Amazing, amazing video captured by tourists, and it won a National Geographic award. It's almost a whole ecology and evolutionary biology lesson in this video. Now watch it here!
(For some irritating reason, there's no embedding)
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Comments on Summary of Survey Results on Biological Conservation Attitudes
I just read the survey results here.
One particular result was quite interesting, with SOC apparently having the most pro-conservation students.
Some of comments, hopefully the student who did the survey won't take offense at me taking such liberties with his/her work.
Finding 1: Students had similar conservation attitudes for plant species, animal species or natural habitats and did not value any one more over the other.
Comment: This is something that I realised a little while back, that people who weren't biologists but were pro-conservation often promote conserving everything. It would be interesting to find if it was because they didn't know enough to have a target. On the other hand, biologists often have a "target" group to conserve, and have come up with the idea of "flagship species". The basic idea is to save whole habitats to protect the flagship species and in doing so protect everything else living there as well. In reality, governments often play a trading game. Trade the survival of one species, and compromise another, species more abundant at that point in time. So is the "ignorant" way better? Or the "flagship species" model?
Finding 2: Students were more likely to exhibit private conservation behaviours than public conservation behaviours.
Comment: Singaporeans ma. Prefer to do stuff while taking cover in a foxhole. Nothing wrong though, except maybe through public conservation efforts, the inspiration component is more emphasised.
Finding 3: Students from the income groups with less than $4,000 per month or more than $8,000 per month, had more pro-conservation attitudes compared to students from the $4,000–8,000 group.
Comment: This is to be expected I guess, but I think it speaks quite a bit about the ideas that society in general has about conservation. Conservation is probably seen as something "extra", as money goes in without a visible, tangible profit. It is quite complex, where different attitudes to economics of the lower, middle and upper classes (by financial powers) come into the play. But it can be a bit too abrasive to discuss, so I shal leave it at that.
Finding 4: Students who are taking or had previously taken conservation-related modules had more pro-conservation attitudes than those who have not.
Comment: Conservation education has the wonderful advantage of being able to move people, probably because it has a "soft" side to it. Unlike other things, like say, organic chemistry or mathematics or other "hard" subjects, where people can actually hate and reject, as they become educated in it.
Finding 5: Students who are from the School of Computing have more pro-conservation attitudes than average; while students from the Business School have less pro-conservation attitudes than average (see below).
Comment: What a surprise! Although I must say that for some other faculties, I think they do conform to their stereotype.
One particular result was quite interesting, with SOC apparently having the most pro-conservation students.
Some of comments, hopefully the student who did the survey won't take offense at me taking such liberties with his/her work.
Finding 1: Students had similar conservation attitudes for plant species, animal species or natural habitats and did not value any one more over the other.
Comment: This is something that I realised a little while back, that people who weren't biologists but were pro-conservation often promote conserving everything. It would be interesting to find if it was because they didn't know enough to have a target. On the other hand, biologists often have a "target" group to conserve, and have come up with the idea of "flagship species". The basic idea is to save whole habitats to protect the flagship species and in doing so protect everything else living there as well. In reality, governments often play a trading game. Trade the survival of one species, and compromise another, species more abundant at that point in time. So is the "ignorant" way better? Or the "flagship species" model?
Finding 2: Students were more likely to exhibit private conservation behaviours than public conservation behaviours.
Comment: Singaporeans ma. Prefer to do stuff while taking cover in a foxhole. Nothing wrong though, except maybe through public conservation efforts, the inspiration component is more emphasised.
Finding 3: Students from the income groups with less than $4,000 per month or more than $8,000 per month, had more pro-conservation attitudes compared to students from the $4,000–8,000 group.
Comment: This is to be expected I guess, but I think it speaks quite a bit about the ideas that society in general has about conservation. Conservation is probably seen as something "extra", as money goes in without a visible, tangible profit. It is quite complex, where different attitudes to economics of the lower, middle and upper classes (by financial powers) come into the play. But it can be a bit too abrasive to discuss, so I shal leave it at that.
Finding 4: Students who are taking or had previously taken conservation-related modules had more pro-conservation attitudes than those who have not.
Comment: Conservation education has the wonderful advantage of being able to move people, probably because it has a "soft" side to it. Unlike other things, like say, organic chemistry or mathematics or other "hard" subjects, where people can actually hate and reject, as they become educated in it.
Finding 5: Students who are from the School of Computing have more pro-conservation attitudes than average; while students from the Business School have less pro-conservation attitudes than average (see below).
Comment: What a surprise! Although I must say that for some other faculties, I think they do conform to their stereotype.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Pesticide DDT Shows Up in Antarctic Penguins
"By Deborah Zabarenko, Environment Correspondent
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The pesticide DDT, banned decades ago in much of the world, still shows up in penguins in Antarctica, probably due to the chemical's accumulation in melting glaciers, a sea bird expert said on Friday.
Adelie penguins, known for their waddling gait and a habit of nesting on stones, have long shown evidence of DDT in their fatty tissues, although not in enough concentration to hurt the birds, according to Heidi Geisz of the Virginia Institute of Marine Science.
But researchers were surprised to see that the level of the pesticide in Adelies' fat had not declined, even after DDT was banned for exterior use in the 1970s in the United States and elsewhere.
First noted in 1964, while the chemical was still widely used, the amount of DDT found in Adelie penguins rose in the 1970s and has stayed stable since then, Geisz said in a telephone interview.
In findings published in the journal Environmental Science & Technology, Geisz and her colleagues noted that persistent organic pollutants like DDT accumulate and become concentrated in the Antarctic ecosystem.
"DDT, along with a lot of other of these organic contaminants, actually travel through the atmosphere ... toward the polar regions by a process of evaporation and then condensation in cooler climates," Geisz said, explaining this is how the pesticide got deposited in Antarctic glaciers.
DDT declined dramatically in Arctic wildlife over the last decade, while the amount of the chemical in Antarctic Adelies stayed stable, the study said.
DDT was easily detectable in glacier melt water, Geisz said.
FOOD CHAIN
Adelies feed off tiny creatures called krill that live in melted glacier water, and DDT is transmitted up the food chain directly to the penguins.
There is not enough of the chemical to harm the birds, but it is measurable in samples of penguin corpses and their abandoned eggs, Geisz said.
Some kinds of birds that ingest DDT, especially birds of prey like the American bald eagle, produce eggs with extremely thin shells which are easily crushed by adult birds. Geisz said this has not been demonstrated to be the case with sea birds.
A more pressing issue for the Adelie penguins that breed on the Antarctic Peninsula is encroaching climate change, she said. The peninsula, which stretches north toward South America, has been warming much faster than the rest of the continent.
Warming on the peninsula means "we see more snow and more moisture and these (Adelie) eggs end up getting soaked and frozen," Geisz said. "It allows opportunities for people like me to study the eggs, but it's not necessarily ideal for the penguins."
Originally developed as a powerful multi-species pesticide, DDT was used in World War Two to clear South Pacific islands of malaria-causing insects for U.S. troops and in Europe as a de-lousing powder. The United States banned the chemical in 1972. The World Health Organization approved it in 2006 for use indoors to fight malaria."
Kinda makes you wonder how much more human produced rubbish are being released from the melting glaciers. Of course, it would be unrealistic expect WHO to not allow DDT in fighting malaria, but it also means that we need to educate people about malaria prevention, and dangers of mosquito-breeding indoors.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The pesticide DDT, banned decades ago in much of the world, still shows up in penguins in Antarctica, probably due to the chemical's accumulation in melting glaciers, a sea bird expert said on Friday.
Adelie penguins, known for their waddling gait and a habit of nesting on stones, have long shown evidence of DDT in their fatty tissues, although not in enough concentration to hurt the birds, according to Heidi Geisz of the Virginia Institute of Marine Science.
But researchers were surprised to see that the level of the pesticide in Adelies' fat had not declined, even after DDT was banned for exterior use in the 1970s in the United States and elsewhere.
First noted in 1964, while the chemical was still widely used, the amount of DDT found in Adelie penguins rose in the 1970s and has stayed stable since then, Geisz said in a telephone interview.
In findings published in the journal Environmental Science & Technology, Geisz and her colleagues noted that persistent organic pollutants like DDT accumulate and become concentrated in the Antarctic ecosystem.
"DDT, along with a lot of other of these organic contaminants, actually travel through the atmosphere ... toward the polar regions by a process of evaporation and then condensation in cooler climates," Geisz said, explaining this is how the pesticide got deposited in Antarctic glaciers.
DDT declined dramatically in Arctic wildlife over the last decade, while the amount of the chemical in Antarctic Adelies stayed stable, the study said.
DDT was easily detectable in glacier melt water, Geisz said.
FOOD CHAIN
Adelies feed off tiny creatures called krill that live in melted glacier water, and DDT is transmitted up the food chain directly to the penguins.
There is not enough of the chemical to harm the birds, but it is measurable in samples of penguin corpses and their abandoned eggs, Geisz said.
Some kinds of birds that ingest DDT, especially birds of prey like the American bald eagle, produce eggs with extremely thin shells which are easily crushed by adult birds. Geisz said this has not been demonstrated to be the case with sea birds.
A more pressing issue for the Adelie penguins that breed on the Antarctic Peninsula is encroaching climate change, she said. The peninsula, which stretches north toward South America, has been warming much faster than the rest of the continent.
Warming on the peninsula means "we see more snow and more moisture and these (Adelie) eggs end up getting soaked and frozen," Geisz said. "It allows opportunities for people like me to study the eggs, but it's not necessarily ideal for the penguins."
Originally developed as a powerful multi-species pesticide, DDT was used in World War Two to clear South Pacific islands of malaria-causing insects for U.S. troops and in Europe as a de-lousing powder. The United States banned the chemical in 1972. The World Health Organization approved it in 2006 for use indoors to fight malaria."
Kinda makes you wonder how much more human produced rubbish are being released from the melting glaciers. Of course, it would be unrealistic expect WHO to not allow DDT in fighting malaria, but it also means that we need to educate people about malaria prevention, and dangers of mosquito-breeding indoors.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
