Seagrass: An Overview

Photo of seagrass. From pixabay.com

Aquatic plants and phytoplankton make up the base of the marine food web, making these species vital to the marine ecosystem. Seagrasses are angiospersms (flowering plants) that from vast meadows on the sea bed that photosynthesise to produce oxygen helping to support a vast range of marine organisms.  There are four families of seagrass that are spread all over the globe with roughly 63 species in total that are found in a range of climates. These extensive marine meadows are ecosystem engineers and help to maintain and improve a range of key ecosystem services that benefit both us and marine biodiversity.

Seagrass plays a vital role in reducing coastal erosion as the dense root structures bind the soil together, stabilising the sediment and protecting coastal settlements. The rhizome roots grow horizontally, binding the top soil that often comes loose from waves. This can also reduce the turbidity as less suspended sediment increases the amount of sunlight available to the seabed, in turn increasing seagrass growth. The dense root system can also stabilise any pollutants, such as toxic metals, in the sediment preventing them from travelling with the current. This improves water quality which helps to maintain biodiversity and improve human health, particularly in coastal regions.

As seagrass are photosynthetic, they help to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere helping to reduce the impact of the enhanced greenhouse effect. Seagrass meadows account for 10% of carbon storage in the ocean, totalling 27.4 million tonnes annually. This is more than terrestrial forests suggesting that the maintenance of seagrass will have a greater impact on helping to maintain surface temperatures, reducing sea levels rising and reducing ocean acidification. The high amount of carbon is also a reason for high soil fertility within seagrass meadows and has previously been used as fertiliser. This also encourages juvenile plant growth increasing the seagrass population further.

One major threat to segarass meadows is from the boating industry and propellers and anchors can damage the plant or uproot entire sections of the meadow. Segarass provides a physical habitat for many species, including many seahorses, that are at risk of a reduced population, subsequently reducing the genetic diversity of the species. The lack of seagrass growth can also result in eutrophication caused by algal blooms. This causes oxygen in the water to decline reducing biodiversity within these areas even further. Seagrass is also home to several commercial species, such as shrimp and scallops, and the protection of these habitats can help improve and maintain a sustainable fishing industry in coastal region. With proper management, fisherman can have limited access to these areas and quotas should be enforced at the maximum sustainable yield to prevent any damage to seagrass. Reduced seagrass cover not only reduces habitat, but it also decreases the rate of carbon sequestration, a possible increase in turbidity and a decrease in coastal water quality as well as several more ecosystem services being impacted.

To evaluate, seagrass meadows are important marine species that are often over looked and are often seen as seaweed and are therefore not prioritised. However, recently many of these areas have gotten effective management schemes that will hopefully contribute to an improvement in the quality of these habitats. I feel it is important that primary producers within the marine food web are conserved correctly in order to conserve species at higher trophic levels. 

Resources - 

• Project Seagrass: https://seagrass.org.uk/

• The Wildlife Trust: https://www.wildlifetrusts.org/habitats/marine/seagrass

• Current state of seagrass ecosystem services: Research and policy integration: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0964569117304325?casa_token=dKzVqvrcaLsAAAAA:gIPbS_1tHhrDm_cFu5LXpIHowIh75f0u4FKqew-B_yWRjwFnB0Uuo3hACgzS8gsVGYA7dLnl

• Critical gaps in seagrass protection reveal the need to address multiple pressures and cumulative impacts: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0964569119303035

Do zoos really aid conservation?

it is widely believed that zoos help to grow the populations of endangered species and conserve endangered ones by developing breeding programmes that have saved species including the Socorro Dove from extinction. Zoos have data bases showing the recorded family and breeding history of each individual to ensure the gene pool can grow and there is no risk or inbreeding which can lead to a population collapse. These often involve either the exchange in individuals between zoos or the gifting of genetic material that can be used for artificial insemination. The main end goal of these programmes is advertised as release into the wild or sanctuaries but I wanted to look at a few example to see if this really was the case.

Regardless if you agree with the ethics of zoos and these programmes, you cannot argue there have been many captive breeding programmes that have been successful such as the Amur Tiger breeding programme in Europe that currently has 287 individuals within the programme.There have been cases of species being extinct in the wild that have increased in population size such as Przewalski's horses that have been extinct in the wild since the 1960's but a successful reintroduction programme the species conservation status was updated in 2008. There are also accreditation programmes for zoos to ensure that they are regulated and the animals are healthy and cared for properly. This also means the breeding programmes are monitored and have to be approved by a regulating body to ensure that no inbreeding or crossbreeding occurs as this will impact the health and life expectancy of any offspring. Despite these, different species are crossbred in zoos to attract visitors and increase profits. One example would be a liger  which is a hybrid between a lion and tiger which are bred artificially in captivity as in the wild they are found on different continents making it impossible for them to be bred naturally. The USA has the greatest number with 30 with many of these cases being claimed to be an accident, however it is standard policy to keep different species separate so these claims are mostly likely false or are cases of neglect towards the proper care of animals.

There are several disadvantage to there being zoos open to the public the first of which being that animals become dependant on humans or used to their presence which can put them at risk of being hunted if they are released into the wild. This also means they can lose valuable skills such as the ability to hunt or source food on their own which, again, will greatly reduce their chance of survival. There is research to suggests that the survival rate for captive breed carnivores (i.e. lions and tigers) is only 33% as they have not learnt behavioural and survival instincts. This is because in the wild individuals are competing for mates, hunting grounds and food. Individuals born in the wild have learnt survival skills from their mother and others in the wild, putting them at an advantage over those raised in captivity. Therefore it can be argued that funds should be invested into conservation of wild habitats and species in the wild rather than of those in captivity.

I feel that is should be made clear the difference between a sanctuary/rehabilitation centre and a zoo. As a zoo dies aid conservation but has a focus on engagement with the public and ticket sales with education and conservation as a second priority. Rehabilitation centres take injured individuals from the wild for a short period of time with the aim of releasing them back into their natural habitat. In my opinion, rehabilitation centres are a better alternative to zoos and will educate people on local wildlife rather than those from the other side of the world. In terms of aiding conservation, you could argue that they do but they need to be regulated to ensure all the individuals have enrichment, a healthy diet and enough space to live. There should also be a chance for individuals to see their natural habitat if they have good enough survival chances but rehabilitation are by far a much better option.

References-
http://www.waza.org/en/site/conservation/conservation-breeding-programmes
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/mammals/p/przewalskis-horse/
https://www.zsl.org/conservation-initiatives/conservation-breeding/amur-tiger-european-breeding-programme
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/2008/01/predators-captivity-habitat-animals/

Is the honey industry killing the bees?

Photo from pexels.com

We are all aware of the importance of maintaining a healthy pollinator population. We would lose over a third of our crops without them. Bees and other pollinators do this by transferring pollen between flowers allowing new seeds to be produced and dispersed, increasing crop and wild plant populations. Between 1996 and 2016, the European honey bee population declined by 25% as a result of colony collapse disorder (CCD) which has been attributed to a range of causes, including the removal of wild meadows, pesticides and parasites. Many of us believe that by buying honey we are supporting the growth of this declining population but is this really the case?

The average honey bee colony contains 50,000 bees, with the majority being worker bees whose role is to collect nectar for the hive. One hive can produce 14 KG of honey. That seems like an awful lot for one hive so is it really an issue for us to have some honey? To make 0.45 KG of honey the hive will have to get to two million flowers and travel around 55,000 miles to do this only for us to steal the majority of their food collected which, in my opinion, doesn't seem very fair to the the poor hard working bees. With CCD increasing in concern, we should be giving the bees the best chance for survival and that means ensuring that they have enough food to survive and reproduce.

To increase honey production, some beekeepers, mainly in the US, have resorted to artificial insemination to increase the number of drones in the hive, thus increasing the pollen collected. Although very few beekeepers are doing this is does mean killing at least one drone in order to collect the semen. The head and first segment of the body are crushed in order for the muscles to contract, making it easy to collect the semen. The queen bee is then held down via hooks in order to be inseminated which can lead to injury and possibly death of the queen. There have also been some cases where the queens wings have been clipped to prevent any chance of her flying away. With bee population becoming so scarce, should we be killing bees in order to artificially increase honey production for human consumption?

Despite these issues there are many other reasons for a declining bee population that don't involve honey. There is an argument that bee farms increase populations by increasing the amount of hives, planting flowers and reducing pesticides to increase bee populations. Bees in honey hives will also pollinate the surrounding area, helping to increase plant biodiversity which is the base of every food web, in turn supporting larger mammals in the area. It has also never been proven that there is a link between honey production and declining bee populations and there are many things we can do to limit the impact honey production has on bees. One thing could be to ban artificial insemination and limit the amount that can be taken form a single hive. So this begs the question, should governments be doing more to reduce our impact rather than stop eating honey altogether?

Personally, I think that ethically it isn't right for us to take the honey from the bees especially seeing as the entire hive is built around it. There are so many other alternatives, such as maple syrup, agave and date syrup, all derived from plants essentially cutting out the middle man. With bees being so important and becoming so scarce, shouldn't we be doing everything in our power to protect them?


Resources -
https://phys.org/news/2016-01-complex-worldwide-bee-declines.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/zg4dwmn
https://friendsoftheearth.uk/bees/honey-ethical-guide
https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-food/animals-used-food-factsheets/honey-factory-farmed-bees/

Seal Rescue Ireland

A photo taken of Churro, a female grey seal

So for my summer I'm interning at Ireland's only seal sanctuary, Seal Rescue Ireland which I am really enjoying. I have already learnt so much about the two types of seal found within Irish waters. The first species of seal is the Grey seal. These guys can reach up to 300 KG and the pups, that are born between September and December, are born at roughly 14 KG. The pups are born with a white fur called lanugo which is not waterproof meaning they have to spend the first three weeks on shore with the mother coming to shore to nurse frequently. So if you see a small white seal on shore please keep a distance and phone a wildlife centre if you're worried because mum is more than likely close by. The second species of seal (that is much cuter in my opinion) is the Common seal which is a lot smaller only reaching 130 KG. They are currently in pupping season and are born during the summer months and are able to go straight into the water after they are born but we still advise that if you find one on the shore to follow the same rules as stated above.

So why do we need a rescue centre? Well there are several reasons that seals end up in our care the first of which being plastic ingestion. We have had numerous seals come into the centre with single use plastic within the system, especially shiny piece such as crisp packets that can look like fish. Most of the time the seal throws up the plastic but we have found it stuck in digestive systems which has resulted in the death of a few seals. One way we reduce our plastic is by making EcoBricks which are plastic bottles stuffed with soft plastic that is densely packed so no air is present. They are used in less developed rural areas as actual bricks but we use our to make benches for school tours. If you want to learn how to make them click here. Another major issue is orphaning of pups as they are similar to baby birds in the sense that if the mother does not recognise the scent of the pup or becomes scared she will abandon her pup and self preserve.  Dogs in particular scare seals and should be kept on leads if you are in areas where seals are found. Dogs and seals are also very closely related and and cause disease to spread quickly between them which will not only harm the seal but also put your dog at risk aswell. To prevent this we ask that you do not touch the seal. UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. We ask that you keep a distance and call a wildlife centre (or us) and you will be advised what to do. It is likely that the mamma seal is close by in the water so we will send volunteers to watch for roughly an hour to see if the mum can be spotted. If we cannot see her we will then take the seal pup in.

The purpose of SRI is to take in sick, injured or abandoned pups with the aim of releasing them back into the wild and we are more like a seal hospital than a zoo. The centre is run mainly on donations and only get 5% of the costs covered by the Irish government. This is enough to treat roughly six seals but on average we treat 150 seals annually. Each seal costs roughly 2000 Euros to treat as this covers medicine, employment, energy needed, and fish (lots of fish) so to raise money I am doing a run in July. I would appreciate any donations to help the seals below. Please check out the website below and read all the amazing things we do and if anyone is visiting County Wexford come visit and we would love you give you a tour. You can also adopt a seal here for 30 Euros where you get a pack of information and pictures of your pup with updates on how they are doing. 


Donate to my fundraiser to help the seals.
https://www.facebook.com/donate/640533469797106/

Seal Rescue Ireland website - http://www.sealrescueireland.org/

Rewilding: The most basic but effective conservation technique?

It's exciting to see a book about wildlife conservation in the UK being a top seller and highly advertised in bookstores. If you haven't heard of the book 'Wilding' yet by Isabella Tree I would highly recommend you pick it up. The book talks about the conservation technique of rewilding (obviously) in the Knepp estate in West Sussex and how this technique can be replicated in other habitats. The book defines this technique as essentially doing nothing. It is removing all intensive management and allowing natural succession of a habitat to occur with minimal human impact or intervention. The idea is that it will increase the population of the native species and possibly attract new species. This can also include the reintroduction of native species that are no longer found in that habitat (similar to my blogpost on beaver reintroduction). However, this is sparking some debate, particularly with locals when this technique is done on open land (or commons) such as Dartmoor which begs the question is a technique that we should be implementing more?

One key idea in this concept is to promote naturalistic grazing patterns to maintain sustainable vegetation levels and provide different exposure levels for a range of species. For example, in her book Tree links the population of Dartmoor ponies to an increase in the rare butterfly species the Marsh Fritillary; an insect that declined in population 66% between 1990 and 2000. She also rights about a study claiming the grazing of ponies has helped to increase the weight in grazing cows as the remove the tough upper layer of grass that bovines cannot digest. Whilst I don't recommend anyone eats meat, there is the argument that farmers can still raise livestock on the moor and can advertise the meat as organic and free range. This is what is done on the Knepp estate and has lead to an increase in profits for the landowners.

Another idea is to remove any intensive management techniques already in place such as drainage channels used in agriculture. The blocking of the channels (also known as grip blocking) will help to restore the water table leading to the reformation of rivers, streams and wetlands. This is what happened on the Knepp estate which has helped to increases the diversity of habitats, and subsequently increased overall species diversity. If this occurred nationwide it could help to increase the UK's ranking on the Biodiversity Intactness Index which is currently 189/218. In areas of Dartmoor this had lead to an increase in Sphagnum, moorgrass, braken and gorse which are the key plants that support endangered habitats such a blanket bogs. If this could be used to increase the size of our peatlands, this could significantly increase the rate of carbon sequestration as peat is a greater store of carbon than terrestrial plants.

The Knepp estate has also seen an increase in eco-tourism as they promote a guided nature walk and a sustainable camping site. Whilst the book does not mention a specific figure in profits, this could help bring tourists to areas, such as national parks, provided that they stick to paths and follow the guides to avoid damaging the plant life. This could create a new economy for locals, reducing our dependence on intensive agriculture which is always a benefit in terms of ethics and climate change.

However there are objections, mainly from farmers. The idea of reducing intensive farming will most likely result in reduced yield as fertiliser and pesticide isn't allowed under this scheme. Reintroduction programmes are also expensive with the beavers in Knapdale costing the Scottish government £2 million which, given the countries current financial state, could be invested in the public sector. Personally, I feel that ethically we should be looking to invest in our conservation and this method can be done on a budget and we need to take any measure we can to improve the state of our wildlife. So to sum up, I think rewilding could be easily implemented by landowners and help improve the UK's biodiversity.


Click here to buy Wilding on Amazon. 

Scottish Beaver Reintroduction

The European Beaver that became extinct in the UK in the 16th century after being hunted to extinction for their fur and medicinal purposes. They excrete castoreum which is an oil originally used to treat headaches. Reintroduction programmes for this beautiful mammal began in the early 2000's in Scotland with aims of sustaining a healthy population in order to reverse years of hunting.

A photo of the Eurasian Beaver. Photo from CreamTeam.be

The first reintroduction programme began in 2001 and was located within the River Tay, Scotland's largest river. This area was chosen due to the high biodiversity, the designation of SSSI and the high population of salmon meaning there would be a good food source for the beavers. Despite some opposition after a few rouge escaped individuals, in 2011 up to 100 individuals were recorded with there being evidence of breeding and a growing juvenile population. The second project began in 2007 and was located within the Knapdale forest after an application was made by the Royal Zoological Society of Scotland and this project was given a gran of £1 million. and the Scottish Wildlife Trust. The first reintroduction was in 2009 where 16 beavers were realised. There were however a few mortality's and a few runaways meaning that in 2014 there were 10 beavers remaining. Since then a successful family unit has been established with a growing juvenile population and 28 more individuals are planned to be released within the next few years.. In February 2019, the European Beaver was granted European protected status and the appropriate measures should therefore be taken to protect the new populations that have been established.

There are many benefits to beavers being present within certain ecosystems the main one being that fact that they are considered ecosystem engineers as they have the potential to alter or maintain their habitat. Beavers remove trees in a similar manner to coppicing which reduces the size of the canopy and canopy cover. Whilst this may seem like a bad thing, it actually increases diversity as it allows ground plants to grow, thus increasing insect diversity. The trees removed during this process are used to create dams which block a stream or rivers water course. This can create or restore wetlands which are key habitats from migratory birds in particular. This also acts as a store of water that can be extracted during periods of drought. The dams create ponds that offer protection and a food supply for beavers as well as provide a habitat for aquatic life and invertebrates, potentially attracting a greater population of pollinators.

There has also been some opposition to the project with one argument being it will affect the local agricultural industry as these areas are dependent on the existing drainage system, affecting water supply. The other major issue was cost with many questioning the running cost of the project and if locals would have to contribute towards the maintenance as well as if this would take away local government spending from other area. Question were also raised if other important Scottish species would still be receiving the same amount of funding towards their conservation efforts. There were also question about the impact on the topography as many were concerned with the stability of the river bank and burrowing may cause the river bank to collapse, leading to an increase in flooding to the surrounding area.

Despite these issue I personally believe the benefits outweigh the possible disadvantages and projects like these help to maintain the ecosystem and improve diversity. Plus there is also the ethical issue as it was our (or our ancestors) fault for the initial extinction so shouldn't it be our responsibility to help introduce an maintain healthy populations? Hopefully this leads to other successful reintroduction programmes.


Resources -

•  https://www.nfus.org.uk/news/news/union-reiterates-opposition-reintroduction-beavers-tayside-following-snh-report
• https://scottishbeavers.org.uk/beaver-facts/
• https://scottishbeavers.org.uk/beaver-facts/beaver-trial-faqs/when-do-beavers-start-breeding-and-are-they-around-all-year/
• https://www.wildlifetrusts.org/wildlife-and-wild-places/saving-species/beavers
• https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-38096751

The Importance of Peatlands

Photo of a peatland habitat. from leeds.ac.uk

In the UK, 10% of our land area are covered in peatlands and are vital not only to our economy and wildlife but as a form of carbon sequestration. Despite these factors, peatlands are given little care, unless designated by governments, as they are often just seen as bogs with nutrient rich soil making them ideal spots for the growing agricultural industry. However, the elevated water table means that drainage is required which removes the required vegetation (also know as bog builders)  that have lead to a dramatic decline in global peatland habitats. So what is being done to reverse this and why are these habitats so important?

So peatlands are essentially a soft, nutrient rich soil that forms over a long period of time, in a similar way to coal, under anaerobic conditions. These habitats also acts as a large store of water that leads to the colonisation of Sphagnum mosses that lead to the development of peat habitats such as swamps and wetlands. In the UK there are 10 key peatland Sphagnum species with most common being Baltic Bog-moss that is protected under UK legislation. These mosses have a sponge like structure meaning they store large quantities of water, preventing the surrounding area from drying up. This specific property also helps to prevent any decay and decomposition aiding the accumulation of peat and helping to maintain these diverse habitats. The bog building plants also help to shape the habitat by creating pool and hammock structures that increase the water table, making more water more available to plants on the surface. If these species are removed, it would cause a decline in peat formation, water supply and affect the topography of the habitat.

Global, peatlands are currently storing 500 GT (which is more than all forests) of carbon as a result of peat being made of dead and decaying vegetation which is stored instead of being released into the atmosphere in the form of carbon dioxide. When peatlands are drained and deforested, that stored carbon is then released into the atmosphere so imagine the damage that would be done if all the peatlands around the world were gone? RIP polar bears. These habitats also act as a store of water which not only benefits biodiversity but can also increase ground water levels in the surrounding area and the moss structure helps to filter the groundwater. This means that our water reservoirs would face serious decline in these peatland habitats continue to decrease in size and quality.

Peatlands tend to have a low species diversity due to the habitat creating a small niche so only specialised organism can live there. As the habitat is currently declining many of the species are subsequently following, including the Common Scoter and the Mountain Hare, and the specialised habitat requirements of these species mean they cannot colonise other habitats. As these habitats are declining the competition between and amongst species is increasing therefore reducing the population However, action is being taken especially regarding the protection of breeding birds as several peat habitats, including the North Pennies, have been designated a SPA (Special Protection Area). These areas are maintained and managed in order to increase specific bird populations. Most of these habitats are also listed a SSSI's (sites of special scientific interest) which are areas managed by Natural England due to their biological or geological interest. This ensures that land owners take all the necessary precautions to protect these areas, including many peatland habitats, from damage.

Despite vast restoration efforts, I feel that the importance of these areas is not emphasised to the general public, mainly because they aren't necessarily as aesthetically pleasing as the bright and vibrant tropical rainforests we see. Do I think more could be done? Absolutely. However, the UK government is making good efforts to designated and protect these areas but could invest in future expansion projects to increase the size of our peatlands.


Resources

• http://www.iucn-uk-peatlandprogramme.org/publications/commission-inquiry/work-commission/peatland-hydrology 
• https://www.wildlifetrusts.org/wildlife-explorer/mosses-and-liverworts/sphagnum-moss
• http://www.iucn-uk-peatlandprogramme.org/publications/commission-inquiry/work-commission/peatland-biodiversity
• http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-5905