SPECIES INVASIONS: Water Hyacinth and Zebra Mussels

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

Bianca T. Esposito is a Syracuse University senior studying Biology and Economics. Her summer research for NWNL was on biodiversity and water resources. Her past NWNL blogs are:  Wild v Hatchery Salmon; Buffalo & Bison; Papyrus & Phragmites; & Deer & Elephants.

INTRODUCTION

Invasive species are those that threaten to overtake other species.  Whether flora or fauna, native or introduced, invasive species pose aggressive threats to the quality of lakes and ponds. “Introduced species” aren’t necessarily invasive; and “native species” can become invasive. Introduced species that are aggressive to the point of creating potential problems are termed “non-native invasives.” This blog discusses the impacts of two non-native invasive populations: water hyacinth (flora); and zebra mussels (fauna).  

TO WATER HYACINTH

Jones_110805_CAN_0498.jpgWater Hyacinth at the Montreal Botanical Garden, Canada. 

Water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) is a perennial, free-floating aquatic weed, native to South America’s Amazon River, but carried overseas for ornamental use. Today the water hyacinth is considered to be the “world’s worst aquatic weed.” This aggressive, invasive species spreads rapidly over entire surfaces of lakes and ponds and can double its coverage in just two weeks. Yet its ability to withstand drastic fluctuations in flow rates, acidity and low nutrient levels makes it a viable and popular water-garden plant.  

Since imported to North America in 1884, it has invaded the Columbia and Mississippi River Basins, two NWNL case-study watersheds. Also introduced into East Africa, it is present in three NWNL basins:  those of the Omo, Nile and Mara Rivers. Recorded in Egypt as early as the 1890’s, water hyacinth became a “plague” in the late 1900’s. River control schemes, such as dams, barrages and irrigation canals have encouraged its growth and spread. Furthermore, climate change, a combination of higher temperatures and CO₂ fertilization, is significantly increasing water hyacinth proliferation.

IMPACTS TO NATIVE RIVERINE SPECIES

On the positive side, water hyacinth cleans contaminated waters by absorbing large amounts of heavy metals into its tissue. However, once established, its degradation of waterways crowds out an ecosystem’s native species. Ergo, it becomes a “pest species.”

Jones_091002_TZ_1385Water Hyacinth with Papyrus in Masurua Swamp, Tanzania

On Mississippi River waterways, water hyacinth becomes a mesh of dense mats ─ some spanning hundreds of acres of water. These mats cluster and cause a chain reaction that block sunlight from reaching native submerged plants, deplete oxygen in the water and kill aquatic wildlife, including fish. Ultimately, these mats prevent the growth and abundance of phytoplankton and other rooted benthic, aquatic plants that rely on sunlight and release O2. This negatively impacts fisheries, since phytoplankton is the basis of many aquatic food webs.

Kenyan fishermen on Lake Victoria, source of the White Nile Basin, have seen a 45% decrease in fish-catch rates after water hyacinth mats blocked access to fishing grounds, and thus delay delivery to markets. These consequences have increased costs of fishing efforts and materials. This hurts all who rely on fishing, and decreases the quality of fish in local markets.

In sum, the presence of water hyacinth within water bodies means: No Sunlight – No Photosynthesis – No Oxygen – No Fish. Ultimately, through this chain reaction, water hyacinth destroys the native ecosystems it invades.

EXTENDED WATERSHED DAMAGE BY WATER HYACINTH

Jones_091003_TZ_2892.jpgWater Hyacinth with Papyrus in Masurua Swamp, Tanzania

─ Wind, water currents and boat traffic can break off pieces of water hyacinth mats that then  can drift or blow away into new territories.

─ In sub-freezing Mississippi River Basin winters, water hyacinth mats decompose and literally tons of dead plant matter sink at once to the bottom, creating shallower rivers after several years of this build-up.

─ Water hyacinth disrupts critical values and services by blocking boater access; impeding commercial and recreational boat navigation; reducing water flow; and interfering with hydroelectric power generation.

─ Water hyacinth also affects drainage and irrigation canals by clogging intake pumps and  reducing water flow. This causes floods and damage to canal banks. In recreational waters, water hyacinth invasion  negatively impacts anglers, water-skiers and swimmers.

WATER HYACINTH SOLUTIONS

Water hyacinth management costs are close to US$100 million/year in both the US and Africa. Thus, it is clear that prevention is the most effective and cheapest control.

Another approach is to control expansion. This is usually, but controversially, done with low-cost chemical herbicides labeled “For aquatic use,” such as Glyphosate 5,4. However,  application of this herbicide creates decomposition of dead plant material, thus fostering oxygen depletion which kills fish and other aquatic species.  

Other methods of control include mechanically raking and harvesting the plant ─ as well as hand removal, biocontrol insects (such as the Neochetina beetle) and summer drawdowns. When harvesting and removing the plant, it is crucial to not discard it into a natural water way, but rather contain it in protected compost.

INTRODUCTION TO ZEBRA MUSSELS

Zebra_mussels_line_shore_on_Green_Bay_at_Red_River_County_Park_in_Kewaunee_County_Wisconsin.jpgZebra mussels line Green Bay, Red River County Park, WI (Creative Commons)

Zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha), native to lakes in southeast Russia, are another non-native invasive species. In the 19th century, zebra mussels accidentally expanded into western Europe, the UK and N. America through trade. They entered N. America in the 1980’s when a trading boat came into the Great Lakes unaware of zebra mussels in its ballast water. Fortunately, invasive zebra mussels have yet to spread to Africa; but it could happen in the near future through trade.

Zebra mussels are the only freshwater bivalves able to attach to hard substrates in high densities. They reside in larger estuaries, inland rivers and lakes, adapting to hard- and soft-bottom habitats with surfaces suitable for attachment. Their entry into new ecosystems occurs through accidental transportation when attached to the bottom of boats. Once attached to a surface, zebra mussels are nearly impossible to remove. However, juvenile zebra mussels, with their ability to move freely in water, pose an additional threat to uncontaminated waters.

In some areas of the Mississippi River, there are as many as 20,000 zebra mussels per square yard. Since 1986, they have invaded 20 states east of the Mississippi River. There is no detection yet of zebra mussels in the NWNL case-study Raritan and Columbia River Basins. According to the State of NJ, “Zebra mussels have not yet been detected in New Jersey waters, but it is probable that invasion will occur in the near future.”  

The Columbia River Basin, as of Aug 6, 2018, is the only major western US watershed not yet invaded by zebra and quagga mussels. Montana’s Flathead Lake, which drains into the Clark and Pend Oreille River tributaries to the Columbia River, is the last barrier against zebra mussels slipping into the the Columbia River system. One means of protection at the lake, and throughout the Columbia watershed, is extensive warning via signage and implementation of inspection stations, such as one on US Highway 93, that pressure-washes contaminated boats if they are found with mussels.

ZEBRA MUSSELS: NATIVE SPECIES IMPACTS & LOSSES

Zebra_mussels_dreissena_polymorpha_on_native_mussel.jpgZebra Mussels growing up a native mussel (Creative Commons)

Since zebra mussels have no natural predators in new ecosystems, they easily and dramatically reduce native species in US and Canadian fishing communities, by consuming and decreasing the amounts of  food traditionally available for native species, such as algae. Zebra mussels also attach themselves to native species, such as crayfish, turtle shells and other mussels.  In limiting the ability of native species to move, feed, breath and breed, they prevent reproduction and threaten their survival, as happened with the native “Higgins eye pearlymussel.”  

EXTENDED WATERSHED DAMAGE BY ZEBRA MUSSELS

Jones_121030_TX_8719.jpgSign warning for invasive Zebra Mussels at Eisenhower State Park, Texas 

In aggregating on hard surfaces, zebra mussels cause economic impacts on municipal, industrial and private water systems. Since they grow in dense colonies, they can clog intake pipes and change the ecology of their new ecosystems. Zebra mussels also damage ecosystem services; change and alter habitat; decrease oxygen concentration when they respirate; modify natural benthic communities and modify nutrient regime. They  negatively impact human health, aquaculture/fisheries, tourism and disrupt transportation. Even outside of the water, this invasive species destroys beaches with its extremely foul smell upon decaying.

Economic costs to manage zebra mussels impacts the Midwest and eastern US annually at an estimated $1 billion dollars. The Great Lakes region alone spends an estimated $500 million/year scrubbing zebra mussels from docks, pipes and intake pumps. While zebra mussels have not yet spread to NJ waterways, management costs hypothetically would run approximately $336 million/ year. If zebra mussels reach the Columbia River Basin their damage could cost hydroelectric facilities alone anywhere from $250 million to $300 million/ year.

ZEBRA MUSSEL SOLUTIONS

Jones_150816_AZ_5638.jpgSign warning boaters of invasive Zebra Mussels in Goose Lake, Arizona

Currently, zebra mussels are routinely removed from raw water systems where they create a bio-fouling nuisance, and are then discarded in landfills. Mechanical removal of attached zebra mussels is done using high-pressure water cleaning and micro-encapsulated BioBullets. Rigorous boating equipment maintenance by all boat owners is critical in stopping the spread of zebra mussels. Signs in most harbors and ports now warn that boats be cleaned with warm soapy water when entering from another body of water. Additionally, boaters are told not to dump water from one body of water into another body of water, since juvenile mussels move freely. Two critical solutions are 1) every boat owner assuming responsibility and 2) signage that spreads awareness of this invasive species.

CONCLUSION:

Clearly invasive species pose major problems to the new habitats they invade, whether flora, such as hyacinth, or fauna, such as zebra mussels.  In N. America and Africa, water hyacinth has hindered the growth of native aquatic flora and phytoplankton, depleting the aquatic food chain. Adult zebra mussels degrade watersheds by clogging irrigation pipes, and crowding out of native species. Additionally, unattached juvenile mussels easily spread this species to uncontaminated waters. Although invasive species can have some beneficial traits to the watersheds they dominate, degradation by water hyacinth and zebra mussels outweighs their benefits. It is imperative to spread awareness on how to prevent the spread of these and other non-native invasive species in order to protect the health of all impacted watersheds.

All photos © Alison M. Jones unless otherwise noted.


Bibliography:

“African Plant may Help Fight Zebra Mussel Scourge.” Wire Reports, accessed on July 24, 2018, via link
Batanouny, K. H. “The Water Hyacinth in the Nile System, Egypt.” Aquatic Botany, accessed on July 23, 2018, via link
Benson, Amy J. “The Exotic Zebra Mussel.” U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service: Endangered Species, accessed on July 24, 2018, via link.
“Case Study: Water Hyacinth.” U.S. Department of State Archive, accessed on July 25, 2018, via link
Diop, S. “Climate Change Vulnerability and Impacts in River Basins and Aquifers Basins in Africa: Analysis of Key Response Strategies.” Accessed on July 24, 2018, via link.
“Dreissena polymorpha (zebra mussel).” CABI, accessed on July 23, 2018, via link.
“Emerging Emvironmental Issues 2013.” United Nations Environment Programme, accessed on July 24, 2018, via link.
Hanson, Erik and Sytsma, Mark.  “Oregon Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan.” Center for Lakes and Reservoirs at Portland State University, accessed on July 24, 2018, via link.
“How to Control Water Hyacinth.” AquaPlant – Texas A & M AgriLife Extension, accessed on Sept 25, 2018 by AMJ, via link.
“Idaho Aquatic Nuisance Species Plan.” The Idaho Invasive Species Council Technical Committee, accessed on July 24, 2018, via link.
Jacewicz, Natalie. “Why A Really Big Fish Isn’t Always Good For Business.” National Public Radio, accessed on July 25, 2018, via link
Leposo, Lilian. “Flower Power Threatens Kenya’s Lake Victoria.” CNN, accessed on July 23, 2018, via link.
Madsen, John D and Robles, Wilfredo. “Water Hyacinth.” Mississippi State University, Geosystems Research Institute, accessed on July 23, 2018, via link.
McLaughlan, Claire. “Making the Best of a Pest: The Potential for Using invasive Zebra Mussel Biomass as a Supplement to Commercial Chicken Feed.” Environmental Management, accessed on July 24, 2018, via link.
Neal, Wes. “Beautiful Water Hyacinth yields long-term damage.” Mississippi State University Extension Service, accessed on July 23, 2018, via link.
Ouellet, Nicky.  “Flathead Lake Healthy, Biological Station Director Says” Montana Public Radio, Aug 6, 2018. Accessed Sept 25, 2018 by amj, via link.
Reilly, Patrick. “At Columbia River’s doorstep, an uneasy lookout for invasive mussels.” The Oregonian/OregonLive, accessed on July 24, 2018, via link
Scott, Tristan.  “Biological Station: No Invasive Mussels Detected in Flathead Lake.”  Flathead Beacon, Feb 17, 2017. Accessed Sept 25, 2018 by amj via link.
Waltham, N. J. “Aerial Herbicide Spray to Control Invasive Water Hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes): Water Quality Concerns Fronting Fish Occupying a Tropical Floodplain Wetland.”Sage Journals, accessed on July 25, 2018, via link
“Water Hyacinth.” AquaPlant – Texas A & M AgriLife Extension, accessed on July 23, 2018, via link.
“Water Hyacinth.” Southeast Exotic Pest Plant Council, accessed on July 23, 2018, via link.
“Water Hyacinth.” US Department of Agriculture, accessed on July 23, 2018, via link.
“Water Hyacinth Control.” Lake Restoration Incorporated, accessed on July 23, 2018, via link.
“Zebra Mussels.” Reduce Risks from Invasive Species Coalition, accessed on July 23, 2018, via link.
“Zebra Mussels.” New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, accessed Aug 9, 2018, via link
“Zebra Mussels are Taking Over our River!” 1 Mississippi, accessed on July 24, 2018, via link.
“Zebra Mussels Dying in Mississippi River.” United Press International, accessed on July 24, 2018, via link.

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.

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.

World Wetlands Day 2018

World Wetlands Day – February 2, 2018
blog by Sarah Kearns, NWNL Project Manager

BOT-OK-107.jpgOkavango Delta, Botswana, Africa

What are “wetlands”?

Synonyms: Marsh, fen, bog, pothole, mire, swamp, bottomlands, pond, wet meadows, muskeg, slough, floodplains, river overflow, mudflats, saltmarsh, sea grass beds, estuaries, and mangroves.

Jones_070605_BC_1624.jpgDevelopment on edge of Columbia Wetlands, British Columbia

Worldwide, wetlands regulate floods, filter water, recharge aquifers, provide habitat, store carbon, and inspire photographers & artists.

Jones_111024_LA_8655.jpgCyprus trees in Atchafalaya River Basin Wetlands, Louisiana

Wetlands control rain, snowmelt, and floodwater releases: mitigation that is more effective and less costly than man-made dams. Nearly 2 billion people live with high flood risk – This will increase as wetlands are lost or degraded.

Jones_091004_TZ_2124.jpgFishing boats among invasive water hyacinth in Lake Victoria, Tanzania

Wetlands absorb nitrogen and phosphorous which provides cleaner water downstream for drink water supplies, aquifers and reservoirs.

Jones_091002_TZ_1209.jpgWoman collecting water in Maseru Swamp, Tanzania

Wetlands absorb heat by day and release is at night, moderating local climates.

Jones_111021_LA_2490.jpgRed-earred turtles in Bluebonnet Swamp, Baton Rouge, Louisiana

We all need the clean air, water, and protection from flooding that wetland forests provide. But up to 80% of wetland forests in the US South have disappeared. What are our standing wetland forests worth? Let’s be sure we invest in our wetland forests. (From dogwoodalliance.org)  Worldwide, we must protect our wetlands.

Jones_150817_AZ_5849.jpgSouthern tip of Lake Havasu and incoming Williams River and its wetlands, Arizona

To learn more about World Wetlands day visit http://www.worldwetlandsday.org.

All photos © Alison M. Jones.

 

Drought: A Photo Essay

From 2014 until the beginning of 2017  California suffered through a major drought. It was a hot topic in the news, and NWNL conducted five Spotlight Expeditions to document and bring attention to that drought and its significance.  But what exactly is a drought? What causes droughts?  What are the effects of droughts? What does a drought look like?

Jones_070607_BC_1958
Boat launch, Kinbasket Lake Reservoir, BC, Canada. 2007

Jones_070607_BC_1963
Kinbasket Lake Reservoir, BC, Canada. 2007

Basicplanet.com defines a drought as a “lengthy period of time, stretching months or even years in which time land has a decrease in water supply.” Droughts usually occur when rain doesn’t fall often enough during prolonged periods of warmer temperatures, causing high pressure winds and and reduced water content.

NA-SK-109.tif
Aerial  of dry river bed, Skeleton Coast National Park, Namibia. 2006

Jones_090921_K_1821
El Molo Swamp in Mau Forest during Kenya drought of 2009

Human activity can also be the cause of drought. Deforestation, farming, excess irrigation and erosion can lead to drought. Climate change also creates drought. Rises in average global temperatures greatly effect the possibility of drought, by reducing water content in the air.

Jones_150813_CA_4202Rio Hondo River, a tributary of Los Angeles River, California. 2015

Jones_140207_CA_9687Dried up succulent in the Santa Ynez Valley, California. 2014

There are many more affects of drought than most people realize. The most obvious affect is the shortage of water. Because of this, crops and animals will die. Droughts lead to malnutrition, dehydration and deadly famines. Wildfires and dust storms are much more probable and common effects. Industries that rely on water are forced to cutback, thus forcing people into unemployment. Wars have occurred due to droughts.

Jones_150813_CA_4124

Jones_140323_CA_4310

USA: California, Kettleman City, sign about effects of drought and no waterSigns posted during the California Drought,  2014 – 2016.

 

Posted by Sarah Kearns, NWNL Project Manager.

All photos © Alison M. Jones.

Glaciers: A Photo Essay

Edit (9/27/17): Since publishing this blog, the Washington Post reported the calving (or splitting) of a key Antarctic glacier, the Pine Island Glacier.  The article states, “the single glacier alone contains 1.7 feet of potential global sea level rise and is thought to be in a process of unstable, ongoing retreat.”  To learn more about how climate change contributed to this calving, and what the affects will be, read the article here.

 

“The alarming rate of glacial shrinkage worldwide threatens our current way of life, from biodiversity to tourism, hydropower to clean water supply.” (climatenewsnetwork.net)

During and in between NWNL’s dozens of expeditions to its six case-study watersheds, we have explored the value and current condition of glaciers on three continents, since they are a critical source of freshwater.  NWNL visited the Columbia Icefields of Alberta, Canada in 2007; Argentine glaciers in 2003 and 2005; and Rebman Glacier on the summit of Tanzania’s Mt Kilimanjaro in 2003.   We have witnessed the effect of climate change on glaciers. The melting of glaciers will affect  all forms of water resources for human and wildlife communities.  Just as upstream nutrients and pollutants travel downstream, “the loss of mountain ice creates problems for the people who live downstream.” Glacial loss must be thought of as just as important in the climate-change discussion as flooding and drought have become.

 

Jones_030809_TZ_0745Climbing Mount Kilimanjaro via the Machame Route. Tanzania, East Africa. (2003)

 

Jones_050402_ARG_0155Hole in ice of Lake Viedma Glacier in South Patagonia’s Glacier National Park, Argentina. (2005)

 

Jones_070609_ALB_2357Sign marking the former edge of the glacier. Columbia Icefields, Alberta, Canada. (2007)

 

ARG SC LVgla 059DA.tifLake Viedma Glacier at Glaciers National Park in Southern Patagonia, Argentina. (2005)

 

Canada: Alberta, Columbia Icefields Center Bus Tour, Athabasca GlacierAthabasca Glacier in Columbia Icefields. Alberta, Canada. (2007)

 

ARG SC Azul 004DA.tifGlacier melting and pouring into Blue Lake in the Andes Mountains. Southern Patagonia, Argentina. (2005)

 

Posted by Sarah Kearns, NWNL Project Manager.

All photos © Alison M. Jones.

 

Canadian Tourism vs Water Quality & Biodiversity in Upper Columbia River Basin

NWNL applauds Patagonia for publicizing the East Kootenay threat of a proposed major ski resort that has concerned folks world-wide for decades. This film is a visually enthralling treat that portrays the beauty of the Upper Columbia River Basin mountain ranges and the reasons to KEEP JUMBO VALLEY WILD.


To supplement the story told by Patagonia, here are excerpts from our 2007 NWNL Columbia River Basin Expedition interview in Invermere BC with John Bergenske of Wildsight:

The transboundary Columbia River Basin is a continentally-significant ecosystem that also has the densest population of inland grizzly bears we know of.  Wildlife in the Purcells Range of the Columbia River Basin in the East Kootenays is a big, big issue because we are at a north-south crossroads in terms of our species diversity here.  We share the southern extent of some of the more northern species, and the northern extent of the more southern species.

Canada: Alberta, cars pulled over from highway watching black bear
Canada: Alberta, human development encroaches on bear habitat

The biologists are saying that’s going to be a major disaster if Jumbo Glacier Resort goes forward because of its potential movement of bear populations and the breakup of genetic connectivity that would occur over the long term, not just in the short term.  We have very strong public opinion against development of the resort here in the [Columbia Valley Kootenay] region, but the decisions are made in Victoria where the developers have very, very good connections.

A lot of our work [to stop Jumbo Glacier Resort] is around providing information.  We did about five years of field research on mountain caribou; and we’ve just been involved in several years of research on grizzly bear populations and density.  We’re keeping the public informed and  involved in this work.  We’re supporting the work of the land trusts to try to negotiate some trades.  The K’tunaxa First Nation is absolutely key to what’s happening here because this is the most sacred place in their territory.  This is the place of their creation myth, and so as a result they are very, very concerned about how this particular area is managed.  They are very in line with it being managed for the natural values and the wildlife values.

Canada:  British Columbia, Columbia River Basin, Kootenay Rockies, Cranbroook, Elizabeth Lake Wildlilfe Center)
Canada: British Columbia, Columbia River Basin, Kootenay Rockies, Cranbroook, Elizabeth Lake Wildlilfe Center

People don’t recognize that if you inundate the land with inappropriate tourism use – even if it is with nice little country homes – we basically lose key pieces of the landscape that are really important to make the whole system work [and to protect] all of its values, obviously including the water values [affected by increased water use, heavier septic loads and floods].  We have a 180 km. wetland system that is unique because of its importance on the flyway and the fact that it is the headwaters of this Columbia River Basin system.  Being such an adaptable animal, we as people don’t always recognize what we are losing until all of a sudden:  ‘Oh, what happened?’  In some ways, we adapt almost too fast in terms of change if you consider that some of the values we are losing are important in a much bigger picture than we see at the moment.

(Click on thumbnail images to enlarge.)