FALL 2005 EVPP 505-001 BIO 508-002

1. MARINE CONSERVATION FALL 2005 EVPP 505-001 BIO 508-002

2. Marine Conservation Issues • Pollution • Heavy metals & TBT (lecture 2) • Pesticides (lecture 3) • Oil (lecture 4) • Nutrients (lecture 5) • Pathogens (lecture 5) • Debris (lecture 6) • Noise (lecture 7)

3. Marine Conservation Issues • Poor fishery management (lectures 8 -9) • Collapse of Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) & Atlantic halibut (Hippoglossus hippoglossus) • 28% of global fish stocks are significantly depleted or overexploited • Depleted fish stock show little sign of recovery even after decade of conservation measures

4. Marine Conservation Issues • Destruction of keystone habitats (lecture 10) • Nearly a quarter of all fish species associated with coral reefs • Widespread coral reef damage • Bleaching and disease events • Siltation and smothering • Possible impacts from global warming

5. Marine Conservation Issues • Depletion of keystone species (lectures 11-14) • Only 1% of original whitetip reef shark population in Gulf of Mexico • North Atlantic right whale reduced to few 100 animals • Extinction of Stellar sea cow and Atlantic gray whale • Destruction of turtle breeding beaches

6. Marine Conservation Issues • Global warming (lectures 15-16) • Melting of polar ice shelves • Polar species habitat loss • Increasing freshwater input • Possible impact on thermohaline circulation • Sea level rises • Acidification of oceans • Shifts of species distributions

7. Marine Conservation Issues • Problems with marine conservation law and policy (lecture 17; Guest lectures) • Imperfect laws • Lack of enforcement • Lack of integration • Vested interests

8. Now in the age of marine deterioration? • Reidl (1980) suggested there were 4 eras of marine research: 1) Seafarers 2) Oceanographic Expeditions (e.g. Challenger expedition) 3) Marine Stations (e.g. Scripps & Woods Hole) 4) Field Research • Stachowitsch (2003) suggested a fifth era: 5) Study of deteriorated marine ecosystems Because almost all marine ecosystems have been disturbed/damaged

9. OTHER PROBLEMS • Although arguably a more urgent issue marine conservation is more difficult due to a number of issues e.g. getting information on species decline • For 60 years no-one noticed extinction of limpet species Lottia alveus • even though the area it inhabited was studded with marine laboratories (Carlton et al., 1991) WHY? Marine conservation research much harder than in a terrestrial environment

10. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TERRESTRIAL & MARINE CONSERVATION • Oceans are much bigger • Area of Pacific Ocean could encompass all land continents alone • Marine areas make up 99% of known biosphere • BUT only a small area controlled by national laws (i.e. 200 nautical miles or less)

12. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TERRESTRIAL & MARINE CONSERVATION • Oceans less transparent than air • Little light penetrates farther than 100m below surface • In areas of high plankton/turbidity etc penetration even less • Remote sensing from satellites/airplanes difficult • Most marine areas/ecosystems not directly observable

13. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TERRESTRIAL & MARINE CONSERVATION • Oceans less transparent than air • Also photosynthesis constrained to photic zone (sunlit waters) • But nearshore and surface waters most effected by human activities • Impacts on photosysnthesis and primary production effect whole marine ecosystem

14. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TERRESTRIAL & MARINE CONSERVATION • Oceans are 3 dimensional • Water layers & lots of stratification (result of salinity & temperature differences) • Much more complex environment than “flat” terrestrial environment • LESS THAN 2% OF OCEAN ACCESSIBLE TO SCIENTISTS VIA SCUBA DIVING • Submarines are few and expensive

15. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TERRESTRIAL & MARINE CONSERVATION • Dispersal stages smaller • Many fish and invertebrate larvae <1mm • Terrestrial animals mostly disperse when juveniles • i.e. much larger and easier to track • Marine dispersal patterns difficult to predict • Makes site-based conservation very difficult

16. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TERRESTRIAL & MARINE CONSERVATION • Longer dispersal distances • Larval stages may drift for days or months • Can disperse 1000s of km • Recruitment of animals to specific site much more random • Number of fish offspring ≠ recruitment rate • Single small protected areas not enough to protect a species

17. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TERRESTRIAL & MARINE CONSERVATION • Pelagic environment fluid • Although seabed (benthic) environment is very stable, pelagic environment is very changeable • Movement of water bodies can shift habitat dramatically • Fish stocks can shift location 10s of km in a single day • Prediction of animal distribution difficult • Small site protection not possible

18. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TERRESTRIAL & MARINE CONSERVATION • Primary production & consumers are patchy • Instead of sessile or long-lived (trees) producers mobile & short-lived (phytoplankton) • Growth or disappearance of producers can be very rapid • Can rapidly exploit patchy nutrient resources or beneficial environmental changes • Which means…

19. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TERRESTRIAL & MARINE CONSERVATION • Consumers have to travel long distances – productivity “oases” in oceanic “desert” • Will encounter more human obstructions/activities in their travels (e.g. draft nets) • Will travel through waters of many different countries and legal/exploitation regimes • Patchy but high concentrations of associated species make patches profitable to fishing – competition between marine species & humans • Less stable: marine systems more susceptible to “boom or bust” than terrestrial environment

20. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TERRESTRIAL & MARINE CONSERVATION • Seabed structure components very small e.g. coral, worm tubes, seagrass, sponges provide important habitat structure as opposed to larger structures rainforest trees etc. in terrestrial environment • Small size and lack of accessibility of these structures mean that managers overlook their importance • e.g. seabed structure (e.g deep sea corals important for survival of young cod -provides hiding places from predators etc;Lindholm et al., 1999) BUT seabed structures overlooked and destroyed

21. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TERRESTRIAL & MARINE CONSERVATION • Great increase in disturbance with decreasing distance from shore Near shore - more nutrients, temperature/salinity fluctuations, disturbance from waves and human activities • But species further from the shore, and sea surface, less adapted to recover from disturbances • If offshore/deep habitats or species damaged take longer to recover and impact great • Especially a problem with deep water trawling and deep sea drilling etc.

22. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TERRESTRIAL & MARINE CONSERVATION • Oceans chemically “downhill” from land Chemicals, nutrients and waste flow from land to sea • Very, very rare for contaminants to flow the other way, i.e. sea to land • Activities on land can have major impacts on the oceans • So conservation must take into account land based activities as well are marine activities

23. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TERRESTRIAL & MARINE CONSERVATION • Nutrients are not so quickly recycled • On the land dead matter is decomposed and nutrients are returned to the ecosystem quickly • In the oceans, dead and decaying organisms sink • Once nutrients have sunk beneath the photic (sunlit) zone they are “lost” to producers until nutrients are re-circulated (e.g. upwhellings) • These nutrients can be lost to producers for 100s of years • Anthropogenic nutrients etc entering the marine system now -have impacts in 100s of years time

24. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TERRESTRIAL & MARINE CONSERVATION • Less opportunities for ex situ conservation (captive breeding etc) • Larval stages of marine species very small, difficult to feed and maintain • Seawater chemistry and physics difficult to maintain artificially • Many species adapted/require wide-ranging, and mobile habitat (esp. pelagic species) • Deep sea species are a particular problem (100sx atmospheric pressure) • Mortality rates frequently high • Appropriate ex situ habitat extremely costly

25. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TERRESTRIAL & MARINE CONSERVATION • Less opportunities for ex situ conservation (captive breeding etc) • Larval stages of marine species very small, difficult to feed and maintain • Seawater chemistry difficult to maintain artificially • Many species adapted/require wide-ranging, and mobile habitat (esp. pelagic species) • Deep sea species are a particular problem (100sx atmospheric pressure) • Mortality rates frequently high • Appropriate ex situ habitat extremely costly • In situ required for conservation

26. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TERRESTRIAL & MARINE CONSERVATION • Marine species exploited are wild Terrestrial exploited species are primarily domestic/livestock • Breeding controlled • Predators controlled • Feeding controlled • Waste disposed of • Medical treatment provided • Climate/environment controlled • Productivity of terrestrial stocks greater/controlled • Meager human input to sustain marinestocks

27. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TERRESTRIAL & MARINE CONSERVATION • Technology for hunting/killing marine species less selective/evolving faster • Wildlife removal on land very selective equipment and carefully controlled/regulated/monitored • Fisheries now use satellite positioning, temperature sensors, 3D sonar • Use large capacity fishing gear and vessels (e.g. 60 mile longlines, driftnets kms long) • Laws and regulation have not kept pace with speed of technology development • More efficient at catching more of fewer and fewer fish • But non selective methods (e.g. mass of by-catch is several times shrimp catch)

28. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TERRESTRIAL & MARINE CONSERVATION • Lack of ownership/personal responsibility • Land owners typically do not pollute and destroy land they own and farm • 64% of ocean area outside of the control of any country (High Seas) • “Tragedy of the commons” if you don’t exploit it someone else will • Countries with good land laws frequently turn a blind eye to/ignore sea laws • Or easily persuaded to overlook over-exploitation • E.g. North Sea – scientists advise a zero cod quota – politicians overruled this

29. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TERRESTRIAL & MARINE CONSERVATION • Marine species and ecosystems have less cultural and legal protection • Large predators on land protected (e.g. bears, wolves) but not in oceans (sharks, marlin) • Structure-providing organisms protected (trees/forests) but not sponges, kelp beds, deep water corals etc (coral reefs an exception in some areas) • Coastal national parks may prohibit hunting land species, but promote hunting of marine species • Extraction methods far more destructive than would be acceptable on land (~ hunting deer with hand grenades)

30. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TERRESTRIAL & MARINE CONSERVATION • … less cultural and legal protection • Protection of land wildlife often under conservation/environment departments but marine wildlife under fisheries departments • Less legal protection • An extraction/exploitation ethos rather than conservation • Less experience/expertise in conservation biology • Bodies dealing with marine conservation different from land conservation – no control / input over land activities impacting the marine environment

31. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TERRESTRIAL & MARINE CONSERVATION • Much less spent on marine conservation! • In 1999 – US$1,700 million spent on US National Park Service • US$ 14.3 million spent on National Marine Sanctuaries • x119 difference • Disparity despite 71% of global being marine • Despite 99% of the biosphere being marine

32. Published Research on Marine Conservation vs Terrestrial • Marine papers <11% of leading conservation biology journal papers (n=5974) • 60.9% terrestrial • 14.5% general • 13.6% freshwater • 10.1% marine • 0.8% anadromous (e.g. estuarine etc) • <3% in Conservation Ecology to 40% in Aquatic Conservation • Marine papers in Conservation Biology cited only 7.1 x on average (vs. 18.2 x for terrestrial papers) – so marine research has less impact Kochin & Levin. 2003, 2004

33. Pub. Res. on Marine Conservation • Less than 5% of papers in marine ecology journals deal with conservation issues (n=6618) • 2.2%: pollution • 2.0%: over-fishing • 0.9%: invasive species • 0.4%: marine protected areas • In fisheries journals <7% of papers dealt with conservation (n=4700) • 3.3%: over-fishing • 1.9%: pollution • 1.2%: invasive species • 0.2%: marine protected areas • National Science Foundation funding (Conservation Biology & Restoration Ecology programs) • >80 % terrestrial projects • 9.7% marine projects Kochin & Levin. 2003, 2004

34. SIMILARITIESBETWEEN TERRESTRIAL & MARINE CONSERVATION • Terrestrial and marine ecosystems threatened by similar problems • Over-exploitation • Physical deterioration of ecosystems/habitats • Pollution • Invasive species • Climate change

35. SIMILARITIESBETWEEN TERRESTRIAL & MARINE CONSERVATION • Driving forces behind problems the same • Over-population • Excessive consumption • Insufficient understanding • Undervaluing nature • Inadequate institutions Also…

36. SIMILARITIESBETWEEN TERRESTRIAL & MARINE CONSERVATION • Maintaining the status quo insufficient (too much damage done already) • Small populations at particular risk • Top carnivores/keystone species especially important • Even stable populations can be depleted by technological advances and inability to detect declines • In situ ultimately better then ex situ

37. SIMILARITIESBETWEEN TERRESTRIAL & MARINE CONSERVATION • Ecosystem conservation better than individual species conservation • Emphasizing conservation of charismatic species can be an “umbrella” for other species • Protected areas are good but not sufficient – good management outside protected areas also required • Countries with the fewest resources have the most biodiversity in need of conservation • Strong special interests oppose conservation • New technology can help as well as hinder

38. SIMILARITIESBETWEEN TERRESTRIAL & MARINE CONSERVATION • Laws not enough for conservation - need public support too • Vigilance is needed – a brief lapse and species or habitats can disappear for ever • Government environmental protection/ conservation departments always weaker than those exploiting/damaging • Managing conservation = managing humans • Resources are scarce • Time is short 

39. REFERENCES Norse, E. & Crowder, L.B. 2005. Why marine conservation biology? In: Marine Conservation Biology (Ed. E. Norse & L.B. Crowder), pp. 1-18. Island Press, Washington Carlton, J.T., Vermeij, G.J., Lindberg, D.R., Carlton, D.A. and Dudley, E. 1991. The first historical extinction of a marine invertebrate in an ocean basin: the demise of the eelgrass limpet Lottia alveus. Biological Bulletin 180(1): 72-80. Kochin, B.F. & Levin, P.S. 2003. Lack of concern deepens the ocean’s problems. Nature 424: 723. Kochin, B.F. & Levin, P.S. 2004. Publication of marine conservation papers: is conservation biology too dry? Conservation Biology 18: 1160-1162. Lindholm, J.B., Auster, P., Kaufman, L.S. 1999. Habitat-mediated survivorship of juvenile (0-year) Atlantic cod Gadus morhua. Marine Ecology Progress Series 180: 247-255. Reidl, R. 1980. Marine ecology – a century of changes. Marine Ecology 1: 3-46. Stachowitsch, M. 2003. Research on intact marine ecosystems: a lost era. Marine Pollution Bulletin 46: 801-805.