A mysterious force has stunted the growth of Humboldt squid in the Sea of Cortez, and marine biologists suspect a change in the weather is to blame.
The ravenous animals normally weigh up to 30 pounds when they spawn at 12 to 18 months of age, but Stanford biologists have discovered a group of the squid that weigh only a pound apiece and spawn at less than 6 months old.
The rubbery animals with their long tentacles are a precious livelihood for Mexican commercial fishermen along the Gulf of California, and they're a prized prey for gringo sportsmen.
But to William Gilly, a marine biologist at Stanford's Hopkins Marine Station in Pacific Grove, they're a scientific puzzle.
In a paper recently published in the journal Marine Ecology Progress, Gilly said he suspects the squid's shrinkage was caused by the abrupt warming of the gulf's water as a result of an El Niño that was detected during the 2009-10 winter.
The El Niño phenomenon, also known as the Southern Oscillation, occurs periodically when high surface air pressure over the Western Pacific pushes temperatures up throughout the tropical Eastern Pacific, including the Gulf of California, causing water temperatures to rise.
In September 2009, Gilly said, he and his colleagues cruised the Gulf of California, better known as the Sea of Cortez, and found abundant squid in their normal spawning grounds and their usual size.
"But in May, a year later, we couldn't find any normal-sized squid in their normal spawning grounds," he said. "Instead, the area was full of smaller squid - really small."
A month later, Gilly said, the squid were still very small and spawning in what was formerly the normal spawning area for normal-size squid, while one group of full-size ones had migrated and were thriving 100 miles north around the gulf's Midriff Islands.
Read more here ...
Showing posts with label marine biology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label marine biology. Show all posts
Friday, November 25, 2011
Sunday, November 20, 2011
Alien sea worms that ride the current discovered
Scientists have discovered what they say “alien” deep-sea worms which dump ballast sand and sediment from their guts and catch a ride on an ocean current when they want to go for a trip.
The mysterious organisms, called enteropneusts, were once thought to be mostly shallow-water animals, but the new study showed that almost a dozen species living on the seafloor as deep as 12,972 feet.
The study showed a diversity of colour and shape in these worms, also known as acron worms, LiveScience reported.
These worms had been thought to be shallow-water species until 1965, when a deep-sea species was caught on film and changed that perception. The ensuing decades turned up a few more images of deep-sea acorn worms, but only two specimens.
Using remotely operated deep-sea vehicles (ROVs) from the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute (MBARI) and from UK’s National Oceanography Center, the researchers set out to find more of these mysterious worms.
In most cases, the scientists, led by Karen Osborn of the Smithsonian Institution, piggybacked on past research missions, grabbing video of worms and even some specimens wherever the ROVs happened to be.
From the year 2000 to present, they captured 498 separate observations of deep-sea acorn worms, revealing a whole new world on the seafloor.
The researchers, who detailed their findings in journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B, found that the worms live in both the Atlantic and the Pacific Oceans. In addition to the two known species of deep-sea acorn worm, the researchers also found at least nine new species.
Perhaps more surprising than the worms’ ubiquity was their method of travel. For the first time, the team observed acorn worms drifting with ocean currents at anywhere from a few centimetres to 66 feet above the seafloor.
The video cameras caught the worms twisting and raising their bodies, suggesting that they deliberately launch themselves into currents to get around.
When feeding on the ocean floor, the worms’ guts were filled with sand and sediment. But in one time-lapse video, the researchers observed an acorn worm totally emptying its gut before disappearing from the feeding site.
That video suggests that the worms use sand as ballast to keep them on the seafloor when they’re eating, and then lighten their load for ease of travel, the researchers said.
PTI
http://www.discoveryon.info/2011/11/alien-sea-worms-that-ride-the-current-discovered.html
The mysterious organisms, called enteropneusts, were once thought to be mostly shallow-water animals, but the new study showed that almost a dozen species living on the seafloor as deep as 12,972 feet.
The study showed a diversity of colour and shape in these worms, also known as acron worms, LiveScience reported.
These worms had been thought to be shallow-water species until 1965, when a deep-sea species was caught on film and changed that perception. The ensuing decades turned up a few more images of deep-sea acorn worms, but only two specimens.
Using remotely operated deep-sea vehicles (ROVs) from the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute (MBARI) and from UK’s National Oceanography Center, the researchers set out to find more of these mysterious worms.
In most cases, the scientists, led by Karen Osborn of the Smithsonian Institution, piggybacked on past research missions, grabbing video of worms and even some specimens wherever the ROVs happened to be.
From the year 2000 to present, they captured 498 separate observations of deep-sea acorn worms, revealing a whole new world on the seafloor.
The researchers, who detailed their findings in journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B, found that the worms live in both the Atlantic and the Pacific Oceans. In addition to the two known species of deep-sea acorn worm, the researchers also found at least nine new species.
Perhaps more surprising than the worms’ ubiquity was their method of travel. For the first time, the team observed acorn worms drifting with ocean currents at anywhere from a few centimetres to 66 feet above the seafloor.
The video cameras caught the worms twisting and raising their bodies, suggesting that they deliberately launch themselves into currents to get around.
When feeding on the ocean floor, the worms’ guts were filled with sand and sediment. But in one time-lapse video, the researchers observed an acorn worm totally emptying its gut before disappearing from the feeding site.
That video suggests that the worms use sand as ballast to keep them on the seafloor when they’re eating, and then lighten their load for ease of travel, the researchers said.
PTI
http://www.discoveryon.info/2011/11/alien-sea-worms-that-ride-the-current-discovered.html
Thursday, November 10, 2011
Marine Conservation Zones at risk
Big Society has spoken up for our seas - but will Government listen?
The wildlife in England’s seas is facing a serious threat, warns The Wildlife Trusts.
The long-awaited network of Marine Conservation Zones, promised by Government for 2012, is in danger, according to the conservation organisation, which has been instrumental in marine
campaigning and research. It is urging the public to write to Under-Secretary for Natural Environment and Fisheries, Richard Benyon MP, in support of Marine Conservation Zones.
After years of pressure from NGOs, and with huge public support, the Marine and Coastal Access Act of 2009 promised a coherent network of protection around the coast of England by 2012. Now 127 marine sites around England’s coast have been recommended by four regional stakeholder groups to become Marine Conservation Zones next year.
The recommendations are the result of two years of consultation with more than one million stakeholders involved including fishermen, conservationists and businesses. This has been the first ‘Big Society’ experiment where local stakeholders have decided together which areas of the sea should be protected.
There is concern that Government’s Statutory Nature Conservation Bodies (Natural England and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee) will recommend to Government that only a fraction of the 127 recommended sites are designated. This would result in a much smaller and less effective network of Marine Conservation Zones, leaving vulnerable and precious areas unprotected.
Joan Edwards, The Wildlife Trusts’ Head of Living Seas, said: “A huge amount of work has been done to get a broad agreement on this network of sites needed for the health and future productivity of our marine environment. Now, however, in the final stages the Government has lost its direction and is proposing to over-ride the recommendations of local stakeholders and cut the 127 sites down to an unrealistic 30 in contradiction with the aims of the new Marine and Coastal Access Act.
“With Wildlife Trusts all around the UK, we are lobbying hard for the successful completion of a process that will make the difference between the life or death of our seas. We need to demonstrate the weight of public support for Marine Conservation Zones to Government. This is a once in a lifetime chance. We can’t afford to let it slip away.”
The Wildlife Trusts is urging people to write to Richard Benyon and ask for Government to create the proposed network of 127 sites in England. It has produced some guidance on writing to the Minister, which can be found at www.wildlifetrusts.org/saveourmczs.
http://www.wildlifetrusts.org/news/2011/11/08/marine-conservation-zones-risk
The wildlife in England’s seas is facing a serious threat, warns The Wildlife Trusts.
The long-awaited network of Marine Conservation Zones, promised by Government for 2012, is in danger, according to the conservation organisation, which has been instrumental in marine
campaigning and research. It is urging the public to write to Under-Secretary for Natural Environment and Fisheries, Richard Benyon MP, in support of Marine Conservation Zones.
After years of pressure from NGOs, and with huge public support, the Marine and Coastal Access Act of 2009 promised a coherent network of protection around the coast of England by 2012. Now 127 marine sites around England’s coast have been recommended by four regional stakeholder groups to become Marine Conservation Zones next year.
The recommendations are the result of two years of consultation with more than one million stakeholders involved including fishermen, conservationists and businesses. This has been the first ‘Big Society’ experiment where local stakeholders have decided together which areas of the sea should be protected.
There is concern that Government’s Statutory Nature Conservation Bodies (Natural England and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee) will recommend to Government that only a fraction of the 127 recommended sites are designated. This would result in a much smaller and less effective network of Marine Conservation Zones, leaving vulnerable and precious areas unprotected.
Joan Edwards, The Wildlife Trusts’ Head of Living Seas, said: “A huge amount of work has been done to get a broad agreement on this network of sites needed for the health and future productivity of our marine environment. Now, however, in the final stages the Government has lost its direction and is proposing to over-ride the recommendations of local stakeholders and cut the 127 sites down to an unrealistic 30 in contradiction with the aims of the new Marine and Coastal Access Act.
“With Wildlife Trusts all around the UK, we are lobbying hard for the successful completion of a process that will make the difference between the life or death of our seas. We need to demonstrate the weight of public support for Marine Conservation Zones to Government. This is a once in a lifetime chance. We can’t afford to let it slip away.”
The Wildlife Trusts is urging people to write to Richard Benyon and ask for Government to create the proposed network of 127 sites in England. It has produced some guidance on writing to the Minister, which can be found at www.wildlifetrusts.org/saveourmczs.
http://www.wildlifetrusts.org/news/2011/11/08/marine-conservation-zones-risk
Monday, November 7, 2011
Climate Shift Could Leave Some Marine Species Homeless
ScienceDaily (Nov. 3, 2011) — Rising temperatures will force many species of animals and plants to move to other regions and could leave some marine species with nowhere to go, according to new research just published in the journal Science.
An international research team, led by Dr Mike Burrows from the Scottish Association for Marine Science, compared changing temperatures for both land and sea and from place to place over a 50 year period, from 1960 -- 2009.
The team used the data to project how quickly populations of both terrestrial and marine species would have had to relocate to keep up with the changing temperatures. They found that there was very little difference between movement rates in either environment.
Dr Burrows explains, 'When temperatures rise, plants and animals that need a cooler environment move to new regions. The land is warming about three times faster than the ocean so you might simply expect species to move three times faster on land, but that's not the case.
'If the land temperature becomes too hot for some species, they can move to higher ground where temperatures are generally cooler. That's not an option for many marine species which live at, or near, the surface of the ocean. When temperatures rise, species such as fish will be able to move into deeper water to find the cooler environments they prefer -- but other species, such as marine plants or slow-moving corals, will have to move further to find suitable habitats and could become trapped if there are no cooler places for them to go.'
Co-author Dr John Bruno, from the University of North Carolina, agrees that many marine creatures would have a hard time keeping up with climate change. He says, 'Being stuck in a warming environment can cause reductions in the growth, reproduction and survival of ecologically and economically important ocean life such as fish, corals and sea birds.'
The study also highlights the variation in ocean surface temperatures within a very small region, which also causes species movement. Spring-time temperatures in the seas around Scotland, for example, have arrived around 5 days per decade earlier on the east coast, whereas there has been almost no shift in spring temperature on the west coast.
Dr Burrows concludes, 'The areas where species would need to relocate the fastest to stay ahead of climate changes are important biodiversity hotspots, such as the coral triangle in South-eastern Asia. Our study may help conservationists to prepare for change and protect future coral habitats.'
The research was co-funded by the UK Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) and carried out as a part of the 'Towards Understanding Marine Biological Impacts of Climate Change' Working Group supported by the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, a Center funded by the US National Science Foundation , the University of California, Santa Barbara, and the State of California.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111103195314.htm
An international research team, led by Dr Mike Burrows from the Scottish Association for Marine Science, compared changing temperatures for both land and sea and from place to place over a 50 year period, from 1960 -- 2009.
The team used the data to project how quickly populations of both terrestrial and marine species would have had to relocate to keep up with the changing temperatures. They found that there was very little difference between movement rates in either environment.
Dr Burrows explains, 'When temperatures rise, plants and animals that need a cooler environment move to new regions. The land is warming about three times faster than the ocean so you might simply expect species to move three times faster on land, but that's not the case.
'If the land temperature becomes too hot for some species, they can move to higher ground where temperatures are generally cooler. That's not an option for many marine species which live at, or near, the surface of the ocean. When temperatures rise, species such as fish will be able to move into deeper water to find the cooler environments they prefer -- but other species, such as marine plants or slow-moving corals, will have to move further to find suitable habitats and could become trapped if there are no cooler places for them to go.'
Co-author Dr John Bruno, from the University of North Carolina, agrees that many marine creatures would have a hard time keeping up with climate change. He says, 'Being stuck in a warming environment can cause reductions in the growth, reproduction and survival of ecologically and economically important ocean life such as fish, corals and sea birds.'
The study also highlights the variation in ocean surface temperatures within a very small region, which also causes species movement. Spring-time temperatures in the seas around Scotland, for example, have arrived around 5 days per decade earlier on the east coast, whereas there has been almost no shift in spring temperature on the west coast.
Dr Burrows concludes, 'The areas where species would need to relocate the fastest to stay ahead of climate changes are important biodiversity hotspots, such as the coral triangle in South-eastern Asia. Our study may help conservationists to prepare for change and protect future coral habitats.'
The research was co-funded by the UK Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) and carried out as a part of the 'Towards Understanding Marine Biological Impacts of Climate Change' Working Group supported by the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, a Center funded by the US National Science Foundation , the University of California, Santa Barbara, and the State of California.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111103195314.htm
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Captive Breeding Could Transform the Saltwater Aquarium Trade and Save Coral Reefs, Biologists Say
ScienceDaily (Sep. 20, 2011) — Marine biologists at The University of Texas at Austin Marine Science Institute are developing means to efficiently breed saltwater aquarium fish, seahorses, plankton and invertebrates in captivity in order to preserve the biologically rich ecosystems of the world's coral reefs.
These scientists believe their efforts, and those of colleagues around the world, could help shift much of the $1 billion marine ornamental industry toward entrepreneurs who are working sustainably to raise fish for the aquarium trade.
"It's the kind of thing that could transform the industry in the way that the idea of 'organic' has changed the way people grow and buy fruits and vegetables," says Joan Holt, professor and associate chair of marine science at The University of Texas at Austin. "We want enthusiasts to be able to stock their saltwater tanks with sustainably-raised, coral-safe species."
Holt is a co-author of a recent article, "Advances in Breeding and Rearing Marine Ornamentals," published in the Journal of the World Aquaculture Society in April.
The paper is a complement to Holt's broad-ranging work over the past 10 years to promote captive breeding of ornamentals. She's been a pioneer in developing food sources and tank designs that enable fragile larvae to survive to adulthood.
Holt has also been a vocal critic of the extraordinarily wasteful methods currently used to bring sea creatures from the oceans to the tanks.
"One popular method is to use a cyanide solution," says Holt. "It's squirted into the holes and crevices of the reef and it anesthetizes the fish. They float to the surface. Then the collectors can just scoop them up, and the ones that wake up are shipped out."
This method, says Holt, has a number of unfortunate effects. It bleaches the coral. It kills or harms other species that make the coral their home, particularly those that can't swim away from the cyanide. It can deplete or distort the native populations of the species. And it contributes to 80 percent of traded animals dying before ever reaching a tank.
Unlike the freshwater ornamental market, which relies mostly on fish raised in captivity, the saltwater ornamental market is 99.9 percent wild caught. Holt says this is largely because there's less accumulated knowledge on breeding saltwater fish in captivity. Saltwater species also tend to spawn smaller, less robust larvae, which are harder to rear to maturity, and to rely on various foods, such as plankton, that are not readily available in mass quantities for breeders.
Yet all these difficulties, says Holt, are surmountable.
She and her colleagues in Port Aransas, where the Marine Science Institute is located, have successfully bred in captivity seven species of fish, seahorses and shrimp they've caught from the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean, including species that other biologists had tried but failed to rear before. Others have successfully bred popular species like clownfish, gobies, dottybacks, and dragonets, as well as coral, clams, invertebrates, and algae.
Several big aquariums, including SeaWorld, have committed to assisting in the breeding and egg collection effort, and to integrating into their exhibits information about how the aquarium trade impacts the coral reefs.
Holt and her colleagues envision, ultimately, is a "coral-safe" movement. The science, the economics and the social awareness could together result in a sea change in how saltwater aquariums are populated and how saltwater tank enthusiasts think of themselves and their passion.
As more tank-raised ornamentals percolate into the market, Holt believes people will see another advantage to buying sustainably. The fish will simply do better. They'll live longer, be healthier and be easier to care for.
"Species that are bred in captivity should adapt much better to your tank than something that was just caught halfway across the world, in a different system," says Holt. "Good retailers will want to sell these species, and consumers will benefit from buying them."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110920121612.htm
These scientists believe their efforts, and those of colleagues around the world, could help shift much of the $1 billion marine ornamental industry toward entrepreneurs who are working sustainably to raise fish for the aquarium trade.
"It's the kind of thing that could transform the industry in the way that the idea of 'organic' has changed the way people grow and buy fruits and vegetables," says Joan Holt, professor and associate chair of marine science at The University of Texas at Austin. "We want enthusiasts to be able to stock their saltwater tanks with sustainably-raised, coral-safe species."
Holt is a co-author of a recent article, "Advances in Breeding and Rearing Marine Ornamentals," published in the Journal of the World Aquaculture Society in April.
The paper is a complement to Holt's broad-ranging work over the past 10 years to promote captive breeding of ornamentals. She's been a pioneer in developing food sources and tank designs that enable fragile larvae to survive to adulthood.
Holt has also been a vocal critic of the extraordinarily wasteful methods currently used to bring sea creatures from the oceans to the tanks.
"One popular method is to use a cyanide solution," says Holt. "It's squirted into the holes and crevices of the reef and it anesthetizes the fish. They float to the surface. Then the collectors can just scoop them up, and the ones that wake up are shipped out."
This method, says Holt, has a number of unfortunate effects. It bleaches the coral. It kills or harms other species that make the coral their home, particularly those that can't swim away from the cyanide. It can deplete or distort the native populations of the species. And it contributes to 80 percent of traded animals dying before ever reaching a tank.
Unlike the freshwater ornamental market, which relies mostly on fish raised in captivity, the saltwater ornamental market is 99.9 percent wild caught. Holt says this is largely because there's less accumulated knowledge on breeding saltwater fish in captivity. Saltwater species also tend to spawn smaller, less robust larvae, which are harder to rear to maturity, and to rely on various foods, such as plankton, that are not readily available in mass quantities for breeders.
Yet all these difficulties, says Holt, are surmountable.
She and her colleagues in Port Aransas, where the Marine Science Institute is located, have successfully bred in captivity seven species of fish, seahorses and shrimp they've caught from the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean, including species that other biologists had tried but failed to rear before. Others have successfully bred popular species like clownfish, gobies, dottybacks, and dragonets, as well as coral, clams, invertebrates, and algae.
Several big aquariums, including SeaWorld, have committed to assisting in the breeding and egg collection effort, and to integrating into their exhibits information about how the aquarium trade impacts the coral reefs.
Holt and her colleagues envision, ultimately, is a "coral-safe" movement. The science, the economics and the social awareness could together result in a sea change in how saltwater aquariums are populated and how saltwater tank enthusiasts think of themselves and their passion.
As more tank-raised ornamentals percolate into the market, Holt believes people will see another advantage to buying sustainably. The fish will simply do better. They'll live longer, be healthier and be easier to care for.
"Species that are bred in captivity should adapt much better to your tank than something that was just caught halfway across the world, in a different system," says Holt. "Good retailers will want to sell these species, and consumers will benefit from buying them."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110920121612.htm
Monday, September 19, 2011
Extinction looms for last killer whale pod
FOR at least three decades they have made the waters off the west of Scotland their own, delighting visitors and residents alike.
The marine biologist has been studying the group, known as the West Coast Community, with the Hebridean Whale and Dolphin Trust and the Irish Whale and Dolphin Group, since 1992. He said: "It's probably too late to save this group. I do believe that they will become extinct in our lifetime which is very regrettable since not many people even know that such a distinctive group of killer whales exist just off our coast."
Little is known about the isolated community, but Foote and the NAKID (North Atlantic Killer Whale ID) project have tracked the group using distinctive fin and body markings and scars to identify them as they move around their home territory.
Since 1981, around 255 sightings of the killer whales have been reported by members of the public from Mull to Tiree and Coll. Sightings have even been recorded off the west coast of Ireland and Wales.
Although there are regular sightings of other orcas off north-east Scotland, the west coasters are believed to be the only resident community - meaning they live in Scottish waters all year.
Observers have even named the community members, calling the males John Coe, Floppy Fin, Comet, and Aquarius. The females are Nicola, Lulu, Moneypenny - she is numbered 007 in the group - Puffin and Ocassus.
John Coe, named after a famous explorer, seems the most famous member of the soon-to-be-extinct family - perhaps because he has the most distinctive looking dorsal fin.
An adult male, Moon, has already disappeared and Foote fears this is just the beginning of the problems that the orcas face.
He believes contaminants could be one of the factors that has stopped the pod from successfully breeding.
"Female orcas store contaminants in their body fat and they pass some of the pollutants in their bodies to their calves when they're feeding. This is another possible reason why there have been no live calves seen."
Foote and the HWDT are appealing to the government for help. He said: "Fire retardants, pesticides and industrial manufacturing chemicals can end up in the water and it is likely that this is causing problems for the west coast group. If we successfully pass legislation that will reduce the amount of contaminants in the water, other countries will look to that and use us as an example, which could in turn help their populations of killer whales."
Such steps are almost certainly too late for John Coe and the rest of the group.
"With large animals like these, the hope of saving them is quite slim. We know they are decades old and the possibility of something like artificial insemination is very unlikely.
By Niamh Anderson
http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/environment/Extinction-looms-for-last-killer.6838230.jp
But now it seems the country's only resident pod of killer whales is doomed to extinction and pollution could be to blame.
The nine whales have failed to produce a single surviving calf in 20 years and Dr Andy Foote, a world-renowned expert on orcas, believes time has run out for the four males and five females.
The nine whales have failed to produce a single surviving calf in 20 years and Dr Andy Foote, a world-renowned expert on orcas, believes time has run out for the four males and five females.
The marine biologist has been studying the group, known as the West Coast Community, with the Hebridean Whale and Dolphin Trust and the Irish Whale and Dolphin Group, since 1992. He said: "It's probably too late to save this group. I do believe that they will become extinct in our lifetime which is very regrettable since not many people even know that such a distinctive group of killer whales exist just off our coast."
Little is known about the isolated community, but Foote and the NAKID (North Atlantic Killer Whale ID) project have tracked the group using distinctive fin and body markings and scars to identify them as they move around their home territory.
Since 1981, around 255 sightings of the killer whales have been reported by members of the public from Mull to Tiree and Coll. Sightings have even been recorded off the west coast of Ireland and Wales.
Although there are regular sightings of other orcas off north-east Scotland, the west coasters are believed to be the only resident community - meaning they live in Scottish waters all year.
Observers have even named the community members, calling the males John Coe, Floppy Fin, Comet, and Aquarius. The females are Nicola, Lulu, Moneypenny - she is numbered 007 in the group - Puffin and Ocassus.
John Coe, named after a famous explorer, seems the most famous member of the soon-to-be-extinct family - perhaps because he has the most distinctive looking dorsal fin.
An adult male, Moon, has already disappeared and Foote fears this is just the beginning of the problems that the orcas face.
He believes contaminants could be one of the factors that has stopped the pod from successfully breeding.
"Female orcas store contaminants in their body fat and they pass some of the pollutants in their bodies to their calves when they're feeding. This is another possible reason why there have been no live calves seen."
Foote and the HWDT are appealing to the government for help. He said: "Fire retardants, pesticides and industrial manufacturing chemicals can end up in the water and it is likely that this is causing problems for the west coast group. If we successfully pass legislation that will reduce the amount of contaminants in the water, other countries will look to that and use us as an example, which could in turn help their populations of killer whales."
Such steps are almost certainly too late for John Coe and the rest of the group.
"With large animals like these, the hope of saving them is quite slim. We know they are decades old and the possibility of something like artificial insemination is very unlikely.
"Even if we were lucky enough to catch them, the mothers are almost definitely too old to breed again. Smaller cetaceans can sometimes be translocated if they are failing to breed, but again with their size, this is just not feasible."
Foote said the best they could hope for was to avoid similar tragedies befalling other orcas in Scottish waters.
"We've learned a lesson from this pod," he said. "We can use what we know now to prevent it happening again to our other killer whale communities."
He added: "We would love to learn more about them before they become extinct and the public can help us do that. We're appealing to anyone out there who may have pictures of the west coast group prior to 1992, so that it could help us to learn more about the pod.
"Old photos that haven't been submitted could help us determine how many individuals there were and perhaps how old they are now which could help us prepare for similar scenarios in the future."
Richard Fairbairns, founder of the Hebridean Whale and Dolphin Trust said it would be a "tragedy" if the whales disappeared. "They're very old friends of ours. I was the one who named John Coe a long time ago and not long after that I set up the trust.
"When I first saw an orca off the coast of Coll in the early 1980s, everybody thought I was a complete nutcase. But thankfully, awareness has grown and the whales will have a better chance of surviving if more people know they exist."
Andy Jackson, managing director of Ardnamurchan Charters, which provides boat trips off the west coast of Scotland, said the whales were a major attraction for his passengers.
"But they're not just an attraction, they're an endangered species and that needs to be addressed.
"We're very concerned by the huge level of pollution in our water. Pollution, over-fishing and poor techniques like dredging will all impact this group terribly and you can imagine what it's doing to the less significant species as well."
Foote said the best they could hope for was to avoid similar tragedies befalling other orcas in Scottish waters.
"We've learned a lesson from this pod," he said. "We can use what we know now to prevent it happening again to our other killer whale communities."
He added: "We would love to learn more about them before they become extinct and the public can help us do that. We're appealing to anyone out there who may have pictures of the west coast group prior to 1992, so that it could help us to learn more about the pod.
"Old photos that haven't been submitted could help us determine how many individuals there were and perhaps how old they are now which could help us prepare for similar scenarios in the future."
Richard Fairbairns, founder of the Hebridean Whale and Dolphin Trust said it would be a "tragedy" if the whales disappeared. "They're very old friends of ours. I was the one who named John Coe a long time ago and not long after that I set up the trust.
"When I first saw an orca off the coast of Coll in the early 1980s, everybody thought I was a complete nutcase. But thankfully, awareness has grown and the whales will have a better chance of surviving if more people know they exist."
Andy Jackson, managing director of Ardnamurchan Charters, which provides boat trips off the west coast of Scotland, said the whales were a major attraction for his passengers.
"But they're not just an attraction, they're an endangered species and that needs to be addressed.
"We're very concerned by the huge level of pollution in our water. Pollution, over-fishing and poor techniques like dredging will all impact this group terribly and you can imagine what it's doing to the less significant species as well."
By Niamh Anderson
http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/environment/Extinction-looms-for-last-killer.6838230.jp
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Sea turtles make their home at Ningaloo
An environmental research team says it has discovered that the Ningaloo Reef is home to the world's third largest Loggerhead sea turtle population.
The Environmental Systems Research Institute says it reached the conclusion after using mapping technology.
The Institute's WA manager Tom Gardner says loggerhead turtles are an endangered species which are rapidly declining in number.
He says the mapping technology has allowed researchers to observe the behaviour and nesting habits of the turtles in a bid to conserve the species.
"Using GIS [mapping technology] to understand more about loggerhead turtles is crucial to their existence," he said.
"Studies have revealed that due to predators and other threats, only about one in 10,000 sea turtle hatchlings survive to sexual maturity, making the survival of every hatchling crucial to the survival of the species.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-13/ningaloo-turtle-population/2896968
Monday, September 20, 2010
Storm Water Is a Silent Marine Species Killer
September 20th, 2010
According to official statistics, numerous fish die each year in streams in the United States before they even have a chance to deposit their eggs. The cause for this mass dying is none other than storm water.
Naturally, we're not talking here about the “common” variety, the one that falls from the sky, but about the rainwater that first passes through cities and gutters before making its way into streams.
While regular water cannot harm fish, the liquid that comes from cities most definitely can. Before it makes its way into small rivers or streams, it collects a number of things that you wouldn't want to know the fish you eat contains.
Some of the things rainwater collects and then shoots into streams include grease, antifreeze, oil, heavy metal chemicals, pesticides, fertilizers, soap, detergents, bacteria and feces.
Pesticides can kill very easily on their own, either through direct contamination, or through promoting the development of algal blooms, which strip the water around of its oxygen, essentially suffocating fish and other species.
As these toxic chemicals pass through bodies of running water, they contaminate everything in their path, triggering the death of countless fish each year.
The damage in lose profits has never been fully quantified, but scientists believe the damage could well be in the millions of dollars annually, maybe even more.
At this point, reducing or cleaning up runoff water is the only way for people, businesses and authorities to ensure that they don't pollute their own environment beyond recognition.
The contaminants not only affect streams, but the hydrological network in its entirety. After killing fish swimming upstreams, they make their way into larger rivers, and then eventually into oceans.
Once there, the pollutants can either contaminate animals directly, or can combine to produce so-called “dead zones,” which are basically areas lacking oxygen.
And even the smallest cities produce waist amounts of runoff water. For example, the city of Port Angeles dumped more than 25 million gallons of sewage and storm water into the city’s bay in 2009 alone.
In the central Puget Sound region, a good rain makes about 26,600 gallons of storm water flow from the roof of a single house. There are an estimated 1.5 million homes in the state.
Solutions to this problem are at hand, and they include, for example, developing rain gardens on private properties. These are small areas which can trap vast volumes of water, if they are carefully designed.
Another approach could be to transform roofs and driveways into “sponges,” by covering them up with plants and other water-absorbing materials. But this needs to be done at a large scale, and as soon as possible, Our World reports.
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Storm-Water-Is-a-Silent-Marine-Species-Killer-157133.shtml
According to official statistics, numerous fish die each year in streams in the United States before they even have a chance to deposit their eggs. The cause for this mass dying is none other than storm water.
Naturally, we're not talking here about the “common” variety, the one that falls from the sky, but about the rainwater that first passes through cities and gutters before making its way into streams.
While regular water cannot harm fish, the liquid that comes from cities most definitely can. Before it makes its way into small rivers or streams, it collects a number of things that you wouldn't want to know the fish you eat contains.
Some of the things rainwater collects and then shoots into streams include grease, antifreeze, oil, heavy metal chemicals, pesticides, fertilizers, soap, detergents, bacteria and feces.
Pesticides can kill very easily on their own, either through direct contamination, or through promoting the development of algal blooms, which strip the water around of its oxygen, essentially suffocating fish and other species.
As these toxic chemicals pass through bodies of running water, they contaminate everything in their path, triggering the death of countless fish each year.
The damage in lose profits has never been fully quantified, but scientists believe the damage could well be in the millions of dollars annually, maybe even more.
At this point, reducing or cleaning up runoff water is the only way for people, businesses and authorities to ensure that they don't pollute their own environment beyond recognition.
The contaminants not only affect streams, but the hydrological network in its entirety. After killing fish swimming upstreams, they make their way into larger rivers, and then eventually into oceans.
Once there, the pollutants can either contaminate animals directly, or can combine to produce so-called “dead zones,” which are basically areas lacking oxygen.
And even the smallest cities produce waist amounts of runoff water. For example, the city of Port Angeles dumped more than 25 million gallons of sewage and storm water into the city’s bay in 2009 alone.
In the central Puget Sound region, a good rain makes about 26,600 gallons of storm water flow from the roof of a single house. There are an estimated 1.5 million homes in the state.
Solutions to this problem are at hand, and they include, for example, developing rain gardens on private properties. These are small areas which can trap vast volumes of water, if they are carefully designed.
Another approach could be to transform roofs and driveways into “sponges,” by covering them up with plants and other water-absorbing materials. But this needs to be done at a large scale, and as soon as possible, Our World reports.
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Storm-Water-Is-a-Silent-Marine-Species-Killer-157133.shtml
Storm Water Is a Silent Marine Species Killer
September 20th, 2010
According to official statistics, numerous fish die each year in streams in the United States before they even have a chance to deposit their eggs. The cause for this mass dying is none other than storm water.
Naturally, we're not talking here about the “common” variety, the one that falls from the sky, but about the rainwater that first passes through cities and gutters before making its way into streams.
While regular water cannot harm fish, the liquid that comes from cities most definitely can. Before it makes its way into small rivers or streams, it collects a number of things that you wouldn't want to know the fish you eat contains.
Some of the things rainwater collects and then shoots into streams include grease, antifreeze, oil, heavy metal chemicals, pesticides, fertilizers, soap, detergents, bacteria and feces.
Pesticides can kill very easily on their own, either through direct contamination, or through promoting the development of algal blooms, which strip the water around of its oxygen, essentially suffocating fish and other species.
As these toxic chemicals pass through bodies of running water, they contaminate everything in their path, triggering the death of countless fish each year.
The damage in lose profits has never been fully quantified, but scientists believe the damage could well be in the millions of dollars annually, maybe even more.
At this point, reducing or cleaning up runoff water is the only way for people, businesses and authorities to ensure that they don't pollute their own environment beyond recognition.
The contaminants not only affect streams, but the hydrological network in its entirety. After killing fish swimming upstreams, they make their way into larger rivers, and then eventually into oceans.
Once there, the pollutants can either contaminate animals directly, or can combine to produce so-called “dead zones,” which are basically areas lacking oxygen.
And even the smallest cities produce waist amounts of runoff water. For example, the city of Port Angeles dumped more than 25 million gallons of sewage and storm water into the city’s bay in 2009 alone.
In the central Puget Sound region, a good rain makes about 26,600 gallons of storm water flow from the roof of a single house. There are an estimated 1.5 million homes in the state.
Solutions to this problem are at hand, and they include, for example, developing rain gardens on private properties. These are small areas which can trap vast volumes of water, if they are carefully designed.
Another approach could be to transform roofs and driveways into “sponges,” by covering them up with plants and other water-absorbing materials. But this needs to be done at a large scale, and as soon as possible, Our World reports.
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Storm-Water-Is-a-Silent-Marine-Species-Killer-157133.shtml
According to official statistics, numerous fish die each year in streams in the United States before they even have a chance to deposit their eggs. The cause for this mass dying is none other than storm water.
Naturally, we're not talking here about the “common” variety, the one that falls from the sky, but about the rainwater that first passes through cities and gutters before making its way into streams.
While regular water cannot harm fish, the liquid that comes from cities most definitely can. Before it makes its way into small rivers or streams, it collects a number of things that you wouldn't want to know the fish you eat contains.
Some of the things rainwater collects and then shoots into streams include grease, antifreeze, oil, heavy metal chemicals, pesticides, fertilizers, soap, detergents, bacteria and feces.
Pesticides can kill very easily on their own, either through direct contamination, or through promoting the development of algal blooms, which strip the water around of its oxygen, essentially suffocating fish and other species.
As these toxic chemicals pass through bodies of running water, they contaminate everything in their path, triggering the death of countless fish each year.
The damage in lose profits has never been fully quantified, but scientists believe the damage could well be in the millions of dollars annually, maybe even more.
At this point, reducing or cleaning up runoff water is the only way for people, businesses and authorities to ensure that they don't pollute their own environment beyond recognition.
The contaminants not only affect streams, but the hydrological network in its entirety. After killing fish swimming upstreams, they make their way into larger rivers, and then eventually into oceans.
Once there, the pollutants can either contaminate animals directly, or can combine to produce so-called “dead zones,” which are basically areas lacking oxygen.
And even the smallest cities produce waist amounts of runoff water. For example, the city of Port Angeles dumped more than 25 million gallons of sewage and storm water into the city’s bay in 2009 alone.
In the central Puget Sound region, a good rain makes about 26,600 gallons of storm water flow from the roof of a single house. There are an estimated 1.5 million homes in the state.
Solutions to this problem are at hand, and they include, for example, developing rain gardens on private properties. These are small areas which can trap vast volumes of water, if they are carefully designed.
Another approach could be to transform roofs and driveways into “sponges,” by covering them up with plants and other water-absorbing materials. But this needs to be done at a large scale, and as soon as possible, Our World reports.
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Storm-Water-Is-a-Silent-Marine-Species-Killer-157133.shtml
Storm Water Is a Silent Marine Species Killer
September 20th, 2010
According to official statistics, numerous fish die each year in streams in the United States before they even have a chance to deposit their eggs. The cause for this mass dying is none other than storm water.
Naturally, we're not talking here about the “common” variety, the one that falls from the sky, but about the rainwater that first passes through cities and gutters before making its way into streams.
While regular water cannot harm fish, the liquid that comes from cities most definitely can. Before it makes its way into small rivers or streams, it collects a number of things that you wouldn't want to know the fish you eat contains.
Some of the things rainwater collects and then shoots into streams include grease, antifreeze, oil, heavy metal chemicals, pesticides, fertilizers, soap, detergents, bacteria and feces.
Pesticides can kill very easily on their own, either through direct contamination, or through promoting the development of algal blooms, which strip the water around of its oxygen, essentially suffocating fish and other species.
As these toxic chemicals pass through bodies of running water, they contaminate everything in their path, triggering the death of countless fish each year.
The damage in lose profits has never been fully quantified, but scientists believe the damage could well be in the millions of dollars annually, maybe even more.
At this point, reducing or cleaning up runoff water is the only way for people, businesses and authorities to ensure that they don't pollute their own environment beyond recognition.
The contaminants not only affect streams, but the hydrological network in its entirety. After killing fish swimming upstreams, they make their way into larger rivers, and then eventually into oceans.
Once there, the pollutants can either contaminate animals directly, or can combine to produce so-called “dead zones,” which are basically areas lacking oxygen.
And even the smallest cities produce waist amounts of runoff water. For example, the city of Port Angeles dumped more than 25 million gallons of sewage and storm water into the city’s bay in 2009 alone.
In the central Puget Sound region, a good rain makes about 26,600 gallons of storm water flow from the roof of a single house. There are an estimated 1.5 million homes in the state.
Solutions to this problem are at hand, and they include, for example, developing rain gardens on private properties. These are small areas which can trap vast volumes of water, if they are carefully designed.
Another approach could be to transform roofs and driveways into “sponges,” by covering them up with plants and other water-absorbing materials. But this needs to be done at a large scale, and as soon as possible, Our World reports.
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Storm-Water-Is-a-Silent-Marine-Species-Killer-157133.shtml
According to official statistics, numerous fish die each year in streams in the United States before they even have a chance to deposit their eggs. The cause for this mass dying is none other than storm water.
Naturally, we're not talking here about the “common” variety, the one that falls from the sky, but about the rainwater that first passes through cities and gutters before making its way into streams.
While regular water cannot harm fish, the liquid that comes from cities most definitely can. Before it makes its way into small rivers or streams, it collects a number of things that you wouldn't want to know the fish you eat contains.
Some of the things rainwater collects and then shoots into streams include grease, antifreeze, oil, heavy metal chemicals, pesticides, fertilizers, soap, detergents, bacteria and feces.
Pesticides can kill very easily on their own, either through direct contamination, or through promoting the development of algal blooms, which strip the water around of its oxygen, essentially suffocating fish and other species.
As these toxic chemicals pass through bodies of running water, they contaminate everything in their path, triggering the death of countless fish each year.
The damage in lose profits has never been fully quantified, but scientists believe the damage could well be in the millions of dollars annually, maybe even more.
At this point, reducing or cleaning up runoff water is the only way for people, businesses and authorities to ensure that they don't pollute their own environment beyond recognition.
The contaminants not only affect streams, but the hydrological network in its entirety. After killing fish swimming upstreams, they make their way into larger rivers, and then eventually into oceans.
Once there, the pollutants can either contaminate animals directly, or can combine to produce so-called “dead zones,” which are basically areas lacking oxygen.
And even the smallest cities produce waist amounts of runoff water. For example, the city of Port Angeles dumped more than 25 million gallons of sewage and storm water into the city’s bay in 2009 alone.
In the central Puget Sound region, a good rain makes about 26,600 gallons of storm water flow from the roof of a single house. There are an estimated 1.5 million homes in the state.
Solutions to this problem are at hand, and they include, for example, developing rain gardens on private properties. These are small areas which can trap vast volumes of water, if they are carefully designed.
Another approach could be to transform roofs and driveways into “sponges,” by covering them up with plants and other water-absorbing materials. But this needs to be done at a large scale, and as soon as possible, Our World reports.
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Storm-Water-Is-a-Silent-Marine-Species-Killer-157133.shtml
Storm Water Is a Silent Marine Species Killer
September 20th, 2010
According to official statistics, numerous fish die each year in streams in the United States before they even have a chance to deposit their eggs. The cause for this mass dying is none other than storm water.
Naturally, we're not talking here about the “common” variety, the one that falls from the sky, but about the rainwater that first passes through cities and gutters before making its way into streams.
While regular water cannot harm fish, the liquid that comes from cities most definitely can. Before it makes its way into small rivers or streams, it collects a number of things that you wouldn't want to know the fish you eat contains.
Some of the things rainwater collects and then shoots into streams include grease, antifreeze, oil, heavy metal chemicals, pesticides, fertilizers, soap, detergents, bacteria and feces.
Pesticides can kill very easily on their own, either through direct contamination, or through promoting the development of algal blooms, which strip the water around of its oxygen, essentially suffocating fish and other species.
As these toxic chemicals pass through bodies of running water, they contaminate everything in their path, triggering the death of countless fish each year.
The damage in lose profits has never been fully quantified, but scientists believe the damage could well be in the millions of dollars annually, maybe even more.
At this point, reducing or cleaning up runoff water is the only way for people, businesses and authorities to ensure that they don't pollute their own environment beyond recognition.
The contaminants not only affect streams, but the hydrological network in its entirety. After killing fish swimming upstreams, they make their way into larger rivers, and then eventually into oceans.
Once there, the pollutants can either contaminate animals directly, or can combine to produce so-called “dead zones,” which are basically areas lacking oxygen.
And even the smallest cities produce waist amounts of runoff water. For example, the city of Port Angeles dumped more than 25 million gallons of sewage and storm water into the city’s bay in 2009 alone.
In the central Puget Sound region, a good rain makes about 26,600 gallons of storm water flow from the roof of a single house. There are an estimated 1.5 million homes in the state.
Solutions to this problem are at hand, and they include, for example, developing rain gardens on private properties. These are small areas which can trap vast volumes of water, if they are carefully designed.
Another approach could be to transform roofs and driveways into “sponges,” by covering them up with plants and other water-absorbing materials. But this needs to be done at a large scale, and as soon as possible, Our World reports.
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Storm-Water-Is-a-Silent-Marine-Species-Killer-157133.shtml
According to official statistics, numerous fish die each year in streams in the United States before they even have a chance to deposit their eggs. The cause for this mass dying is none other than storm water.
Naturally, we're not talking here about the “common” variety, the one that falls from the sky, but about the rainwater that first passes through cities and gutters before making its way into streams.
While regular water cannot harm fish, the liquid that comes from cities most definitely can. Before it makes its way into small rivers or streams, it collects a number of things that you wouldn't want to know the fish you eat contains.
Some of the things rainwater collects and then shoots into streams include grease, antifreeze, oil, heavy metal chemicals, pesticides, fertilizers, soap, detergents, bacteria and feces.
Pesticides can kill very easily on their own, either through direct contamination, or through promoting the development of algal blooms, which strip the water around of its oxygen, essentially suffocating fish and other species.
As these toxic chemicals pass through bodies of running water, they contaminate everything in their path, triggering the death of countless fish each year.
The damage in lose profits has never been fully quantified, but scientists believe the damage could well be in the millions of dollars annually, maybe even more.
At this point, reducing or cleaning up runoff water is the only way for people, businesses and authorities to ensure that they don't pollute their own environment beyond recognition.
The contaminants not only affect streams, but the hydrological network in its entirety. After killing fish swimming upstreams, they make their way into larger rivers, and then eventually into oceans.
Once there, the pollutants can either contaminate animals directly, or can combine to produce so-called “dead zones,” which are basically areas lacking oxygen.
And even the smallest cities produce waist amounts of runoff water. For example, the city of Port Angeles dumped more than 25 million gallons of sewage and storm water into the city’s bay in 2009 alone.
In the central Puget Sound region, a good rain makes about 26,600 gallons of storm water flow from the roof of a single house. There are an estimated 1.5 million homes in the state.
Solutions to this problem are at hand, and they include, for example, developing rain gardens on private properties. These are small areas which can trap vast volumes of water, if they are carefully designed.
Another approach could be to transform roofs and driveways into “sponges,” by covering them up with plants and other water-absorbing materials. But this needs to be done at a large scale, and as soon as possible, Our World reports.
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Storm-Water-Is-a-Silent-Marine-Species-Killer-157133.shtml
Saturday, July 3, 2010
Whales and humans linked by 'helpful grandmothers'
Scientists have discovered an evolutionary reason why humans and whales both have grandmothers.
As post-menopausal females age, the researchers say, they become increasingly interested and helpful in rearing their "grandchildren".
This could help explain why female great apes and toothed whales (cetaceans) have lifespans that extend long beyond their reproductive years.
They report the findings in the Royal Society journal Proceedings B.
The "grandmother hypothesis" was first proposed in the 1950s. It stated that menopause, which stops a female's fertility well before the end of her lifespan, may have evolved to benefit a social group, because grandmothers went on to play such an important a role in caring for offspring that were already born.
Dr Michael Cant, from the University of Exeter in the UK, was one of the authors of this paper.
He explained that he and his colleague, Rufus Johnstone, looked at how humans and whales balanced "the costs and benefits of breeding with the costs and benefits of switching off breeding".
Dr Johnstone, who is an evolutionary biologist based at the University of Cambridge, told BBC News: "It's easy to forget about the cetaceans, but since they're the only other mammal apart from us [where females] have a comparable post-reproductive lifespan, it's important to study them in this context."
Previous studies have suggested that female chimpanzees and gorillas also go through menopause, but the conclusions are controversial.
The two scientists developed a mathematical model to study "kinship dynamics" in killer whales (orcas), short-finned pilot whales and humans.
This revealed that, as post-menopausal females aged, they developed closer ties to infants.
This showed, the scientists said, an "underlying similarity" between whales and great apes that might otherwise have been masked by the big differences in their social structures.
"Our analysis can help explain why, of all long-lived social mammals, it is specifically among great apes and toothed whales that menopause and post-reproductive helping have evolved," the researchers wrote in the paper.
Eric Ward, a scientist from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Washington, has carried out research into how post-reproductive females influence whale populations.
He told BBC News: "The model the authors propose is certainly interesting, and may explain the evolution of menopause in orcas."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/science_and_environment/10451533.stm
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
'Ancestral Eve' crystal could explain origin of left-handed amino acids
Washington, Apr 22 : Researchers have discovered what may be the 'ancestral Eve' crystal that billions of years ago gave life on Earth its curious and exclusive preference for so-called left-handed amino acids.
Amino acids are building blocks of proteins, which come in two forms — left- and right-handed — that mirror each other like a pair of hands.
The study may help resolve one of the most perplexing mysteries about the origin of life.
Tu Lee and Yu Kun Lin point out that conditions on the primordial Earth held an equal chance of forming the same amounts of left-handed and right-handed amino acids.
However, when the first forms of life emerged more than 3 billion years ago, all the amino acids in the proteins had the left-handed configuration.
That pattern continued right up to modern plants
and animals.
The scientists used mixtures of both left- and right-handed aspartic acid (an amino acid) in laboratory experiments to see how temperature and other conditions affected formation of crystals of the material.
They found that under conditions that could have existed on primitive Earth, left-handed aspartic acid crystals could have formed easily and on a large scale.
"The aspartic acid crystal would then truly become a single mother crystal: an ancestral Eve for the whole left-handed population," noted the study.
The study has been published in ACS' Crystal Growth n Design, a bi-monthly journal.
http://www.newkerala.com/news/fullnews-94228.html
Amino acids are building blocks of proteins, which come in two forms — left- and right-handed — that mirror each other like a pair of hands.
The study may help resolve one of the most perplexing mysteries about the origin of life.
Tu Lee and Yu Kun Lin point out that conditions on the primordial Earth held an equal chance of forming the same amounts of left-handed and right-handed amino acids.
However, when the first forms of life emerged more than 3 billion years ago, all the amino acids in the proteins had the left-handed configuration.
That pattern continued right up to modern plants
and animals.
The scientists used mixtures of both left- and right-handed aspartic acid (an amino acid) in laboratory experiments to see how temperature and other conditions affected formation of crystals of the material.
They found that under conditions that could have existed on primitive Earth, left-handed aspartic acid crystals could have formed easily and on a large scale.
"The aspartic acid crystal would then truly become a single mother crystal: an ancestral Eve for the whole left-handed population," noted the study.
The study has been published in ACS' Crystal Growth n Design, a bi-monthly journal.
http://www.newkerala.com/news/fullnews-94228.html
Monday, April 19, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)