Posts filed under ‘Environment’
Mobile Solar Generators: Saving the Earth, One SolMan at a Time
By: Amanda Artz
Mobile generators are necessary for countless applications, from powering shelters during a natural disaster to providing energy to heat a rural cabin in the woods. But what are the environmental implications of this technology? Although it would seem that generators are much less harmful than the traditional grid power of a home or business, they carry just as many, if not more negative environmental effects.
Typical mobile generators run on gas. Any fossil fuel burning device emits greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and ozone into the atmosphere, causing health issues. The process of burning fossil fuels is also the driving force behind global climate change. Additionally, mobile generators produce large amounts of noise pollution. Noise pollution harbors many negative effects for wildlife, causing them stress, decreasing the usability of their habitat, and disrupting the naturalness of ecosystems. Noise pollution also creates just as many negative effects on humans.
Exhaust from gas generators can also produce poisonous carbon monoxide gases that can kill if concentrated in high enough levels in poorly ventilated areas. It is also extremely dangerous to operate mobile generators in moist areas. On top of this, they can be very heavy and difficult to transport, making them inconvenient for the very purposes they are needed for most.
With all of these negative aspects, the need for an alternative mobile generating solution is great. Luckily, there is a solar solution. Solar-powered mobile generators are emission free, lightweight, and use energy from a completely renewable, free energy source. Also, advances in solar cell technology have made solar panels a much more affordable energy option.
SolMan mobile solar energy generator.
One such mobile solar generator solution is the SolMan, made by a northern California company called SolSolutions. This all-in-one integrated unit can deliver up to 1200 watts of AC power and 12 volts of DC power. The design includes a 135 watt photovoltaic panel, three 100 amp/hour deep cycle sealed batteries, a solar charge controller, a watt Meter, a 1500 watt inverter/charger, and external AC/DC plugs, all contained in a light, easily transportable two-wheel cart. It’s an extremely affordable model made locally out of long-lasting and environmentally friendly aluminum, not plastic.
Mobile solar generators are not the technology of the future—they are the technology of today, and should be used as commonly as hybrid vehicles and reusable shopping bags. Join other sustainability advocates and support this revolutionary technology, and together, along with the sun, we can rid our earth’s atmosphere of pollution, one SolMan at a time.
For more information about the SolMan, visit SolSolutions’ website.
Designing Wildlife Corridors Streamlined with GIS
By Amanda Artz
Habitat loss is the number one threat to biodiversity. With increasing human population growth and urbanization, wildlife habitat continues to decline and become fragmented. Fragmentation and isolation can have dramatically negative effects on plant and wildlife populations, ranging from decreased genetic diversity to extinction. Restoring and protecting existing habitat and providing linkages between fragmented areas is becoming critically important to the continued existence of many species. Wildlife habitat corridors allow populations to interact, interbreed, and, as climate changes, to shift their geographic range. Planning, designing, and implementing wildlife corridors can be difficult, but GIS technology is helping to streamline the process.
It didn’t take long for Northern Arizona University’s School of Forestry professor Paul Beier to realize the importance of wildlife corridors. While studying mountain lion populations in the Santa Ana Mountain Range during 1988-1992, Beier noted habitat fragmentation was the biggest problem the big cats were facing. Without habitat corridor links between mountain ranges, the Southern California mountain lion population would be doomed. “I documented that based on their demography they must have connectivity, and that based on animal movement, they’d use linkages that were available if we gave them half a chance,” said Beier. “They were using some highly degraded existing corridors, and so I got really excited at the prospect of, what if we designed corridors on purpose? Wouldn’t that be terrific?”
Mountain Lion mother and cubs, Caspers Wilderness Park, Orange County, California. Captured by motion activated camera, photo credit Donna Krucki.
Years later at Northern Arizona University, Dan Majka began working with Beier. Majka created corridor models using GIS based on methodology designed by Beier and South Coast Wildlands, a non-profit organization dedicated to ensuring functional habitat connectivity. To improve workflow and analysis speed, Majka refined, enhanced, and implemented the organization’s tools into a toolset called CorridorDesigner.
A GIS-based Toolbox
CorridorDesigner is a suite of tools for ArcGIS for creating habitat and corridor models. It provides a user friendly, three step process that applies least cost modeling for multiple focal species. The core input is habitat suitability modeling, which allows users to assess the quality of habitat for a species within the study area or a modeled corridor and masks out any unsuitable habitat.
Modeled biologically best corridor and habitat suitability for mountain lion between Hualapai and Peacock Mountains, Arizona.
GIS habitat suitability models relate suitability to raster-based layers such as land use/land cover, elevation, topographic position, human disturbance (e.g. distance from roads, road density, housing density, etc), or other relevant data. Using this data and a habitat suitability threshold that ranks habitat quality for breeding, the user can model a single species corridor and then repeat the procedure for other species. Next, the user can join the single-species corridor models to create a preliminary linkage design. This union of corridor data is the most obvious way to ensure that all target species are included.
Multispecies linkage design between Hualapai and Peacock Mountains, Arizona.
The CorridorDesigner tools connect the best available habitat for individual wildlife species between two larger habitat blocks. All would be well if this exact region could be conserved. Unfortunately, for a variety of reasons the best choice areas are usually not available for corridor development, so the model is best used as a baseline to compare alternatives.
GIS consultant Jeff Jenness, GISP, joined the project and lent his expertise by creating an ArcMap extension for CorridorDesigner that provides a set of tools to evaluate the “best” corridors and to compare them with more realistic alternatives. These tools include calculation of patch-to-patch distances, bottleneck analysis, size-weighted general statistics, size-weighted histogram statistics, size-weighted cross-tabulation statistics, and cumulative surface tools. These statistics help land managers and conservation investors make educated decisions about what to conserve. By factoring in the reality conservationists face every day, this extension ensures that the optimal corridor is designed using what land is available.
Climate and Transportation Concerns
New concerns about a changing climate have forced wildlife managers to rethink how corridors should be designed for the success of species in the future. In response, spatial analyst Brian Brost and Jenness have added another set of tools to the CorridorDesigner toolbox, including the ArcGIS extension “Land Facet CorridorDesigner” and a set of complementary Land Facet functions that run in R. Land facets are based only on topographic and soil features on the landscape, which don’t change over time and will not change as climate changes. “Until now, corridors were primarily designed to encourage movement of focal species through present land cover maps,” said Jenness. “Because of the strong possibility that land cover maps will change in this century, any corridor linkage based on those maps might fail due to climate change.” It is thought that future vegetation (and, indirectly, animal assemblages) will be determined primarily by the interaction among land facets and future climate regimes. This Land Facet approach is a valuable geographic approach to designing wildlife corridors that considers the future effects of climate change.
Wildlife corridors don’t just conserve connectivity; they also provide ways to make highways safer for both people and wildlife. The CorridorDesigner tools can be useful in helping to determine the ideal location of wildlife crossings for various species along major thoroughfares and highways. Building these crossings reduces wildlife-vehicle collisions, leading to a decrease in mortality on highways for countless animals while keeping drivers safe. “For large mammals like mountain lions that tend to occur in low densities and take several years to raise their young, the loss of an individual can have a snowball effect on a local population” said Emily Garding, a wildlife biologist/GIS analyst for the Arizona Missing Linkages Project who has worked extensively with the CorridorDesigner tools. “I’m excited that our work promotes developing a more wildlife-friendly transportation infrastructure that will contribute to maintaining sustainable wildlife populations. I hope to see the trend toward building safer highways continue across the nation.”
An artist’s rendering of proposed Tucson-Tortolita-Santa Catalina wildlife overpass crossing structure in Pima County Arizona. Photo credit Coalition for Sonoran Desert Protection.
The significance of wildlife corridors is clear. “Corridors are important because they provide a way of connecting species and habitats in a changing world,” said Dan Majka. “They provide a possible way to deal with increased pressures, whether its urbanization or fragmentation, increased transportation, and climate change.” GIS-based tools have significantly streamlined the design and implementation of corridors. With GIS, CorridorDesigner, and the continued support and enthusiasm from people like those who work on and with these tools, wildlife can look forward to a sustainable, connected future.
More Information
For more information, contact Dan Majka (email: dan@corridordesign.org) or Jeff Jenness (email: jeffj@jennessent.com or Brian Brost (email: bmbrost@gmail.com). To download the CorridorDesigner tools for free, visit corridordesign.org.
Special thanks to Dan Majka, Jeff Jenness, Paul Beier, and Emily Garding for all of their help, support, and amazing work they’ve done for wildlife and corridors.
National Parks and Wildlife: Smoke and Mirrors of Environmental History
By: Amanda Artz
National Parks were established under extreme forms of control and manipulation, catering to the romantic expectations of park visitors. Americans viewed parks as places of perfection; untouched landscapes filled with all-natural beauties where they could escape from the growing urbanization and disappearing frontier of the western world. “The Park Service practiced a selective kind of preservation, promoting some elements of nature and opposing others–altering natural conditions largely in an attempt to meet the public’s expectations and enjoyment of the parks” (Sellars 1997). By catering to the clouded visions of what National Parks were dreamt to be, the Park Service essentially turned them into something far from what they should have been; largely unnatural, completely managed lands that required the constant control of humans.
For many people, the process of conquest and nation building seemed to alter the essential nature of the west, so the first National Parks were seen as places to share national identity and an appreciation for natural beauty (Spence 1999). But of course, wilderness preservation went hand in hand with native dispossession, and uninhabited wilderness had to be created before it was preserved (Spence 1999). Many Americans viewed wilderness as an unpopulated Eden that should be set aside for the benefit and enjoyment of vacationing people (Spence 1999). “The fact that Indians continued to hunt and light fires in such places seemed only to demonstrate a marked inability to appreciate natural beauty. To guard against these ’violations‘, the establishment of the first National Parks entailed the exclusion or removal of native peoples” (Spence 1999 pg 4). Wilderness concepts seemingly forgot that native peoples shaped the environments for centuries, giving rise to parks that were more representative of old fantasies about a continent awaiting “discovery” than actual conditions at the time of early European detection (Spence 1999). When it came down to it, Americans cared more about the scenic grandeur of a landscape than for the well-being of the natives who called these landscapes home. Indians truly distinguished the landscape, but Americans were much more concerned with the colossal mountains, giant trees, and majestic waterfalls that surpassed everything else in the known world, and with the bragging rights that came with them (Spence 1999). The concept of monumentalism fueled expectations, and wilderness became more of an American invention than an actual existing entity (Spence 1999).
America’s perception of a human-less wilderness spread beyond the removal of Indians towards the removal of visitor impact in the parks. The national embarrassment of the commercialization of Niagara Falls inspired the idea that naturalness needed to be maintained in areas of high scenic interest (Spence 1999). Because of this, the first true professions to emerge in the National Park Service were engineers and landscape architects, who purposely avoided intruding on scenery, but also aimed to display scenery to its best advantage with the proper placement of buildings, roads, and trails (Sellars 1997). They designed plans “to screen unattractive developments from view, and planned intensively developed areas, with parking lots, sidewalks, buildings, lawns, and gardens. The resolve to blend new construction with natural surroundings—to develop the parks without destroying their beauty—formed the basis of landscape architecture’s central role in National Park development” (Sellars 1997 pg 50). In reality, scenery was the key attribute that sets a National Park aside to be protected and conserved for all generations, not biodiversity and its preservation and continued success.
Destruction in National Parks frequently occurred to enhance the enjoyment of visitors. Road and structure building was an acceptable practice as long as it was coordinated with the aesthetics and scenery of the Park (Sellars 1997). Wildlife and their habitat were not taken into account, and the understanding of ecology was usually incomplete (Warren 1997). “It is important to note that while the Park Service was steadily building up its landscape architecture and engineering capability, it was content to only borrow scientists from other bureaus to manage National Park flora and fauna–a telling reflection of how much greater the Service’s interest was in recreational tourism than in fostering innovative strategies in nature preservation” (Sellars 1997 pg 70). The fact that the Park Service cared more about scenic value and tourism than it did for the plants and animals that inhabited a park is alarming, but soon enough wildlife was also looked upon as a valuable resource (Warren 1997).
“Visions of bountiful wildlife was the lure of the western land, and as such, close to the heart of America’s westering experience” (Warren 1997 pg 4). Maintaining such a situation required heavily manipulated management–preserving the scenic facade of nature and wilderness, the primary basis for public enjoyment (Sellars 1997). “The Service’s treatment of large-mammal populations did not follow a policy of letting nature take its course; rather, it involved frequent and sometimes intensive handling, such as killing predators or nurturing favored species” (Sellars 1997 pg 75). The Park Service conducted ranching and farming operations to maintain the presence and success of favored species, and those species that threatened the favored plants and animals were eradicated or reduced to a point where they would not affect populations of the more favored creatures. Bison in Yellowstone were treated like domesticated livestock (Sellars 1997). They were fed hay farmed on approximately six hundred acres of Park land, and population sizes were controlled by slaughtering for meat or donations to parks and zoos (Sellars 1997). “The Service valued Park grasslands mainly as pasturage for ungulates, rather than as areas biologically important for plants and other life forms” (Sellars 1997 pg 70). To enhance the food supply and entice animals to stay in the Park boundaries of Yellowstone, winter feeding of deer, antelope, and bighorn sheep was implemented, which used fifteen hundred tons of hay during a 15 year period (Sellars 1997). To further meet visitors’ expectations, the Service set up zoos in the Parks to guarantee that tourists would have a chance to see the more popular animals (Sellars 1997). For example, the Park Service imported a small herd of Tule elk to Yosemite, which were not native to the park and were kept behind fences (Sellars 1997). Regardless of naturalness or integrity, the Park Service did anything and everything they could to match the pre-conceived expectations that Americans carried about National Parks.
The most controversial management practice of the Park Service was the killing of predators in order to protect more popular species (Sellars 1997). “Determined to keep the National Parks unimpaired, the Service acted as though the predators themselves were impairments–threats to be dealt with before they destroyed the peaceful scenes it wished to maintain” (Sellars 1997 pg 71). Predator control was seen as a means of protecting those “species of animals desirable for public observation and enjoyment,” and that the “enemies” of those species must be controlled (Sellars 1997 pg 72). The rangers responsible for predator control were often allowed to sell for personal profit a percentage of the hides and pelts of the predators that they killed (Sellars 1997). In addition, the Parks sometimes hired predator hunters. To ensure the satisfaction of tourists, the Park Service killed thousands of animals that it should have been protecting, all because of this skewed perception of “wild”.
More extensively than any other wildlife, the Park Service manipulated fish populations (Sellars 1997). Their goal was to make fishing a leading National Park attraction and a major aspect of tourism management (Sellars 1997). “Although the Service sought to halt the poaching of mammals in the Parks, it enthusiastically sanctioned not only the regulated taking of fish but also the introduction of numerous non-native species” (Sellars 1997 pg 80). The Park Service planted millions of fish into various lakes and rivers, including non-native rainbow, brown, brook, and lake trout (Sellars 1997). Non-native fish planting was practiced regularly along with introduction of non-native trees, shrubs, and grasses for landscaping developed areas (Sellars 1997). Introducing non-native species can have dramatically negative impacts on native populations that can be out-competed by the non-natives, causing negative effects on an entire ecosystem. The careless, ignorant, attitude of the Park Service towards non-native species provides further proof of the true intentions of National Park establishment.
The historical implications of Park and wildlife management can be seen as an underlying theme of the deception and greed of early America. Nothing influences action more powerfully than economic benefit and growth of our country, and for this growth, the western landscape and those “lesser beings” who call it home have continually paid the price. Once we re-visit the historical operations of Parks and truly understand the wrongness of their management, we can continue to restore a more ecological, scientific approach to Park management and finally put to rest the embarrassing façade that once defined our National Parks.
Sources:
Spence, Mark D. 1999. “Dispossessing the Wilderness: Indian Removal and the Making of National Parks.
Sellars, Richard. 1997. “Preserving Nature in National Parks: A History.
Warren, Louis. 1997. “The Hunter’s Game: Poachers and Conservationists in the Twentieth Century America.”
Large Predator Restoration by Use of Corridors: The Right or Wrong Path for Wildlife and Humans?
By: Amanda Artz
Introduction
Evidence of human growth and urbanization can be seen through the impacts on virtually every species on planet earth. Effects of this growth and urbanization, such as “species decline, endangerment and extinction of enormous proportions, and widespread deterioration in the quality of air, water and soils – the basic resources on which all of life depends”, are causing sheer chaos in the natural world (Bennet pg 16 2003). Possibly no species are more affected than the world’s large, carnivorous predators. These animals are extremely important to the overall health and function of an ecosystem, but conservation and restoration of them and their habitat is a giant grey area that can be seen as a metaphor for balancing humans and nature. We can no longer wait to address this growing environmental and ethical issue, and by establishing clear goals and outlooks we can ensure the future of these species and ecosystems along with the continuing growth and success of our own.
The Importance of Large Predators to Ecosystems
Ecosystem veracity is regularly dependent on the functional presence of large carnivores (Foreman 2004). Predators are “keystone species”, or species whose loss would have widespread ecological effects on their entire ecosystem (Bennet 2003). Because of this, they exert a controlling influence on species at lower trophic levels (such as prey, what their prey eats, etc.) called top-down regulation (Beschta 2009). Studies have found that large carnivores are major regulators of prey species numbers—“the opposite of the once-upon-a-time ecological orthodoxy that saw them as unimportant” (Foreman 2004 pg. 120). The loss of large predators in an ecosystem can eventually lead to the rapid increase in population of wild ungulates which in turn greatly impacts plant communities (Beschta 2009). A successful ecosystem contains a natural system of checks and balances. Without large carnivores keeping their prey level populations in check, the ecosystem would be an unbalanced, deteriorating entity.
Restoring Large Predators
Biodiversity is heavily impacted when ecosystems lack large carnivores. Forests in the eastern United States are so overrun with white-tailed deer that the regeneration of these forests has been made virtually impossible due to the deer’s consumption of trees and herbs (Foreman 2004). This complex array of problems has a very simple solution: restore large carnivores, such as wolves and mountain lions, to the ecosystem. This would reduce white-tailed deer numbers, allowing the forest to return to more natural patterns of succession and species richness (Foreman 2004). On certain Venezuelan islands, howler monkey populations have exploded to more than ten times their historic densities due to lack of large predators (such as jaguar, puma, and harpy eagle) (Foreman 2004). The result is that only five or less tree species out of seventy reach the sapling stage, and although the mature trees are able to reproduce, their seeds and seedlings are eaten by herbivores (Foreman 2004). If the current situation continues, most of the plant and animal species in this population will go extinct within one or two tree replacement cycles (Foreman 2004). Without the return of predators, these ecosystems are well on the path to devastation or disappearance.
The absence of large carnivores also has unfathomed effects on humans. In parts of Sub-Saharan Africa, leopard and lion populations have been decimated, allowing an uncontrolled rise in the baboon population (Columbia Basin Bulletin 2009). Baboon packs are notorious for raiding crop fields, and in some cases children are now being kept home from school to guard family gardens from baboons (Columbia Basin Bulletin 2009). In another example, the elimination of wolves in certain ranching towns has led to a significant increase in coyotes, a predator once kept in check by the wolves (Columbia Basin Bulletin 2009). The coyotes attack domestic sheep and pronghorn antelope, and attempts to control them have been incredibly expensive, costing hundreds of millions of dollars (Columbia Basin Bulletin 2009). These unforeseen economic impacts could be mitigated simply by the restoration of carnivorous predators. Who knew that the absence of large predators could have such huge effects on the very species that removed them in the first place?
Perhaps the best example in which restoring large predators begins to heal damaged ecosystems is the reintroduction of wolves into Yellowstone. Since elk populations lacked consistent predators after the elimination of wolves from the ecosystem (grizzly bears and mountain lions do prey on elk, but much less frequently), they became sluggish and careless, loafing in sizeable herds in river meadows (Foreman 2004). Lack of large predators not only increased their numbers, but also changed their behaviors. They overgrazed grasslands and willow shoots, an important food source of beavers, which in turn made the beaver populations decline sharply (Foreman 2004). After reintroducing wolves into the Yellowstone ecosystem, elk behavior returned to a more natural state; beavers are beginning to re-establish themselves; and grasslands are no longer overgrazed and are harboring a more diverse mix of plant species (Foreman 2004). The wolves’ return has virtually saved this once dying ecosystem, and this case should be used as a prime example of how important restoration of large carnivores is to the successful and prosperous function of an ecosystem.
The Importance of Corridors in Large Predator Restoration
It is obvious that large predators are important to an ecosystem, but restoring them isn’t as simple as one may think. Large predators are wide ranging species in that they require a significant area of habitat in order to survive. A mountain lion’s home range often spans more than 100 square miles (“Mountain Lions”). A grizzly bear’s territory can range between 70 and 400 square miles (“Grizzly Bear”). A wolf pack’s territory may cover 20 to 120 square miles (Wydeven date unknown). Requiring such a large amount of territory can create problems for predators, especially when their ranges are fragmented by human encroachment, which is only increasing with population increase and new development. In the United States alone, “twenty-seven ecosystem types have declined by as much as 98 percent or more since Europeans settled North America” (Terris 1999). And yet the same force that has caused such massive devastation to wildlife habitats might very well be the only force that can reverse the damage and aid species with their last chance of survival. Unfortunately, this is easier said than done when in the context of large predator restoration. Predators have a very different reputation than species such as penguins, bunnies, and pandas. Because humans feel threatened by their presence, large carnivorous predators have been persecuted since humans evolved.
Finding the balance between preserving and restoring nature and growing and expanding the human empire is a constant challenge that in many instances has been addressed unsuccessfully, and with new restoration theories and techniques this balance is being tested once again. Wildlife corridors are now being implemented as a means of connecting fragmented populations. “Corridors are used by species to migrate, breed, and feed, and are increasingly believed to be one of the most effective tools available today for the conservation of biological diversity, especially in urban areas (Scholtterbeck 2001).” This restoration method is causing much debate among humans by truly testing this wildlife/human equilibrium.
A corridor is defined as a linear habitat that connects two or more larger blocks of habitat (Noss 1998). Human growth has decreased habitat patch size and has made habitats more isolated from other patches. Small, isolated habitat patches are not as successful as large, inter-connected patches and have a much higher extinction rate. Small populations are more sensitive to disturbance. Movement between patches can be detrimental to large predator populations since large, undisturbed ranges are very rare. Less movement between patches creates less genetic diversity, creating unhealthy populations that experience higher rates of inbreeding and inbreeding depression (Ernest et al 2003). Corridors are an attempt to restore the environment and a population to what it once was: a healthy collection of metapopulations not artificially fragmented by human development and activity. Restoring ecosystems through corridors in theory helps decrease problems within populations by lowering extinction rates in the sense of the equilibrium theory, lessening demographic stochasticity, stemming inbreeding depression, and fulfilling an inherent need for movement (Simberloff 1992). The thought is that once movement corridors are restored, populations can once again interact, increase, and move at higher rates than before, benefiting their population, the surrounding ecosystem as a whole, and even the entire species.
Corridor Restoration Example
There are many examples of corridor restoration projects in effect today, but perhaps the most famous case is the Yellowstone to Yukon Corridor Conservation Initiative (Y2Y). Y2Y is a Canadian and U.S. non-profit organization “that seeks to preserve and maintain the wildlife, native plants, wilderness and natural processes of the mountainous region from Yellowstone National Park to the Yukon Territory” (Cushman 2009). Y2Y stretches almost 2,000 linear miles from Wyoming to the Arctic circle, encompassing nearly half of a million square miles in area, including 11 national parks in two countries and a multitude of reserves, preserves, forest units, wilderness areas, state parks, and private lands (“Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative—About Us”).
(“Yellowstone-to-Yukon” 2010)
The Y2Y area is home to a myriad of predator species such as grizzly bear, lynx, wolf, cougar, and wolverine. Due to encroachment of human development on their natural habitats, these wide-range species are being forced to live in small, increasingly isolated pockets of wild habitat which drastically decreases their rate of survival (Cushman 2009). By preserving and restoring corridors within this region, animals in the ecosystems of the Y2Y region are able to move between these human-isolated habitats, providing them with a much higher rate of long-term survival and fecundity (“Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative—About Us”). Having such a large area of successful corridors and interacting populations is a giant victory to the world of conservation, and this project has since been acting as a benchmark case for corridor restoration.
Effects of Corridors on Wildlife Populations
Corridors provide many benefits to populations, and “an array of studies have demonstrated that habitat corridors can facilitate the movement of wildlife” (Laurance pg 4 date unknown).” Dispersal is important for population dynamics because it allows individuals to immigrate to new populations or to recolonize locally extinct populations, which can lead to increased genetic diversity (Laurance date unkown). “A fragmented landscape that is interconnected is more likely to support viable plant and animal populations and integral ecological processes, than a landscape that is comprised of only isolated fragments” (as cited by Laurance date unknown pg 2). “Corridors assist animals to cross local barriers and to maintain local movements through environments that are ecologically inhospitable, assist species to maintain traditional migratory movements between different geographic areas, and allow species to recolonize habitats by increasing dispersal and immigration (Bennett 2003 pg 38).” With all of these positive effects, it’s hard not to support the implementation of corridors. Perhaps Keith Hay of the Conservation Fund says it best: “Corridors hold more promise for the management of the diversity of life than any other management factor except stabilization of the human population.” (as cited by Plummer 1995).
Sometimes connecting populations can also create unforeseen negative effects. In some cases, corridors can allow disease and exotic species to spread through a metapopulation easier than they could through isolated populations (Plummer 1995). Natural disasters such as fires can also travel to habitats more easily along corridors than to habitats that are isolated. Also, “although corridors are known to increase genetic diversity among populations, they may also function to decrease it, because the migration among individual populations may end up genetically homogenizing the metapopulation as a whole” (Plummer 1995 pg 1). Even so, there are no significant studies in which these outcomes surface, so their likelihood seems somewhat slim.
Some research has been done to prove the positive changes corridors can induce on large predator populations. As stated earlier in this paper, large predators can have effects on animals of lower trophic levels, so when predator populations benefit, so too can prey populations. One study done in Japer National Park in Alberta, Canada examined how corridor restoration through a golf course changes the distribution of wolves and their prey. Before the restoration of the corridor, wolves avoided humans and traveled around the golf course, using the mountainside to connect valley-bottom habitat (Shepherd 2006). As a result, elk densities were highest in the golf course (Shepherd 2006). “After restoration, wolves shifted most of their movement to the golf course corridor, whereas elk dispersed along the corridor and mountainside” (Shepherd 2006 pg 5). When traveling through the study area, wolves chose areas with high prey abundance, low elevations, and low levels of human activity (Shepherd 2006).
(Shepherd 2006 pg 5)
Corridor restoration increased the area of high quality habitat available to wolves, increased their access to elk and deer at low elevations, and increased deer numbers. These results corroborate other studies suggesting that wolves and elk quickly adapt to landscape changes and that corridor restoration can improve habitat quality and reduce habitat fragmentation (Shepherd 2006). This study is a great example of the effectiveness of corridors on large predators and their prey.
Unfortunately, not enough studies have been done that show the after-effects of corridors on wildlife populations. Establishing corridors is a fairly new restoration approach, and after implementation it can take some time before conclusive results are seen. Hopefully with time more research will be conducted and results will be available to the public that show just how beneficial corridors are to wildlife, ecosystems, and humans.
Effects of Corridors on Human Populations
Although restoring corridors is mostly seen as having positive effects on wildlife, it can also have many positive effects on human populations. There has been much interest in the use of corridors because they are seen as a visible solution to a visible problem (Bennet 2003). “Habitat corridors can be protected, managed, or restored at the level at which individuals or community groups are able to carry out conservation works. It is feasible for local communities to actually ‘do something about’ managing linkages in their local environment and to see visible environmental change as a result” (Bennet 2003 pg 5). Other environmental issues on a more global scale–such as climate change, population growth, loss of tropical forests, and desertification of arid lands–can seem outside the realm of individual or community action (Bennet 2003). Corridors allow communities to get involved in restoring their local environment and make them feel like they are truly making a difference. Habitat corridors can also provide ecosystem services such as protecting watersheds and stream quality and providing windbreaks (Laurance date unknown). They also enhance property values and improve the overall quality of life by providing scenic, serine views of nature and open space (Tamasi date unknown).
Perhaps the most important benefit that corridors provide to humans is that they lessen dangerous encounters with predators. When humans enter the territory of large predators, they are always taking a risk. Last April, a young woman jogging in the foothills behind her house was stalked and pulled from the trail by a female mountain lion, who quickly mauled her to death (as cited by Cronon 1996). Houses being built along hillsides have become a more common practice due to urban sprawl, and unfortunately they are often built adjacent to prime predator habitat. If corridors were implemented in these areas, predators would have more options and thus would be more likely to avoid humans, staying farther away from them and their homes. Corridors provide a safe passage for wildlife and while doing so make neighborhoods in or near predator habitat safer as well. Although there are some arguments that implementing corridors can bear high economic costs (Simberloff 1992), I believe the pros outweigh the cons.
Once corridors are established, many people want to use them for recreational purposes like hiking. This, of course, defeats one of the original purposes for the implementation of a corridor: to allow animals to move between populations AWAY from humans. A study done on a Rio Grande trail that was closed to the public during the winter to protect wildlife used motion-sensor cameras that have since caught an immense array of wildlife (Frey 2010). Having inaccessible wilderness areas is quite controversial to many, simply because people love wilderness when they are able to “experience it” for themselves. But evidence that corridors are used more frequently once human activity decreases can’t be ignored. Humans must begin to understand that there are places appropriate for recreation and other places that are not (Frey 2010), and that we need to accept these trade-offs in order to successfully coexist with large predators.
Conclusions and Further Research
Corridors are a positive restoration strategy that can have many benefits to large predators as well as to other species in an ecosystem. After doing my research, I believe we should definitely continue to pursue corridors as a method of conservation and restoration. In doing so, certain things need to be considered when looking at the design and feasibility of such corridors. Suitable habitat for species should occur on both sides of and within the crossing structure (as cited by Beier et al 2008). Appropriate vegetation cover and space should be present to encourage animal movement through the corridor. Also, human activity should be managed near each crossing structure (Beier et al 2008). Limiting the amount of foot traffic and human presence in corridors is important to ensure animals are not disturbed. Although there is plenty of research about how to implement corridors, case studies where corridors were successful are few and far between, making this restoration approach not as obviously desirable as I would have wished.
Humans must do more research on the effectiveness of corridors on wildlife populations. It was difficult to find studies which recorded any type of positive or negative changes in an ecosystem. Most studies stressed the importance of corridor implementation but had no hardcore, field-study related evidence to back up their claims. The time to act is now: people need to stop throwing ideas around and wondering if something can work and instead, actually put some plans into action. There is no way to tell if something will work unless we allow it to run its course and record and analyze the results. The longer we wait to implement corridors, the more degraded predator populations will become, moving them closer to becoming endangered, or worse, extinct. By restoring corridors now, we can ensure positive changes for predators in the future, by learning how effective corridors can be and by discovering the most effective ways to implement them.
Humans must change their views about large predators, and this can only be done through education. Restoring them can be a delicate matter, especially if the populations in question are near recreational or residential areas. People need to understand that predators don’t specifically prey on humans; when humans are attacked, it is because they are in the predators’ territory. When pets or livestock are attacked, it is because the predator is naturally hunting a biologically appropriate animal that it views as its prey in its territory. By choosing to live in areas that are known predator habitat, humans are choosing to live amongst predators and therefore must accept the responsibilities that come with living there. If you live or are entering into predator habitat, you should never go hiking alone, always carry pepper spray, know what to do and how to act if you do encounter a predator, respect and conserve as much of their habitat as possible, never leave your pets unattended outdoors, and install predator-proof fencing around livestock. Developing a public education campaign to inform those living and working within the linkage area about living with wildlife, and the importance of maintaining ecological connectivity through corridors, is also a great way to get the public involved and on board with the project (Beier et al 2008). By accepting these responsibilities, humans can finally learn to balance themselves with predators and successfully coexist together.
While doing research for this project, I was hit with my biggest conclusion of all that we have discussed previously in class: Humans must redefine what we call “wilderness” and “wild”. I believe humans see wild as something that we can’t control, which is one reason why so little wilderness is left. Places that we consider most “wild” now are still completely controlled by human organizations such as the National Park Service, the Forest Service, or some other type of human manipulation. Wilderness is essentially being tamed (Cronon 1995). Healthy, successful ecosystems can only function to a certain point when under this level of control, as shown by the elimination of wolves in Yellowstone and the negative impacts that action had on the ecosystem there. Only when we eliminate predators do we see nature as an acceptable place for humans to dominate. “Wilderness is more a state of mind than a fact of nature” (Cronon 1995 pg. 493), and we must fix this view if we wish to restore predators and the rest of the animals that directly or indirectly rely on their presence in an ecosystem. Until we give predators the freedom to move in their own ranges by restoring corridors to their true wild potential, they will continue to struggle and decline. In the words of Bill Cronon, “The time has come to rethink wilderness” (1995 pg 471).
Large predators need humans now more than ever before. Although they once thrived separately from humans, their future now depends on the restoration and conservation efforts only we can provide. Predators are an essential part of an ecosystem, and losing them for good would have dramatic, untold effects on virtually every species. Restoring corridors might be one of the easiest methods of reversing predator decline, and although we don’t yet have an extensive body of research to prove how effective corridors can be, only through their implementation and analysis of the results will we have conclusive evidence. “Connect our last parcels of wilderness, like pearls of a necklace, and mountain lions, bobcats, and wolves might once again roam their ancestral ranges” (Royte).
Sources
Beier, Paul, Dan Majka, Shawn Newell, and Emily Garding. “Best Management Practices for Wildlife Corridors.” Corridor Design. Northern Arizona University, Jan. 2008. Web. 10 May 2010. <http://corridordesign.org/downloads>.
Bennett, Andrew F. Linkages in the Landscape: the Role of Corridors and Connectivity in Wildlife Conservation. Gland: IUCN, 2003. Print.
Beschta, Robert L., and William J. Ripple. “Large Preditors and Trophic Cascades in the Terrestrial Ecosystems of the Western United States.” Biological Conservation (2009). Lords of Nature. College of Forestry: Oregon State University, 4 June 2009. Web. 3 May 2010.
Cushman, Samuel A., Kevin S. McKelvey, and Michael K. Schwartz. “Use of Empirically Derived Source-Destination Models to Map Regional Conservation Corridors.” Conservation Biology 23.2 (2009): 368-376. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 18 May 2010.
Cronon, William. Uncommon Ground: Toward Reinventing Nature. New York: W.W. Norton & Co, 1995. Print.
Cronon, William. Uncommon Ground: Rethinking the Human Place in Nature. New York: W.W. Norton &, 1996. Print.
Ernest, Holly B., Walter M. Boyce, Vernon C. Bleich, Bernie May, San J. Stiver, and Steven G. Torres. “Genetic Structure of Mountain Lion (Puma Concolor) Populations in California.” Conservation Genetics 4.3 (2003): 353-66. SpringerLink. Springer Netherlands, 30 Oct. 2004. Web. 7 May 2010.
Foreman, Dave. Rewilding North America: a Vision for Conservation in the 21st Century. Washington: Island, 2004. Print.
Frey, David. “Candid Camera Catches Wildlife on Rio Grande Trail.” Aspen Daily News Online. 17 May 2010. Web. 22 May 2010. <http://www.aspendailynews.com/section/home/140629>.
“Grizzly Bear – Ursus Arctos.” Nature Works. New Hampshire Public Television. Web. 7 May 2010. <http://www.nhptv.org/natureworks/grizzly.htm>.
Laurance, Susan G. W. “Landscape Connectivity and Biological Corridors.” Web. 8 May 2010. <http://www.andreadulko.com/rldguest/?page_id=310>.
“Mountain Lions.” Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. Web. 7 May 2010. <http://www.openspace.org/preserves/highlight_mountain_lions.asp>.
Noss, Reed F., and Paul Beier. “Do Habitat Corridors Provide Connectivity?” Conservation Biology 12.6 (1998): 1241-252. Wiley InterScience. Web. 8 May 2010. <http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/120714516/HTMLSTART?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0>.
Plummer, Mark L., and Charles C. Mann. “Are Wildlife Corridors the Right Path?” Discovery Institute. 01 Dec. 1995. Web. 9 May 2010. <http://www.discovery.org/a/228>.
Schlotterbeck, Melanie Marie. “GIS Mapping of Biological Studies in the Puente-Chino Hills Wildlife Corridor Including Species Diversity and Relative Abundance.” Thesis. California State University, Fullerton, 2001. Hills for Everyone-Friends of the Puente-Chino Hills Wildlife Corridor. Web. 8 May 2010. <http://www.hillsforeveryone.org/>.
Shepherd, B., and J. Whittington 2006. Response of wolves to corridor restoration and human use management. Ecology and Society 11(2): 1. 9 May 2010. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art1/
Simberloff, Daniel, James A. Farr, James Cox, and David W. Mehlman. “Movement Corridors: Conservation Bargains or Poor Investments?” Conservation Biology 6.4 (1992): 493-504. Wiley InterScience. Web. 8 May 2010. <http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119332377/abstract>.
“Study: Loss Of Top Predators Causes Major Ecosystem, Economic Disruptions.” Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Bulletin. Intermountain Communications, 2 Oct. 2009. Web. 11 May 2010.
Tamasi, Judi. “The Puente-Chino Hills Wildlife Corridor.” Puente Hills Landfill Native Habitat Preservation Authority. Web. 9 May 2010. <www.habitatauthority.org/pdf/pg1-12v2b.pdf>.
Terris, Jukta. “Unwelcom (Human) Neighbors.” NRDC: Natural Resources Defense Council – The Earth’s Best Defense. Aug. 1999. Web. 7 May 2010. <http://www.nrdc.org/cities/smartgrowth/pwild.asp>.
Wydeven, Adrian P., and Richard P. Thiel. “Eastern Timber Wolf.” Timber Wolf Information Network – Interactive. Web. 7 May 2010. <http://www.timberwolfinformation.org/kidsonly/wolfweb/wolf.htm>.
“Yellowstone To Yukon Conservation Initiative – About Us.” Yellowstone To Yukon Conservation Initiative – Wildlife Conservation. Web. 8 May 2010. <http://www.y2y.net/Default.aspx?cid=374〈=1>.
“Yellowstone-to-Yukon.” Wildlife Conservation Society Canada. Web. 8 May 2010. <http://www.wcscanada.org/WhatWeDo/YellowstonetoYukon/tabid/2550/Default.aspx>.
Plastic Pollution of the Marine Environment
By: Amanda Artz
I had the pleasure of meeting and listening to a lecture by Captain Charles Moore in ESRI’s new auditorium. During a voyage from Hawaii to Long Beach, Captain Moore discovered the Pacific Garbage Patch. Calling today “The Age of Plastic”, Charles shared troubling information about the biggest ocean secret ever.
Photo courtesy of GISandScience.com
Captain Moore owns and sails an oceanographic research vessel called the Orv Alguita. It can lift up to a ton in weight and access remote areas. Using a mantatrol, Moore captures zooplankton to study. During one of his sample collections he made a troubling discovery: an abundance of plastic bits floated in the water in larger quantities than zooplankton! Plastic is not biodegradable; instead, it photodegrades, which means it breaks up into tiny particles as small as bits of sand grains. Captain Moore believes that soon when ocean water samples are taken, not only will the salinity be recorded but also the plastic content. Besides this discovery, Charles came across the Pacific Garbage Patch that is controlled by the North pacific Subtropical Gyre. In this garbage patch floats 3.5 million tons of junk, 80% of it being plastic. The entire patch is TWICE the size of Texas! Samples of trash collected contained plastic tarps, Asian origin plastic, toothbrushes, bucket handles, fishing line, bottle caps, plastic popsicle sticks, umbrella handles, and many other unrecognizable photodegraded plastic pieces. What is interesting about the patch is that almost all of the junk is derived from Asian countries. Moore explained that because of the oceanic currents, Japanese trash floats to the West Pacific while US trash floats the East Pacific near the Philippines. What is even more troubling is that there are five known garbage patches in the world! The journey trash travels to each patch site from its human occupied origin takes about six years total, and although it might not seem as though it affects us, it is completely changing oceanic ecosystems.
Millions of tons of plastic are eaten by fish everyday. Plastic is very harmful because it is a virtual sponge that soaks up oil and other pollutants. There are one million times more pollutants in plastic then in the water around it. And think about it: if plastic contains toxins that fish ingest, what do you think happens when we ingest fish? Plastic doesn’t just affect the animals living in the ocean. Studies done on dead Laysan Albatross chicks’ stomachs revealed that they ingested so much plastic given to them by their mothers who had mistaken it as a food source that they couldn’t carry the weight of the indigestible plastic in their stomachs and died. 10,000 chicks die every year from this cause. Trash is also a new substrate of colonization for animals trying to lay eggs. Samples of trash were collected with eggs attached because an animal had mistaken the trash to be rock or coral. Plastic sticks to jellyfish, and rocky inter-tidal organisms and coral colonize on debris. We are virtually creating an entirely new ocean habitat and it can’t be a good thing. Plastic transports invasive species, creates shade and blocks the suns rays, and is buoyant which slows sequestration of carbon dioxide. If we don’t figure out ways to reduce the plastic pollution in the ocean, our oceans could be a completely different place in less than 50 years.
At the end of Captain Moore’s speech was a question and answer portion where somebody asked him how we could start using more biodegradable packaging and products. Instead of answering the question, he shook his head and said angrily “We can’t do the same thing we’ve always done with new materials. We must find ways to completely change the way we live in order to help this planet.” I literally got goosebumps because he is right. Unless we change the way we live, our children might not get to see what was once one of the most beautiful features on earth; the ocean. We need to start now or it might be too late, and thanks to Captain Moore and the life style changes he preaches, we might just have a chance to save our ocean.
My Idea of a “Wild” Time
By: Amanda Artz
I have chosen a spot along one of my favorite hiking trails in Plunge Creek Canyon nestled in the hills of Highland. These jagged hills are at the base of the San Bernardino National Forest and are like an irresistible invitation to explore what lies within them.
I am sitting on a trail carved out of the side of a steep hill that cascades to a valley below. The ground is moist from the morning rain, slowly dampening my pants until I begin to notice. Surprisingly though, the moisture is comforting, making me feel even closer to nature. Behind me sits an abandoned tunnel, its dark, rocky entrance eerily welcoming. With recent mountain lion and bear sightings in the area, I can’t help but let my imagination wander as my hand lingers on my pepper spray. In front of the entrance sits a large collection of natural gravel that erases any clues as to what animal might call this tunnel home. These massive igneous hills are the perfect area to observe the natural processes that so easily break down Earth’s solid outer layer. The soil varies in different spots of my location. Underneath me it is well weathered and reminds me of crushed Oreo cookies. It is moist to the touch and has a few larger rocks hidden within, like seashells among soft, ocean sand. The soil underneath the few sporadic trees gives me an amazingly close look at the decomposition and weathering process, each step visible in the palm of my hand. I brush whole leaves away to find bits and pieces of others, smaller and smaller until the organic matter is unrecognizable among the dirt. Closer to the hillsides the soil is chunky and rough; quite the contrast to the silky smooth soil that lines the trail. The sheer stress around these hills is evident. The aftermath of rockslides and landslides lay at the foot of the trail or at the bottom of the valley making what took place as obvious as bright yellow crime scene tape. Spots along the hillside resemble scars or wrinkles that have been carved by heavy rainwater drainage trying to escape to the canyon and river below. The stories these scars and wrinkles tell are truly fascinating.
It is the perfect time to sit and observe nature. It has been raining off and on all morning, and right now I can only hear the soft hum of the river along with the pitter-patter of raindrops falling gently onto my notebook. The temperature is perfect. Occasional wind brushes coldly across my cheek, making me feel refreshed and alive. The wind grabs hold of the limbs and leaves of plants and entices them to dance and hum softly to the song of the river. Other than this melodic dance, everything around me is still. I’m sitting in complete shade brought upon by the towering cliffs above me. The sun weaves in and out of nimbostratus clouds like a child playing hide and seek. I look up to see the beautiful formation of a rainbow; how truly lucky I am to be sitting here at this exact moment!
The rain in this elevation is a sign that snow has fallen up in the mountains above. This conclusion is made more evident by the swift, healthy flow of the river down below. Thick patches of trees surround the riverbed and clearly show that this river is the heart of the valley. Although it is November, no trees lining the river have lost their leaves. Most are still vibrant shades of green, yet some have started their fall transformation into hues of yellow, orange, and red. The valley is a carpet of yellowing grass, untouched except for few indentations from an animal’s chosen path. Shrubs occasionally dot the grass carpet in brilliant colors of orange, green, and grey that mirror an abstract painting. How ironic that one of the shrubs I recognize is Indian Paintbrush. Beyond the river only patches of trees grow, some leaning drunkenly on the hillside following the pattern of erosion. Roots stick out of the hill, clinging onto the crumbling granite and slowly losing their fight for survival. A few of these trees are black and contorted; their charred bodies are all that remain of the devastating 2003 wildfires. These hillslopes aren’t just home to plants. The sides of the hill look like terraced civilizations intermingled with animal burrows, covered in moss as a sign of age. Birds chirp and play chase from tree to tree, most of them no bigger than a grapefruit. Animal tracks and feces are also present which is a great sign that this hidden paradise is oozing with life and activity.
Spending an hour at this site really helped me draw some conclusions as to how this ecosystem functions together as a whole. The climate in this area is generally stable and constant, and the vegetation isn’t dense enough to affect the amount of sunshine or rainfall that occurs here. But, climate does play a big role in the erosional processes that take place all around this area. Since the sheer stress of the hillsides is so high and the weathered material among them is so thick and chunky, the more it rains, the more landslides occur. These landslides affect the distribution of vegetation and what spaces animals can occupy. The parent material of the soil comes from bedrock and is deposited along the valley floor by landslides. Once every so often, the river overflows and deposits a rich layer of silt onto the valley floor, helping it flourish in the coming spring. Also, the climate in the mountains above affects the flow intensity of the river in this valley. During the summer it is more of a creek than an actual river. I couldn’t imagine what this are would look like without the climate and soil forming processes working together. Each piece of this system is like that of a puzzle: they all fit together to create a balance in which the atmosphere, hydrosphere, biosphere, and lithosphere interact in harmony and create an ideal location where life can flourish.
