Scientists urge new research policies in wake of Gulf disaster

Feb 03, 2011

Scientists are having a difficult time gauging the recovery of marine species from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico because they lack sufficient data about historical population size and the distribution, growth rates and reproduction rates of many species.

In a forum paper published this week in the journal Science, they call for a new research agenda that prioritizes systematic acquisition of baseline data for .

"It is impossible to diagnose whether a species is recovering or floundering if you don't have good data on their status and trends," said Selina Heppell, an Oregon State University fisheries biologist and one of the authors of the article. "Too much of the funding in this country goes toward putting fires out instead of gaining basic biological information, which is what resource managers need to identify and diagnose changes at the population level.

"This is not just about the ," Heppell added. "It is a problem for protected species everywhere."

Heppell, lead author Karen Bjorndal from the University of Florida, and eight other authors point to the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska, where scientists encountered difficulty evaluating the effects on wildlife because of limited data on abundance and demography – the rates of survival, growth and reproduction that are primary indicators of population change.

"Sadly," they wrote, "the situation in the (Gulf of Mexico) is similar more than 20 years later."

Heppell, who is a professor in the Department of Fisheries and Wildlife at Oregon State University, said doing an ecological and biological assessment of all marine species would be difficult and expensive. Therefore, she says, the emphasis should be on those species that are the most endangered, or those that have an economic impact, such as those creatures that interact with important fisheries.

"We spend millions of dollars assessing fish stocks," she said. "If we want to monitor endangered species in the same way, we need to focus resources on the aspects of biology that provide the best information about population recovery. That involves research on demography, not just efforts to count individuals."

In their Science article, the authors describe the assessment of sea turtle populations as a microcosm of the larger issue. Sea turtle populations are monitored almost exclusively by counting nests on beaches, but when those populations increase or decrease, scientists often don't know why because nesting females are such a tiny fraction of the total population. In Florida, the number of loggerhead turtles, for example, increased from 1989-98, then plummeted.

Several factors could have contributed, but a lack of knowledge about age distribution, reproduction rates, mortality rates and other data have made it difficult to determine what triggered the changes – and impossible to create management strategies to deal with them, noted Heppell, who has worked with the National Marine Fisheries Service on turtle conservation issues since 1995.

In contrast, Australian researchers have logged 30 years of demographic data on loggerhead turtles and when a steep decline in their population on the Great Barrier Reef took place in the 1980s and 1990s, they were able to attribute it to predation by foxes on nests and incidental capture in trawl fisheries.

"Both hazards have now been mitigated by government agencies," the authors wrote," resulting in an apparently recovering stock."

The authors list seven elements that should be considered in crafting new research priorities for protected marine species, including sea birds and mammals, as well as turtles:

  • Integrate demography with abundance trends for the species at all life stages and determine environmental effects on those parameters;
  • Emphasize analyses of cumulative effects instead of focusing on individual threats such as pollution, bycatch or habitat loss;
  • Elucidate links among and within populations since oceans have greater movement, genetic exchange and dispersal than terrestrial systems;
  • Revise permitting processes to allow more rapid and flexible response to environmental concerns;
  • Encourage data sharing and increase access to data as a prerequisite for funding;
  • Improve assessment tools for evaluating anthropogenic impacts on populations;
  • Prioritize investments to focus on long-term population management needs.
"We know that hundreds, possibly thousands, of endangered Kemp's Ridley sea turtles were killed or injured by the Gulf spill," Heppell said. "That species had been recovering rapidly – a great conservation success story. What we don't know, and can't determine with available data, is how detrimental the spill effects will be on that recovery.

"We can use money from the resulting fines to develop a new strategy for monitoring and assessment that can identify the specific causes of population decline and make management more efficient," she added.

Shifting the priorities of federal agencies to focus on research that emphasizes how and why populations change over time is a key, the authors say.

Conclude the authors: "In the wake of the BP oil spill, the need for this policy shift is as clear as it is compelling. If the largest offshore oil spill in U.S. history is not enough to effect this policy shift, what would it take?"

Explore further: US exports help Germany increase coal, pollution

Related Stories

Sea turtles rescued from Gulf spill released

Jul 16, 2010

(AP) -- The first group of sea turtles that are part of a sweeping effort to save threatened and endangered hatchlings from death in the oily Gulf of Mexico have been released into the Atlantic Ocean.

Despite oil, baby turtles being released to Gulf

Jul 24, 2010

(AP) -- Federal biologists are releasing thousands of endangered baby sea turtles into the western Gulf of Mexico, betting that by the time the silver dollar-sized swimmers make it to the oil-fouled waters ...

Turtle eggs to be rescued from Gulf of Mexico spill

Jul 02, 2010

In an ambitious and unprecedented plan to save wildlife, volunteers in coming weeks will move tens of thousands of turtle eggs from oil-soaked Gulf of Mexico beaches to safety on Florida's Atlantic coast.

Recommended for you

Australia approves huge India-backed mine

8 hours ago

Australia has given the go-ahead to a massive coal mine in Queensland state which Environment Minister Greg Hunt said Monday could ultimately provide electricity for up to 100 million Indians.

User comments : 8

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

lexington
1 / 5 (3) Feb 03, 2011
Just like liberals to say humans are somehow damaging the environment. It's called a natural disaster for a reason, people. DON'T BE SHEEP!
antialias
5 / 5 (1) Feb 03, 2011
You seem to evaluate merit of an idea on whether it seems liberal or conservative to you and not on wether is has merit. Ask yourself this: who is here really the sheep?

Start using your mind.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (2) Feb 03, 2011
So, while 10% of the population is out of work and gas is 3 bucks a gallon we wanna do this with our time?

I guess it's just a question of priorities...
antialias
5 / 5 (1) Feb 03, 2011
Yeah. Like spending more on defense than the next 12 nations combined. Oh I forgot - those are 'sensible' priorities right? (/sarcasm)

We use all kinds of money (in every nation) for things which aren't related to jobs or making sure the average citizen can pollute the environment as cheaply as possible. Might as well use it for something useful like the article suggests.

Yes. It's a question of priorities. Try to get some ethical ones and not just ones that satisfy your greed.
bhiestand
3 / 5 (2) Feb 04, 2011
Sorry, but under "publish or perish", particularly at a time when funding is being cut in so many government institutions and schools, does anyone really expect researchers to spend their careers collecting baseline data that may hinder their careers?

I'm not saying I disagree with this paper--I don't. I'm just saying that the incentive structure isn't designed to reward this sort of data collection.
antialias
3 / 5 (2) Feb 04, 2011
does anyone really expect researchers to spend their careers collecting baseline data that may hinder their careers?

Yes, I do. Researchers are interested in their research (I know, I am one and know this to be true of any and all researchers I am acquainted with). We do _exactly_ what we have always wnated to do. having a career beyond that is (to us) pointless as it would be a step back from what we really want to do.

OK, we take the promotions or pay raises if someone offers - but I know of no researcher who would actively sacrifice their area of interest to take up an area that does not interest them just so that they can have better pay or a more 'prestigious' position.

(Mostly because we laugh at the people with 'prestigious' positions - like 'science managers' - behind their backs. And anyone bucking for such a position coming from a full reseasrch background would know this)

The make more money, but we get to (effectively) play. We have the better end of the deal.
Modernmystic
not rated yet Feb 04, 2011
Yeah. Like spending more on defense than the next 12 nations combined. Oh I forgot - those are 'sensible' priorities right? (/sarcasm)


No they're not. What the hell makes you think I felt that way? Or were you just being a presumptuous jerk?

Might as well use it for something useful like the article suggests.


"Useful" in this case is highly debatable...

Yes. It's a question of priorities. Try to get some ethical ones and not just ones that satisfy your greed.


I think it's unethical to have people without jobs living in dire straits rather than to piss money away on yet another idiotic government study. Greed doesn't come into it bubba.
antialias
5 / 5 (1) Feb 04, 2011
No they're not. What the hell makes you think I felt that way?

I'm just saying that if you get riled up over this (which arguably even will bring great benefits) you should have been in Washington, personally burning down the capitol years ago. Your outrage over this is completely out of whack.

I think it's unethical to have people without jobs living in dire straits rather than to piss money away on yet another idiotic government study.
Sure we could sink all money into creating jobs. Would that help? Basically you are saying: take X dollars (plus bureaucracy friction Z because they are tax dollars) and give them to people to do jobs no one needs....of which they will pay Y percent back as taxes (with Y being much smaller than Y+Z)

You'd be wasting even more.