Wednesday, May 3, 2006

Cute little baby animals - more than meets the eye!

By John Linehan/Special To The Tab

A visit to either the Franklin Park Zoo or Stone Zoo this summer will reveal lots of cute new faces. It has been an unusually productive year at Zoo New England's institutions. The "oohs" and "ahs" are audible while mothers shepherd their offspring and teach them the requisite skills for their lives ahead. It's easy to see that these mothers revel in their maternal roles and responsibilities.

There was a time, not long ago, when even good zoos produced offspring merely for the sake of attracting visitors. As good zoos evolved, under more enlightened leadership, the realities came into focus. Unchecked reproduction of some animals and non-reproduction by others was rapidly depleting genetic diversity and in other cases leading to over-production. Surplus animals sometimes ended-up in bad situations.

This has changed dramatically. With the aid of computer modeling programs, improved animal husbandry techniques and a wildlife conservation focus, accredited zoos across the country now manage much of their animal collections as if there were no ownership. Individual animals are paired for breeding based upon their genetic background. Animal transfers between zoos are planned and carried out with well-organized master plans designed to ensure the conservation of species. As we have established husbandry techniques for successful reproduction, we have also developed a wide variety of contraceptive techniques. Each species is different physically and behaviorally. Zoo veterinarians and keepers are continuously challenged by the diversity of species' biologies. The goal of the programs is to maintain the maximum genetic variability in each of these species and then to maintain stable populations that are in balance with the space and other resources of the zoos. Today, zoos are net wildlife producers, not consumers. While some of these efforts result in reintroduction programs, most are aimed at maintaining self-sustaining captive populations and safeguarding wild population.

Our growing Mexican wolf pups at Stone Zoo are part of a successful program to re-establish this species in Arizona, New Mexico and Mexico. We have red crowned cranes at Franklin Park Zoo, which now have offspring reintroduced and migrating in Asia. There are many others, such as gorillas, giraffe, jaguar, zebra. The existence of these animals supports wild populations through education and partnerships with other zoos and conservation organizations. The organization and cooperation required to plan and enact these complex programs is carried out mainly by zoo staff volunteering their time to make the programs work. Their tireless efforts are coordinated through the Association of Zoos and Aquariums and facilitated by a small group of population biologists.

 John Linehan is President and CEO of Zoo New England, the non-profit organization which manages our two state-owned zoos, Franklin Park Zoo in Dorchester and Stone Zoo in Stoneham. He serves on several committees of the Association of Zoos and Aquariums.

This article is archived at www.greendecade.org/tabarchive.asp

Read More...

Something's fishy

By Michelle Portman/Special To The Tab

You might want to get a membership to the New England Aquarium. There are fish there that chances are you'll never see in the wild. Not because they thrive in habitats far away, in exotic places and tropical climes, but because people have fished them to death. Another place you might be able to see these fish is served on a plate garnished with spices, herbs and lemon juice at dozens of popular restaurants. How is it that the fish we love to dine on are dead in the water (seas), yet always available for the right price at our neighborhood eatery?

It is clear that for at least the past decade, fisheries, especially those in New England, have been plagued by tragedy and controversy. Many commercial fish populations, such as cod, flounder and Atlantic salmon, have been culled to such an extent that it is questionable whether they will ever recovery.

Government has tried to step in with policies and regulations aimed at stabilizing and recovering fisheries. Ten years ago, the federal Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Act, also called the Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA), was signed into law. It resulted in a myriad of measures to regulate fishing activities- quotas by species, size limits, gear restrictions, seasonal fishing ground closures, etc. Yet these measures are controversial because of their effects on fishermen, the fishing industry and overall marine biodiversity.

A recent national report on ocean policy, funded by the Pew Trust, takes issue with policies promulgated by regional Fisheries Management Councils (8 in number). Too often, council decisions have emphasized short-term commodity production, i.e., focusing on maximizing catch, revenues and employment rather than sustaining natural systems that support wild fish populations and healthy ecosystems. Overall, they rely on scientific uncertainty to justify risk-prone management decisions rather than apply a precautionary approach. Particularly problematic are the adoption of short-sighted single species management techniques that neglect long-term goals for fisheries and ecosystems.

With all the threats to fish - loss of habitat, overfishing, declining ocean water quality and ineffective regulation - how is it that we are finding plenty of fish on the menu of our favorite restaurants? For the most part the answer is: aquaculture.

There are many different modes of aquaculture - for shell fish, for freshwater fish and seafood - making it difficult to generalize regarding its impacts. For most off-shore cultivation, thousands of fish live their short lives in crowded cages sunk below the surface in deep ocean waters. Negative effects involve the concentration of their waste products that causes eutrophication (nutrient overload) in surrounding waters. Also the density at which the fish are kept make them more susceptible to disease and parasites. (To sea lice, for example, a fish farm is an all-you-can-eat buffet.) Pesticides and antibiotics given to the fish soon find their way into the environment with deleterious impacts on marine water quality and habitat.

These substances don't make "farmed fish" any more healthy for the human consumer either. A recent news article on farmed fish in the UK, called Scottish farmed salmon "the most contaminated product on the supermarket shelves".

Another problem is that of escapees. Farm-hatched fish can escape into the wild and dilute the gene pool of healthier, "smarter" wild specimens, potentially impacting the capability of some species to spawn properly, to grow to adulthood and to be resistant to certain parasites and disease.

This past April, the U.S. Senate heard testimony on offshore aquaculture. A bill backed by the Bush administration is being debated that would expand, support and regulate large-scale fish farming in American coastal waters. Supporters argue fish farms would enhance fish production and reduce seasonal variations in availability. Opponents worry they would add cut-rate competition against existing ocean fishers, flooding the market with low-quality, low-price fish.

These debates leave the average fish-lover wondering whether off-shore and deep-sea cages are a sensible alternative to wisely managing our culling of wild ocean fish. Arguably, the solution lies with the consumer. People can refrain from eating species that are threatened. They can create a demand for certain products raised or fished sustainably. Many folks want to do the right thing when buying or ordering fish, but don't know how. Certainly, the different ways fish are raised and/or caught makes things confusing.

A full discussion of the most environmentally-friendly fish to consume is beyond the scope of this article, but why re-invent the wheel? When I buy fish at the market or order in a restaurant, I consult my Seafood Watch guide. This is a little folding card that I carry in my wallet. It is published by the Monterey Bay Aquarium. Regional and national pocket-sized guides can be downloaded from their Internet site: www.mbayaq.org/cr/seafoodwatch.asp. There is plenty of information on this site about how to be a wise fish consumer and plenty more on what's happening to fisheries and fish.

Remember, despite what we see on our menus, all is not well with our regional and global fisheries. For the sake of fish, and our appetites, precaution is advised.

Michelle Portman is a Ph.D. candidate studying marine conservation policy at UMass-Boston and she works as an environmental analyst.

This article is archived at www.greendecade.org/tabarchive.asp

Read More...

Learning to live with less water

By Kate Bowditch/ Special To The Tab

With the beauty of spring bursting into bloom, you may not have noticed, but Massachusetts is in a serious dry spell. With almost no spring rain, and no winter snowpack to provide spring melt, we are well out of our normal seasonal water cycle. According to the National Weather Service, this year we had the driest March on record in many parts of New England, and river flows in the Charles are as low as they have ever been at this time of year.

The most visible and immediate impacts of spring drought are in the river, where the usual spring flush is simply not happening. Fish and other aquatic species that rely on spring's high, fast flows are instead struggling in flow levels that are normal in July. Wetlands that are normally full of water in March and April are already drying out. For people who enjoy spring kayaking and fishing on the Charles, the low flows have had an obvious and dramatic impact, especially in the free-flowing sections of the river.

<!--[if gte vml 1]>

Low flow, spring 2006, Cheesecake Brook

<![endif]-->Hopefully, this spring drought will not last through the summer, and the stressed river, wetlands and urban forest will rebound. But climate change and development patterns are putting more and more stress on the water-based environment, and we will have to adapt our habits, practices and expectations accordingly. We need a built environment that protects resources, and is flexible enough to withstand change. Over time, that means reducing our reliance on traditional engineering such as curb and gutter, pipes and concrete channels, and embracing softer, greener infrastructure. Nature provides some of the best models for coping with changing weather and climate conditions, and we need to emulate as many of those models as possible.

The Charles River Watershed Association advocates for "keeping water local," and provides suggestions for managing water on sites of all sizes and uses, whether a parking lot, an industrial facility, or a single family home. The basic concept is to design a site so it works as if it were undeveloped. By approximating nature's own design and function we will protect not only the natural environment but our built environment as well.

Homes, and the local environment generally, can be made more resilient and better able to cope with less water. Think of each property as one small patch of land that needs to sustain itself with its own resources, and you will begin to see possibilities. Try to recharge most rainwater into the ground; direct runoff over vegetated areas to slow and clean the flows; allow water to pool and collect in low wet areas that are planted with wetland species; save rooftop runoff in a cistern or barrel system to use for outdoor watering needs; use native plants that are suited to a fluctuating climate and do not need to be watered.

A landscape that keeps rainfall on-site is good for our rivers, ponds and wetlands. It is beneficial to property owners and to communities when landscapes are designed to withstand dry periods as well as heavy rains, and with reduced need for fertilizer, pesticides and irrigation. There are many good sources of landscaping information, such as the fact sheets available on the EPA website: www.epa.gov/owow/nps/facts. Some people might consider improving or creating wetlands on their property, as suggested in a recent webcast series sponsored by the Izaak Walton League of America http://itre.ncsu.edu/cte/TechTransfer/Teleconferences/iwla2006.asp

Kate Bowditch, Senior Environmental Scientist and Project Manager at Charles River Watershed Association, is a hydrologist. She earned her MA in Geography/Water Resources Management from BU.

This article is archived at www.greendecade.org/tabarchive.asp.

Read More...

A deadly poison in your yard?

By Gilbert Woolley/Special To The Tab

If you've been reading these pages recently, you've heard a lot about toxins; mercury in dental amalgam, tires loaded with heavy metals and toxins in pesticides and herbicides. These are all genuine toxins, but they don't have an immediate effect. There is one toxic present in many yards in Newton that does have immediate and also long-term effects. That toxic is arsenic, the spouse poisoner's favorite. If you have a deck, or anything made from wood in your yard that was built before 2004, it is almost certain to have been built with "Pressure Treated Lumber" which, until 2004 meant wood treated with CCA: Copper Chromated Arsenic. We are not talking about parts per million. A typical deck contains several ounces of arsenic, enough to kill the neighborhood. Even a playhouse contains enough arsenic to kill the family. The Pressure Treated Lumber now in the stores should be free from toxics.

When adding a deck to our house some 15 years ago on a hot summer's day, I developed a nasty rash on my face. I discovered that this was caused by the arsenic in the dust from sawing and sanding the CCA-treated wood sticking to my sweaty face. At that time I had no idea what Pressure Treated meant and the lumber store gave no warnings. Irritation of the skin is one immediate effect of arsenic, and inhaling dust can cause burning of the throat and lungs.

After rain, the CCA still bleeds out of our deck and is identifiable by a pale green deposit on the surface. The green is from the copper, but more arsenic than copper bleeds out. This arsenic can be absorbed through the skin and by children by sucking contaminated fingers. Children must be trained to wash their hands before eating after possible contact with CCA-treated wood. Animals kept in cages made from CCA-treated wood have become very sick. The most important warning is never to burn CCA-treated wood, indoors or outdoors. Some of the arsenic is released as a vapor, and the effects of inhaling arsenic over a period are very serious. The vapor also deposits a film of arsenic on the ground and on vegetation. The remainder of the arsenic is concentrated in the ash, and a teaspoon of ash is a fatal dose for an adult. Exposure to arsenic over time is suspected as causing cancer, particularly in young children.

The harmful effects of CCA are so undisputed that the Bush administration, usually skeptical about environmental and health hazards, signed on to an agreement between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the lumber industry to stop shipment of CCA-treated lumber to retailers after Dec. 31, 2003. This agreement prevents additional CCA wood from entering the market place, but does nothing to address the millions of cubic feet of lumber already in the environment.

The US EPA recommends that CCA-treated wood which can be contacted by people should be coated every year with an oil-based varnish, such as polyurethane. Any time you see a green deposit on the surface of the varnish, it's time to repaint. Wear waterproof gloves whenever you may be in contact with CCA.

As decks and other pressure-treated lumber structures reach end of life, they will pass into the waste stream. There is no perfect solution to how to prevent the arsenic from passing into the atmosphere, groundwater and drinking water, but the worst possible scenario is that municipalities like Newton, that rely on incineration to dispose of wood, will ship the CCA-treated wood to an incinerator. People living downwind of the incinerator will be subject to large doses of arsenic and the ash will be highly toxic.

Until there is a practical method of extracting CCA from the wood, a properly lined landfill is the least harmful method of disposal, but the landfill should not be upgrade from a drinking water well and the adjacent groundwater must be monitored. Arsenic is said to become attached to soil particles so that any release to the environment should be slow.

At present, most jurisdictions in the U.S., including Massachusetts, do not classify CCA-treated lumber as hazardous and it can be disposed of in unlined landfills. Unless corrected, this is going to result in serious health problems in the future. The long-term problem is that millions of pounds of arsenic have been used to treat wood and if not controlled much of this will eventually be released into the environment. (The amount of arsenic used is known because there are records of arsenic imports and almost all is used in CCA-treated wood.)

NOTE. A major reason why action to limit use of CCA-treated wood was so long delayed and why so little attention is paid to the health hazards is that many doctors do not recognize the symptoms of low-level exposure to arsenic.

Gilbert Woolley is a retired engineer. He has been a very active member of the Sierra Club since 1971, and he served on the Sierra Club National Toxics Committee for six years.

This article is archived at www.greendecade.org/tabarchive.asp.

Read More...

Dogwood anthracnose: deadly disease

By Bruce Wenning/Special To The Tab

Flowering dogwood, Cornus florida, is a native understory tree in the eastern United States. This tree has been popular for use in home landscapes for over fifty years. Part of its popularity is that it is a slow to moderate grower and can reach a height of thirty feet and a crown width of about twenty five feet at maturity.

Flowering dogwoods are highly prized for their white or pink leaf- like bracts, which are often mistaken for the actual flowers. The flowers are much smaller and less showy than the surrounding four bracts. The bracts and flowers are emerging just about now in the landscape. At the Mass Audubon sanctuary where I work there are close to fifty scattered through out the property, and you certainly get a sense that spring is here to stay when you see these trees in bloom.

The 50 that I see every day were once part of a population of 250 that ranged in age from thirty to seventy years old. Unfortunately, by the late 1980's the majority of this larger population had died or was weakened so severely by this new fungal pathogen that they were cut down, forever changing the landscape. The pathogen is dogwood anthracnose, Discula destructiva,. It was first discovered in the New York City area in 1979. By the late 1980's it had spread to Massachusetts and to other east coast states south of New York City. Dogwood anthracnose continues to spread throughout the natural range of this native tree.

According to U Mass plant pathologist Dan Gillman, there is controversy about the origin of this disease. Some researchers think it is an invasive, exotic pathogen introduced on nursery stock, perhaps from Asia. Others think it could be a weak pathogen that mutated and became more virulent as environmental conditions favored and enhanced it. In either case, it is a disease to be reckoned with. It will continue to spread in our woodlands and forests and threaten the existence of this prized native tree.

Most anthracnose fungi attack only leaves and rarely kill their hosts. However dogwood anthracnose attacks both leaf and woody tissue. It is more destructive than the anthracnose diseases of maple, oak, sycamore, and birches, to name a few. Most of the time dogwood anthracnose kills the host slowly. It causes leaf spots, leaf and shoot blight (wilting) and twig, stem, and trunk cankers. Cankers give older trees a bumpy and contorted look, and they will eventually kill the tree. When infected flowering dogwood is subjected to environmental stresses and drought, tree death occurs even faster. Trees that have lost several branches or are in a weakened condition try to fight off the disease by developing prolific sprouting of small, clustered branches called water sprouts, which are highly susceptible to infection, which produces the cankers.

Fungal spore development causing this disease is favored by cloudy, cool, humid, and wet weather that occurs mostly in spring and early summer. Leaf spotting, and twig and stem infection usually start in the shady lower branches where the microclimate is cooler and more humid, which is beneficial for spore development. Sun and wind cause leaves and stems to dry out faster in the upper portions of the tree, thereby disabling the fungus and minimizing infection.

The disease can be managed by following these suggestions.

·      Get a soil test to determine the proper amount of organic tree fertilizer needed to maintain tree health.

·      Mulch the root zone with two to three inches of bark mulch to keep roots cool and to conserve moisture to drought, especially young trees, which are most susceptible to drought.

·      Provide at least one inch of water once a week during dry spells or drought.

·      Water only the root zone, not the leaves; excess moisture can spread the fungus.

·      The best times to prune dogwood to minimize disease infection and spread is during dry weather. Timing is key; a dry spell of 48 hours-one week is best. The tree will be able to seal off the wound within 24 hours. The other time is in late winter, because when temperatures are below forty degrees (F) the fungus advances more slowly.

·      Consult a Massachusetts Certified Arborist to confirm if you need fungicidal sprays. Fungicides will not cure dogwood, only protect it until the fungus mutates to a more virulent form. If you use fungicides, skip applications during dry weather when anthracnose spores are less infective.

For more information about dogwood anthracnose and soil testing see: www.UMassGreenInfo.org.

Bruce Wenning is the grounds manager for the Mass Audubon Society Habitat sanctuary in Belmont and serves on the Board of the Ecological Landscaping Association. www.ecolandscaping.org.

This article is archived at www.greendecade.org/tabarchive.asp.

Read More...

Taming the winter moth

By Joseph S. Elkinton/Special To The Tab

My laboratory at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst has embarked on an effort to control the winter moth, Operopthera brumata, a major new threat to our forests and shade trees. The winter moth is native to Europe and has recently invaded eastern Massachusetts and caused widespread defoliation of many kinds of deciduous trees, including all species of oak and maple. In addition, it represents a threat to blueberry and apple crops. Severe tree defoliation has occurred at sites near Cape Ann and throughout the South Shore and Cape Cod. It has probably been established in eastern Massachusetts for about a decade, but no one knows how it got here or exactly where it was first established. Until 2003, it was thought to be a native species, the fall cankerworm, Alsophila pometaria. Close examination of the adult females in December 2003 proved that it was neither fall cankerworm nor the Bruce spanworm, Operopthera bruceata,a native species that is very closely related to the winter moth. All three species are in the inch-worm family of moths that feed in early spring and then drop to ground in late May where they form earthen cocoons in the soil or forest litter. The adult winter moths emerge in November or December. The females have no wings. They climb the trunks of trees and produce a pheromone that attracts the winged males. After mating they lay eggs in bark crevices, which then hatch the following spring. Many people in eastern Massachusetts have been startled by the large numbers of male winter moths they have seen flying in early evening at Christmas time. This phenomenon accounts for the name winter moth.

We believe we have an excellent chance to use natural controls to prevent future defoliation by winter moth and to convert it to a non-pest status similar to that of the hundreds of native caterpillar species that exist in our forests without ever causing outbreaks. Invasions of winter moth have occurred at other sites in North America, namely Nova Scotia in the 1950s and in the Pacific Northwest in the 1970s. In each case, a decade-long outbreak has been successfully and permanently controlled by the introduction of a parasitic fly called Cyzenis albicans, from Europe, where it is one of the naturally occurring parasites of winter moth. In Nova Scotia, they first released C. albicansin 1954. High levels of parasitism did not occur until 1961, but after that winter moth retreated to low density where it has remained ever since.

One of the most attractive features about C. albicansis that it specializes on winter moth and does not attack any other species with the possible exception of Bruce spanworm. That means that C. albicanswill not have any unintended effects on other species and when it suppresses winter moth densities, it will suppress its own density as well. People will be unaware that this fly is present in their back yards just as they are unaware of the many native species of parasitic flies and wasps that attack native insects in their yards.

In April 2005, we received about 5,000 winter moth pupae shipped to us from Victoria BC by colleagues in the Canadian Forest Service. Many of these pupae were infested with C. albicans, and from this batch we obtained 832 adult flies of which about half were females. On May 4, 2005, we released 225 C. albicansat a site in Wompatuck State Park in Hingham, where we have collected data on parasitism of winter moth since 2004. The remaining flies were held in the laboratory to produce eggs for production of more flies for next year. Based on similar work in Nova Scotia, we do not expect to see much, if any, parasitism for several years, because the eggs laid by a few hundred released flies are dispersed among the millions of winter moths at this site.

We believe that our efforts to control winter moth by introducing C. albicansare almost guaranteed to work because the approach has already worked before at two other locations in North America. If so we will achieve permanent solution to the winter moth outbreak that will require no further expenditures once we get C. albicans established. However, in order for the introduction to work within a reasonable time frame (e.g. five years) we must invest sufficient funds to be able to release several thousand C. albicansfrom as many sites as possible each year. Otherwise it could be a decade or more before the parasitoid population catches up with the already huge winter moth population. Last year we estimated that there were approximately a quarter million winter moth eggs being laid in each tree. With several million trees infested, the estimated size of the winter moth population in eastern Massachusetts is several trillion!! It will take some years for a few thousand C. albicansto multiply sufficiently to catch up. As with any biological control project, we must release a sufficient number of parasitoids at each site in order to assure that the next generation of parasitoids are abundant enough to find mates. Luckily the Massachusetts state legislature is considering a bill to provide the necessary funding for this initiative.

Joseph S. Elkinton is Professor of Entomology in the Department of Plant, Soil and Insect Science, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, elkinton@ent.umass.edu, 413-545-4816.

This article is archived at www.greendecade.org/tabarchive.asp.

Read More...