When mundane becomes exciting: Dr. Lubchenco goes to Washington

Like an iPod hidden in a pair of socks, sometimes exciting news comes wrapped in a less-than-exhilarating package.  An incoming president’s selection of a person to run the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA) usually garners the same amount of excitement as, say, a pair of tube socks.  But when Jane Lubchenco was announced as the new administration’s pick for the job, it caused a stir.

Lubchenco, a professor at Oregon State University, has an impressive background: former president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, a 1993 MacArthur fellow, and a highly cited scientist.  But it’s more than just a matter of appointing another brilliant mind to a government post.  

It’s the combination of Lubchenco’s knowledge, policy chops, awareness of global issues, and symbolic change the selection represents that makes this otherwise bland announcement newsworthy.  

As a scientist, Lubchenco has been heavily involved with helping scientists become important contributors to public affairs.  As the person tapped to look after oceans and the atmosphere, two tremendously vital realms of our existence that get scant public attention, the ability to communicate science to lawmakers and the public is a useful skill.  

At a time when global issues like climate change and depleted fisheries are reaching a critical point for billions of people, scientists are going to play a large role.  Since America is home to the best universities and many of the world’s best scientific minds, Lubchenco’s selection also sends the message that America is going to be an active player in this struggle.

NOAA is part of the Department of Commerce, which has helped to create the impression that marine life is merely something to be bought and sold.  This ignores the ecological complexity of oceans – and without knowledge of how the ecology of marine life operates, there’s no way to preserve the sources of seafood upon which hundreds of millions of people (and huge parts of the global economy) depend.  Lubchenco’s nomination means America is starting to take a long-term perspective on the increasingly diminishing capacity of the oceans to feed us.

A great scientist with a solid grasp of communicating with the public and running the world’s largest scientific organization – you don’t need to be a scientist or a policy wonk to appreciate a smart choice like that.

Farming biodiversity

We use vast swaths of our planet to grow the food we eat.  What impact does that have on the species in and around that land?

It’s a simple question with huge implications for biodiversity.  In South Asia and Southeast Asia, it’s also an urgent question, as increasing agricultural demands make the tropical forests there among the most threatened in the world.  Are the species there doomed, or is there hope for balancing biodiversity and increased agriculture?

A study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggests there’s hope.  The study’s authors examined bird diversity in southwestern India, a region with high biodiversity and an extensive history of agriculture.  Where arecanut palm is grown,  90% of the bird species found in neighboring intact forests were also present.  In contrast, peanut fields and rice paddies have essentially no native birds or other wildlife during parts of the year.

Beyond showing the coexistence of birds and food plants, the study is important because it helps to identify the factors that help to promote this coexistence.  The authors point to the vertical structure arecanut palms provide, but which rice paddies and peanut fields do not.  (In other words, rice paddies are essentially two-dimensional, whereas acrenut palms are much more three-dimensional, like native forests.)  Additionally, farmers rely on bordering forests to provide mulch for their crops.  There’s an incentive to preserve these forests, and native species use this habitat.

The article also highlights critical ecological issues that aren’t explicitly tied to global warming.  If we manage to tackle climate change, there are many other problems facing a planet with a population of six billion.  Understanding how we can produce the resources we need to survive without destroying everything else is one of those big problems.  This paper provides a step in the right direction.

Click here to read the open access article.

We’re out of cod. Try the gelatinous zooplankton.

Very quietly, ocean ecosystems are showing signs of changing dramatically, and it’s not because of global warming.

Big fish like cod and tuna have been fished for centuries, but the increasing burden of recent decades may be too much.  In a study in the November issue of the Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences (CJFAS), two biologists showed a large population of Canadian cod is projected to essentially vanish within 40 years – even if fishing stops tomorrow.

The scary implication is that past overfishing – taking unsustainable levels of fish – can cause fish populations and the ecosystems in which they live to fundamentally change.  In the case of the Canadian cod, mortality rates are the critical factor causing the collapse.  The Canadian government heavily restricted or closed fishing for the cod populations in 1993, so populations should be increasing.  Instead, they have kept falling.

In 2002, David Conover and Stephan Munch published a study in the prestigious journal Science showing how harvesting only the largest fish in a population could produce smaller fish in the next generation.  The same idea may explain what’s happening to cod: past fishing has created intense selection pressure on smaller fish that mature earlier in life.

Not all cod populations show the same trend, so it would be premature to suggest Atlantic cod face imminent extinction.  But the trends in the population in CJFAS study are indicative of what can happen elsewhere: poor management and overharvest select for future generations that are smaller and less capable of recovering.  

And when cod disappear, other organisms fill the void.  This creates a different ecosystem, and one that may be less productive from our point of view.  There’s a real possibility fish like cod are being replaced by skates, rays, and smaller invertebrates in oceans worldwide.  

This is why fisheries policy matters.  It’s also a great example of a global environmental problem we can change, one day at a time.  Fish are only caught to feed our demand, so our purchases shape the future of the oceans.  In this sense, sustainable seafood is one of the wisest investments.  Get a handy guide to sustainable seafood from the Monterey Bay Aquarium.