals and by requiring that least impact techniques be used.

These and other recommendations are included in Sound Action’s comment letter to WDFW.


# # #

Watching Starfish Waste Away

Wasted starfish (PHOTO: Nate Fletcher)

(Bellingham) Those of us who might have wanted Dr. Ben Miner of Western Washington University to identify the mysterious disease that is killing starfish along the Pacific West Coast would have left his talk last Tuesday sadly unsatisfied after an hour or so. Real life and death isn’t like an hour’s episode of CSI. As with all good, rigorous science, establishing what isn’t the cause is as important as hypothesizing what might be the cause.

The mass die-off has received ample media coverage from last fall through this winter. [See: Mysterious epidemic devastates starfish population off the Pacific Coast  and Northwest Starfish Experiments Give Scientists Clues To Mysterious Mass Die-offs]

The mass die-offs of certain species like sunflower, mottled and ocher starfish which develop lesions and rapidly disintegrate had been first reported last summer on the Olympic coast, followed by reports from hardest hit areas like Seattle, Vancouver BC, Monterey, Santa Barbara and Long Beach CA. As observed, adult starfish, according to Ben Miner, prove much more susceptible than juveniles. The rate of die-offs slowed from the fall into the winter. In Puget Sound, the disease has moved through starfish populations from Seattle north to Mukilteo and to Langley and Keystone on Whidbey Island.

What is and isn’t known at this time:

Experiments demonstrate that the cause is a pathogen transmitted from infected starfish to healthy ones and not an environmental toxin or parasite which would affect other starfish species and other marine life. The pathogen is water borne and affects starfish in aquariums and marine laboratories; starfish in filtered aquarium water show no signs of infection.

The pathogen may be bacterial or viral, like the parvo virus which causes tissue degeneration but experiments have not proven definitive. Shooting up an infected starfish with antibiotic stops the infection but the starfish dies when the treatment stops. All starfish don’t get infected and die, which may mean that some starfish have an immune capability or a combination of environmental factors are at play that result in infection and death. (Shooting up a Crown of Thorns starfish with bacteria in an unrelated experiment showed a fatal effect resembling wasting disease.)

“If it were straightforward, you’d have got it already,” Miner said. Like bee disease and colony collapse, there may be multiple factors that increase organism stress and suppress immune systems. What makes the starfish sick may be gone by the time it dies. If there remains uninfected areas where healthy and unhealthy starfish can be studied, there’s a chance the mystery might be solved. If wasting disease spreads everywhere, there won’t be anything left to study.
Looking ahead:

 One consequence of the mass die-off is changes in ecological balance in certain areas. The starfish around marine reserves have traditionally feasted on lingcod eggs. With the absence of starfish predators, lingcod are expected to thrive. The effect of increased predation by lingcod on other species will be interesting to see.

The environmental factors associated with wasting disease may be related to conditions found in populated and protected areas where die-offs have been highest. The die-offs have slowed during the winter, indicating a possible correlation with climate and water temperature. Likewise, the reports from past die-off episodes in California and Baja waters have been associated with El Nino years and warmer waters in the late ‘70s, early and late ‘80s, and the ‘90s. Alas, NOAA predicts an El Nino year for 2014-15 and, as Eric Holthaus in Slate sees it, “Seattle: A warm winter, and especially warm waters offshore, could be tough for the Pacific Northwest salmon.” [What Does El Niño Mean for Me?]

Might be worse for our starfish. As the spring and summer arrive, watch carefully.

[Oh, regarding radioactivity from Fukushima to blame, not. The timing is wrong, only some species of starfish are wasting, and there are no other marine critters showing radioactivity effects.]

For complete up-to-date reports and maps and images of the disease, go to the UC Santa Cruz wasting site.

--Mike Sato

2014: One Down, 11 to Go

Chinese do not call it "Chinese New Year" (CNN)

A month ago, when the year was fresh and new, I wrote about “What I'm Looking For In 2014.”

We’re one month into 2014 and starting out another lunar year. Happy Lunar New Year!

Have I found anything yet in 2014 that I’m looking for?

The state legislature is finishing its third week of session and it’s too early to tell who will choose to govern. Is Governor Jay at home?

Lots more concern about oil shipments by rail— in addition to coal trains— and plans to make Washington and BC the fossil fuel gateway of the Pacific. Good that State Senator Christine Rolfes (D-23) is pushing for enhanced safety and transparency and good that the Environmental Priorities Coalition is pushing for oil tax reform as well. Oil guys haven’t really pushed back— yet.

I'm still worried about what’s killing our star fish. More research [ Northwest Starfish Experiments Give Scientists Clues To Mysterious Mass Die-offs ] but no answers.

I’m sure fine words are being prepared for the 40th anniversary of the Boldt decision which established the Washington treaty tribes as fisheries co-managers. Meanwhile, remember who said the fine words about our salmon, “Extinction is not an option”? [ Feds Declare Salmon Fishery Disaster For Washington Tribes  ]

The only news from the Puget Sound Partnership thus far has been that the governor named Sheida Sahandy as its new executive director. Now will we have a Sound that is swimmable, fishable and diggable by 2020?

Well, we do have 11 more months to go. Or should we hit reset when we leap into the Year of the Horse? Horse,  not Bronco.

--Mike Sato

Are We Capable of Protecting the Oceans? --Probably Not.

Transforming Earth (New Scientist)

BBC News asked that question to a number of experts at the beginning of the month ( Viewpoints: Are humans capable of protecting the oceans?  ) and, not being an expert, I’ve been grappling with an answer for the last couple of weeks.

According to BBC News:

The health of the world's oceans is deteriorating even faster than had previously been thought, a report says. A review from the International Programme on the State of the Ocean (IPSO) warns that the oceans are facing multiple threats.
They are being heated by climate change, turned slowly less alkaline by absorbing CO2, and suffering from overfishing and pollution. The report warns that dead zones formed by fertiliser run-off are a problem. It says conditions are ripe for the sort of mass extinction event that has afflicted the oceans in the past. Are humans capable of protecting the oceans and preventing a mass ocean extinction?

You can read the answers of some of the experts but take some time to answer the question yourself. For me, these last few weeks since the BBC News article ran was characterized by some dark assessments of our human capacity for spinning our wheels while strutting and fretting amidst looming financial disaster aka shutdown and debt ceiling Russian roulette.

When I think about the ignorance and mendacity demonstated from right-wingnut leaders and their constituents, the oceans and their inhabitants are doomed. Not all of the oceans critters— there will be blooms of jellyfish and blankets of toxic algae to take their places. Nature moves on.

As a rule, ends come with dramatic bangs; they more likely come with whimpers. And the effects of climate change, ocean acidification and marine dead zones will be felt and reported over many more lifetimes than those of us who are here today.

In better moments, I’m heartened when I read about geoengineering solutions like those highlighted in last week’s issue of New Scientist ( Terraforming Earth: Geoengineering megaplan starts now ) because engineering solutions can be pretty cool. The article talks about the well-known bromide of ‘plant a tree’ but on a massive scale. Then there are new technologies like growing crops and burning them to capture their carbon and burying it, sucking carbon out of the air and burying it, fertilizing the ocean with iron to grow plankton to capture carbon (something like what was done off the BC coast), and throwing lime into the ocean.

These are expensive engineering solutions which would change the face of the earth and would draw screams and protests from environmentalists like me. But those are the kinds of engineering solutions it would take to remove the amount of carbon dioxide we currently have in the atmosphere and reverse the climate and acidification trends.

Maybe you don’t like it but it’s at least pretty interesting— and a lot more interesting than listening to Governor Jay’s climate change initiative proposals he presented last Monday. ( Inslee Wants To Explore State-Only ‘Cap and Trade’ Scheme ) Republican legislators immediately objected to his proposals and offered their best alternative solutions, such as Sen. Doug Ericksen (R-Ferndale) wanting nuclear power, no doubt to be sited in his district for job-hungry constituents.

But geoengineering solutions to remove carbon out of the atmosphere and to save the oceans are fruitless unless we humans modify our terrestrial behavior and reduce the amount of carbon we continue to put into the atmosphere.

That’s the part where the darkness settled over me these last two weeks. We used to say that if people understood what was happening to Puget Sound, they would work to save Puget Sound. A board member once tried to slay that by saying, “What do you want? A bunch of educated people watching Puget Sound go down the toilet?”-- meaning it took action, not understanding, to save the Sound. Like in philosophy, the gap between is and ought isn’t necessarily a logical progression.

It gets dark when I think about studies showing how people collect facts to reinforce what they already believe and discount facts that contradict their beliefs. How many Americans still believe we invaded Iraq because Saddam Hussein was somehow responsible for 9/11? How come more Americans are against Obamacare than the Affordable Health Care Act?

In the dark times I fault the ignorant— but I will reserve the deeper circle of Hell for the leaders who fan the flames of ignorance to exercise their power. Extinctions happen every day; I think the demise of much of what we know as life in the oceans today will be with a whimper and other forms of life will take their place. So, are we capable of protecting the oceans? Probably not.

What do you think?

--Mike Sato

A Stupid, Ugly Way to Die

(Cindy Russell/Star-Advertiser)

In December 1985, the oil tanker Arco Anchorage went aground near Port Angeles spilling 239,000 gallons of Alaskan crude oil. That and the industry’s record of oil spills in marine waters have made oil spill prevention a top Salish Sea priority. Alas, this past Monday, Matson Navigation spilled an estimated 233,000 gallons of molasses from a broken pipe into Honolulu Harbor, sinking to the bottom and suffocating sea life.

Matson, which regularly loads molasses to be shipped to the mainland, had no spill prevention plan and was not required to have one by the state.

“To my knowledge, nothing of this magnitude on Oahu ever in the past” has occurred, said Gary Gill, the state Department of Health’s deputy director for environmental health, according to the Star-Advertiser.

Over the few days since the spill, thousands of fish have died and the magnitude of the damage isn’t known. Fish die-off is expected to accelerate and a ‘dead zone’ created that may last for months. No recovery of the spilled molasses is underway since, unlike oil, the molasses isn’t floating but has sunk to the harbor bottom.

University of Hawaii oceanography professor David Kari said recovery would come about sooner than from an oil or toxic chemcial spill. A “smorgasbord of bacteria” will feed on the sunken molasses. And, according to Gary Gill in the Star-Advertiser, the spill also threatens a coral colony in the area.

A Matson senior executive said they were “truly sorry” for what happened. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife agency is collecting its evidence. Clean Water Act violations can be assessed up to $25,000 a day.

“Anywhere where you might have a sugar industry which is loading molasses as part of the sugar refining process onto ships, there’s a potential for this kind of spill,” Gill said, according to the Star-Advertiser report.

So, where was the diligence? Here is an operation that a company does regularly over water and, while it isn’t in itself as toxic as oil, molasses turns out to be just as deadly when sunk and coating the harbor bottom with 1,400 tons of sweet death.

What an ugly way to die for people’s stupid negligence.

(Sources: Underwater video uncovers mass kill from Matson molasses spill ; Molasses spill killing fish in Hawaii ; Star-Advertiser coverage may be behind a paywall: Molasses damage predicted to linger )

--Mike Sato