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

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

Does Our Environment Affect Our Welfare and Health?

There's no question that we are having a grave impact on our environment whether that is through climate change or habitat destruction. Many of us believe that in order to improve our happiness and welfare we need to have a high income and economic growth in our country but there have been many reports to suggest that there is a strong link between growing the economy and environmental degradation. So what does this mean for our health? Can we really be at our happiest and healthiest with the current trend of over exploitation?

According to the World Bank, in 2014 globally we emitted 36.2 million Ktonnes of CO2 in contrast to the 9 million Ktonnes emitted in 1960 which has made us more vulnerable to respiratory illness. The WHO has linked 3 million deaths each year to outdoor air pollution with reference to illness ranging from asthma and bronchitis to lung cancer. These reports also state these illnesses are higher in industrial areas and larger cities due to excess transport fumes and burning of fossil fuels. There has also been a link between high concentrations of air pollution and cardiovascular illness which puts us at greater risk of heart attack, stroke and angina. One way this occurs is through particulate matter entering the blood stream, restricting the movement of blood vessels, increasing blood pressure and therefore increasing our risk of suffering a heart attack.

Sunlight provides us with vitamin D which is needed to regulate calcium and phosphate within the body, helping to maintain healthy bones and muscles. We as humans require 10 micrograms of vitamin D a day, most of which we are supposed to get naturally through sunlight meaning we do have to step out of the house occasionally. A lack of vitamin D in extreme cases can cause rickets in children that leads to weak bones and deformities. This causes a high number of bone fractures and can eventually cause a curvature of the spine, leading to a permanent disability. Low vitamin D can also cause osteomalacia, which is similar to rickets, in adults causing bones to soften. With 1 in 5 people in the UK having low vitamin D levels, it is important we spend more time outdoors (and maybe consider a supplement in winter).

There have also been studies suggesting a link between time outside and an improvement in mental health with studies showing time outdoors reduces stress and reduces the symptoms of depression and anxiety. Scientists have suggested that urban and man made environments has 'constant simulation' that leads to mental fatigue, making those living in cities at greater risk of mental illness. Those living in rural areas also have better sleep with less noises keeping them awake. This will help to improve concentration, lower stress and improve moods which will allow people to be more productive.

There is also the obvious benefit that walking in a natural environment keeps us active, aids weight loss and maintains a healthy heart. Sitting down for too long can cause a decline in bone density and increase blood pressure after deposits in the blood vessels are not removed. All of these factors have been linked to a lower life expectancy by increasing our risk of stroke, heart disease and diabetes just to name a few.

So we all need to get outside in nature to help improve our health and wellbeing. However, I'm not saying that if you live in a city you're going to get ill and live a shorter life because that's not the case. Most large cities have parks and open spaces you can visit and city councils should be turning old sites into open spaces to encourage the urban population the get out and appreciate nature and we should all be doing our bit to protect it to protect the health of the future generations.


References
https://ourworldindata.org/air-pollution#death-rates-from-air-pollution
https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/support/practical-support/air-pollution
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/vitamins-and-minerals/vitamin-d/
https://patient.info/health/osteoporosis-leaflet/vitamin-d-deficiency

Mangroves: The Natural Defence for Coastlines

Figure 1 - A map highlighting the distribution of mangrove forests (in black) throughout the globe (Romañach, 2017)

Across the intertidal zone are a collection of mangrove forests located along the coastlines of equatorial countries (figure 1), the largest being The Sundarbans in Bangladesh covering a total of 140,000 ha. These forests are often referred to as 'the roots of the sea' due to the complex aerial root system that spend the majority of the time above sea level enabling the plant to survive in the anaerobic soil, making these ecosystems tolerant to a hypersaline environment. With 40% of mangrove species labelled threatened by the IUCN, these coastal areas could be at greater risk of coastal erosion, storm surges and sea level rise. It is important these issues are understood to aid conservation of global coastlines as well as these beautiful unique habitats.

Figure 2 - A photograph showing the dense root systems of mangrove forests that reduce erosion 

Erosion is defined as “the process of eroding or being eroded by wind, water, or other natural agents”  and the complex, uneven aerial root system (figure 2) of mangroves reduces erosion of the shore. Mangroves have reportedly reduced the height waves up to 66% and slow the flow of seawater as the vegetation acts as a buffer between the land and sea. This enables 70-80% of incoming sediment to settle resulting, increasing biomass. This helps to increase the fertility in these harsh environments, increasing biodiversity, as mangrove soils have a high nutrient content. This gradual accumulation of biomass, over a long-time period, allows peat to form which is a long-term carbon sink helping to reduce carbon in the atmosphere. The dense roots bind soil particles together meaning an increase in mangrove trees means that less soil particles will become dislodged by incoming waves. This reduces the risk of flooding and damage to infrastructure in coastal communities. This risk increased in Guyana as after the removal of mangroves, coastal erosion increased 3 m annually.

The dense vegetation helps to reduce the impact of hurricanes and tsunamis inland by reducing the force of the storm surge. Figure 3 shows a storm surge is a large increase in sea water due to extreme weather, that often carries debris, that causes damage to infrastructure and flooding. The complex structure of mangrove forests increases the frictional resistance resulting in a drop in the force of the storm surge and slowing the flow rate of the wave. Storm surges are the biggest cause of damage during storms affecting causing large scale damage to properties, roads, biodiversity and coastal erosion. Studies have reported that mangroves can reduce the amplitude of a storm surge by 6 to 10 cm/km resulting in a decline in inland flooding and may fewer individuals at risk. However, the force from the waves can damage the mangroves often resulting in uprooting and damaging trunks so the health of mangrove forests should be monitored to ensure future storm surges have a reduced impact.

Figure 3 - A graphic showing the large increase in wave size during a storm surge 

Not only do mangroves provide a habitat to endangered species, including the Bengal tiger, but there are also major benefits to the human population as they reduce the risk to coastal settlements. Despite these major benefits, deforestation of these unique habitats is still on the rise due to the growth in aquaculture and the high value of mangrove wood potentially putting coastlines at risk.

Bibliography

• Gracia, A., Rangel-Buitrago, N., Oakley, J., & Williams, A. (2017). Use of ecosystems in coastal erosion management. Ocean & Coastal Management, 156, 277-289. Retrieved October 12th, 2018, from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0964569117301588#bib42
• ICUN. (2010, April 8th). Mangrove forests in worldwide decline. Retrieved from ICUN Threatened List: http://www.iucnredlist.org/news/mangrove-forests-in-worldwide-decline
• Leggett, M. (2011, April 5th). Carbon grasped by Mangrove roots vastly underestimated. Retrieved October 12th, 2018, from Earth Times: http://www.earthtimes.org/conservation/carbon-grasped-mangrove-roots-vastly-underestimated/662/
• NOAA. (2018, June 25th). What is storm surge? Retrieved October 12th, 2018, from National Ocean Service: https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/stormsurge-stormtide.html
• Oxford University. (2010). Oxford Dictionary of English (Third ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Retrieved October 10th, 2018
• Romañach, S. (2017). Conservation and restoration of mangroves: Global status, perspectives, and prognosis. Ocean & Coastal Management, 154, 72-82. Retrieved October 11th, 2018, from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0964569117301710#fig
• Sivasothi, N. (2001). How plants cope in the mangroves. Retrieved October 11th, 2018, from Guide to the Mangroves of Singapore: http://mangrove.nus.edu.sg/guidebooks/text/1043.htm
• Spalding, M., Mclvor, A., & Tonneijck, F. (2014). Mangroves for coastal defence. Cambridge: The Nature Conservancy. Retrieved October 11th, 2018, from https://www.nature.org/media/oceansandcoasts/mangroves-for-coastal-defence.pdf
• United Nations. (2017). The Sundarbans. Retrieved October 11th, 2018, from UNESCO: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/798

The Danger of the Fishing Industry

Overfishing is defined as “the taking of fish species which exceeds its reproductive capacity” and as a result, we could have fishless oceans by 2048. Overfishing is a result of the mismanagement of fish stocks which leads to fishing above the maximum sustainable yield which is what lead to the collapse of the Newfoundland cod stocks in 1992. Reports show that between 90-100 million tons of fish are caught annually but with a growing population and consequently a higher demand for fish, overfishing is on the rise which could lead to grave environmental impacts.

One of these impacts is bycatch, or the removal or non-target species, due to unsustainable fishing methods such as demersal trawling.At least 40% of global catch is estimated to be bycatch and has been linked to a decline in population of large marine species, including the hammerhead shark. Leatherback turtles are likely to become extinct in the next 5 – 30 years with the main cause being pacific long line fisheries, designed to catch tuna. However, a large proportion of bycatch is believed to be unreported as it is discarded overboard to avoid fines once the vessel reaches shore which can stop effective conservation and designations in the areas in greatest need of protection. Bycatch has a major impact on marine ecosystems and will increase as the fishing industry grows.

Unsustainable fishing methods are also a major cause of habitat destruction, the most damaging being deep-sea trawling (figure 1) that tears up the sea bed which kills a range for species including coral and sea grass. This can also have an indirect effect as the disturbance of the sea bed causes a decline in photosynthesis by the removal or green sea plants and suspended particles, created by trawling, cause oxygen levels to fall making areas of the ocean uninhabitable to certain marine species. Trawling has been linked to the destruction of 30-50% of the coral along the Norwegian continental shelf and was the main reason for the Røst reef becoming a no take zone in 2002 with other nations protecting habitats on the sea bed.

Abandoned fishing nets has created the issue of ghost fishing which is when marine organisms become trapped in unused fishing gear. Not only does this account for 10% of marine debris, but each net can catch anywhere between 30-40 individuals included the Leatherback turtle. A positive feedback mechanism is also created as trapped organisms can act as bait for the apex predators, including rare shark species that can put them at greater risk.

Figure 2 - A list of the most and least sustainable fish to buy (activation.com)

Consumers have the ability to reduce these impacts by buying sustainable fish or cutting fish from their diet altogether. If consumers wish to buy fish they should purchase from the MCS sustainable fish list (some of which can be seen in figure 2) and look for the MSC logo on the packaging. Overall the fishing industry is unsustainable and this needs to change to protect the oceans. Personally, I feel the only 'sustainable method' is to stop fishing as there are many scientific studies showing we don't actually need to eat fish. If fish populations are going to recover, we need to stop eating them.

Bibliography

Activation. (2016). Fish: The Farmed v. Wild Debate, from activation.com. Retrieved October 1 2018. https://www.activationproducts.com/blog/farmed-fish-wild-fish-debate/

Australian Government. (2018). Trawling. Retrieved October 1, 2018, from Australian Fisheries Management Authority: https://www.afma.gov.au/fisheries-management/methods-and-gear/trawling

Buhl-Mortensen, P., & Buhl-Mortensen. (2018, Febuary 27). Impacts of Bottom Trawling and Litter on the Seabed in Norwegian Waters. Frontiers in Marine Science. Retrieved October 1, 2018, from https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2018.00042/full

FAO. (2012). WORLD REVIEW OF FISHERIES. New York: United Nations. Retrieved October 1, 2018, from http://www.fao.org/docrep/016/i2727e/i2727e01.pdf

Kemp, D. (1998). The Environment Dictionary. London: Routledge. Retrieved October 1, 2018

Mason, F. (2002). The Newfoundland Cod Stock Collapse: A Review and Analysis of Social Factors. Electronic Green Journal, 1(17).

NOAA. (2009, October 19). Deep Water Corals. Retrieved October 1, 2018, from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: https://web.archive.org/web/20100221152237/http://coris.noaa.gov/about/deep/#fossa

Roach, J. (2002, November 2). Seafood May Be Gone by 2048, Study Says. Retrieved from National Geographic: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/2006/11/seafood-biodiversity/

United Nations. (2009, May 6). Ghost nets hurting marine environment. Retrieved from FAO: http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/19353/icode/

WWF. (2010). Factsheet: Bycatch. Retrieved October 1, 2018, from panda.org: http://awsassets.panda.org/downloads/bycatch_factsheet.pdf

Are Fireworks Damaging Our Environment?

Happy new year! Our beautiful planet has taken another journey around our sun meaning that we celebrate with over the top and elaborate firework displays and excessive drinking. Whilst watching the London fireworks on TV, I couldn't help but notice the large amount of smoke being emitted which got me thinking could these beautiful sparks of light actually be having a big impact on the environment?

A picture of fireworks. From pixabay.com

Before looking at the impact I was curious what these were actually made of. In the simplest form, fireworks are tubes filled with gunpowder, wrapped in flash paper and attached to a fuse, hence the explosion. However, to create the sparkle and the colour aluminium, iron, steel, zinc, or magnesium are added as these ensure that fireworks will burn for longer and brighter. Compounds of strontium, lithium, sodium, barium or copper are added to change the colour as these react with heat differently to produce different coloured flames, thus creating the beautiful displays we see twice a year. These additions are the biggest concern as in high concentrations, they can be toxic for both humans and wildlife. The fireworks create particulate matter containing the toxic elements that will eventually settle on land and, if landed on soil, can be taken into the plant system via the roots and enter the food chain via bio-magnification. Aluminium alone can affect the functions of gills in fish as it acts as an inhibitor for the enzyme responsible for the uptake of ions and will therefore reduce fish populations and any predators feeding on the poisoned fish.

Another issue is the smoke caused as it increases particulate matter levels and increases carbon dioxide concentrations within our atmosphere. Particulate matter is a collection of particles (under 100 micrometers) that are either produced naturally or, in the case of fireworks, are produced from chemical reactions. Minerals (including aluminium, silicon, iron and calcium) are producers of particulate matter and, as previously stated, some of these are included in the makeup of fireworks but this composition varies depending on colour. The monitoring of particulate matter has shown that pollution episodes (above average concentrations) occur around January and November implying there may be a link between New Year and Bonfire night. During these winter months, high PM concentration have been linked to temperature inversion that are responsible for trapping pollution at ground levels, in turn increasing our exposure time. There are a range of health impacts ranging from respiratory illness to affecting the cardiovascular system with these risks being greatest during inversions which is shown by the increase of breathing problems of over 30% during Diwali. However, there is also a large environmental impact the first one being the impact of photosynthesis as PM deposits on the leaves of green plants reducing the contact to sunlight. This can reduce the rate of plant growth and therefore lessening the amount of food available to primary consumers. This can affect of the rest of the food web as it reduces energy available for higher tropic levels (basically reducing food for top predators) especially if the primary consumer populations are affected.

The chemical process of lighting the gun powder has been linked to the pollution of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide, both of which are major polluting gases. Sulphur dioxide is directly linked to the production of acid rain that can corrode metal and limestone structures as well as the exoskeletons of invertebrates. As many small invertebrates are the basis of any food web, this can again affect higher tropic levels and affect the food availability within the ecosystem. This can also affect the pH of water bodies and has the potential to cause ocean acidification which is a cause for coral bleaching. As our coral reefs are currently in decline shouldn't we be doing everything in our power to reduce acid rain, especially for things that are not strictly necessary?  Nitrogen dioxide has been linked to increased eutrophication, decreasing the sunlight available to a water supply by the growth of algal blooms. This causes a decline in oxygen from a lack of photosynthesis affecting the populations of marine organisms thus reducing biodiversity. This, again, can affect human health and can cause nitrogen dioxide poisoning as it can irritate the mucous membrane in the lungs.

So with these major environmental impacts shouldn't we be focusing on reducing our use of fireworks rather than spending millions on elaborate firework displays every year? With so much advancement in scientific knowledge, it does seem strange to me that we have not found a more sustainable alternative, despite the fact that firework displays are unnecessary to our well being but I can see that it is a tradition and culturally we associate these with celebrations. With the development of renewable energy sources, light and laswer shows could be an alternative if done safely. With climate change being on the tip of everyone tongue, I think we should be looking at smaller issues, like fireworks, in order to help the bigger picture.


References

• B Rosseland, T Eldhuset, M Staurnes. Environmental effects of aluminium. 1990. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24202562
• Wonderopolis. How are fireworks made? 2014. https://www.wonderopolis.org/wonder/how-are-fireworks-made
• McLendon, R. Are Fireoworks Bad for the Environment? Earth Matters. 2018. https://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/translating-uncle-sam/stories/are-fireworks-bad-for-the-environment
• Fuller, G. Our prettiest pollutant: just how bad are fireworks for the environment? The Conservation. 2015. http://theconversation.com/our-prettiest-pollutant-just-how-bad-are-fireworks-for-the-environment-52451
• Compound Interest. The Dark Side of Fireworks. January 2017. https://www.compoundchem.com/2017/01/05/fireworks-environment/

The Impacts of Sailing

http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Sailing_(sport)

The boating and sailing industry has been growing over recent years with many of us participating as a way to connect with oceans and nature. This growth has aloud us to go scuba diving and snorkelling in areas that otherwise wouldn't be accessible as well as take part in a seemingly fun team sport with boat races even being included in the Olympics. However, with out oceans and the creature that call them home being in great danger, this got me thinking if this recreational activity could have a grave environmental impact.

In recent years there has been evidence to suggest that boats have caused a decline in dissolved oxygen, stunting the growth of sea plants that in turn affect the entire food chain. The propellers  and rudders bring up sediment from the sea bed which reduces the turbidity (i.e. it stops sunlight from reaching the seabed). This reduces the amount of photosynthesis that can occur and reduces the amount of oxygen available meaning that habitat cannot sustain larger fish populations, especially in shallow waters. With nutrients also being brought to the surface, large amounts of boats have also been linked to algal blooms which also reduce the turbidity but, in some cases, produce products that are toxic to both marine and terrestrial organisms. Safe to say that the reduced turbidity caused by high speed boats has a major impact on marine life and is something that can be easily avoided if we anchor these boats further out, away from shallow waters with less chance of the motors touching the sediment.

Another major impact is the potential for fuels to spill and leak into the surrounding environment. We have all seen those photos of sea birds drenched in oil and boats have the potential do do this on a much smaller scale, particularly if the boat is driven and managed poorly. When the boat is stationary, there is significant potential for small amount of partially burnt fuel to leak into the surrounding area. Smaller fuel particles are more likely to be ingested by marine life therefore there is great risk for bio accumulation up the food chain. Needless to say these chemicals are toxic to marine life. These chemical can also affect both the biotic and abiotic conditions of the habitat, making them less habitable for the species that live there. One potential change is pH and if it were to increase in acidity (or decline in pH) could mean damage to crustaceans with the acidic water dissolving shells and other carbonaceous structures including corals.

Although sailing can increase tourism and GDP, there is also the physical damage done to habitats. Sailing and other marine activities produce large amount of litter that end up in the ocean which included nets, ropes and plastic bags. With 43% of all boat activity being recreational sailing in Australia alone, it it fair to say that the majority of the waste from boats come from the sailing industry. Marine debris poses a huge threat to wildlife with organisms becoming trapped in discarded nets as well as smothering coral and other sea plants. Not to mention the fact that some organisms mistake plastic for food with sea turtles in particular mistaking plastic bags for jelly fish. The boats themselves have also done physical damage to marine environments with boat anchors being the biggest offender. Anchors can damage the sea bed but uprooting plants, disturbing bottom feeders and destroying coral.

The main solution to this would be to designate protection areas with no or limited access to areas with high biodiversity. However evidence suggests that this requires greater regulation with 43% of sailing boats in Australia ignoring the Marine Protection Areas. I'm not saying we should stop ailing as it is a way for us to grown closer to our marine environment and fall in love with the beautiful marine wildlife. I am however suggesting we act responsibly by staying within designated zones, ensure the boat is maintained to a high standard and stop treating the ocean as our personal landfill.

Resources -

• Environmental Protection, The Environmental Impacts of Boating, May 2017, https://eponline.com/articles/2017/03/27/the-environmental-impacts-of-boating.aspx 
• Brynes. T, Science Direct, 2016, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652615002413#kwrds001

Animal Agriculture and Climate Change

https://climatevulture.com/category/blog-topics/agriculture/

Climate change is a major global issue with it being a key talking point amongst governments and IGO's (*ahem America*). Everyone is aware of the obvious contributors including exhaust emissions and fossil fuels but recently it has been suggested that animal agriculture may be a bigger contributor to the greenhouse effect than originally thought. There has been evidence to suggest that as our meat consumption has grown so have our carbon emissions but this could also be due to the growth of industry, population and a greater dependence on fossil fuels. So does this mean documentaries like Cowspiracy are wrong?

It is suggested that livestock is responsible for 18% of greenhouse gas emissions globally. With the addition of the byproducts, it could be as high as 51% with a projected increase of 80% by 2050. These byproducts include transportation, food and heating. Most of these emissions are methane that are produced by the growing cattle industry and bad land management and with methane having a global warming potential 86 times greater than carbon dioxide, it is no wonder livestock are essentially destroying out planet. Methane is produces in the stomach of cows and sheep as the ingested plants undergo fermentation that produces methane as a by-product essentially meaning cow farts are destroying the environment. It doesn't take a genius to realise that as the "need" for beef grows so will these toxic methane emissions. In fact methane emissions from livestock are similar to those produced by natural gas, questioning if we should be shifting from promoting electric cars to a more plant based diet.

With animal agriculture covering an estimated 45% of land, livestock is a primary contributor to habitat loss and deforestation on a global scale. Globally, all agriculture is responsible for 80% of deforestation, with the biggest causes for habitat destruction in the Amazon basin being cattle ranches and soya plantations. Although crops are a cause for deforestation, we will see a very small percentage of these yields as most will be used for animal feed. In order to achieve maximum yield and profit, cattle require a large amount of food. If we think about this in terms of tropic levels, as we move up a level (or a stage in the food chain) 90% of energy is lost so we need more cows to produce the amount of beef we need to meet our energy needs. This means more cattle ranches and more animal feed. As most of us are aware, forests are an important carbon sink and help to reduce the enhanced greenhouse effect and if agriculture continues to grow, so will the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Did you know a farm with 2,500 cattle produces the same amount of waste as over 410,000 people? If it is disposed of incorrectly it can result in anaerobic digestion, again resulting in the release of methane. Another side effect is eutrophication reducing nutrient availability, creating algal blooms and a decline in biodiversity. Not to mention the fact it is a direct cause of water pollution and poses a huge health risk to animals and humans alike.

So overall do I believe a plant based diet will help reduce carbon emissions. Yes, all the facts support this. However it is important that we also understand that we have a meat eating culture spanning thousands of years and we have been taught our whole lives nutrition must contain animal products. Therefore this change cannot be expected to happen overnight but even if you only eat meant 3 or 4 times a week, you will still have significantly cut your carbon footprint.



Resources -

• https://www.onegreenplanet.org/animalsandnature/this-is-how-animal-agriculture-causes-deforestation/ 
• http://stockfreeorganic.net/deforestation-livestock-destroying-the-living-earth/
• https://news.mongabay.com/2012/09/agriculture-causes-80-of-tropical-deforestation/
• http://www.cowspiracy.com/facts/
• https://www.edf.org/climate/methane-other-important-greenhouse-gas
• https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/901V0100.txt?ZyActionD=ZyDocument&Client=EP
• https://www.gao.gov/archive/1999/rc99205.pdf

How Does Plastic Travel in the Ocean

Map of ocean currents - (Pidwirny, 2006)

In 2017, scientists estimated that there was roughly 100 million tons of plastic in our oceans, with this figure constantly on the rise. The plastics are constantly circulating the globe via ocean currents which is the movement of sea water between locations, in a similar way to a conveyor belt, that are generated by a range of forces that change regionally including wind speed and force as well temperature difference. This has led to large accumulations, particularly of microplastic, specific areas of the ocean with the most well-known being the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. All the mentioned factors (plus many more) mean that rubbish from my university in Plymouth could end up polluting the Great Barrier Reef.

Ocean currents are defined as “a horizontal flow of water through the ocean” (according to the freedictionary.com) that redistributes heat from the sun through the globe. The movements that generate the currents are often seasonal and affected by a range of factors including:
• Differences in temperature
• Wind direction and speed
• Gravitational pull from moon and sun
• Rise and fall of the tides
• Salinity
• Atmospheric pressure

The global system of ocean currents has an important role within a range of ecosystems as well as the global climate. Ocean currents carry heat from tropical regions and transports and redistributes this heat away from the equator to warm coastal areas, making land more habitable and increasing soil fertility. They also have an impact on the weather as warmer water has a higher rate of evaporation, resulting in heavier rainfall in tropical regions which allows the tropical rainforests to have the heavy rainfall and humidity it is known for. This is what gives these rainforests the fertile soil that allows the beautiful tropical plants to grow. Currents also increase the biodiversity in the photic zone (or the top layer of the ocean) as upwelling occurs that bring nutrients to the surface. This allows phytoplankton to grow and increase in population that increase oxygen levels and provide more food for the primary consumers in the food chain. Needless to say this has a knock on effect and affects higher trophic levels within the ecosystem.

The global transport of plastics via ocean currents has created ‘rubbish hotspots’ such as the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. Despite public belief, the Great Pacific Garbage Patch is not a large mound of debris in the middle of the pacific like the name suggests and it is not even visible by satellite. The other name the Pacific Trash Vortex describes the area much better as it is a gyre containing high concentrations of marine litter and chemicals that circulate the North Pacific Ocean. With 1.9 million pieces of microplastic per square mile, the risk to the ecosystem in this area is huge and as 70% of all litter in the ocean sink to the floor the unseen impacts may be even greater than expected. The North Pacific Gyre keeps the debris circulating the North Pacific Ocean and creates convergence zones that are the natural gathering points within the ocean current system. In the case of the North Pacific, the two largest convergence zones are the western Garbage Patch and the eastern Garbage Patch (shown below). The constant movement of the gyre means that the microplastic and other marine debris remains trapped within the North Pacific ecosystem, amplifying the damage even more.

A map showing the North Pacific Garbage patch, (NOAA - Response and Restoration, 2013)

As the amount of plastic within our oceans continues to rise, we could be seeing more gatherings of plastics like the pacific garbage patch as it is transported globally and deposited by ocean currents. This has a huge impact on biodiversity in these areas and have been ingested by species, particularly seas turtles, as well as entangling others. With 17% or all threatened marine species being affected by plastic in our oceans, we need to be more aware that plastic does travel within our oceans and dropping a plastic bottle on your local beach could impact the Great Barrier Reef or be ingested by the endangered Leatherback turtle. 

References -

• Krieger, A. (2016, Febuary 7). What will it take to get plastics out of the ocean? Vox: https://www.vox.com/2016/2/7/10928788/ocean-plastic-pollution-solutions
• National Geographic. (2014, September 19). Great Pacific Garbage Patch.  https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/great-pacific-garbage-patch/
• NOAA - Response and Restoration. (2013, Febuary 7th). How Big Is the "Great Pacific Garbage Patch"? Science vs. Myth. Office of Response and Restoration: https://response.restoration.noaa.gov/about/media/how-big-great-pacific-garbage-patch-science-vs-myth.html
• Pidwirny, M. (2006). Surface and Subsurface Ocean Currents: Ocean Current Map. Retrieved from Fundamentals of Physical Geography: http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/8q_1.html
• Sea Turtle Conservancy. (2017). Information About Sea Turtles: Threats from Marine Debris. Sea Turtle Conservancy: https://conserveturtles.org/information-sea-turtles-threats-marine-debris/

Dear Hollywood, Stop Making Us Afraid of Sharks

Photo of a Great White Shark
Photo from https://wall.alphacoders.com/by_sub_category.php?id=206047&name=Great+White+Shark+Wallpapers

I love sharks. I think they're some of the most beautiful and interesting species in our oceans which is the main reason I want to study them for my dissertation. My dream is to be able to travel to Australia and study the Great White and work on conserving them. However, this seems to be an unpopular opinion with 39% of adults in the UK saying they HATE sharks, with just under half of these justifying their answer with the argument that they attack humans. Granted the slightly scary appearance, particularly the large teeth, can scare some but could the main reason be the fact they often come off a vicious monsters in blockbuster films such as The Shallows. These films are designed to scare us and keep us on the edge of our seats and as a result they have been mad out to these giant human killers that isn't really the case. I feel the majority of selachophobia, or a fear of sharks, has been brought about by the growing genre of shark attack films.

Firstly, I am not saying that shark attacks do not occur because they do and beach goers in shark waters should be cautious. Everyone is aware of the tragic case of surfer Bethany Hamilton who had her arm bitten off in 2003 by a tiger shark. However, despite what Hollywood will have us believe, the danger from dying as a result of a shark attack is far smaller than we may initially think. Did you know you have a 1 in 3,748,067 chance of dying by shark attack? To put this into perspective, the risk of dying of heart disease is 1 in 5 and dying as a result of a car accident is 1 in 84. Even your chance of drowning is 1 in 1,134 making the ocean itself far more dangerous than the scariest creatures in them. In fact there are on average 4 sharks related deaths a year which is 16 less than deaths caused by cows (both in the USA). Another false fact seemingly portrayed is that we're a tasty snack for sharks, particularly Great Whites but if they bite us, they tend to spit us out because our bones are too dense for their slow digestive systems. In fact the only reason they bite us (in the very few cases that there actually are of shark bites) is out of curiosity. Although all sharks are carnivores, roughly 70-80% of their diet is made up of small fish making the chance of being bitten by a shark very slim. With over 465 known species, very few even pose a threat to humans and even the largest species (the Whale Shark) are actually filter feeders meaning they feed in a similar way to most whales with a diet mainly made from plankton. They also range in size the smallest being the Pygmy shark at 7-inches long suggesting the Hollywood image that shark are giant hunters lurking along our coastlines may be inaccurate.

Comparision of the size of different shark species.
Photo from https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/511299363927109368/

As a matter of fact, we need sharks. Firstly, sharks contribute to ecotourism that help boost local and national economies. In Fiji alone, 78% of all visiting divers participate in some form of shark diving which created US$5.9 million in taxes in 2010. In fact, the shark-diving industry in Fiji is valued at US$42.2 million annually. This isn't taking into account the 'economic multipliers' that benefit the local economies including accommodation for tourists as well as tourists spending money in local businesses. In fact in Ganbaai (South Africa)50% of all local business sales are related in some way to Great White Sharks. Sharks also play a very important role within the ecosystem as they keep the food webs in balance by maintaining healthy fish populations. Sharks are often the top predators and are often referred to as keystone species as the health of the ecosystem can be estimated by monitoring the shark population. Without the sharks, the prey populations (i.e. small fish) would get too big causing overgrazing of the sea plants therefore reducing the amount of oxygen available. Not to mention this limits the damage to coral reefs from large fish populations. Believe it or not, they can actually limit or stop the spread of disease as they are more likely to prey on the weak, sick and older fish meaning they stop outbreaks and a declining population. Did you also know that sharks have helped to design wet suits? Biomimetics is using a natural structure (or an organism) in science and engineering so shark skins were studied to create the aerodynamic style of wet suits. These are just three ways sharks actually benefit us and the planet. I could write lists and lists about all the ways we need sharks but it would take forever to read and also that;s a lot of effort to write.

So why are we so afraid of sharks if they don't actually pose a huge threat to us, in fact it has been proven they benefit us. Personally I feel that they are turned into villains by the film industry. As money is the priority for this industry (well actually most industries) scary things sell so any predator is at risk of being displayed inaccurately with little scientific evidence. Could this be increasing the amount of shark hunting? That however is up for debate. 

Resources - 

• Charlotte Chivers, Why are we so afraid of sharks?, One Poll, November 2015, http://www.onepoll.com/why-are-we-so-afraid-of-sharks/
• Elizabeth Palermo, Why are people so afraid of sharks? Live Science, July 2016, https://www.livescience.com/51579-fear-of-sharks-psychology.html
• Elaina Zachos, Why are we so afraid of sharks? There's a scientific explanation., National Geographic, January 2018, https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/01/sharks-attack-fear-science-psychology-spd/ 
• WildAid, Ecotourism: Dollars and Sense, Shark Savers, 2012, http://www.sharksavers.org/en/education/the-value-of-sharks/sharks-and-ecotourism/
• WildAid, Shark's Role In The Oceans, Shark Savers, 2009, http://www.sharksavers.org/en/education/the-value-of-sharks/sharks-role-in-the-ocean/

What Does Being 'Eco-Friendly' Really Mean?

Image from https://www.lifestorage.com/blog/storage/celebrate-earth-day-eco-friendly-cleaning-storage-products/

Is it just me or has being 'eco-friendly' become very on trend recently? With every supermarket having a larger range of environmentally friendly products and more people making more ethical choices being environmentally friendly seems to be growing within the general public. The big question is do we actually know what this means or are we just trusting labels that say 'green' to improve our sustainability?

With many people, my mother included, bot actually knowing what the term 'eco-friendly' really means. When I spoke to my mum about this she just thought it meant minimising your impact on the environment but realistically she had no idea how to do this. Environmentally friendly is defined as "that has no or the least possible impact on the environment" (The Free Dictionary) which appears to be the standard definition so well done mum. Basically it means acting in a certain way to make your impact on the natural environment to a minimum in order to promote and live a more sustainable life to the best of your ability. Let's just accept that (as sad as it may be) in modern day society but we can make a more conscious effort with many people turning to these labelled, eco-friendly products in an attempt to cut their carbon footprint. There are also a few simple easy ways to help you achieve a more eco-friendly lifestyle.

Not to get on my vegan high horse, but one big way to do this is to cut down your meat consumption. 18% of all greenhouse gas emission is from animal agriculture but these emissions are expected to rise 80% by 2050. If you think about it, we have the emission from transporting livestock, heating the farms and fertilisers. I could go on an on about how this is important but I would recommend you watch Cowspiracy if you don't believe me.

Another way is to look at your energy and better ways to conserve it in order to reduce our fossil fuel consumption to help reduce that ever looming climate change. Simple ways such as turning off your lights and maximising the amount of daylight can not only lower your carbon footprint but can also help slash your energy bill saving you a pretty penny. Did you know that dusty light bulbs can reduce the light output but up to 50% meaning you're going to need more electricity and bulbs to lighten up your living room. Another way is when purchasing new items focus on those efficiency labels!! Always make sure they're in the green to help slash that carbon footprint. Check out Conserve Energy for more ways to save energy (and money).

Another way is to buy recycled products. One simple swap is to buy the toilet paper (which is defiantly available from Tesco and Sainsbury's) that is made from recycled paper that reduces the amount in landfill, the amount of chemicals used for bleaching and reduces the amount of raw materials we use. There is also recycled stationary available which is perfect for students, such as myself, looking to be much more green. The Green Stationary Company offers a wide range but I have seen some of these around the supermarket so just keep your eyes open and read the packaging. There are plenty of products out there for you to try so get researching and feel free to share in the comments.

Image from Department of Environmental Protection
https://www1.maine.gov/dep/waste/recycle/whatrecyclablesbecome.html

 Another key way to to maximise your use of reusable products this can include reusable cups, toiletries and containers to help cut the dreaded single use plastic present in your home. On average 50% of the plastic we use are thrown away after just one use swapping to a reusable razor (or even a straight razor) is just one product to can by to help cut waste. In fact, my razor is made from recycled yogurt pots (check me out). Did you know that the average woman uses up to 16,800 disposable pads and tampons throughout her lifetime?  With all of this going to landfill and with a high amount of plastic used, these defiantly do not count as green. Many environmentally conscious women are turning to washable cotton pads as well as menstrual cups which are definitely available from Boots and Superdrug. To get closer to that desirable 'eco-friendly' status, we should aim to cut our dependence on single use plastics. 

So overall, being eco-friendly is making an effort to cut our carbon footprint and buy sustainable. I would recommend you get online and look at products to help you achieve this and look for alternatives next time you're in the supermarket. Maybe even shop locally and check out your locally fruit and veg stall like I do every week. However, it is important to remember that in modern society it is nearly impossible to be 100% green. Just do your best and be conscious of your impact on the environment and do your best to cut it and reduce it as much as possible.


Resources -

• Farlex, Environmentally Friendly Definition, The Free Dictionary, 2018, http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Environmentally+friendly
• A.U.M. Films & Media, The Facts, Conspiracy, 2014, http://www.cowspiracy.com/facts/
• Earth Eclipse, 151 Ways to Save Energy, Conserve Energy Future, 2016, https://www.conserve-energy-future.com/151-ways-to-save-energy.php
• English Shaving Company, Ditch The Plastic: Switch To A Safety Razor (Plastic Free Shaving), March 2018, https://www.theenglishshavingcompany.com/blog/plastic-free-shaving-safety-razor/
• Samantha Zabell, 16 No-Brainer Ways to Be Greener at Home, Good Housekeeping, September 2014, https://www.goodhousekeeping.com/home/g1619/daily-ways-to-go-green/
• Kimberley Mok, 7 Powerful reasons why you should switch to reusable menstrual products, TreeHugger, Febuary 2014, https://www.treehugger.com/health/reasons-why-you-should-switch-to-reusable-menstrual-products.html
• Make-A-Wish, Ten easy ways to live a more eco-friendly lifestyle, Wheels for Wishes, January 2014, https://www.wheelsforwishes.org/news/live-a-more-eco-friendly-lifestyle/

Ghost Fishing: The unseen problem in our oceans

photograph of ghost gear on the sea bed -
https://www.ecosia.org/images?q=ghost+fishing#id=5D43E26A116A7D8952B16078B4095F728572BE87

With the growing human impact on our oceans being widely mentioned in the media (thanks Blue Planet) things like using plastic straws have fallen out of fashion with the general public being more conscious of our impact on marine life. Although I am so happy about the interest in our oceans, plastic straws only make up a small percentage of plastic waste and most of it is waste from the fishing industry. This got me thinking about ghost fishing, a subject I studied during college, that has such a huge negative impact but is barely spoken about in the media in an attempt to raise awareness of this growing problem.

So what is 'ghost fishing'? It's when old fishing equipment that is no longer in use has been abandoned in our oceans and still traps fish and other marine animals including the beloved sea turtle. This creates a positive feedback mechanism as the trapped fish act as bait for larger fish, capturing and endangering a greater number of marine species. The abandoned equipment also causes alterations to the sea floor, damaging the sea bed and the habitat for species including sea stars and crabs.

The abandoned 'ghost gear' accounts for 10% of all marine litter (which is a lot higher than plastic straws) and entangles, on average, 11 whales annually in West Coast America alone so imagine how many become injured or die globally because of this abandoned equipment. With an estimated 640,000 tonnes of fishing nets (not including lobster traps and other fishing gear) polluting our oceans we are putting a huge number of rare species at risk unnecessarily. With a single net entangling between 30-40 marine animals, these have a severe impact on the ecosystem as they have been known to entangle a huge range of species from sharks and whales to sea stars and small fish. Another environmental issue is the damage to habitat. Heavy equipment ,such as crab and lobster traps, sink to the bottom and disturb the sea bed and can be responsible for dredging as well as smothering organisms that live on the sea bed including sea grasses and crabs. Coral reefs are at great risk as ocean currents carry heavy traps that can destroy the coral habitat.

Currently there are several programmes an initiatives globally that aim to tackle and reduce this problem including the Global Ghost Gear Initiative (GGGI), which DEFRA is participating in, that aims to improve the health of our marine ecosystems by removing discarded fishing gear. One thing they do is collect evidence and information including how much equipment has been collected and it is mapped to work out any trends and possible impacts to biodiversity by locating any hotspots. They also aim to define and enforce polices, including management of gear on board to ensure that no equipment is lost at seas particularly in stormy weather.  These are just a few simple ways this initiative is helping this growing issue and with participation from governments, NGO's and the private sector the GGGI will continue to develop further and hopefully achieve the aim of cleaner oceans. One example of a participating organisation is KIMO international which run the GGGI Solution Project in Scotland which is responsible for removing 50 tonnes of ghost gear from Scottish coastlines.

Ghost fishing has become much more regulated by governments who are aiming to punish those responsible but in my view much more can be done to tackle this growing issue starting with public awareness. Let's focus less on plastic straws and more on larger marine debris that has a much larger, and more fatal impact.


Resources -

•  Global Ghost Gear Initiative, Governance Bodies, NOAA, 2017, https://www.ghostgear.org/sites/default/files/attachments/gggi_governance_bodies.pdf 
• Global Ghost Gear Inititaive, NOAA, 2017, https://www.ghostgear.org/
•  Hannah Gould, Hidden problem of 'ghost gear': the abandoned fishing nets clogging up oceans, The Guardian, 10th September 2015, https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/sep/10/fishing-industry-vows-to-tackle-wildlife-deaths-from-ghost-gear
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Impact of "Ghost Fishing" via Derelict Fishing Gear, NOAA Marine Debris Programme Report, 2015, https://marinedebris.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/publications-files/Ghostfishing_DFG.pdf
• FAO, Ghost nets hurting marine environment, United Nations, 2009, http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/19353/icode/