Vol. 3, No. 4 Contents
Headline Back Issues
Fall 1999
|
Biodiversity in the Gulf of Maine, Pt. 1By Suzy Fried, Editor Editor's note: This is the first of a two-part series on biodiversity. Part 2 will appear in the March 2000 issue of the Gulf of Maine Times. Gulf of Maine - Despite growing public awareness about environmental issues, many of us continue to think of nature as something "out there" that we leave behind when we close our front door. Even as we rely on the natural world, as every animal does, we don't see our connection to it. Ecologists are worried that we don't understand the importance to our own survival of the diversity of life on earth. Biological diversity - or biodiversity - can refer to the diversity of living organisms, which is species diversity; the diversity within a species, which is genetic diversity; and the diversity of organisms and their environment, which is ecosystem diversity. We know relatively little about the many species on the planet, including how many actually exist. According to the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute Marine Policy Center, of the 30-100 million species on the planet, taxonomists have identified fewer than two million. In its Gulf of Maine atlas, From Cape Cod to the Bay of Fundy, the Rockland-Maine-based Island Institute states, "Terrestrial diversity can pale beside marine biodiversity, especially in some of the habitats on the bottom of the Gulf of Maine where over 1,600 species of benthic or bottom-dwelling organisms have been described." Marine researchers using new techniques for sampling ocean habitats have recently learned that there are many more species in the deep ocean than scientists had previously thought - up to 10 million. And the deeper the water, the more diverse its inhabitants. "We're only beginning to understand what this life in the oceans means to us," said Marine Ecologist Jane Lubchenco at a September 17 panel discussion on biodiversity at the New England Aquarium. But what we do know is that we rely on resources from the sea for food, for materials to make medicine, and for other goods. We also know that coastal environments provide us with natural services such as water purification and protection against erosion. And, ecologists say, these are reasons enough to be concerned about the health of marine and coastal ecosystems. Decline in the GulfSignificant threats to biodiversity in Gulf of Maine ecosystem include depletion of deep water fisheries; infiltration by invasive plants, which outcompete native plants on coastal marshes; and industrial discharges that pollute rivers and coastal waters with nutrients and toxic substances. Devastating effects have also resulted from coastal development, which has caused polluted runoff into coastal waters, and has fragmented coastal habitat. "Nothing eliminates the habitat of a species more effectively than paving it," noted David VanLuven Coordinator of New Hampshire's Natural Heritage Inventory. He described "land protection and very conscientious development guidance" as essential elements in protecting the Gulf of Maine's biodiversity, "particularly in the southern part of the Gulf where development is so intense." According to ecologists, the degree of an ecological system's diversity on all levels determines its ability to recover from and to respond to these sorts of stresses. Diverse ecosystems have many options for carrying out their essential functions. If pollution or other factors eliminate some of these options, the system becomes simpler, less resilient, and more fragile. An ecosystem's deterioration can affect resources and services that benefit people. Destruction of a coastal saltmarsh, for example, would affect its role in water purification and erosion protection, its function as a nursery for species of fish that people eat, as well as its recreational and aesthetic benefits. On the species level, "As you narrow your gene pool, a very minor change can wipe out an entire species," according to Parker Gray, Senior Policy Advisor for the New Brunswick Department of Environment. He explained that in New Brunswick, where every river historically produced salmon genetically programmed to migrate back to that particular river, dams and other obstructions have prevented many of the salmon from returning to their home rivers. This has meant that fewer fish - representing a smaller gene pool - are returning to reproduce. Their offspring are becoming less adaptable to other stresses. In the worst case, a species' inability to adapt to a changing environment leads to extinction. While extinction is a natural process, human activities, such as development, and its effects, such as pollution or habitat loss, accelerate change, increasing the rate of extinction. According to the National Wildlife Federation, scientists estimate that 100 species disappear around the world each day, rapidly simplifying the ecosystems upon which other species - including humans - rely. Several sources said people sometimes mistakenly believe that loss of biodiversity is only of concern in faraway rainforests. In fact, "We've got a significant amount of diversity in our own backyard," said Peter Auster, Science Director for the National Undersea Research Center at the University of Connecticut. Making a case
At the New England Aquarium biodiversity forum, Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki asserted, "We're facing a catastrophic rate of extinction. I don't think the extent of the horror is getting out there." He described the environmental movement as working on too small a scale, "dealing with symptoms." The real problem, according to Suzuki, is that people and corporations do not relate their economically motivated decisions to environmental consequences. "The problem we face is we live in a world where everything is fragmented into bits and pieces and no one can see the connectedness with ourselves." But panelists Edward O. Wilson, Pulitzer Prize winning author and biodiversity advocate, and marine ecologist Jane Lubchenco were more hopeful. Lubchenco said, "I see a renewed passionate interest in an increased stewardship role," which she said is emerging from religious organizations and other groups. Some ecologists fear overwhelming the public with news of environmental crises. "I think people get much more excited about protecting things around them when they start seeing how wonderful they are than by me just ringing the alarm bell," said VanLuven, though he added, "I think it is important for people to know the consequences of their actions." Ecological valueEcologists assert that by placing economic considerations before all others, global policies reward exploitation of natural resources rather than rewarding environmentally sound practices. Lubchenco called for economic incentives to conserve biodiversity, noting that under current policies, "There's lots of money to be made in massively over fishing the seas." She also said that placing more emphasis on the value of ecological services - not just on products harvested from nature - would encourage conservation, because ecosystems have to function properly for those services to work. But some ecologists are wary of relying on economic justifications for preserving biodiversity, fearing that if scientists eventually create alternatives to products and services we now find in the natural world, incentive to preserve the natural resources will decrease. Others questioned how some aspects of the natural world - a panoramic coastal vista, for example - can be fully assessed in economic terms. "We really believe that the economy is the source of everything that matters," said Suzuki. But, he said, the environment is what makes the economy possible, not the other way around. "We, as biological creatures, are as dependent on nature as anything else." Despite what they emphasize as a need to convince the public that biodiversity matters, some ecologists say they try to avoid using the term "biodiversity" outside of the office because it is too broad and is often misunderstood. "There's a much better feel when you talk about habitat protection," said Gray. Research and actionProponents of increased efforts to conserve biodiversity see a need for more knowledge of how ecosystems - especially marine ecosystems - work. Fishermen and others who depend on harvesting marine organisms also demand scientific support for precautionary measures designed to preserve biodiversity. The National Research Council and the National Science Foundation (NSF) in the US and the Regional Association for Research on the Gulf of Maine have all called for more research into ecosystem and biodiversity conservation. The NSF has also called for an additional $200 million per year to be allocated in the US federal budget for environmental research and education. But ecologists don't want to postpone action to preserve biodiversity pending more research. "We don't know how everything works, but know there are impacts, so rather than wait for definitive research, we should move ahead," said Auster, describing funding as very limited for expensive marine biodiversity research. "It's probably cheaper to go study snow leopards in the Tibetan Himalayas for a year than it is to spend a week studying sponges in the Gulf of Maine." |
||||||||||
Some arguments for conserving biodiversity appeal to our self-interest: healthy ecosystems provide humans with products and services that benefit us or are necessary to our survival. But some conservationists argue that protecting ecosystems is simply morally right. While ecologists agree that loss of biodiversity is a serious problem in need of immediate attention, they differ on their expression of the issue.