Sea-level rise is a well-studied climate change phenomenon. General explanation is that thermal expansion of water and water from melting ice caps and glaciers are responsible for the rise. Global sea-level rose about 1.8 millimetres every year in the last decades. 1.1mm from the 1.8 is explained by melting ice and ocean expansion combined which leaves 0.7mm unexplained. New study in Nature Geoscience suggests an additional component which can help to solve this equation: human use of terrestrial water.

The researchers state that human impacts on terrestrial water storage could account for as much as 0.77 millimetres per year, or 42%, of the observed sea-level rise between 1961 and 2003. They used an integrated model to estimate sea-level rise caused by human use of terrestrial water (e.g. irrigation, industrial use, reservoir management). Most of the extracted subsurface water is not restocked because it either evaporates or flows into rivers ending up in seas eventually. They found that unsustainable groundwater use, artificial reservoir water impoundment, climate-driven changes in terrestrial water storage and the loss of water from closed basins are the main drivers of rising sea levels. From those drivers, unsustainable groundwater use represents the largest contribution. Even Taikan Oki, one of the researchers, was surprised by their results: “I didn’t expect that human extraction of groundwater would matter so much”.

Groundwater provides up to 80% of public water supplies for large areas of England. The current drought and hosepipe bans in England already drew attention to this precious resource and the need for its sustainable use. Findings of this new research underline this need for the sake of mitigating sea-level rise.

Yadu N. Pokhrel, Naota Hanasaki, Pat J-F. Yeh, Tomohito J. Yamada, Shinjiro Kanae & Taikan Oki 2012 Model estimates of sea-level change due to anthropogenic impacts on terrestrial water storage. Nature Geoscience. doi:10.1038/ngeo1476

The rising level of atmospheric CO2 has led to several studies focussing on changes in terrestrial and water ecosystems that might occur as a consequence. Ocean acidification, which is caused mainly by the increasing amount of CO2 dissolved in sea water, is at the forefront of marine research topics. However, most of the studies focus on calcifying organisms (e.g. corals, crustaceans) and only a few looked at fish and changes in fish behaviour so far.

A recently published paper in Functional Ecology, a British Ecological Society journal, is aiming to fill in a knowledge gap by examining the links between ocean acidification and changes to coral reef fish behaviour based on visual effects. Behavioural studies have demonstrated already that elevated CO2 levels can cause chemosensory and auditory impairment.

Fish use various information to avoid predators. Coral reef fish use auditory and chemosensory cues to decide where to settle. Once settled, chemical and visual information become more important. The study by Ferrari et al. tested the changes in visual risk assessment by exposing juvenile damselfish to the sight of a predator, a spiny chromis. The chromis was put into a watertight bag to avoid the damselfish receiving chemosensory signals.

The researchers found that damselfish showed reduced antipredator behaviour when exposed to 850 µatm CO2 which is equivalent to the CO2 level projected by the end of this century. However, no difference in behaviour was detected for smaller amounts of CO2 (440, 550, 700 µatm) in this study; previous studies showed altered chemosensory and auditory responses at 700 and 600 µatm, respectively. This led to an interesting conclusion that visual risk assessment cannot entirely compensate for the loss of chemosensory or auditory assessment.

Current projections indicate that atmospheric CO2 will reach 500 µatm by mid-century and 850 µatm by the end of this century. This study shows therefore that the latter concentration can alter the behaviour of coral reef fish and may eventually change the dynamics of predator-prey interactions and biodiversity of coral reefs.

The researchers highlight the need for longer term experiments to answer questions about adaptation and selection. However, they proved an extra point on why we should act immediately on reducing CO2 emissions.

Ferrari, M.C.O., McCormick, M.I., Munday, P.L., Meekan, M.G., Dixson, D.L., Lonnstedt, O. & Chivers, D.P. 2012 Effects of ocean acidification on visual risk assessment of coral reef fishes. Functional Ecology. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2435.2011.01951.x

The original Open Access paper can be downloaded here.

The Royal Society yesterday published ‘People and the Planet‘, a report which marks the end of nearly two years of work by a group including both the British Ecological Society’s current President, Professor Georgina Mace FRS and a past-President of the Society, Professor Alastair Fitter FRS. Speaking to the Radio 4 ‘Today’ programme yesterday morning, Professor Mace warned that we are eroding the earth’s vital support systems through over-consumption and unfettered economic growth and that as a consequence we are not doing a very poor job of ‘gardening the planet’.

The study examines the links between global population and consumption and the implications for our finite planet. The aim of the report is to provide policy guidance to decision makers and to inform interested members of the public. Yesterday’s publication led to very interesting coverage on the Guardian’s environment blog, with members of the working group, including the group’s chair, Nobel Prize-winning geneticist Sir John Sulston FRS, commentators and others offering their views on the content. Some of those commenting contended that the scientists were too negative in their assessment and that economic growth should not always be viewed as having negative consequences for the environment. One suggestion was that economic growth means that natural resources such as timber could be replaced with man-made materials for development purposes, so reducing environmental degradation. Another was that economic growth means technological and scientific advances, with humanity thereby innovating our way out of a crisis.

Aside from any external comment on the project’s conclusions, the overriding message of the study is that we must examine population growth and consumption patterns together and that it is the combination of these two factors that has an effect on the planet. The human population is set to reach 10 billion people, from the current seven billion, by the middle of this century. Over 1.3 billion people currently live in abject poverty, on less than $1.25 per day. It is clearly not desirable to see a world in which both the population increases and inequalities are exacerbated. Inequality must be addressed, people must be lifted out of poverty, but as their wealth and living standards increase, so too will the consumption of resources. Reducing consumption whilst also reducing inequalities and ensuring that those in poverty achieve an adequate living standard is a dilemma, and one which seems intractable.

Yet, speaking to the Today Programme yesterday morning, Sir John Sulston described tackling these pressures on the planet, what he characterised as ‘planning to flourish’, as ‘very simple’. Echoing the conclusions of the report he stated that we need to ‘dematerialise’ our economy, for example by investing in zero carbon forms of energy and by moving beyond GDP as a measure of economic growth to price in natural capital. In addition, tackling population growth will require countries to work together constructively, rather than the developed somehow lecturing the developing world in how to address birth rates. Contraception should be made available to those who want it in Africa, where two thirds of the anticipated growth in population is projected to occur, for example, but representatives of some African nations, such as Kenya, are requesting this, rather than this being imposed from outside.

Top priority is afforded to lifting people out of poverty, in the report’s conclusions. The international community is urged to address inequality through investment in education, family planning and economic development. The other recommendations are (to paraphrase):

- Most developed and developing economies must stabilise and reduce material consumption levels (de-coupling economic growth from environmental impacts and improving the efficiency of resource use, for example);
- Reproductive health and voluntary family planning programmes should be supported by political leadership and financial commitments;
- Population and the environment should not be considered separately. Demographic changes should be factored in to Rio +20 negotiations, for example;
- Governments should invest appropriately in urbanisation, for example supporting waste collection, which has the potential to reduce environmental impacts through allowing resource efficiencies;
- High quality primary and secondary education should be available for all young people;
- Governments should accelerate the development of a comprehensive wealth measure, including improving national natural asset accounting;
- Governments should collaborate to develop socio-economic systems and institutions not dependent on continued material consumption.

Natural and social scientists have an important role to play. The seventh recommendation calls for scientists to increase their research into the interactions between consumption, demographic changes and environmental impacts, providing policy-makers with the information they require in order to ensure that both the planet and the human population under pressure can continue not only to survive but also to thrive.

Following the publication last month of new research showing a link between the use of common neonicotinoid insecticides and bee mortality, the European Ombundsman, P. Nikiforos Diamandouros has launched an investigation into whether the European Commission has taken sufficient account of new scientific evidence on insecticide use, and appropriate measures to combat bee population declines.

The review was requested by the Austrian Ombundsman Board which stated that the Commission has not followed regulations which require a review of the authorisation of substances in the event that new scientific evidence suggests that they no longer meet approval criteria.

The continued use of neonicotinoid insecticides was permitted by the Commission in 2011, when it stated that it was aware of the toxicity of the substances, but argued that their use should be possible if exposure is limited to non-harmful levels. However, new research – including a study published in Science last month by a team at the University of Stirling, and summarised in an earlier Blog post – suggests that even very low levels of the substances have signficant detrimental effects on bee colonies.

More information about the inquiry is available on the European Ombundsman website.

A recently published review paper in Nature draws attention to the dangers of globalisation and international trade which facilitate spreading of fungal diseases. The authors collected data from all over the world and showed that fungal infections had increased, caused extinction of several species and even contributed to climate change in the last few decades. They claim that immediate action is needed to prevent devastating impacts of the spreading of fungal diseases mainly by more research and better implementation of science into policy and practice.

The scientists looked at the problem holistically and pointed out some unusual links. They state for example that fungal diseases can contribute to climate change through killing or damaging trees that otherwise would have absorbed significant amount of CO2. They also highlight that biodiversity loss is accelerated by fungal pathogens. Due to small population effects and decreased ecosystem diversity, a fungal disease can wipe out entire species as it is seen in the case of amphibians. In case of animal species, fungal infections already account for 72% of infection-related extinctions which is more than viral and bacterial caused extinctions altogether.

Fungal pathogens can even facilitate invaders’ success. In the well known case of the North American signal crayfish in the UK a fungus-like disease (Crayfish Plague) helps the invader. The signal crayfish is tolerant to the infection which is lethal to the indigenous white-clawed crayfish. By spreading the disease around and wiping out the native crayfish the invader can occupy more and more habitats.

Food security is also in danger. Fungal infections of our five main food crops (rice, wheat, maize, potatoes and soybeans) are already causing serious problems and destroy a significant amount of the yield each year. Newly emerging fungal diseases can affect agriculture directly while new pathogens affecting animals can also have an indirect effect on crop production. Estimations suggest that White Nose Syndrome which decreases bat populations in North America can cause huge extra costs ($3.7 billion) to agriculture through the lack of bat control on insect pests.

The authors point out that human behaviour (international travel and trade) is the major cause of the recently recognised expansion of fungal diseases. Therefore, they call for stronger international biosecurity by strengthening international trade regulations, quarantining more rigorously and tackling illegal trade more effectively through trade control organisations. They also emphasise that integrated research on identifying, monitoring and mitigating the impacts of these diseases is much needed to get ahead of fungal epidemics.

For more on the subject, listen to the latest Planet Earth Online podcast.

The original paper: MC Fisher et al. Emerging fungal threats to animal, plant and ecosystem health. Nature, 12 April 2012. DOI 10.1038/nature10947

The ongoing decline in wild bumblebee populations has caused worldwide concern, with evidence suggesting that the loss of critical pollination services could lead to a decrease in crop yields and the loss of many wildflower species. A number of reasons for the decline have been suggested and debated, but research from the University of Stirling, published in the journal Science last week, provides new evidence that pesticides used on flowering crops are having a significant effect.

The study, carried out by Dr Penelope Whitehorn and Steph O’Connor and supervised by Professor Dave Goulson at the University of Stirling, investigated the effects of neonicotinoid insecticides used as a seed dressing on flowering crops such as oilseed rape and sunflowers. These insecticides are systemic, travelling through the plant and occurring at low levels in nectar and pollen.

Findings reveal that bumblebee nests exposed to these low levels for just two weeks grew more slowly as a result, and showed an 85% reduction in the number of new queens they produced. Prof Goulson notes “Our work suggests that trace exposures of our wild bees to insecticides is having a major impact on their populations. Only queen bumblebees survive the winter to build new nests in the spring, so reducing the number produced by 85% means far fewer nests the following year. Repeated year on year, the long term cumulative effects are likely to be profound.”

Neonicotinoid insecticides are the best-selling insecticides worldwide and used broadly on a wide range of crops. As bumblebees often forage over a kilometre from their nest to find food, the study suggests that most nests in agricultural landscapes are likely to be exposed to these compounds. With insect pollination worth an estimated €22 billion a year to European agriculture, and many species of wildflower entirely dependent on bumblebees for pollination, Dr Whitehorn states “There is a clear need to re-evaluate the safety of these chemicals”.

This research is published as Whitehorn PR, O’Connor S, Wackers FL & Goulson D. Neonicotinoid pesticide reduces bumblebee colony growth and queen production and appears in the journal Science online and at the Science Express website.

The British Ecological Society Undergraduate Fellowship Scheme offers the opportunity for current or recent undergraduates to find out more about the careers available in the area of ecology.

Under the year-long scheme, Fellows will have the opportunity to attend the BES annual meeting to learn more about the society and possible careers in ecology and research. Throughout the year, participants will be encouraged to attend a variety of events throughout the UK, providing the chance for networking and to hear about opportunities in ecology. Graduate members and staff of the BES will also provide a mentoring service for Fellows through their progression from education and training to the start of an ecology career.

More information on the scheme, and details on how to apply are available here. Closing date for applications is 31st March 2012.

Factors including drought, soil erosion, salinity and climate change all contribute to food scarcity, but a report by the UK government’s Foresight thinktank (The Future of Food and Farming: Challenges and choices for global sustainability) suggests another important cause may be insufficient agricultural research. In most countries, research into agriculture and fisheries remains a low priority and two decades of this lack of interest has caused a slow-down in productivity gains. The report emphasises the need for a significant increase in new agricultural research to support a radical change to the food system in order to meet the urgency of food scarcity. Investment in research is one of the report’s ‘key priorities’ and it suggests new models of research funding are needed in which public, private and third sector funders coordinate their efforts and incentives are provided for research into solutions to benefit low-income countries.

This week the Welsh Government held a climate change and sustainability exhibition hosted by Professor Noel Lloyd, Chair of Higher Education Wales and John Griffiths AM, Minister for the Environment and Sustainable Development. The exhibition showcased the work of Wales’ leading university research teams in issues relating to climate change, sustainability and associated technology.

Projects from a range of research areas including technology and climate change were exhibited including a particularly interesting collaborative project between Aberystwyth University and the investment company Compton Group. This project aimed to investigate methods for reducing methane production by cattle whilst increasing milk and meat production by adding sandalwood to the animals’ feed. Sandalwood inhibits the growth of methane producing bacteria in the stomachs of ruminants, diverting the energy normally used to produce methane to growth and higher milk production.

The exhibition was also attended by the Environment Minister John Griffiths AM who spoke about the important role of universities in tackling climate change. He said “Climate change is a critically important issue and one the Welsh Government is committed to tackling. Today’s showcase demonstrates that Welsh universities are taking forward some truly ground breaking work on this issue – work that will be key to helping us, the Welsh Government, to deliver on the targets we have set out in our Climate Change Strategy. It provides a real and tangible example of how, through the academic community, Wales is leading the way on climate change research and innovation as well as demonstrating how we in Wales are working together to solve business questions and environmental issues.”

Today the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee took oral evidence on the Forest Research Inquiry into the effects of the spending review, and research priorities in the forestry research community. The evidence session involved witnesses from a variety of backgrounds including academia, industry, public bodies and the learned societies, who were represented by Jackie Caine, Science Policy Officer at the Society of Biology. The Minister of State for Agriculture and Food the Rt Hon Jim Paice MP was also present.

Forest research is highly important because forests require active management and appropriate research will help us to understand how best to obtain the unique set of benefits forests can provide. The importance of this was outline in the National Ecosystem Assessment which was released last month. Forests are also experiencing a unique set of threats including novel pests and diseases, and climate change which needs to be researched to aid future adaptation.

The effect of the spending review on forest research in the UK and current funding strategies were one of the main topics covered by the committee’s questions. Both Forestry Commission and Research Council funding is declining. Currently the government spends around £10 million on forestry research however this is expected to decline to approximately £6 million by 2015 when the cuts have taken full effect. Almost 30% of jobs at Forest Research will be cut over the period to 2015. Reduced levels of funding available to the agency Forest Research may reduce the agency’s capacity to leverage funding from other sources such as industry and Europe. The Minister said that even with the budget cuts and fewer scientists research in priority areas will be maintained by redirecting funding from other areas.

A range of funders and a range of perspectives on research priorities may be useful for forest research in the UK. It was the opinion of Stuart Goodall from the Confederation of Forest Industries that potential income for forest research from industry is fairly modest. The sale of high quality wood and other forest products was suggested as one way in which the forestry sector could become self sustaining and fund it’s own research, however this would take time and investment. Several innovative approaches to obtaining new funding were suggested including using the carbon markets and approaching international forestry companies with high revenues to request funding and investment in future forest products and technology. Whatever the funding source is it needs to be secure over long periods because of the time frame of forest research. There was agreement that in the future it would be best for the forestry sector to become self sustaining and pay for its own research. This could be achieved by investing in research now, and developing high quality products. According to the Minister of State for Agriculture and Food the Rt Hon Jim Paice MP it shouldn’t be made mandatory for the private sector to provide funding.

The Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) and Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) fund a small amount of forest research within their other programmes. NERC and BBSRC hardly ever receive proposals for forest research because there is widespread belief that forestry is not within their remit. NERC and BBSRC would be happy to consider more proposals for forestry projects. Representatives from NERC and BBSRC were reminded that the research councils have a responsibility to ensure university forestry departments are funded appropriately and have longevity.
If Forest Research is made more independent it may be able to access research council funding in addition to the funding it receives from the Forestry Commission. Public sector organisations are currently excluded from applying for research council funding.

Priority setting by forest research institutions was also scrutinised by the committee. Dr James Pendlebury the Chief Executive of Forest Research reminded the committee that forest research is complex, long term and has numerous priorities that are balanced in the best way possible by Forest Research.

One point of agreement was that forest research needs an overall long term strategy developed by all the stakeholders in an open discussion with better coordination between universities, Forest Research and within Europe. Across the witnesses there was a consensus that the Forest Research Coordination Committee needs to be brought back. In addition the witnesses felt that better transparency is needed in the relationship between Forest Research and the Forestry Commission.

Researchers in academia currently feel that important areas of forest research are not being considered by the research councils. Appropriate outreach programmes to make sure that research is communicated to the people that use it are vital according to Stuart Goodall.

Among individuals from industry, the Forestry Commission and academia there was concern that UK forests are under managed. More research into how to produce high quality wood and other forest products is needed according to Professor Philip Turner, from the Forest Products Research Institute at Edinburgh Napier University, but this is currently not a main priority of the research councils or the Forestry Commission.

The ability of Forest Research to monitor and research the impacts of climate change, and emerging diseases such as Phytophthora ramorum is crucial and this shouldn’t be impacted by the spending review. The private sector doesn’t have the skills and experience to carry out this type of research.

Currently no-one takes responsibility for disease monitoring and research into prevention for trees in hedgerows and in public spaces. This is a serious gap in the current research priorities. It was suggested that the Forestry Commission provide an easy to access database documenting their research on particular diseases, the risks associated with the disease and potential solutions. In the future the UKNEA is likely to influence the research priorities of Forest Research.

Finally the committee discussed careers in the forest research sector. Forestry, which will be important for the green economy and green jobs, has been in decline as a profession with few graduates choosing to study the subject. Consequently the numbers of specialist scientists required in forest research such as entomologists and tree pathologists are declining. One of the main causes of the problem is the lack of PhD studentships and potential employers for graduates. The cuts are likely to affect the number of PhD studentships sponsored by Forest Research although no reductions have been made as yet. In addition as a result of the spending review Forest Research the agency is not able to hire new staff. This has significant implications for early career researchers in forestry who, in the past, have undertaken short placements after their doctorate at Forest Research as a way into the profession.

It is of paramount importance that there are scientists available trained in particular aspects of forest research because future threats will act too quickly to wait for a skills base to be re-established.

You can watch the evidence session here.