Tag Archives: Uncategorized

Without a Seaweed Meadow

A close up of an Ascophyllum mat at low tide with attached tufts of Vertebrata lanosa, an obligate epiphyte red seaweed.

Ascophyllum nodosum is a brown seaweed and a ubiquitous member of intertidal communities throughout the temperate North Atlantic. This cold- and calm-water loving species has long strappy branches and air bladders along its axis. It grows in dense stands that are up to a meter tall – forming beautiful floating meadows at high tide and thick, floppy mats of seaweed at low tide. Ascophyllum’s high abundance, canopy formation, and place at the bottom of the food-chain makes it an important foundation species for intertidal rocky shore communities. So what would happen if Ascophyllum was suddenly gone tomorrow?

An aerial view of an Ascophyllum dominated intertidal community at low tide. Eager phycology students head down to survey the diversity at Quoddy Head State Park, Maine, USA. (C) Kylla Benes

Fortunately, there have been a few classic and long-term studies* that have addressed this question. Clearly, the removal of any foundation species would result in an immediate decline in associated and dependent species. But what about the long-term changes in intertidal communities?

First a little lesson on intertidal community organization. For sessile (attached and non-mobile) organisms, competition for space is a key driver of diversity on rocky substrate. Recruitment rates, growth rates, longevity, and position in the food-chain can determine which species are most abundant. Ascophyllum is not very good at recruiting. But its density, height, long life-span (up to 100 years), and low palatability mean that this species can out-compete many other sessile seaweeds and invertebrates. Large disturbances—such as strong waves or ice scour — that can remove Ascophyllum and/or high recruitment of other sessile species can lead to other seaweed and invertebrate species becoming dominant. Importantly, the identity of the dominant species can have major impacts on the associated community.

At locations where there is little recruitment, such as the northern-most reaches of the Gulf of Maine, the removal and absence of Ascophyllum could result in a mostly barren landscape or a sparse and low diversity community at best. At locations where there is high recruitment of invertebrates, barnacles and mussels can form near monoculture beds that provide little habitat for the intertidal community that is characteristically associated with Ascophyllum. Although, micro-invertebrates that can live in the interstices between mussels and predators of barnacles and mussels would be happy. In particular, mussels can become so dominant and persistent, that they can form stable and alternative intertidal communities to the Ascophyllum-based versions communities. At locations where predatory pressure from whelks and crabs is high enough to keep these invertebrates in-check, other brown seaweeds in the genus Fucus can be dominant space holders. As close relative to Ascophyllum, these species can play a similar role in intertidal communities, but they are not as long-lived and are more susceptible to damage from waves and herbivores. In the long-run, Fucus-dominated locations may be less stable compared to Ascophyllum-dominated intertidal communities.

Mussels versus Fucoid

The rocky intertidal at Mill Pond, Swans Island, Maine USA. From the 1980’s to 1990’s mussels and barnacles dominated this site (left). Beginning in 2000, disturbances from ice scour opened up space, allowing for a shift to a seaweed dominated community (right). Arrows indicate reference points at the site. Photos: (C) Steve Dudgeon and (C) Peter Petraitis – To see other photographs and learn more about the long-term studies of alternative stable states in the Gulf of Maine, visit the LTERB website.

The above, are all direct effects of the loss of Ascophyllum on the structure intertidal communities but there would also be some indirect effects. Many birds, fish, and invertebrates use Ascophyllum meadows as temporary habitat during migration or as juveniles. Further, seasonal release of gametes and senesce of Ascophyllum may be a large source of nutrients and carbon for intertidal animals or may even be exported to other ecosystems such as the deep subtidal. With Ascophyllum gone, these animals and ecosystems may suffer. These indirect, but potentially important, effects of Ascophyllum are much less well known and studied than direct effects.

GOM

Example seaweeds (A-C) and invertebrates (D-I) commonly associated with Asocphyllum. A) Palmaria palmata, B) Corallina officinallis, C) Ulva lactuca, D) Littorina littorea, E) Testudinium testudinalia, F) Littorina obtusata, G) Botryllus sp., H) Mytilus edulis, I) Semibalanus balanoides.
Photos: (C) Kylla Benes

Lastly, the disappearance of Ascophyllum would result in a loss of many ecosystem services that we humans are reliant upon. Lobster, cod, and several other fisheries species use seaweed meadows as nursery habitat for their young. The sudden disappearance of Ascophyllum would result in a reduction of these species, and ultimately income from these fisheries. And this would result in less of the surf, in your surf and turf dinners. Ascophyllum itself is harvested for use in fertilizer, nutritional and beauty products, and even as packaging to ship lobsters to distant restaurants (leading to a small temporary population in the San Francisco bay area). Last year, over 15 million pounds of seaweed were harvested from the coast of Maine, USA and the products of the seaweed industry are valued at about $20 million per year. In addition to its importance in fisheries, Ascophyllum is a foundation species of biodiversity hot spots (e.g., Cobscook Bay) and may be an important carbon sink, which could help mitigate the effects of ocean acidification.

Whether you’re an ecologist interested in community dynamics, think protecting the Earth’s biodiversity is important, or simply love a lobster dinner, we all have a reason to care about Ascophyllum.

 

*References on Intertidal Community Organization in the Gulf of Maine

Menge, B. A. 1976. Organization of the New England Rocky Intertidal Community: Role of Predation, Competition, and Environmental Heterogeneity. Ecological Monographs 46:355-393.

Petraitis, P. S. & S. R. Dudgeon. 1999. Experimental evidence for the origin of alternative communities on rocky intertidal shores. Oikos:239-245.

Bryson, E. S., G. C. Trussell, & P. J. Ewanchuk. 2014. Broad-scale geographic variation in the organization of rocky intertidal communities in the Gulf of Maine. Ecological Monographs 84:579-597.

 

May 31, 2016

Flump side of the moon

3puffins

It’s Friday and that means that it’s time for our Friday link dump, where we highlight some recent papers (and other stuff) that we found interesting but didn’t have the time to write an entire post about. If you think there’s something we missed, or have something to say, please share in the comments section!

An article published in PLOS ONE on Wednesday describes a new genus (Dendrogramma) of benthic organisms that, based on preliminary morphological data, have been classified at Metazoa incertae sedis.  This basically means we know they’re animals, but we couldn’t tell you which phyla they belong to.  The fact that we can’t find a taxonomic place for these critters, along with the absence of available genetic data, let’s me think that we haven’t heard the last of Dendrogramma.

National Geographic released a troubling story last week detailing the decline of Icelandic seabird colonies and what that means for their respective global populations.

A study in Science, representing the work of researchers from across the U.S., documents the genetic composition of the microbiomes associated with human homes.  Major findings include that humans tend to be the “primary bacterial vector,” and that we should be paying much less in rent based on the amount of additional bacterial occupants within our own private domicile. – Nate Johnson

September 5, 2014

Missive from ESA2014: BBB – Better Biodiversity Business?

tesoroBaker1

The March Point Refinery in Anacortes, WA, which must be one of the most beautifully situated refineries on earth. I do research just behind it at the Padilla Bay National Estuarine Reserve, in the shadow of Mt. Baker. Photo: Tesoro

Paraphrasing Jill Baron, ESA President, we, as ecologists, might all feel a … certain way about oil companies, but then we get in our cars and drive away. Or fly to ESA.

So, at what point, or on what level, do we, again, as ecologists, directly engage businesses, including huge multinational corporations that are typically blamed for the environmental destruction we research, in a constructive conversation about maintaining biodiversity? One that doesn’t involve picket signs, or legalese, or inherent distrust?

I fully acknowledge my own visceral sense of distrust, evoked during last Monday’s special session on Biodiversity in Businesses, on the introduction of Maria Hartley, who works on implementing the environmental mission (who knew?) of Chevron (see Inevitable Caveat 1 below). Joining Ms. Hartley on the panel were Albert Straus (of Straus Family Creameries – HUGE fan of the European Style yogurt, totally changed my outlook on yogurt!), and Robbert Snep, who is both an academic and a consultant to businesses seeking to green up and improve sustainability and biodiversity in their practices. The panel benefitted from the experience of a range of company approaches – a huge multinational corporation seemingly anathema to the idea of conservation, a local/regional agricultural operation, where we are much more comfortable thinking about biodiversity and business coexisting, as well as a consultant who works with a range of business entities and has a landscape-level perspective.

One of the species that Chevron works to protect is the Desert Tortoise in the Mojave.

One of the species that Chevron works to protect is the Desert Tortoise in the Mojave. Find out more here. Photo: “DesertTortoise” by Wilson44691Own work. Licensed under Public domain via Wikimedia Commons.

I latched onto the theme of motivation in each of these scenarios: Who are the parties that are motivated to build biodiversity into the business architecture and why? Who wants the business to consider environmental welfare and conservation? The shareholders? The consumers? The executives? The employees? The Public Relations office? What is their relation to the decision-making apparatus for the company? Is the business built in a way that protects sustainability as a priority, even when competing prioritie$ might emerge.

The answers to these questions determine how each business approaches biodiversity, and there is a range of structural solutions. For instance, on the flight (Inevitable Caveat 2) here, I read a short piece in the New Yorker about “B-corporations”, for-profit companies that are certified for high standards in “social and environmental practice” by B-Lab, a non-profit. B-corporations are, evidently, not to be confused with Benefit Corporations, which is hard, because they are both called “B-corps”. A B Corporation is a business incorporation status offered by about half of the states in the country. In both cases, there is an explicit commitment to social or environmental goals and objectives, that are variously controlled or evaluated by outside entities.

Straus was the first non-GMO verified creamery in the country. Find out more here.

Straus was the first non-GMO verified creamery in the country. Find out more here.

Neither Straus nor Chevron is a B-corp, in either sense of the colloquial term, though perhaps the latter goes without saying. Yet they both manage, in their way, to pursue environmental objectives. I got the sense that these objectives were both determined and executed in a very top-down way at Straus, reflecting the vision and mission of the company’s family founders. On the other hand, Chevron states environmental goals, but hires ecologists and lawyers to keep them in compliance. I do wonder whether either of those approaches is structured to protect these values when/if “Corporate Social Responsibility” ever becomes less fashionable.

So, the good news is that there are jobs out there for us ecologists who don’t see the allure in the current unstable academic funding environment. Companies are seeking out science and finding it worth their investment to ask ecologists how to do their business environmentally. How do we get those jobs? Snep noted that, as students, we spend very little time thinking about businesses (except perhaps as a funding opportunity, or an obstacle to our research). He suggests that it would benefit us to wear a businesses hat from time to time, to develop the ability to communicate with business and find ways to apply ecology, to their landscaping, to their sourcing, to their marketing. Straus added that their company is really looking for leaders and managers first, as the content and skills can be added. I have been told that a dual PhD(or MS)/MBA is a formidable combination. I’m not sure I’m quite ready for X years more school, given my current financial situation, and it seems almost laughable how fish-out-of-water I would look in a business school (she says as she looks around the room at ESA).

 

Inevitable Caveats:

(1)  On a personal note, the distrust was, of course, my own baggage. Ms. Hartley convinced me that she does work from a science-first perspective and believes the role she plays can make a difference in the world of biodiversity.

(2)  Presumably, this plane flew on petroleum – read here for more about conservation biologists and carbon footprint, an irony of which I am fully aware.

August 19, 2014