Hatcheries: Helpful or Harmful?

By Bianca T. Esposito, NWNL Research Intern
(Edited by Alison Jones, NWNL Director)

NWNL research intern Bianca T. Esposito is a senior at Syracuse University studying Biology and minoring in Economics. Her research focuses primarily on how watershed degradation affects biodiversity.

Salmon Fish Ladder.jpgFigure 1. Salmon utilizing a manmade fish ladder to bypass a dam in their quest for migration. (Creative Commons)

“Elders still tell stories about the tears tribal fishermen shed as they watched salmon throwing themselves against the newly constructed Grand Coulee Dam.”
-John Sorois, Coordinator of Upper Columbia United Tribes

What are the impacts of hatchery and why do we need them? Hatcheries were created in the late 1800’s to reduce the decline of fish populations caused by hydroelectric dam development. Hatcheries (Figure 2) are part of a fish farming system that produces artificial populations of anadromous fish for future release into the wild. Upon release, these fish enter a freshwater location, specifically a tributary, with no dam to bypass on their way to and from the ocean. Anadromous fish, such as salmon, white sturgeon and lamprey spend most of their life at sea, but return to their native tributaries in freshwater to spawn. Once anadromous fish spawn, they die off and the life cycle is continued to be carried out by the next generation of juveniles. Since returning to their native breeding grounds is a necessity for anadromous fish, hatchery-raised fish released into tributaries without dams is one way to combat this impediment of migration that dams have created.

In this blog, we will look at hatcheries as they relate to the declining salmon populations in the Columbia River Basin.

Besides hatcheries, another way for salmon to bypass the dams constructed along the Columbia River Basin is with the use of fish ladders or fish passages built on the dams (Figures 1 and 3). However, these methods can be harmful to the salmon. Fish ladders require that salmon climb up many platforms to access the reservoir on the other side of the dam. There is evidence that supports claims of an increased rate of exhaustion in salmon utilizing the ladder. Ultimately this leads to avoidance of the ladder and decreased migration rates of salmon.

Jones_070623_WA_1904.jpgFish ladder at Rocky Reach Dam on the Columbia River

Hatcheries are an attempt to overcome this low success rate of released salmon returning to tributaries. Stock transfers are one hatchery approach whereby salmon eggs are incubated and hatched in one part of the basin and then shipped to streams all over for release. This method of stock transfer is used to re-populate areas in which salmon populations are declining, or in places they no longer inhabit. However, because of the changes in location, these farmed salmon have trouble returning to the reassigned tributary, since  instinctively they would return to their birth stream.

Another major problem hatcheries face is that once artificially-grown salmon are released, they still have to face the same problems that confront wild salmon. These challenges include water pollution, degraded habitats, high water temperatures, predators and overfishing. However, the salmon who mature on the farm have no prior experience on how to handle these threats, which is one reason they face very low survival rates. Overall, these artificial salmon are not considered as “fit” for survival, nor do they have the ability to adapt to the environment in which they are released because they grew up on a farm.

USFWS Fish Transfer to Little White Salmon NFH (19239836984).jpgFigure 2. The raceways where salmon are kept at Little White Salmon National Fish Hatchery in Washington State. (Creative Commons)

In the 1980’s fisheries moved towards a more “ecosystem-management” approach. They began conserving wild, naturally spawning stocks, as well as hatchery-bred fish. Yet, the overbearing problem with this method was that if hatchery-bred fish were to mate with wild fish, it could cause genetic and ecological damage.

A shift has been made towards utilizing “supplementation facilities”, a more natural, albeit artificial environment for raising the fish that includes shade, rocks, sand, and various debris typical of their natural habitat. This natural approach allows the salmon somewhat “ready” for the wild. The idea behind this technique is that after the salmon are released into streams and spend time in the ocean, they know to return to that tributary to spawn, instead of the hatchery. While this method has increased the number of adult salmon returning to spawn, it still bears the negative possibility of genetically compromising the remaining gene pool of the wild fish.

Besides the genetic problems faced with breeding artificial salmon alongside with wild salmon, breeding solely within hatcheries can also ultimately lead to inbreeding depression. This results in the salmon having a reduced biological fitness that limits their survival due to breeding related individuals. Additionally, artificial selection and genetic modification by fish farms can also cause reduced fitness in reproductive success, swimming endurance and predator avoidance. Another reason farmed salmon are not as “fit” as wild salmon is due to the treatment they receive in the hatchery. The food salmon are fed is not healthy for them – its main purpose is to make them grow faster. This forced rapid growth can lead to numerous health problems.

Diseases experienced in fish farms are also experienced in the wild. They occur naturally and are caused by pathogens such as bacteria, viruses and parasites. What exacerbates disease in a fish farm is overcrowding, which makes it fairly easy for the disease to spread throughout the hatchery. Specifically with viral infections, those who may not show symptoms of disease can be carriers of the virus and transmit further, whether in the farm or after their release into the wild. Consequently, once they are transported and deposited across river basins to be released, these diseases then go on to affect wild salmon with no immunity to the disease they have acquired. This decline in wild salmon has also caused declining effects in their predator populations, such as bears, orcas and eagles.

John Day Dam Fish Ladder.jpg Figure 3. The fish ladder at John Day Dam in Washington State. (Creative Commons)

Along with all the negatives that come with farm fish, the high production from hatcheries eliminates the need to regulate commercial and recreational harvest. So, because of the production from hatcheries, overfishing continues. Hatcheries have become a main source of economic wealth because they provide for the commercial harvests, as well as local harvests. A permanent and sustainable solution to combat the decline of wild salmon populations remains to be found. This problem continues to revolve around the construction and use of hydroelectric dams which provide the main source for electricity in the region; greatly reduce flood risks; and store water for drinking and irrigation.

The concept that hatcheries are compensating for the loss of fish populations caused by human activity is said by some to be like a way to “cover tracks” for past wrongdoings because it does nothing to help the naturally wild salmon at all. Hatcheries are only a temporary solution to combat the decline of the salmon population.

Jones_070615_BC_3097.jpgFish and river steward on the Salmo River

What we really need is an increase of spawning in wild salmon and to ensure that they have a way to survive the dams as they make their way to sea. Reforestation and protection of small spawning streams is one part of the solution. A more permanent, albeit partial, solution would be to find a way to advance the electricity industry reducing the need for hydropower. Until we find a way to make this happen, hatcheries seem to be a helpful way to continue to support the salmon-based livelihoods, as well as human food needs and preferences. Unfortunately, hatcheries do nothing to help the current situation of wild anadromous salmon in the Columbia River Basin.

In April of this year, the Lake Roosevelt Forum in Spokane WA outlined a 3-phase investigation into reintroducing salmon and steelhead to the Upper Columbia River Basin in both the US and Canada. In March 2016, Phase 1 began, dealing with the planning and feasibility of possible reintroduction. The study, expected to be released in 2018, concerns habitat and possible donor stock for reestablishing runs. All work on the studies are mostly complete and are predicted to be suitable for hundreds to thousands, or even millions of salmon. Forty subpopulations of salmon species have been identified and ranked for feasibility, including the Sockeye, Summer/Fall Chinook, Spring Chinook, Coho and Steelhead. The Confederated Tribe of the Colville Reservation stated they are waiting for one last permit from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Then they can begin the second phase of the decades-long research process using pilot fish release this fall.

Jones_110912_WA_2832-2.jpgChinook hatchery salmon underwater

Phase Two will be the first time salmon have returned to the upper Columbia River Basin in almost 80 years. This blockage came from the completion of the Grand Coulee Dam in the late 1930’s and Chief Joseph Dam in 1955. The Confederation Tribes of the Colville Reservation fish managers plan to truck these salmon around the dam, since constructing a fish ladder would be too costly. Funding currently comes from tribes and federal agencies. Possible additional funding may come from the Environment and Climate Change Canada and the renegotiation of Columbia River Transboundary Treaty.

Renegotiations of the 1964 Columbia River Transboundary Treaty between the United States and Canada is currently underway. The first meeting took place in Washington D.C. on May 29 and 30, 2018. Just weeks ago the U.S. emphasized their stance on continuing careful management of flood risks and providing a reliable and economical power source while recognizing ecosystem concerns. The next meeting will take place in British Columbia on August 15 and 16, 2018. However,  tribes are not pleased with their exclusion from negotiating teams. Tribes excluded consist of the Columbia Basin’s Native American tribes, primarily in Washington, Oregon and Idaho, and First Nation tribes in British Columbia, Canada.

Jones_070614_BC_0372.jpgMural of human usage of salmon in British Columbia

NWNL Director’s Addendum re: a just-released study: Aquaculture production of farmed fish is bigger than yields of wild-caught seafood and is growing by about 6% per year, yielding 75 million tons of seafood.  While it is a very resource-efficient way to produce protein and improve global nutrition and food security, concerns are growing about the sustainability of feeding wild “forage fish,” (eg: anchovies, herring and sardines) to farmed fish so they will grow better and faster. These small fish are needed prey for seabirds, marine mammals and larger fish like salmon. A June 14 study suggests soy might be a more sustainable alternative to grinding fishmeal for farmed seafood and livestock.

Bibliography:

Close, David. U.S. Department of Energy, accessed June 5, 18 by BE, website
Northwest Power and Conservation Council, accessed June 12, 18 by BE, website
Animal Ethics, accessed June 12, 18 by BE, website
Aquaculture, accessed June 12, 18 by BE, website
Luyer, Jeremy. PNAS, accessed on June 12, 18 by BE, website
Simon, David. MindBodyGreen, accessed on June 14 by BE, website
Kramer, Becky. The Spokesman-Review, accessed on June 14, 18 by BE, website
Harrison, John. Northwest Power and Conservation Council, accessed on June 14, 18 by BE, website
Schwing, Emily. Northwest News Network, accessed on June 14, 18 by BE, website
Office of the Spokesperson. U.S. Department of State, accessed on June 14, 18 by BE, website
 The Columbia Basin Weekly Fish and Wildlife News Bulletin, accessed on June 14, 18 by BE, website

Unless otherwise noted, all photos © Alison M. Jones.

Agua es Vida

By Connie Bransilver for NWNL
(Edited by Alison Jones, NWNL Director)

Photographs by Connie Bransilver

Connie is a Founding Senior Fellow at International League of Conservation Photographers (iLCP, NWNL’s Fiscal Sponsor). She  recently returned to her native New Mexico from Naples, FL. Connie has been a professional nature photographer for 26 years, working in all seven continents. Her major work has been with rare lemurs in Madagascar, and human-wildlife interactions throughout Indonesia. See more of her work on her website.

IMG_6579 Rio Grande north of Montano.jpgRio Grande north of Montano, New Mexico

Throughout the middle Rio Grande Basin acequias (ditches) and the public paths on either side, connect neighbors, knit communities, irrigate agricultural fields in season, and are now caught in a Gordian Knot of rights to scarce water. Their cultural and social significance for traditional Hispanic and tribal communities are deep. But after the mid 1800s, when the United States acquired the southwest from Mexico, the value of water, always scarce, ran counter to those values.

Understanding the centrality of the acequias in traditional agrarian life along the Rio Grande is understanding the dependence of Native American, Spanish and eventually, even Anglo lives in honoring, beneficially using, and exploiting the waters. Traditionally, acequias provided water for all uses, along with communal obligations for their care and maintenance. They endure because of “querencia,” meaning attachment to place and respect for the land, nature and the miraculous water that sustains body, mind and spirit. The questions of who, if anyone, owns the rights to what water usage has split villages and cultures, and clogged courtrooms for hundreds of years.

IMG_4314 Acequia path dogwalker.jpgAcequia path dog-walker 

Rio Grande headwaters lie in the San Juan Mountains of southern Colorado. Passing through New Mexico the Rio Grande trickles along 1,885 miles into the Gulf of Mexico, creating the Texas-Mexico border and making the Rio Grande the fourth longest river system in North America. Agua es Vida; so custody battles between Colorado, California, the Navajo Nation, pueblos along the river, burgeoning cities (like Albuquerque), and dams (like Elephant Butte holding water for Texas and Mexico) result in traditions butting against new laws and regulations, and fierce court battles without clear resolution.  Demands grow as water becomes increasingly scarce.

Once alive and sacred, the Rio Grande formed the centerpiece of the Puebloan world. Wide, muddy, meandering, shifting braids of water, sometimes drying to a trickle, other times widening into a broad swamp (or cienega), taking homes and fields hostage, are now harnessed by technology, governed by an elaborate web of laws and uses for economic growth.  Therein lies the essential conflict: competing claims challenging ownership of the flow.

IMG_4358 Weir open for flow.jpgWeir open for flow

The first Spaniards reached the middle Rio Grande around 1541, but did not find the gold they sought. Instead they found, and used, the natives who suffered at their hands until the Pueblo Revolt of 1680. By 1692 Spain had sent armed soldiers, settlers (including, we now know, many Jewish “conversos” fleeing the Inquisition) and priests to tame the Indians.  With Juan de Oñate and his men came the systems of acequias and land rights via massive land grants from the King and Queen of Spain to secure settlement. Foreign to the native populations living along the river, this Iberian mastery of controlling and distributing water was rooted in the Moorish occupation of Iberia, and also in ancient Rome and the Middle East. Native Americans had instead lived with the rhythms of the river, never aiming to master it. Those who survived, and whose pueblos remained viable, soon adopted the network of acequias to maintain their agriculture, still based on the golden triangle of corn, beans and squash that provide a nearly complete human diet while simultaneously regenerating the soil.  Spanish recipients of huge land grants applied their own brand of subsistence agriculture. Both communities honored the land and the water.

IMG_4359 Acequia, paths and adobe home.jpgAcequia, paths and adobe home

Spain yielded to Mexico, then Mexico lost this land to the United States in 1847 in the Mexican-American War.  Then followed a wave of Anglos arriving from the East who sought fortune. They also brought a profound ignorance of the indigenous, irrigation-based culture that had sustained this fragile land for centuries.

Now the mighty Rio Grande’s life-giving waters are shrinking. Warmer winters yield less moisture, increasingly delivered as rain rather than snow in the headwaters. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change notes that the San Juan Mountains are “at the bull’s eye of the future drought region.”1 While Anglo technocrats consider the acequias as anachronisms, the acequias have recently joined into a state-wide umbrella organization to push back against unrestricted transfers of water rights.  In this part of the world, water rights, or the right to use water transfer separately from surface rights.

IMG_4323 Weir releasing irrigation water.jpgWeir releasing irrigation water 

And what of the competing needs for water? Increasingly the courts are looking at Queen Isabella’s 1492 will, forming the basis of Pueblo, Spanish and Mexican claims to water. The 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo officially ended the war with Mexico, acquired Nuevo Mexico and other lands in the West, and honored existing claims to water that were in place at the time. Those rights extend back to the 1492 will. Thus the claims to precious water in the Middle Rio Grande — between Cochiti Dam to the north and Elephant Butte Dam to the south, where half the state’s population resides — may ultimately be defined by that 500-year-old Spanish document.

In the meantime, my village, Los Ranchos, and all the adjacent villages along the Middle Rio Grande, share the pathways and rural culture of the web of acequias. Neighbors greet neighbors and work together to maintain the water flow – Hispanics, Anglos, Indians and all the mixtures among them. Questions about how the river can meet all the demands of its people might even be turned around. Maybe current residents value the agricultural ambiance and natural environment supported by the water and the acequia systems more than continued growth. A broader conversation on the value of water might begin now.

IMG_6578 Rio Grande north of Montano from balloon.jpgRio Grande north of Montano from balloon

Footnotes

 

  1. Reining in the Rio Grande – People, Land and Water, Fred M Phillips, G. Emlen Hall, Mary E. Black. University of New Mexico Press, 2011.

Other Sources

Iberian Origins of New Mexico’s Community Acequias, Jose A. Rivera, University of New Mexico and Thomas F. Glick, Boston University. NewMexicoHistory.org.
Prior-appropriation water rights,” Wikipedia.
“New Mexico files counterclaim in water suit: Texas accused of mismanaging water, hurting farmers in NM,” Michael Coleman, Albuquerque Journal Washington Bureau, Albuquerque Journal, May 24, 2018.

 

Soil and Water: An Intro

By Jillian Madocs, NWNL Research Intern
(Edited by Alison Jones, NWNL Director)

 

This blog begins a NWNL series on how soil impacts water quality and availability.  Our research intern Jillian Madocs is a Siena College senior studying  Environmental Studies & Community Development.  Her next NWNL focus will be on urban water issues. 

Jones_130521_IA_3205.jpgStewardship in Cedar Falls, Iowa – Mississippi River Basin

Soil is a critical element of our watersheds – and the hero of agriculture. As a holding pen for seeds and roots, soil gives life to the plants that dwell in it; provides nutrients to local flora; and is home to millions of organisms, from burrowing insects to grazing livestock. Now more than ever, the agricultural industry is booming. Yet we must carefully consider the impacts of today’s increasing demands by growing populations around the world for more food, water and farmland.

Over 70% of our freshwater usage is attributed to farming, per the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, et al.  As we face increasingly severe droughts, disappearing glaciers and groundwater depletion, farmers will need to find enough water to irrigate their crops and support livestock.  Soil quality and farming practices will play a highly critical role in ensuring water security for the future.  Farmers are critical to helping protect our finite water supplies, since they can creating greater water retention within our soils, plant more drought-tolerant crops, and change other agricultural practices that waste water.  

Jones_110729_NJ_0104.jpgCorn growing in New Jersey – Raritan River Basin

With proper care, soil can support farming with minimum degradation. To sustainably produce crop yields needed for future generations, soil must receive the same amount of scientific attention and protection as that given to crops or livestock. Taking over the remaining headwater forests that fill our rivers to create more fields and applying more chemicals are not sustainable answers.

To maintain prosperity, avoid famine and ensure long-term sustainability, the agricultural sector must reduce its consumption of water by reassessing its very foundation –  soil. Unfortunately, the pressure for greater profits and agricultural yields has led to unsustainable farming practices and water usage. Current practices also severely diminish biodiversity within the soil, as well as the variety of livestock and plants produced. As a result, farmers and consumers alike are suffering economic losses and our foods are less nutritious. Our global food security is being threatened.1

Jones_160211_K_0022.jpgPeter Kihui’s Kickstart pedal pump waters his veggies, Kenya – Mara River Basin

Endangerment of agronomy aside, it is clear these problems impact much larger systems –  the water cycle, global biodiversity, national economic health, and human livelihood. If unsustainable agricultural practices are continued, farmers will seriously limit their future options. Thus, farmers must study and reconsider their land-management and food production practices. Today’s preventive measures are tomorrow’s solutions.

A NWNL blog series this summer will share agricultural innovations that increase water retention in farming soils and promote sustainability.  Guest bloggers will contribute insights on how soil management and sustainable farming can protect the health of our rivers and availability of freshwater. These blogs will also discuss regenerative agriculture, no-till farming, biochar application, vegetation strips and and the use of rotating and cover crops. These practices and technologies are designed to improve water conservation, and simultaneously provide carbon sequestration, restoration of soil biodiversity and increased crop yields.

Jones_130519_IA_8444.jpgDairy cows on an Iowa farm – Mississippi River Basin

Topics to be addressed by future NWNL blogs:

Regenerative Agriculture: This holistic approach to farming maintains the integrity of the land, while  also promoting healthy soils, greater yields and environmental vitality.2 This organic approach can restore and enhance soil’s natural ability to store carbon.3 This can reverse the impacts of over-planting crops in diminishing natural carbon sequestration to minimal time for the soil to recuperate. Regenerative agriculture offers a multi-pronged solution to the ever-growing problems of climate change, water scarcity and increasing food needs.

No-Till Farming: This technique conserves nutrients in the soil without the use of chemicals. Traditional tilling repeatedly turns the earth at least 8 to 12 inches deep. Loosening the soil this way allows water and oxygen to reach difficult-to-access plant roots.4 However, tilling, or plowing, breaks up the soil structure, leaving a perforated top layer resting on a hard pan that becomes deeply compressed over time. As learned during the US Dust Bowl, that encourages wind erosion and loss of valuable soil. No-till farming prevents this by planting seeds a few inches into the soil and letting organic materials to do the work that a plow would otherwise do.5 By  not interfering with the soil prior to planting seeds, more nutrients and organic elements are available to the plants. Thus, chemical fertilizers need not be applied.

Jones_140517_ID_1824.jpgPlowing Idaho farmland – Snake River Basin

Biochar: For centuries, some of the world’s indigenous farmers understood that “fine-grained, highly-porous charcoal helps soils retain nutrients and water.”6 Carbon-rich and comprised of agricultural waste, biochar is highly resistant to decomposition, thus an ideal additive to soils. This product has many benefits from local to global scales. Biochar increases soil biodiversity, improves crop diversity, enhances food security in at-risk areas and increases water quality and quantity. Furthermore, biochar combats climate change by creating “pools” that sequester carbon in the soil from hundreds to thousands of years. Thus biochar has the capacity to make soil systems “carbon-negative” and ultimately help reduce excess carbon emissions into the atmosphere.7

Vegetation Strips:  Runoff pollution and soil loss can be controlled with buffering and filtering strips of land covered with permanent vegetation.8 These barriers prevent soil from being carried away, thereby reducing field, riverbank and shoreline erosion.  They also prevent excess sediment from collecting in bodies of water.  Vegetative strips also collect pollution, pathogens, and excessively-applied chemical nutrients before they reach and impair ditches, rivers, ponds and lakes.9 These filters are valuable water-quality improvement agents that maintain soil integrity, especially in regions with loess soil found in Iowa and Washington’s Palouse region. Dust Bowl analyses revealed the critical need for creating vegetation strips and trees as “windbreaks” to reduce erosion and drying winds.  Yet, modern agriculture  has removed many such “green” barriers, to gain a bit more acreage for planting their crops.  Hopefully this trend will be reversed.

Jones_030728_K_0339.jpgProtective vegetative strips in Kenya wheat fields – Mara River Basin

Crop Rotation: Even the simplest of vegetable gardens can be kept healthy through successive seasons if plants are switched around to different sections. Such rotation helps prevent disease and insect infestation, while also balancing and enhancing nutrients.10 For example, a plot with carrots, then cucumbers, and maybe lettuce planted in succeeding years deprive diseases and parasitic insects of long-term host sites. Additionally, soils dried out by particularly water-thirsty crops can regain their moisture balance with planned rotation.11

Cover Crops: Often called “green manure,” grasses, legumes, and herbs planted to control erosion can also increase moisture and nutrient content, improve soil structure, provide habitat for beneficial, bio-diverse organisms, and much more.12  Because vegetables so quickly deplete, dry out and otherwise stress the soil,13 restorative practices are essential to ensure the soil’s optimal performance.  Cover crops are used to improve soil health – and they also beautify gardens!14

Jones_170614_NE_3864-2.jpgPivot irrigation in Nebraska where it was invented – Platte River Basin

Agriculture is a major industry that ties together global needs for food and water. Thus, it is obvious that we must support the soil that produces our crops and consumes ¾ of our entire water supply.  Regenerative agricultural practices promise a balance between productive and healthy land, as well as between new technologies and common sense.  Robust soil means better produce, thriving organisms, less water consumption, and healthy watersheds. Without good soil, the food chain collapses and our ecosystems suffer. As more restorative farming practices are adopted, the future improves, especially for large-scale agriculture. This NWNL blog series will focus on how large- and small-scale agriculture can help solve global water scarcity by caring for the soil.

Jones_170616_NE_5022.jpgDouble rainbow over a Nebraska crop field – Missouri River Basin

Sources:

1. http://www.regenerationinternational.org/2015/10/16/linking-agricultural-biodiversity-and-food-security-the-valuable-role-of-agrobiodiversity-for-sustainable-agriculture/
2.  http://www.regenerationinternational.org/why-regenerative-agriculture/
3. http://rodaleinstitute.org/assets/RegenOrgAgricultureAndClimateChange_20140418.pdf
4.  https://www.motherearthnews.com/homesteading-and-livestock/no-till-farming-zmaz84zloeck
5.  https://morningchores.com/no-till-gardening/
6.  http://www.biochar-international.org/biochar
7. http://biochar.pbworks.com/w/page/9748043/FrontPage
8.  http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/publications/waters/buffer_strips.pdf
9. http://anrcatalog.ucanr.edu/pdf/8195.pdf
10.  https://www.todayshomeowner.com/vegetable-garden-crop-rotation-made-easy/
11.  https://bonnieplants.com/library/rotating-vegetable-crops-for-garden-success/
12.  https://plants.usda.gov/about_cover_crops.html
13. http://covercrop.org/why-cover-crops
14.  https://www.motherearthnews.com/organic-gardening/cover-crops-improve-soil-zmaz09onzraw

All photos © Alison M. Jones.

Small but Critical / Our Invertebrates

This blog contains several references to invertebrates in northern Kenya’s Lake Turkana Basin, the arid terminus of Ethiopia’s Omo River and world’s largest desert lake.  Within this “Cradle of Humankind,” species continually adapt, as explained in our NWNL Interview with Dino Martins, entomologist at Turkana Basin Institute.

Animal species in our watersheds quietly enhance and protect the health of our water resources.  Yet, rarely do we give our fauna – from wolves to woodpeckers – enough credit. This is especially true of our smaller invertebrate species, which include butterflies, bees, beetles, spiders, worms, starfish, crabs and mollusks.  Invertebrates span the globe in habitats ranging from streams, forests, prairies, and deserts to lakes, gardens and even glaciers. Sadly, these unsung heroes are often called “pests.”

Jones_031026_ARG_0471.jpgInvertebrate atop Perito Moreno Glacier, Argentina

Invertebrates are defined by their lack of backbone, yet ironically, they are “the backbone” of our land- and water-based ecosystems.  Comprising 95-97% of animal species, they keep our ecosystems healthy; and although spineless, they are a critical base of the food chains for many species, from fish to humans.  Fly fishermen carefully study the macro-invertebrates in their streams and rivers before choosing lures of mayflies, worms and caddisflies that appear in different stages, in different seasons, on different streams.

Invertebrates benefit our world in numerous ways:

  • pollination – of fruit, grain, and native plants
  • seed dispersal – a job shared with birds  
  • recycling of waste, nutrients and food for other species, including humans
  • production of nectar and honey as a healing resource and immunity booster
  • purification of water and the environment
  • creation of reefs by mollusks, especially oysters
  • being useful research specimens (Think of fruit flies in biology class…)

One of the most valuable contributions of invertebrates is the pollination of our orchards and fields by bees and bumblebees.  Without this, human food sources would be quickly and greatly diminished. Bees also pollinate riverine vegetation needed to retain water and prevent erosion. It is as simple as “No bees – No vegetation – No water!”  

Jones_090615_NJ_0817.jpgHoney bee pollinating spring blooms in Raritan River Basin, NJ

Ancient and contemporary Mayans have known that invertebrates are the foundation of the living world. Thus mosaics of mosquitoes, still today in Guatemala, are the symbolic woven foundations of women’s huipiles (blouses).  Worldwide, mosquitoes and macro invertebrates provide food for other invertebrates, notably juvenile fish – locally called “cradle fish” – in northern Kenya’s Lake Turkana gulfs and bays.

However, Lake Turkana fish populations have been greatly reduced recently due to overfishing and upstream Ethiopian dams.  Fortunately, the Lake Turkana invertebrate bee population’s honey production has provided a needed alternative source of calories.  Fewer fish, combined with drought-afflicted livestock and maize, have led the Turkana people to turn to bee-keeping as their new livelihood.  

Jones_130114_K_9644.jpg     Jones_130115_K_0027.jpg
Honey production by CABESI a nonprofit in Kapenguria Kenya

Author Sue Stolberger describes another oft-overlooked role of  invertebrates in her Tanzanian guidebook. She explains that many invertebrates are “expert at natural waste disposal. Beetle larvae dispose of leaf litter. Maggots, blowflies and others play a role in the disposal of carrion; and dung beetles dispose of excrement, which cleans up the excreta and fertilizes the soil.”  [Stolberger, p 197.]

In tidal estuaries, purification of water by mollusks is much cheaper route to addressing pollution than governmental SuperFund Site cleanups.  Oysters very effectively filter our rivers and bays. Today the New York-New Jersey Harbor & Estuary Program is reintroducing oysters into the Hudson and Raritan Bays to clean those waters and stabilize their shorelines and riverbanks.  [See NWNL Blog on Oyster Restoration in Raritan Bay by NY-NJ Baykeeper]

jones_050323_arg_0021.jpg
A “living wall” of oyster shells in the South Atlantic

Few people are aware of the endurance and numbers of invertebrates.  The dragonfly story is amazing. Known for accomplished gliding and crossing oceans, dragonflies form one of the world’s largest migrations.  Due to their large numbers, they’re among the most ecologically important insects and are voracious consumers of mosquitoes, worms, crustaceans and even small fish.  Kenyan entomologist Dino Martins explained to NWNL that dragonflies are also great bio-indicators of ecosystems’ health. The presence or absence of “different types of dragonflies and/or macroinvertebrates [that] tolerate different stream conditions and levels of pollution… indicates clean or polluted water.” [Utah State University]  

Jones_090906_NJ_1634.jpg

Shimmering dragonflies and damselflies, butterflies and even snails have inspired beautiful art, poetry and other creative expressions.  In Japan, generations of haiku authors have compressed the unique qualities of these special creatures into 17 concise syllables, as in this by Issa:

The night was hot… stripped to the waist the snail enjoyed the moonlight

                             —The Four Seasons:  Japanese Haiku.  NY: The Peter Pauper Press, 1958.

Even the descriptive names given to our butterflies evoke a sense of poetry: Pearl Crescent, Red Admiral, Question Mark, Mourning Cloak, Silver Spotted Skipper….  Seeing the opalescent Mother of Pearl Butterfly (Protogoniomorpha parhassus) and the electric Blue Pansy Butterfly (Junonia oenone oenone) in Kenyan forests could turn anyone into a lepidopterist and an artist.

Mother-of-pearl_Butterfly_(Protogoniomorpha_parhassus)_(8368125628).jpgMother of Pearl Butterfly (Creative Commons)

Despite these valuable attributes, invertebrates are slapped at; often seen as bothersome and unwanted; and most dangerously, ignored in environmental policies and land use practices.  Sadly, we now have many at-risk species: from bumble bees to tiger beetles and butterflies. Caddisflies that live solely in one stream are becoming extinct. To understand their role in stream ecosystems, talk to a fly-fisherman or visit a riverside tackle shop.  

On land, herbicides are sprayed in fields and along our roadsides through the summer, killing large swaths of milkweed, the sole food of monarch butterflies.  In Michoacan Mexico, the winter retreat for all monarchs east of the Mississippi, illegal deforestation now leaves tens of thousands of monarchs frozen to death annually.  Their small pale carcasses silently pile up on the ground where there used to be dense oyamel pine forests protecting them from freezing temperatures.

Jones_040122_MX_0291.jpg
When frozen, monarchs fall to the ground, folding their wings as they die 

The biggest threat to invertebrates is the loss of native habitat to development and agriculture.  Native bugs, butterflies, beetles and bees need native wildflowers. Flying insects in the US Midwest now lack the succession of wildflowers since midwestern prairies have been reduced to mere fragments, called “remnant prairies.” In 2013, entomologist Dino Martins told NWNL, “Farmers need to understand why leaving a little space for nature isn’t a luxury, but a necessity for productive, sustainable agriculture.”  

The importance of wildflower habitat for invertebrates was publicized in the 1970’s by Lady Bird Johnson, wife of former President Lyndon Johnson, and actress Helen Hayes..  Now many municipalities, organizations and gardening groups are publicizing the importance of replanting native wildflowers (milkweed for monarchs!) and eliminating invasive species.  Farmers, land managers, environmental regulatory agencies, park managers and home gardeners need to become more aware. They can help protect the soil and water quality of our rivers, streams, ponds, wetlands in many ways.  Funding for that research is critical, as is promoting citizen-science training programs. We can all pitch in to weed out invasive species if we learn what to look for.

Jones_080810_BC_6882.jpgSignage identifying invasive species in British Columbia

Small critter stewardship is growing.  There is good news.  The use of “Integrated Pest Management” and reduction of pesticides and herbicides is spreading; awareness of the consequences of killing our invertebrates grows.  Commercial and small farmers are learning to supply water in their fields for bees so they don’t waste energy looking for rivers. The Endangered Species Act supports the many organizations resisting the overuse of chemicals and unregulated land development.  

  • NYC Butterfly Group uses citizen scientist to map NYC’s butterfly distribution.
  • Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation [www.xerces.org), begun in 1971 trains farmers and land managers to save forest, prairie, desert and river habitat for these invertebrates via newsletters, books, guidelines, fact sheets and identification guides.  
  • National Wildflower Research Center,founded by Lady Bird Johnson in Texas, preserves N. American native plants and natural landscape
  • BuzzAboutBees.Net  www.buzzaboutbees.net/why-are-invertebrates-important.html website offers in-depth facts and advice on bees and bumblebees, as well as books, advice on stings and best garden practices.

It is time for us all to identify and weed out invasive species; help monitor monarch migrations; support local land trusts preserving open space; and advocate for more wildflower preserves.  Baba Dioum, a Senegalese ecologist wrote, “In the end, we will conserve only what we love. We will only love what we understand. We will understand only what we are taught.”

Jones_100522_NJ_1065.jpgA caddisfly in the hand of a New Jersey fisherman 

SOURCES

The Four Seasons: Japanese Haiku.  NY: The Peter Pauper Press, 1958.
Stolberger, Sue. Ruaha National Park:  An Intimate View: A field guide to the common trees, flowers and small creatures of central Tanzania.  Iringa TZ: Jacana Media, 2012.
“What Are Aquatic Macroinvertebrates?” Utah State University Extension. www.extension.usu.edu/waterquality/learnaboutsurfacewater/propertiesofwater/aquaticmacros, accessed 4/30/18

All photos © Alison M. Jones.

 

Buzz Numbers

By NWNL Director, Alison Jones

As NWNL plans its website redo (to launch this fall), we envision “Buzz Numbers” on the home page.  What?  Well, “Buzz Numbers,” are our Project Manager Sarah’s take-off on “buzz words.”  Just another great tool to quickly project complex concepts.  So, while in that mode, here’s a NWNL BLOG with 0 references to specific watersheds and just 1 URL link. The Buzz Numbers below refer to values of, or impacts on, all rivers and streams in the Americas or East Africa, the 2 regions where NWNL case-study watersheds are located.

Jones_160319_CA_1544.jpgDrought in California, 2016

BUZZ NUMBERS for The Americas

  • 13%: The Americas’ share of world’s human population
  • >50%: Share of Americans with a water security problem
  • 50%: Decrease in renewable freshwater available per person since 1960s
  • 200-300%: Increase in human ecological footprint since 1960s
  • >95%: Tall grass prairies lost to human activity since pre-European settlement
  • >50%: US wetlands lost (90% in agricultural regions) since European settlement
  • 15–60%: American drylands habitat lost between 2000 and 2009
  • 5 million hectares [3.7 million acres]: Great Plains grassland lost from 2014 to 2015
  • $24.3 trillion: terrestrial nature’s annual economic contribution (=GDP)
    Jones_080530_WY_1866.jpgGrey Wolf in Yellowstone National Park, 2008

Projections for 2050 in the Americas

  • 20%: expected population increase (to 1.2 billion) by 2050
  • +/-100%: expected growth in GDP by 2050, driving biodiversity loss if ‘business as usual’ continues
  • 40%: loss of biodiversity expected by 2050 if climate change continues
———-
Jones_040828_ET_0050.jpgVillagers in Lalibela, Ethiopia with erosion in foreground, 2004

BUZZ NUMBER Trends / Data for Africa

  • +/- 500,000: km2 [123 million acres] degraded by deforestation, unsustainable agriculture, overgrazing, uncontrolled mining activities, invasive alien species and climate change – causing soil erosion, salinization, pollution, and loss of vegetation or soil fertility
  • +/- 62%: rural population using wild nature for survival (the most of any continent)
  • +/- 2 million km2 [494 million acres]: land designated as protected
  • 25%: Sub-Saharans suffering hunger and malnutrition (2011–2013) in the world’s most food-deficient region
Jones_130118_K_1688.jpgCommercial fisherman preparing to sell in Nairobi, 2013

Economic Values of Nature’s Contributions East Africans

  • $1.2 billion: annual inland fishery value added
  • $16,000: annual food production per km2 [247 acres
  • $12,000: annual forest carbon sequestration per km2 (247 acres])
  • $11,000: annual erosion control per km2 [247 acres]

All our Buzz Number stats come from the Appendix of an ISPBES Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services March 2018 Report, sponsored by UN

Jones_120125_K_5464.jpgWoman collecting water from spring in Mau Forest, Kenya, 2012

 

All photos © Alison M. Jones.

What We’re Reading #1

Introducing a new semi-regular blog series: What We’re Reading!  For two months this winter, our NWNL Director Alison Jones was in Kenya. Among the many interviews and trips to the Omo and Mara River Basins, Alison was also busy reading during this expedition. The goal of this new blog series is to share the books NWNL reads and give you ideas of books to read about our watersheds!

Ruaha National Park: An Intimate View

ruahanationalpark.jpgWritten by Alison’s new acquaintance Sue Stolberger, this is the first field guide to trees, flowers and small creatures found in Ruaha National Park, and surrounding Central Tanzania. While not part of one of NWNL’s watersheds, flora and fauna within Ruaha National Park are very similar to that of Tanzania’s Serengeti National Park that is within the Mara River Basin.

 

 

 

 

 

Rivergods: Exploring the World’s Great Wild Riversrivergods.jpg

In this wonderfully photographed book, Richard Bangs & Christian Kallen raft down rivers across the globe. The first chapter covers the Omo River in Ethiopia, one of NWNL’s case-study watersheds, which the book calls the “River of Life.”

 

 

 

 

Ethiopia: The Living Churches of an Ancient Kingdom

livingchurches.jpg

Nigel Pavitt, an informal advisor to NWNL on the Nile and Omo River Basins and Carol Beckwith a friend of NWNL Director Alison Jones are two of the photographers for this stunning large-format book tracing art, culture, ecclesiastical history and legend in Ethiopia’s Blue Nile River Basin.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Web Design: Make Your Website a Success

webdesign.jpg

Finally, NWNL would like to make a special announcement:  we are re-designing our website!  In preparation for that,  Alison  read a helpful book by Sean McManus on easy steps to designing websites. Simultaneously, a team of experts were working with our Project Manager in our NYC office, so the process is already underway.  By the end of summer we will unveil our new website!

Day Zero – A Water Warning

By Stephanie Sheng for No Water No Life (NWNL)
Edited by NWNL Director, Alison Jones

Stephanie Sheng is a passionate strategist for environmental and cultural conservation. Having worked in private and commercial sectors, she now uses her branding and communications expertise to drive behavior change that will help protect our natural resources. Inspired by conservation photographers, The Part We Play is her current project.  Her goal is to find how best to engage people and encourage them to take action. 

Misc-Pollution.jpg

I was horrified when I first heard the news from South Africa of Cape Town’s water crisis and impending ‘Day Zero’ – the day their taps would run dry. Originally forecasted for April 16, then pushed out to May, the apocalyptic-sounding day has now successfully been pushed out to next year. Had Day Zero remained slated for April or May, Cape Town would have been the first major city to run out of water. Although postponed, the threat still remains, and thus restrictions on water usage to 13.2 gallons (50 liters) per day for residents and visitors. Water rationing and a newly-heightened awareness around water use is now the new, legally-enforced normal in Cape Town.

Two things struck me as I read about this situation. First, the seemingly unthinkable felt very close. My visit to Cape Town a few years ago reminded me of San Francisco, my home before New York. Suddenly I was reading that this seemingly-similar city was on the brink of having no water coming out of their taps. As that hit me, I considered what modern, urban life would be like when water is scarce.

ClimateChange-ColumbiaBC.jpgCape Town’s restriction of 13.2 gal (50 L) per day is miniscule in comparison to the 39.6 gal (150 L) per day used by the average UK consumer[1] and the 79.3 to 99 gal (300 to 375 L) per day used by the average US consumer.[2] Unsurprisingly, Cape Town had to undergo drastic changes. It is now illegal to wash a car or fill a swimming pool. Hotel televisions blare messages to guests to take short 90-second showers. Washroom taps are shut off in restaurants and bars. Signs around bathroom stalls say, “If it’s yellow, let it mellow.” Hand sanitizer is now the normal method of hand cleaning.WASH-Tanzania.jpgShocked by the harsh realities of what water shortage could look like here at home, I was inspired to walk through my day comparing my water habits to the new realities being faced by those in the Cape Town facing a severe crisis. I wanted to discover opportunities where I could cut back, even though I consider myself on the more conscious end of the usage spectrum.

Here is a breakdown of my average water usage per day while living and working in NY, based on faucets spewing 2.6 gal (10 L) per minute[3], and a toilet flush using 2.3 gal (9L).[4]

  • Faucet use for brushing teeth and washing face for 4 min/day: 6 gal (40L)
  • Faucet use for dish washing and rinsing food for 7 min/day:5 gal (70L)
  • Toilet flushes, 4/day: 5 gal (36 L)
  • Drinking water: 4 gal (1.5 L)
  • Showering for 9 min/day — 8 gal (90 L)

My water usage totaled roughly 62.8 gal (237.5 L) per day. That is lower than the average American’s usage, but still more than four times the new water rations for Capetonians!

Misc-NYC.jpg

Living in an urban city that isn’t facing an impending water shortage, it may be more difficult to control certain uses than others (e.g. not flushing the toilet at work). However, there are some simple, yet significant ways to lower our daily water use:

  • Turn off the faucet while you brush your teeth and wash your face.
  • Use the dishwasher instead of washing dishes by hand. Only run it when full.
  • Only run the laundry with full loads.
  • When showering, shut off the water while you soap up and shave. Put a time in your shower to remind you not to linger.
  • Recycle water when possible. If you need to wait for hot water from the faucet, capture the cold water and use it for pets, plants, hand washing clothes, and such.

VWC-Beef.jpg

Water use discussed thus far includes obvious personal contributors to our water footprint. But the biggest contributor is actually our diet. Agriculture accounts for roughly 80% of the world’s freshwater consumption[5]. Different foods vary greatly in the amount of water consumed in their growth and production. Meat, especially from livestock with long life cycles, contains a high “virtural water” content per serving. For example, 792.5 gal (3,000 L) of water are required for a ⅓ lb. beef burger[6] – representing four times as much water as required for the same amount of chicken. That virtual water content ratio is even greater when red meat is compared to vegetables.

We don’t have to become vegetarians, but we can cut down on meat and choose meats other than beef and lamb. That change alone would save hundreds of thousands of gallons (or liters) consumed in a year, which is much greater than the 18,069.4 gal (68,400 L) I’d save by reducing my current water usage to that of a Capetonian. Consideration of virtual water content offers some food for thought!

Sources

[1] BBC News
[2] United States Geological Survey
[3] US Green Building Council: Water Reduction Use
[4] US Green Building Council: Water Reduction Use
[5] Food Matters Environment Reports
[6] National Geographic
All images/”hydrographics” are © Alison Jones, No Water No Life®.
For more “hydrographics” visit our
website.