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.

Surprisingly Similar: Deer and Elephant

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

NWNL research intern Bianca T. Esposito is a Syracuse University  senior studying Biology and Economics. Her summer research was on the nexus of biodiversity and water resources. She already has 3 NWNL blogs on African and N American watershed species:  Wild v Hatchery Salmon; Buffalo & Bison; & Papyrus & Pragmites.

Jones_180225_K_6049.jpgAfrican Elephant, Mara Conservancy, Kenya 

INTRODUCTION

This blog compares Africa’s savannah elephant (Loxodonta africana) to the N. America’s white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) in North America’s eastern United States. They present unlikely, but strikingly interesting comparative behaviors and impacts within their watersheds.  

In the Pliocene Era, elephants roamed and trumpeted their presence across the planet. Today they are a keystone species in African watersheds, including the Nile, Mara and Omo River Basins. Yet these giants are increasingly vulnerable to human poaching, hunting and destruction of habitat and migratory corridors. As a result, African savannah elephants are categorized as a “vulnerable” species.

In North America, white-tailed deer (also called Virginia deer) are present across the continent from the Atlantic Coast’s Raritan River Basin to the Pacific Coast’s Columbia River Basin. These nimble jumpers probably came to N America in the  Miocene Era as browsers competing for their niche with American rhinos. As they wheeze, grunt and bleat their presence today, they have few natural predators remaining, other than car collisions. Deer in the eastern US are a “Least Threatened” species – while Columbian white-tailed deer in Oregon’s Lower Columbia River Basin are “Near Threatened”.  

Jones_090629_NJ_1137.jpgWhite-Tailed Deer , Upper Raritan River Basin, New Jersey

North American male deer stand at 6-7 feet and weigh 100-275 pounds (¼ of a ton, the weight of a baby elephant).  In contrast, full-grown elephants stand at 11 feet (twice as tall as deer) and weigh up to 13,000 lbs (6.5 tons). Yet despite these huge size differences, these 2 species impacts on watershed forests are quite similar. As herbivores, both threaten and alter their habitats’ vegetative diversity, growth and regeneration.

VEGETATION & FOREST INTERFACE

Elephants alter their watersheds by converting woodland to shrubland. Elephants consume large amounts of vegetation allowing growth of plants previously blocked from the sun. However the benefit of increasing plant diversity is countered by the destruction elephants cause while browsing their way through watersheds. They remove trees, trample grasses and compact the soil. This limits forest regeneration since seedlings cannot grow and their trails cause soil erosion.

Similarly, deer today are increasingly damaging forest vegetation due to their soaring populations. In the Raritan River Basin, impacts of high deer populations have resulted in habitat loss for birds and other animals that rely on vegetation for protection. Thus, native species are decreasing and could eventually disappear locally.

HUMAN INTERFACE

Another similarity both species face is that of negative interactions with humans. Elephant and deer both damage farmers’ crops.  Elephant contact with humans continues to increase as they lose their traditional habitats due to human infringement and development. Increased development has also led farmers to further transgress into what was elephant rangeland or migratory corridors. In following and browsing along their ancient pathways and territories today, elephants can trample crops and even kill people. Those elephants are often killed in retaliation. In Tanzania’s Serengeti District, the effect of elephants raiding crops means a bag of maize can be locally more valuable than the cost of building a classroom or tarmac road.

In America, deer find an ideal environment in urban and suburban areas with their mix of ornamental shrubs, lawns and trees.  Since deep forest vegetation is too high for them, deer browse along the “edge habitat” which also provides easy access to suburban yards.

deer crossing road.jpgWhite-tailed deer crossing a road (Creative Commons)

With the loss of wolves, bears and cougars, deer have had a lack of predators, causing their populations to soar. Now their biggest predators are human hunters and car accidents which cause deer and human fatalities. As well, human health impacted by deer that browse in the woods, meadows or dunes with ticks carrying Lyme disease (Lyme borreliosis). Lyme disease can be lethal, or at the least debilitating, for humans, livestock and pets.

For elephant and deer, interaction with humans is not beneficial for either species. Sadly, given less space for the exploding human race, these fateful interactions will only increase.

WATER INTERFACE

The spread of human settlements, agriculture and livestock farming have replaced elephants’ natural habitats. Clearing of those traditional lands disturbs and decreases water volume in their rivers and lakes. Yet, when elephants were there, they created water holes which increased water availability for themselves and other species. Simultaneously, humans are increasing their consumption of today’s decreasing water and other natural resources.  

This scenario is dramatically playing out in Kenya’s Mara River Basin. In the Mau Forest highlands, human deforestation has depleted flows of source tributaries of the Mara River, a lifeline to the Maasai Mara National Reserve and Tanzania’s Serengeti National Park. In turn, lowered water levels downstream have increased temperatures and disrupted local rainfall patterns. Thus the human takeover of the Mau Forest has chased out the elephant and disturbed downstream ecosystems, which in turn will contributed to decreases in wildlife populations and thus park revenues from tourism.

Elephants have direct impacts on water sources and availability since they are a “water-dependent species.” When water is scarce, they dig in dry river beds to provide water for themselves, other animals, and humans. Additionally, elephants migrate to find water – even if only via artificial, supplementary water points. More research is needed, but water availability may become a useful tool for regulating elephant distribution and managing ecological heterogeneity.  Yet an abundance of artificial water should be avoided in conservation areas where the presence of elephant would cause vegetation degradation.

Jones_090930_K_0584.jpgAfrican Elephants crossing the Mara River, Mara Conservancy, Kenya

Deer, unlike elephants, have a more indirect impact to water resources. Their impacts are more about quality of water than its availability. The nutrients and pathogens excreted by white-tailed deer become water pollutants in nearby streams and groundwater, especially during in storm runoffs.  Deer waste dropped in and along streams in the Raritan River Basin produces greater pathogenic contamination than cattle manure deposited away from streams.

HUNTING AS A WAY TO REDUCE HUMAN-WILDLIFE CONFLICTS

Hunting is a controversial solution to controlling these species’ threats of ecosystem degradation and human conflict. Hunting elephant to counter their negative impacts has much greater negative consequences than hunting deer. Elephant poaching for  lucrative ivory profits became such a serious threat that elephants became listed as an Endangered Species. While a 1989 ban on international ivory trade allowed some populations to recover, illegal ivory trade still occurs and threatens elephant populations. Thus, shooting elephants marauding crops and killing farmers is not an option – thus the search for other means to controlling elephant degradation.

After elephants devour all vegetation in an area or during droughts, they migrate. However, that puts them face to face with today’s man-made fences and trenches built to stop elephants, as well as with new communities and farms. Thus Kenyan conservancies, International Fund for Animal Welfare,  Addo Elephant NP, Sangare Conservancy and other groups began creating “protected elephant corridors.” Such corridors provide elephants safe migratory paths where they don’t disturb humans.

Jones_180129_K_7661.jpgRanger at the entrance gate to Sangare Conservancy, Kenya

Deer hunting however is viewed  by many as a positive means to control over-abundant deer populations destroying gardens and forests. In rural regions, deer are still hunted for food and sport which helps save forest saplings from deer browse. But that removes only a limited number, and there have been traditional limits on deer hunting. Along Mississippi’s Big Black River, the state still restricts  killing year-old bucks and any deer hunting during floods. Many such restrictions are being loosened today to help counter the rapid growth of deer populations. As well, to reduce deer browse and car collisions, some suburbs hold carefully-organized, targeted hunts by licensed “sharp-shooters,” and the venison is harvested for homeless shelters. Suburban methods to combat deer intrusions also often include installing 8-foot tall fences to protect gardens, landscaping and critical ecosystems.

Jones_180129_K_7681.jpgFence of the Sangare Conservancy, Kenya 

FOREST IMPACTS

Elephants’ foraging creates open habitats for other species. However, browsing of resulting mid-successional species by elephants and other species can stop regrowth of trees and forest. “As go the elephants, so go the trees.” This issue is similar to deer browsing on soft-leaved saplings in N. American forests that preventing the growth of future forests.

Yet elephants compensate for their heavy vegetative consumption.  More than a dozen tree species depend on forest elephants for to spread their seeds. This type of seed dispersal occurs via each elephant’s daily  200-lb. dung droppings, thus ensuring survival of vegetation. Another benefit of creating open spaces by altering and removing trees is the opportunity for greater faunal diversity. Elephants uproot and fell trees and strip bark; but in this process, they break down branches which provides access to food for smaller wildlife.

TZ-ELE-215.jpgHerd of African elephants with newborn, Lake Manyara National Park, Tanzania

All this change created by elephants creates “a cyclical vegetational seesaw of woodland to grassland and back to woodland.” As debris of trees felled by elephants shields pioneer grasses and shrubs from trampling, deep-rooted perennial grasses can grow. These grasses attract grazers to the area, while the browsers leave. When the woodlands regenerate, elephant number will return, followed by browsers.  

Deer, unlike elephants, are non-migratory however, and thus they don’t spur cycles of regeneration. Therefore, watersheds with deer-infested forests face ongoing degradation. Today’s soaring numbers of deer prevent any chance of forest recovery from their constant browsing. Deer also displace native wildlife, which furthers the cascade of ecosystem degradation. When a forest loses trees, there is less water recycling  since trees produce and move rain downwind to other terrestrial surfaces.  Water retention in a forest is also related to presence of ground cover – also eaten by deer – which decreases stormwater runoff and downstream erosion in floodplains or wetlands. A lack of ground cover causes inland forests and downstream areas to become arid and potentially a waste land. The deer do not produce compensatory benefits that elephant produce.

Jones_090629_NJ_1120.jpgWhite-tailed deer Upper Raritan River Basin, New Jersey

CONCLUSIONS

Elephant and deer each have increasingly negative impacts on watershed vegetation and human communities. However a big difference exists in effective stewardship for controlling these species. In Africa, elephant numbers (2007-2014) have dropped by nearly a third, representing a loss of 144,000 elephants.  Begun in 2014, the Great Elephant Census (GEC) accounted for over 350,000 savannah elephant across 18 African countries and states the current yearly loss at 8 per cent. Tanzania, having one of the highest declines, and Mozambique have lost 73,000 elephants due to poaching in just five years.

However deer populations have exploded.  In 2014, US deer populations across the United States were estimated at over 15 million. In New Jersey, there are approximately 76-100 deer per square mile; yet a healthy ecosystem can support only 10 deer per square mile.  These high densities of deer are decimating US forests.

Making elephant poaching illegal and banning ivory trade has saved elephant populations in Africa. But in N America further controls of the growing population of deer is badly needed. The most obvious step towards this goal would be to remove deer hunting restrictions – the very opposite of Africa’s stopping the hunting and poaching of elephants.

On both continents, immediate solutions are critical if we are to protect our forests and water supplies – critical natural resources of our watersheds – from degradation being increasingly incurred by both species. Elephants consume vegetation and degrade areas of abundant water; while tick-carrying deer contaminate water with their excrement and threaten the future of our forests. One could summarize the consequence of too many deer as “No Forests – No Water” – and the consequence of losing elephant as “No Elephants – No Water.”

All photos © Alison M. Jones unless otherwise noted.

Bibliography:

World Wildlife Fund for Nature, accessed on June 28, 2018
Gereta, Emmanuel Joshua. Department of Biology Norwegian University of Science and Technology, accessed on June 18, 2018
African Forest Policy Forum – Proceedings, accessed on June 28, 2018
Chamaille-Jammes, Simon. Journal of Applied Ecology, accessed on June 28, 2018
Mutugi, Marion. European Scientific Journal, accessed June 28, 18 by BE
Kideghesho, Jafari R. The International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management, accessed on July 2, 2018
Landman, Marietjie. Understanding Long-Term Variations in an Elephant Piosphere Effect to Manage Impacts, accessed on July 2, 2018
New Jersey Institute of Technology, The Neshanic River Watershed Restoration Plan, accessed on July 2, 2018
Opar, Alisa. Audubon, accessed on July 2, 2018
Woods, John J. Bucks On The Big Black, accessed on July 2, 2018
Ohio Wesleyan University. The Waning of the Elephants, accessed on July 16, 2018
Ohio Wesleyan University. The Waning of the Elephants, accessed on July 16, 2018
Gomez, Monserrat. Nikela, accessed on July 16, 2018
Marshall, Jessica. Discovery Channel, accessed on July 16, 2018
Thorman, Cartin. Minnesota Economy, Environment, accessed on July 16, 2018
Meyer, Amelia. Elephants Forever, accessed on July 17, 2018
Louisiana Sportsman, accessed on July 24, 2018
Steyn, Paul. National Geographic, accessed on August 7, 2018
Hersher, Rebecca. National Public Radio, accessed on August 7, 18 by BE
Pennsylvania State University New Kensington. The Virtual Nature Trail, accessed on August 7, 2018
Franklin Reporter & Advocate, accessed on August 7, 2018
Hurley, Amanda. CityLab, accessed on August 7, 2018
World Wildlife Foundation, accessed on August 7, 2018
Elephant-World, accessed on August 7, 2018
Chafota, Jonas. Effects of Changes In Elephant Densities On the Environment and Other Species—How Much Do We Know? Accessed on August 8, 2018
Howard, Meghan. Animal Diversity Web, accessed on August 8, 2018
Sheldrick, Daphne. Elephant Conservation, accessed on August 8, 2018
Sjogren, Kristian. ScienceNordic, accessed on August 8, 2018
Platt, John. Scientific American, accessed on August 8, 2018
Swit, Nadia. The Downtown Review, accessed on August 8, 2018
Hilderman, Richard. The Effect of Deforestation on the Climate and Environment, accessed on August 8, 2018
National Park Service. Draft White-Tailed Deer Management Plan/ EIS, accessed on August 8, 2018

Cape Buffalo, Bison and Water

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

NWNL research intern Bianca T. Esposito is a senior at Syracuse University studying Biology and minoring in Economics. Her research this summer is on the intertwined relationships of biodiversity and our water resources. This is Bianca’s second blog on Biodiversity for NWNL. Read her first blog on wild Salmon here.

This blog compares how water impacts the health of sub-Sahara’s Cape buffalo populations to how North America’s bison impact the health of our water resources.  This investigation covers three of our NWNL case study watersheds: Africa’s Mara and Nile River Basins, and North America’s Mississippi River Basin.

The Cape buffalo (Syncerus caffer caffer) is found in Kenya’s Mara River Basin savanna and Uganda’s Nile River Basin plains. The bison (Bison bison) used to dominate the Mississippi River Basin’s Great Plains and are still there in scattered small populations. Both species are large, herbivorous mammals that primarily graze on tall-grass ecosystems. However, their habitats and connections to water differ significantly.

Africa’s Cape buffalo migrate seasonally in large herds on cyclical routes dependent on fluctuations in water availability. They move out of areas with limited resources and into areas where moisture and nutrients are available. Cape buffalo also migrate away from their habitat when water levels increase, since flooding restricts their foraging abilities. In these cases, Cape buffalo move to a drier habitat where, in turn, they may experience drought. Either way, when resources become low, their vulnerability becomes high.

Jones_090927_K_9062.jpgA lone Cape Buffalo bull in Kenya’s Mara Conservancy (© Alison M. Jones)

Africa’s famed Serengeti-Mara Ecosystem is located throughout northern Tanzania and extends into Kenya. Much of this region is situated within the Mara River Basin. In the Serengeti National Park, the migration pattern of the Cape buffalo, similar to that of the wildebeest-zebra migration, is dependent on the fluctuation of rainfall each year. Generally, this journey begins in April when Cape buffalo depart their southern plains habitat to head north. This movement is triggered by the onset of heavy rain that floods the plains, reducing the Cape buffalo’s ability to graze. By May the herd is in the northwest Serengeti, where the dry season lasts through July and proximity to the equator allows rainfall to be more evenly distributed, allowing greater opportunities for foraging. Then, in August, the late dry season hits, causing the herd to move further north. On their venture north, they cross the Mara River into Kenya’s Maasai Mara National Reserve. The Cape buffalo remain here enjoying green pastures until November, albeit subject to drought if there’s no rainfall. In December, usually the first rainfall comes which they sense as the onset of the rainy season. They then trek back into Tanzania’s southern plains for the wet season. From January to April, they graze there on plentiful, nutritious grasses.  

Syncerus-caffer-Masaai-Mara-Kenya.JPGHerd of Cape buffalo in Kenya’s Mara Conservancy (Creative Commons)

When Cape buffalo inhabit dry lands their reproductive success (also referred to as “recruitment ability”) decreases; but their body condition improves due to what seems to be a fat-storing mechanism that anticipates limited future resources. One benefit of Cape buffalo having to cope with drought is that when food supplies are reduced, they forage through peat layers in dried-up underground channels, releasing nutrients otherwise trapped below ground.

A current major concern for this species is that anthropogenic factors (human activity) causing climate change are expected to increase both water levels and drought, which could push the Cape buffalo outside of their protected areas. In 2017, the Serengeti experienced a drought that lasted over a year causing declines in populations of many species, including Cape buffalo. Drought also causes herds of cattle, goats and sheep outside to enter protected lands to graze, creating a competition for resources between wildlife, livestock and humans in both the Maasai Mara National Reserve and Serengeti National Park. If the Mara River – the only major river in the area – dries up, there would be few resources for ungulates. As well, when droughts end, there is always potential for flash-floods which deter herds from crossing rivers to find greener pastures.

Jones_120107_K_0640.jpgA lone Cape Buffalo bull in Kenya (© Alison M. Jones)

When water is scarce in the Serengeti, a decline of Cape buffalo leads to increased lion mortality. When Cape buffalo lack sufficient food due to drought, they become weak and must travel increased distances to quench their thirst. This leaves the herd fatigued, causing some members to fall behind and thus become more vulnerable to predation. Also, after a drought and the rains begin, Babesia-carrying ticks infect Cape buffalo. Infected buffalo become weak or die, allowing easy predation by lions. Unfortunately, their carcasses transfer babesiosis disease to lions. Alone, this disease is not fatal to the lion. However, babesiosis coupled with canine distemper virus (CDV) is lethal.

Babesiosis from Cape buffalo has caused two major declines in Serengeti lion populations. In 1994, a third of the lion population was lost due to this combination, killing over 1,000 lions.

Lions_taking_down_cape_buffalo.jpgLions taking down a Cape buffalo (Creative Commons)

On a smaller scale, in 2001 the Ngorongoro Crater lion population also lost about 100 lions due to this synchronization of disease. Craig Packer, a University of Minnesota biologist, stated, “Should drought occur in the future at the same time as lions are exposed to masses of Babesia-carrying ticks—and there is a synchronous CDV epidemic–lions will once again suffer very high mortality.” He also warns that extreme weather due to climate change puts species at greater risk to diseases not considered a major threat before.  Fortunately, mud-wallowing that Cape buffalo use to cool down their bodies is also an effective shield against infiltrating bugs and ticks once the mud dries.

Overall, Cape buffalo rely heavily on rainfall patterns; but climate change is disrupting traditional migratory patterns by raising water levels or causing drought. Both extremes present negative impacts to the Mara River Basin and the biodiversity that inhabits it.  

North America’s bison – a bovine counterpart to African Cape buffalo – historically occupied The Great Plains west of the Mississippi River. Early settlers recorded 10 to 60 million bison openly roaming the fields. Like Cape buffalo, bison also migrate in search of food. Their migration paths used to cover vast territory, thus paving the way for many current roads and railroads. A major threat to  bison – as with most species – has been habitat loss due to human infringement, as well as well-documented, extensive hunting by new settlers heading west. By 1889, only approximately 1,000 bison remained in North America.

Jones_121024_TX_6814.jpgFarmed bison in Texas (© Alison M. Jones)

Due to recent conservation efforts, bison populations are rising; however, not to past numbers. Currently, they are found only in National Parks, refuges and farms. As of 2017, approximately 31,000 pure wild bison remain in 68 conservation herds. “Pure wild bison” are those not bred with cattle for domestication. However, only approximately 18,000 of the remaining population “function” as wild bison. This count excludes very small bison herds used for research, education and public viewing – or bison held in captivity waiting to be culled by protected areas such as Yellowstone National Park due to required limits.

Bison inhabiting the Mississippi River Basin, which drains throughout the Great Plains, have many positive impacts on its waterways and tributaries. Yellowstone Park, where the Yellowstone River drains into the Missouri-Mississippi River system, is the only place in North America where bison continue to freely roam as they used to. In Yellowstone, bison occupy the central and northern area of the park where they migrate by elevation, seasonally choosing food according to abundance, rather than quality. In the winter, they select lower elevations near thermal hot springs or rivers where there is less snow accumulation.

Bison positively affect water supplies when they wallow and paw at the ground. This results in intense soil compaction that creates soil depressions in grasslands. After many years, this soil depression tends to erode since bison don’t like to wallow on previously-created depressions. However, during the rainy season, wetland plants and vegetation grow in these wallows created by bison dust-bathing and trampling. For a short time many species enjoy these ephemeral pool habitats before they disappear in droughts or floods. Meanwhile bison wallows increase species diversity that would otherwise not be present in grasslands.

A_bison_wallow_is_a_shallow_depression_in_the_soil.jpgBison rolling around in a dry wallow (Creative Commons)

Bison have other positive impacts on water. As they trample through streams, they widen available habitat and alter water quality. Even after a bison dies, it can still contribute to the health of its ecosystem. Their carcasses are a nutritious food source for wolves, coyotes and crows. Studies suggest that bison carcasses take roughly seven years to fully decompose, during which time their remains release nutrients such as phosphorus and carbon into rivers. These nutrients sustain microbes, insects, fish and large scavengers of the area. A bison carcass can also provide sustenance for local fish since maggots, green algae and bacteria grow over their bones during decomposition. Bison carcasses also deposit nutrients into the soil which fertilizes plant regrowth.

Bison can negatively affect water resources, by decreasing native plant diversity due to overgrazing. However, they graze on only grass, which allows forbs (non-woody flowering plants) to flourish, adding biodiversity in grasslands. As well, when bison urinate, they deposit nitrogen into the soil, a key nutrient for grass growth and survival. Their urine also becomes a selectable marker allowing them to return to formerly-grazed pastures during the season. This constant reselection of grassland, allows combustion in ignored, non-grazed pastures, since fire tends to occur in tall grass with nitrogen loss. After fires, the bison are attracted to newly-burned watersheds because of C4-dominated grass which grows in dry environments. Bison select C4-dominated grassy areas because they have low plant diversity, unlike less-frequently burned sites where forbs are abundant. Thus, bison’s pasture preferences allow for more biodiversity, creating healthier watersheds.  

Jones_121024_TX_7314.jpgMural near of Native Americans on bison near Masterson, Texas (© Alison M. Jones)

Each of these two similar bovine species have significant, but different, relationships to water availability and quality within their river basins.  The African Cape buffalo migration is guided by water fluctuations. This could impact their future since anthropogenically-caused climate change could incur longer and more frequent droughts and increased flood-water levels to an extent that would drive Cape buffalo out of their protected habitats. In contrast, North American bison herds improve the health of waterways in the Mississippi River Basin in several ways. Nutrients from their decomposing carcasses add to the health of tributary streams and rivers; and their mud wallows support greater diversity of wetland and grassland flora.

Whether we look at watersheds in Africa or North America, it is clear that it is as important to study how biodiversity is affected by water availability, as how watershed water quality and quantity affects its biodiversity. Any changes to these ecosystems due to climate change could drastically affect the biodiversity and health of these watersheds.

Bibliography:

Briske, David. Springer Series on Environmental Management, accessed June 19, 2018, via link.
van Wyk, Pieter. MalaMala Game Reserve Blog, accessed on June 19, 2018, via link.
Bennitt, Emily. Journal of Mammalogy, accessed on June 19, 2018, via link.
Wilcox, Bradford. Springer Series on Environmental Management, accessed June 19, 2018, via link.
Chardonnet, Philippe. Gnusletter, accessed on June 19, 2018, via link.
Defenders of Wildlife, accessed on June 20, 2018, via link.
Coppedge, Bryan R.
The American Midland Naturalist, accessed on June 20, 2018, via link.
Polley, H. Wayne.
The Southwestern Naturalist, accessed on June 20, 2018, via link.
Crow, Diana.
Smithsonian, accessed on June 20, 2018, via link.
Knapp, Alan K.
American Institute of Biological Sciences, accessed on June 20, 2018, via link.
North Arizona University, accessed on June 25, 2018, via link.Dybas, Cheryl Lyn.
BioScience, accessed on June 25, 2018, via link.
Water Resources and Energy Management (WREM) International Inc., accessed on June 25, 2018, via link.
Defenders of Wildlife, accessed on June 26, 2018, via link.
Yellowstone National Park, accessed on June 26, 2018, via link.
Huffman, Brent. Ultimate Ungulate, accessed on June 26, 2018, via link.
Department of Primary Industries, accessed on July 9, 2018, via link.
Popescu, Adam. New Scientist, accessed on July 9, 2018, via link.
Hoagland, Mahlon B. Exploring the Way Life Works: The Science of Biology, accessed on July 9, 2018E, via link.
White, PJ. Yellowstone Association, accessed on July 9, 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.

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.

NWNL “Pool of Books” 2017

NWNL has compiled a list of new and old favorite books about water issues and our case-study watersheds for your reference for gifts and for the New Year. Many of the authors and publishers are personal friends of NWNL. All of them are worth reading. The links provided below go to Amazon Smile, where a portion of all purchases go to an organization of the buyers choice. Please help support NWNL by selecting the International League of Conservation Photographers to donate to.

Jones_170612_NE_3783

Global:

Rainforest by Lewis Blackwell (2014)

Replenish: The Virtuous Cycle of Water and Prosperity by Sandra Postel (2017)

Water from teNeues Publishing (2008)

North America:

The Salish Sea: Jewel of the Pacific Northwest by Audrey Della Benedict & Joseph K. Gaydos (2015)

Rancher, Farmer, Fisherman: Conservation Heroes of the American Heartland by Miriam Horn (2016)

The Last Prairie: A Sandhills Journal by Stephen R. Jones (2006)

Yellowstone Migration by Joe Riis (2017)

Sage Spirit: The American West at a Crossroads by Dave Showalter (2015)

Heartbeats in the Muck: The History, Sea Life, and Environment of New York Harbor by John Waldman (2013)

East Africa:

Serengeti Shall Not Die by Bernhard & Michael Grzimek (1973)

Turkana: Lenya’s Nomads of the Jade Sea by Nigel Pavitt (1997)

To the Heart of the Nile: Lady Florence Baker and the Exploration of Central Africa by Pat Shipman (2004)

India:

A River Runs Again: India’s Natural World in Crisis, from the Barren Cliffs of Rajasthan to the Farmlands of Karnataka by Meera Subramanian (2015)