Categories
Blog Conservation Global Change News Water

Using satellite data recently made public, conservationists may be able to manage the massive industry

From National Geographic

How do you study the world’s more widespread predator? By spying from space.

When a team of researchers set out to see how prevalent industrial fishing was around the world—who was fishing where and when—they were met with a dearth of information.

They lacked access to vessel monitoring systems closely held by regional fishery managers, says Juan Mayorga, a marine data scientist from National Geographic’s Pristine Seas project. And that information would have shown only pieces of the puzzle.

To circumvent this obstacle, Mayorga and a team of researchers took a step back—way back—and tracked marine vessels from space, using satellites to learn where industrial fishing vessels fished and when.

They found the footprint left by the industry was staggering.

More than 55 percent of ocean surface is covered by industrial fishing, they found. That’s more than four times the area covered by agriculture.

Industrial fishing has been responsible for harmful environmental impacts. Over fishing can deplete resources, many animals like dolphins and sea turtles are products of bycatch, and the massive vessels used require large amounts of CO2-producing fuel.

But looking at the industry on a global scale may lead to increased transparency and accountability to ensure fisheries are more sustainably managed, the researchers say.

WHERE IS FISHING TAKING PLACE?

The study, published in the journal Science, looked at over 70,000 industrial vessels measuring from six to 146 meters, which encompasses more than 75 percent of the large-scale industry.

From 2012 to 2016, researchers watched the ships’ movements down to the hour, by sifting through 22 billion signals from ships’ automatic identification systems or AIS.

TRACKING ILLEGAL FISHING—FROM SPACE

AIS was originally created to prevent ship collisions by broadcasting a vessel’s identity position, speed, and turning angle every few seconds.

“Those AIS messages that are broadcasted are publicly available via satellite,” says Mayorga. “We then combed through [the signals] with sophisticated computing capabilities provided by Google and machine learning algorithms.”

From this, says Mayorga, he was able to glean information about the characteristics of each vessel, which revealed what type of fishing was taking place.

Longline fishing, a type of fishing in which a line with baited hooks is dropped into the water, was found to be the most prevalent. Trawlers were frequently spotted in the North Sea and off the coast of China.

The data also provided useful information by showing activity on the high seas. As opposed to coastal waters under a country’s jurisdiction, the high seas are less closely monitored.

China, Spain, Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea accounted for 85 percent of fishing in the high seas.

WHEN IS FISHING TAKING PLACE?

“You can’t approach getting into the head of a fisherman the same way you can get into the head of a fish,” says Douglas McCauley, a marine biologist from the University of California at Santa Barbara who was not involved with the study.

Unlike sea animals, the satellite data found humans were less influenced by environmental factors. But that doesn’t mean there weren’t patterns.

Researchers saw a massive dip in activity among Chinese vessels during the Chinese New Year. And they saw a massive dip among other vessels over the Christmas and New Year holidays.

As expected, regions that implemented seasonal fishing moratoriums also saw a dip in fishing during those periods.

When fuel prices spiked, the study found fishing was largely uninfluenced. McCauley suspects fishing subsidies, funding the World Trade Organization tried but failed to curb last December, are therefore contributing to overfishing.

WATCHDOGS PROTECTING FISH

In addition to National Geographic, the study was supported by researchers from the University of California Santa Barbara, Dalhousie University, Stanford University, and Global Fishing Watch (GFW), a collaborative non-profit supported by Oceana, SkyTruth, and Google that aims to increase transparency. (Learn more about SkyTruth.)

“The GFW introduces a whole new dimension in the fight against illegal fishing, and for transparency in offshore fishing,” says Daniel Pauly, a marine biologist from the University of British Columbia who was not involved with the study.

By making the study’s data publicly available, the GFW claims low-cost marine reserves can be more easily implemented.

Marine reserves act like a bank for fisheries, allowing a healthy stock of fish to flourish in off-limits areas. Conservationists have long argued for implementing more and larger marine reserves, but face opposition from the fishing industry.

“This [global dataset] makes any decision making or negotiating transparent,” says Mayorga.

Conservationists say they will be able to prove what regions are less frequented by fishers and already prime to be a reserve.

SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT

“My first job was as a fisherman. You can appreciate how hard that work is,” says McCauley. “You see each of those stories locked in a data set. It’s an industry that’s increasingly important as we confront food security and nutrition shortfalls.”

He believes that by eliminating fishing subsidies and more strategically regulating fishing on a global scale, it’s possible to sustain current levels of fishing without depleting resources.

“None of this was really possible until we had this database made publicly available,” he adds.

If conservation measures are applied to industrial fishing, Mayorga sees a role for AIS signals to be used to keep industry accountable.

“The biggest problem is the traceability of the resources,” he says of implementing regulations. “You have to keep track of where the fish is coming from when it lands. That’s a big issue for sustainability.”

His next goal, he says, is to monitor and track smaller ships.

Categories
Interfaces of Global Change IGEP Science Communication Student Spotlight Uncategorized

Reflections from the GCC Graduate Seminar Course

Views from the Graduate Seminar

By Rachel Brooks, GCC Fellow & PhD Student

As the Global Change program develops, so do the required courses for the PhD-students and Fellows. This year we added a new “advanced” seminar session that is student lead and designed. After a few introductory seminars lead by Jeff Walters and Bruce Hull, we (the students) spent time brainstorming and planning the rest of the semester. With the help of numerous sticky notes and a few whiteboard markers, our seminar agenda emerged: practicing science communication, increasing diversity in our programs, building interdisciplinary teams, and learning about career options. One of our ideas was to practice communication skills by blogging about the seminar: hence this post!

GCC Fellows brainstorm topics for the Advanced Seminar Course.

To start our semester off, we attended a local political meeting to get a firsthand look at how citizens communicate with policy makers. So, on February 22, we found ourselves at the New River Valley Indivisible’s Town Hall Meeting for Morgan Griffith (Virginia’s 9th District Congressman).

A few things made this meeting a little unique: (1) Mr. Griffith did not attend, so we were unable to hear any of his responses to any questions and (2) the meeting, which was advertised as being nonpartisan, felt more like a rally then we expected. But by the end, we all gained appreciation of those able to communicate respectfully and clearly to others. During the next seminar meeting we discussed how citizens voiced their concerns. We all agreed that individuals who asked for a specific change (ex: to provide healthcare or for gun control laws) had their voice heard with the most clarity. That is a lesson we’ve also heard in some of the communication workshops organized by the GCC—your message should have “an ask.”

We also spend time in seminar practicing our communication skills. This included stating our research goals while stressing different values (such as equality and fairness, care and protection, loyalty and patriotism, respect for authority, and purity and sanctity) as discussed in this TedTalk.

We look forward to continuing to share our experiences and discussions from this seminar with the rest of the community!

Students from the Advanced Seminar course attend a local Town Hall meeting for an on the ground perspective.

[hr]

Categories
Disease Faculty Spotlight News Research Video

Dr. Dana Hawley leads research linking bird immunity and pathogen virulence

From VT News

March 1, 2018  |  As annual flu shot patrons know, immune systems are not perfect and must be constantly reinforced to protect against rapidly evolving pathogens.

New research shows that, in the case of a common backyard bird, imperfect immunity to a dangerous pathogen that causes “bird pink eye” actually makes the pathogen stronger and more dangerous for its next victim.  The findings — from a multi-university team led by Virginia Tech — were published March 2 in the journal Science.

Unlike humans, wild birds do not receive vaccines and must rely on their natural immune systems to protect them from pathogen attacks. Immune systems have “memories” that allow organisms to recognize past abusers and ward them off. However, in the case of partial immunity, these memories aren’t always perfect and some pathogens make it through the door.

Dana Hawley, an associate professor of biological sciences in the College of Science who led the work, has long studied mycoplasmal conjunctivitis in house finches — a disease similar to “pink eye” in humans. In 2015, she determined that birds that eat at feeders are more likely to be infected with the disease, which causes red, swollen eyes and often blindness that results in death.

An increase in the severity of finch pink eye in recent years alerted Hawley and her collaborators to a potential link between bird immunity and pathogen virulence. She partnered with colleagues specializing in microbiology and modeling to measure how bacterial strains of varying strength fared in finches with or without pre-existing immunity to the pathogen.

The lab experiments showed that stronger or more virulent strains have a leg up for several reasons. One of the most surprising was that virulent strains generate more complete memory responses in finches, leaving weaker strains with few hosts to infect. In contrast, weaker strains produce only partial immune memory, leaving the door open for more virulent strains to invade.

Results from that experiment were then modeled to reveal how a pathogen might move through an entire population of finches. The model showed that pathogen strains that came to dominate in an experimental population with incomplete immunity were almost twice as harmful as those that dominate in the absence of immunity. Thus, incomplete immunity is likely what’s driving the evolution of more harmful strains of the finch bacteria in nature.

“Our results are not just important for finches. Many human pathogens and other animal pathogens also cause only incomplete protection against reinfection. Thus, the potential is there for the host immune response to favor more harmful strains in many types of hosts. The immune response is an incredibly powerful agent of protection for hosts, but in this case, imperfection can be deadly,” said Hawley who is an affiliate of the university’s Global Change Center, an arm of the Fralin Life Science Institute.

“The shift to favor more harmful pathogens that we observed in the modeling results is a very dramatic increase, suggesting that immune responses have key effects on the evolution of this pathogen and others,” said Arietta Fleming-Davies, co-first author on the paper and currently an assistant professor of biology at the University of San Diego. “What I found unique about working on this study was that the patterns in the experimental data were so strong — no matter how we looked at it, the same important immune effect popped out.”

“This is really groundbreaking since, most of what we know about host-pathogen co-evolution is in the context of interventions like vaccinations,” said Ariel Leon, a doctoral student in Hawley’s lab and co-author on the paper. “Additionally, this research provides valuable insight into what is driving pathogens to become more dangerous in wild animals, which we know to be important sources of emerging infectious diseases in humans.”

“The experiments reported in the Science paper explain elegantly why pathogen virulence increased once the disease had become established,” said André Dhondt, co-author, Edwin H. Morgens Professor of Ornithology and director of Bird Population Studies at the Cornell Lab of Ornithology. “Curiosity-driven research on birds can generate insights that are relevant for human health.”

“This study provides convincing evidence from a natural bird system that we should be looking at the relationship between the virulence of the primary infection and the strength of the memory response that the host generates,” said Ann Tate, an assistant professor of biological sciences at Vanderbilt University who was not involved in the research.  “When the two are correlated, lower virulence strains could be their own worst enemies, creating a population of hosts that are resistant to them but not the higher virulence strains that remain. The burning question now is, in which and how many disease systems are microbial virulence and the strength of host memory correlated? This is most likely in cases where microbial numbers or microbe-induced damage act as a kind of adjuvant for the generation of immune memory, and those conditions are likely to be met for a number of important human and animal infections.”

This work was funded by a $2.3 million NIH grant to Hawley as part of the NSF-NIH-USDA Ecology and Evolution of Infectious Diseases program. Hawley’s team involved seven collaborators from five institutions, including microbiologists, ecologists, and mathematical modelers.

Other co-authors on the paper include Paul D. Williams, a former postdoctoral research associate at Princeton University; Andrew P. Dobson, a professor in the department of ecology and evolutionary biology at Princeton University; Wesley M. Hochachka, senior research associate at the Cornell Lab of Ornithology; David H. Ley, professor emeritus of poultry health management at North Carolina State University; and Erik E. Osnas, a biometrician at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

[hr]

Story by Lindsey Key

Categories
Ideas Other Sponsored Lectures Research Water

Restoration from streams to wetlands: Can we restore and should we?

Virginia Tech’s Department of Forest Resources and Environmental Conservation hosted Dr. Margaret Palmer from the University of Maryland this morning as part of their Spring Seminar Series.  Dr. Palmer’s presentation, titled “Restoration from streams to wetlands: Can we restore and should we?” engaged a full auditorium to explore the impacts of temporary streams throughout natural, restored and agricultural environments, and to take a closer look at her team’s research differentiating structural versus ecological restoration techniques and evaluation for coastal streams and wetlands.  Dr. Palmer serves as the Director of the National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center (SESYNC), and you can learn about Dr. Palmer’s lab and research interests by visiting her website.

[FREC Spring Seminar Series March 2 Flyer]