More bad news about lionfish

posted in:

July 29, 2014

lionfish-morris — Image courtesy of NOAA.

Lionfish populations continue to expand in coastal waters of the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico, stretching from New England to Mexico.

The exotic invader from the South Pacific and Indian Ocean was first documented off South Florida in 1985 after someone dumped his or her aquarium in the ocean rather than disposing of the lionfish.

Nothing was done about those fish by state or federal agencies. By the 1990s, lionfish had spread along Florida’s Atlantic coast. In 2000, they showed up off North Carolina. In 2009, lionfish had expanded throughout the Florida Keys. From there they stretched along the Gulf coast to Mexico.

In addition to the United States, the fish, which gobble up native reef species, have spread throughout the Caribbean to Central and South America. The Keys-based Reef Environmental Education Foundation has excellent information about lionfish on its website at www.reef.org/lionfish.

Now, thanks to a science fair project conducted by a 12-year-old girl from Jupiter, Fla., there is new information. It’s not good.

Scientists say that lionfish can also spread into estuaries with extremely low salinity rates. That means lionfish, which have no predators in their new range, could establish a stronghold in bays, lagoons and rivers with just a hint of saltwater.

In Florida, the fish already have been documented in the Loxahatchee River in Jupiter and the Indian River in Sebastian. The thinking was that the fish couldn’t stray too far from the inlets connected to those rivers, but Lauren Arrington discovered otherwise.

Arrington’s sixth-grade project demonstrated that lionfish can survive in water that is almost fresh. Scientists who heard about her project replicated her work and confirmed just how tolerant of low salinity levels lionfish can be.

“Her project was the impetus for us to follow up on the finding and do a more in-depth study,” said Craig Layman, an ecology professor at North Carolina State University, who was researching lionfish in the Loxahatchee River with graduate students from Florida International University.

“We were the first paper that published the salinity of the lionfish, and it was all because of what she had done with her science project.”

For her project, Arrington gradually lowered the salinity in five aquariums with lionfish that she and her father caught in the Indian River. They kept another aquarium at normal ocean salinity level of 35 parts per thousand as a control. Arrington brought down the salinity levels to 6 parts per thousand and the lionfish were fine. She didn’t go any lower for fear of killing the fish, which would have disqualified her project from the science fair.

Layman and his graduate students found that lionfish can tolerate a salinity of 5 parts per thousand, as well as pulses of fresh water. Their findings were published in “Environmental Biology of Fishes.” Arrington received a mention in the research paper’s acknowledgments section.

2 Responses to “More bad news about lionfish”

Jack August 5, 2014

You left out the recent revelations that her research was stolen, this was already proven in 2011 (and published). Her father was an advisor to a grad student that conducted the original research and then published. Her Father was well aware of the students research (his name appears on the grad student’s paper).

As a result, this sixth grader has taken credit for the work of an actual scientist who worked for years both in the field and in the lab. She’s being lauded for a discovery that she didn’t make, but instead her father plagiarized on her behalf.

It would be nice if you’d do a little research and post what really happened

August 5, 2014 at 6:49 am

Reply
Steve Waters August 12, 2014

“Thank you for showing interest in this issue. This story has gathered quite a bit of attention and has been discussed at length in the media and online (see: http://www.npr.org/2014/07/27/335564910/how-our-story-about-a-childs-science-experiment-sparked-controversy and http://absci.fiu.edu/2014/07/just-because-people-keep-asking/ ) In light of these developments we have edited the story to indicate scientists were not shocked by the results, but we maintain that Lauren Arrington made a contribution to lionfish science and did not “plagiarize” her work.

“In fact, in the latter online posting cited, Professor Layman wrote:

“Note … the difference between our 2011 paper (which, again, Zack [Jud] is first author on) and this science fair project. The 2011 paper demonstrates lionfish are found in certain areas of estuaries where salinities could be low. Lauren’s project was a laboratory manipulation that explored this field observation further in a laboratory trial.

“At this point, to my knowledge, there had been no published accounts of this salinity tolerance in lionfish. So Lauren had made a contribution to science. One can argue the magnitude of this finding, but a contribution regardless.

“Thank you for your interest in the blog and this issue.”

August 12, 2014 at 3:15 pm

Reply

Do you have any thoughts on this post?

Click here to cancel reply.

by: Walker Conyngham

posted in:

July 27, 2014

Firefighting and sportsmen: Why we support the Wildfire Disaster Funding Act – and why you should, too

There is nothing like summer in Montana for a young man with a truck and a fly rod. Incredible fishing in any number of rivers, streams and lakes starts in the early spring and continues through the fall, especially if you’re willing to hike, wade and paddle your way into waters where the trout haven’t seen the same $1.99 foam hoppers swing by every day since June.

Norman Maclean could write a book about Montana summers today and not stray too far from the original text of A River Runs Through It. One can imagine, however, the shocked look on his face upon awakening to a Missoula valley drowned by smoke each July and August, so much so that the sun rises bright orange over Hellgate Canyon each morning. Homes burn, habitat is destroyed, and the constant thud of helicopters ferrying water to the blazes can be heard everywhere.

Catastrophic wildfires are threatening communities across the West. Now, however, Congress has the opportunity to do something about it.

Ordinary wildfires are constant in Western summers. We devour the morel mushrooms that spring up in burned areas each spring; we praise the brave men and women who dedicate their summers to cutting breaks, clearing brush and jumping out of rickety airplanes; and we bear the routine evacuations and air quality concerns without too much complaint. They are a part of life; indeed, Smokey Bear is as much of a cultural icon for us as Rosie the Riveter. Let us not forget that this is a vital ecological process. We know that fires are integral to healthy forest ecosystems. Typical wildfires eliminate weaker trees and saplings from the understory, push back the underbrush and clear the way for new plant life to emerge. This process is necessary – not only to the health of the forest but also to the game populations we prize, like mule deer, elk and ruffed grouse.

Catastrophic wildfires, which consume hundreds of thousands of acres and ravage communities, are an entirely different animal. These fires are a distinctly unnatural process resulting from climate change, insects and poor forestry management. Sen. John McCain referenced their origins recently while testifying before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, labeling them “manmade disasters” and calling for immediate reforms to the Forest Service’s suppression and prevention strategies.

One hundred and thirty-one other members of Congress also have expressed support for commonsense reforms like the Wildfire Disaster Funding Act (S. 1875 and H.R. 3992) because they realize the severe ramifications of doing nothing. Indeed, the cost of wildfires today would be considerably lower if the Forest Service was able to effectively engage in its congressionally mandated activities. Legislation like the Wildfire Disaster Funding Act would put an end to the practice of borrowing funds from vital programs integral to land management and fire prevention across the United States to pay for fire suppression costs.

Conservation is about doing what you can, when you can. Otherwise, the land suffers, and we who hunt and fish suffer with it. We have a responsibility to support efforts to advance sound, results-oriented conservation measures, and we cannot continue to allow the individuals we elect to play games with the lands we know and love. Check and see if your senator or representative supports a change for wildfire funding. If they don’t, make sure they know you do.

Urge Congress to take action on wildfire funding today.

by: Joel Webster

posted in:

July 22, 2014

Putting a price tag on our federal public lands

Joel_StaffPhoto — Image by Joel Webster.

In 1961, my grandfather and a friend hired a public lands outfitter who took them on the hunting trip of their lives.

On this trip, my grandfather traveled into the Bridger-Teton National Forest in Wyoming where he harvested a bull elk, a buck mule deer and a bear. He wasn’t a rich man, but between all the goods and services his trip required, he spent a significant amount of his hard-earned money.

Years later, my father would allocate his discretionary income to fund his own public lands hunting and fishing adventures. Fortunately, I became the lucky recipient of a long-standing and sustainable hunting and fishing tradition. I’ve been able to spend the past thirty years of my life hunting with my father, friends and colleagues.

Last year, for a two month hunting season, I spent about $3,500 on fuel, licenses, food and hunting gear. When you look at the big picture, the recreational activity of 37 million individual hunters and anglers adds up quickly.

Today, Joel testified before the U.S. Senate on the value of America’s natural resources and the economic impact of hunting and angling. Read what he had to say to our elected officials in Congress…and learn more about the TRCP’s efforts to guarantee you a place to hunt and fish.

by: Jimmy Hague

posted in:

Congress Is Ignoring You

I just finished a sportsmen’s D.C. fly-in, and, boy, are my arms tired (ba-dum-chhh).

But seriously, folks.

More than a dozen sportsmen just wrapped up three days in Washington, D.C., last week talking to their elected officials about the importance of clean water to hunting and fishing. It was just in time, too. There’s a disturbing trend in Congress of members ignoring the views of sportsmen who rely on clean water to enjoy quality days in the field. For instance, on July 16, 2014, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee approved three pieces of legislation that undermine our bedrock water quality safeguards. TRCP partner Trout Unlimited rightly took them to task:

Jimmy_WOTUS_web — Image by Walker Conyngham.

“Forty years ago the House Transportation and Infrastructure committee played a leadership role in enacting one of the nation’s most vital natural resource conservation laws, the Clean Water Act,” said Steve Moyer, Trout Unlimited’s vice president of government affairs. “Today, the Committee hammered the law with some of the most ill-conceived attacks in the history of the act.”

One of the bills would derail a Clean Water Act rulemaking that will clarify protections for headwater streams and wetlands and better define which waters are covered by the Clean Water Act and – just as importantly – which ones are not.

Sportsmen in D.C. last week told lawmakers from several states that this rulemaking is the best chance in a generation to definitively restore some protections to valuable fisheries and waterfowl habitats – protections that existed for nearly 30 years prior to 2001 – and Congress should not interfere with the process.

“Protecting America’s waters is important to anglers all across this country,” said Bob Rees, executive director, Association of Northwest Steelheaders, one of the fly-in participants. “Whether you fish for trout in North Carolina, bass in Missouri or salmon in Oregon, this is an issue that directly impacts us all.”

Signed into law in 1972, the Clean Water Act is one of our most successful environmental statutes. It has transformed rivers that once literally caught on fire into productive fisheries and vibrant aquatic ecosystems. And it slowed a rate of wetland loss that, in 1972, exceeded a half-million acres per year.

What’s been unclear at least since 2001 is to which waters the law applies. In 2001 and again in 2006 the Supreme Court issued decisions concerning Clean Water Act jurisdiction that, combined with subsequent agency guidance, actually confused the issue. What we’re left with is an administrative mess slowing down permit applications and water bodies at increased risk of pollution and destruction. The rate of wetlands loss – one of the great metrics of the success of the Clean Water Act – actually increased by 140 percent during the years immediately following the Supreme Court decisions. This is the first documented acceleration of wetland loss in the history of the Clean Water Act.

Since the Supreme Court decisions, a broad cross section of stakeholders has called for a rulemaking to clarify where the Clean Water Act applies. Many sportsmen’s groups have been asking for a rulemaking for years. So have state agencies, local elected officials, industry associations and farming and ranching groups, as well as Supreme Court justices.

Jimmy_WOTUS2_web — Image by Walker Conyngham.

After nearly 15 years of confusion, the agencies responsible finally obliged. On March 25, 2014, a proposed draft rule was published that is open for public comment through mid-October.

“Approximately two-thirds of the 13 million Pennsylvanians get drinking water from headwater streams that would benefit from this proposal,” said Jeff Ripple, chairman of the Environmental Committee for Pennsylvania Trout Unlimited and another fly-in participant. “This is not just about fishing; the status quo is putting the economy and our way of life at risk for the benefit of a few.”

Since the draft was published, we have heard a lot from groups opposing the proposed rule and congressmen intent on derailing the rulemaking even while it is still in the public comment phase. What’s been getting short shrift in this debate are the potential benefits of a rulemaking for America’s 47 million hunters and anglers. Sportsmen, who generate $200 billion in total economic activity each year and support 1.5 million jobs, rely on clean water to pursue their sporting traditions.

To be clear, the rulemaking must be done in a way that works for our partners in agriculture. We rely on them in many of our conservation efforts and for access to places to hunt and fish.

But efforts to stop the rulemaking before the public has had a chance to review and comment on the proposal are misguided and ignore the wishes of sportsmen. Now is not the time to throw the proposed rule away and lock in the current jurisdictional confusion indefinitely. It is time to improve it through broad public involvement.

by: Steve Kline

posted in:

July 15, 2014

Playing politics with sportsmen

There is a great frustration in working hard on something for months and having it come up just short of success.

On days like this one, hours after the Bipartisan Sportsmen’s Act failed on the Senate floor, I think of other, more obviously rewarding lines of work. Chesapeake Bay waterfowl hunting guide, perhaps?

Ten years ago, when I came to Washington, D.C., seeking to create a career that combined my loves of politics and hunting, this was still a town where things could get done, a town where you could still have fun at work. Things have changed. This is now a town sick with partisanship, where even good ideas often can count on inglorious defeat.

The Bipartisan Sportsmen’s Act of 2014, or S. 2363, was the result of a lot of work by Sens. Kay Hagan (D-NC) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) over the course of more than a year. After learning lessons from an unsuccessful attempt to pass a sportsmen’s legislative package late in 2012, Hagan and Murkowski assembled a package that addressed many sportsmen’s priorities but avoided some of the more controversial measures from 2012. As a result, they achieved something almost unheard of in Washington: They crafted a bill that had virtually no credible opposition.

S. 2363 has 46 cosponsors, split almost evenly among Republicans and Democrats. Conservatives and progressives cosponsored the legislation, realizing the economic and political importance of America’s hunters and anglers. But in Washington, even the best made plans are subject to crashing on the rocks of short-sighted partisanship.

The probable end of the Sportsmen’s Act of 2014 resulted not from the content of the legislation, and it certainly should not be taken as a measure of the value of sportsmen. No, the end of S.2363 came about because many in the Senate would rather haggle for political victories than pass meaningful legislation with strong public support. Amendments that had nothing to do with the bill’s original intent were offered by both sides of the aisle, and in a gridlocked Senate, the process predictably broke down amidst calls of foul play and obstruction from the leaders of both parties.

Floor time in the United States Senate is not a trifling thing. Literally thousands of pieces of legislation and the champions who support those bills vie for a shot at the Senate floor. But in today’s Washington, getting floor time is no guarantee of safe passage; indeed, advancing a bill to the Senate floor doesn’t even guarantee an up or down vote on the legislation. But those of us who advocate on behalf of America’s hunters and anglers will dust ourselves off this morning, survey the playing field in the days, weeks, and months ahead, and chart a course forward. Working with our congressional champions and our partners – and with the support of sportsmen like you – we pledge to get this legislation over the finish line. A slim possibility for the bill’s advancement exists before the 113^th Congress ends. And the prospect of a new version of the bill being introduced in the future is not outside the realm of possibility. Better late than never.