Real-world research as an undergraduate: studying pinnipeds on San Miguel Island with NOAA
In the most recent cohort of University of Washington (UW) students participating in the NOAA Marine Mammal Lab internship program organized through SAFS, Chris Moon spent the summer of 2024 working with Dr. Tony Orr from NOAA Alaska Fisheries Science Center (AFSC), studying northern fur seals and California sea lions on San Miguel Island, California.
“As a native Californian, I have always been interested in the marine ecosystems off its shores and wanted to learn more about what role pinnipeds play in it,” Chris shared. Soon starting his junior year as an Oceanography major at UW, Chris became involved with the SAFS-MML internship program after hearing about it from his academic advisor.
NOAA Fisheries / Sharon Melin
Conducting research in the remote field location of San Miguel Island, which is a part of the California Channel Islands, the internship experience reaffirmed Chris’ desire to work in the field in the future. “Being in the field for five weeks was a challenge I wanted to take on, and having a mentor like Dr. Tony Orr and learning from him and his decades of experience was very appealing,” Chris said. “Working with the fur seals and sea lions and observing their behaviors up close was the most extraordinary experience I’ve ever had. It was both overwhelming and awe-inspiring, I now know that working with wild animals is something that I hope to do in the future.”
Part of a long-term study undertaken by the Alaska Fisheries Science Center focused on pinnipeds (seals, sea lions and fur seals), the internship allows students to conduct research in real-time and experience what field work is like. For Chris, this involved hiking around the island looking for California sea lions that had been branded or flipper-tagged. This re-sight data provides researchers with information on survivorship, birth rate, and territorial tenure. Another key area of information gathered is mortality surveys California sea lion and northern fur seal pups. Supplemented with counts of live pups, population abundance can then be estimated for the year.
NOAA Fisheries / Heather Ziel
When asked if dead pup counts were higher, lower, or the same compared to last year, Tony Orr shared: “Mortality was pretty low, but this could have been for a couple of reasons. There seemed to be fewer northern fur seals on the rookery this year, and there were also flood ponds on a major rookery site, so carcasses could have washed out to sea. Mortality was low last year too, for possibly the same reasons. We’ll have to wait until we count the number of live pups to get a better understanding of what we saw on the island this year.”
Using his eyesight was not the only way Chris counted pinnipeds on the island. “In the past I’ve flown drones but seeing a drone used in a research setting was really interesting. I got to see how the drone was set up to fly autonomously and collect images that can be grouped to create a large mosaic upon which researchers can count individuals on,” Chris said. “Drones makes places otherwise inaccessible, accessible for the population counts. I can see them being used increasingly especially as they improve technologically.”
NOAA Fisheries / Tony Orr.
An important part of the internship for Chris was experiencing how field work translates to work back in the lab. “Spending a week at NOAA’s Alaska Fisheries Science Center was also an incredible experience. I’ve been able to participate in lab work with teeth, blood, and stable isotope samples,” Chris shared. “I’ve also had the chance to see what it’s like working in a lab like the Marine Mammal Lab; it’s remarkable to be around people that are so passionate about the work that they do and has absolutely inspired me to get to a place like this.”
NOAA Fisheries / Tony Orr
Although located in sunny California, NOAA researchers fondly refer to the island as ‘the island of fog and wind’ due to the unpredictable conditions that scientists must weather. Chris got the chance to experience this firsthand. “Most of the days that we were on the island were foggy and VERY windy. San Miguel Island is the most northwest of the Channel Islands, and half of it is unprotected by the lee created by the California Bight starting at Point Conception, leaving it exposed to the prevailing cool northwest winds. This meant that most of the time we were bundled up in many layers,” Chris said. “The weather also proved to be a challenge to traveling. It took four days for me to return to the mainland because a helicopter or plane couldn’t land on the island due to fog. However, when it was clear and sunny, it was absolutely incredible. Being able to see miles of ocean allowed for opportunities to see whale blows at a distance, incredible sunsets, and stunning coastlines.”
NOAA Fisheries / Tony Orr
Being able to apply his studies so far at UW to this research experience was a useful part of the internship for Chris. “I was able to apply what I’ve learned in classes to my work, from lab protocols and Microsoft Excel, to making observations about seal and sea lion feeding behaviors, social behaviors, and effects of climate change,” Chris shared. “It was inspiring to know that what I’m studying in class is applicable to real world research. I was also able to speak with research biologists, and they shared with me their personal journeys through academia and helped me think about my own.”
Pinnipeds weren’t the only species Chris came across during his five-week trip to San Miguel. “San Miguel Island is host to large gull rookeries, and this year their populations were noticeably low and we only spotted a few chicks,” Chris said. “Our colleague on the island, Jim Tietz from Point Blue Conservation Science, confirmed with colleagues at the Farallon Islands National Wildlife refuge that the gull populations were struggling on the Farallon Islands as well.”
NOAA Fisheries / Chris Moon
UW President and College of the Environment Dean visit the Alaska Salmon Program
In a special update from the field, the Alaska Salmon Program shared their excitement at showing University of Washington President, Ana Mari Cauce, and College of the Environment Dean, Maya Tolstoy, around the field camps in Alaska. The Alaska Salmon Program has been running for more than 75 years, conducting research and providing hands on learning for UW students.
Jackie Carter
“We had a lot of fun showing UW President Ana Mari Cauce and UW College of the Environment Dean Maya Tolstoy why Bristol Bay is such a special place. They got to see the AERA class in action, sitting in on lectures and accompanying students, staff, and faculty to some of our study locations.”
-
- UW President, Ana Mari Cauce, in Alaska
-
- College of the Environment Dean, Maya Tolstoy, visited the Alaska Salmon Program
“We observed spawning sockeye, extracted adult sockeye otoliths, and sampled juvenile coho together. Many great conversations were had about our research – why it’s important and why we love what we do – and our parallel goal of providing hands on experiential learning opportunities to UW undergrads and grad students.” – Alaska Salmon Program
Jackie Carter
Answering global seafood trade questions during hackathon-style event
During a multi-day workshop held at the University of Washington and organized by SAFS Assistant Professor Jessica Gephart, nine researchers working on projects related to the seafood trade got together for a hackathon-style research event.
Jessica Gephart
Made up of individuals and teams of early career scientists, the participants came armed with their own pressing questions about the global aquatic food trade its interaction with the environment and/or nutrition security. Questions ranged from conservation and sustainable fishmeal sourcing to food security.
Held at the UW School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences from 31 July to 2 August, the overarching goal of the program was to facilitate use of the ARTIS (Aquatic Resource Trade in Species) database by providing support and answering questions about the data for the researchers who attended. The event was funded by NSF (#2121238) as part of a project to develop the ARTIS database, and the participants also helped identify ways that the presentation of the database and its associated resources could be improved.
“The goal is for ARTIS to be usable and useful to a wide range of users. ARTIS Exchange allowed us to start building a userbase for ARTIS and to better understand users’ needs” said Jessica Gephart.
Read more about the ARTIS Exchange 2024.
From California to Canada: using drones for marine research
Where do people fish and why? Exploring human behavior in Alaska fisheries
How do people make the decision on where they fish? What factors influence human behavior in fisheries? Terrance Wang is exploring the answers to these questions during his PhD research at SAFS. Fisheries management is an important process across the world, informing international and regional decisions on fishing locations, type of catch, methods used, and more.
Terrance Wang
Bringing global fishery management down to a smaller-scale level, Terrance shared that one of the drivers of his work is remembering the reasons why we manage fisheries in the first place. “A fishery exists because it’s serving people: their identity, their culture, the economy, by feeding people,” Terrance said. “And remembering that those are some of the reasons why we manage fisheries is interesting, but also fun because it involves talking to individuals and communities about why they fish and where.”
By looking at these fishing strategies involving the where and why people fish, the diversity of fishers comes into crystal clear view. “It’s important to understand that it’s not a huge monolith of people who fish. There is huge diversity in both people and their reasons for fishing, and this information should inform fishery managers because it has far-reaching impacts on the environment and the communities tied to fishing,” Terrance said.
Beginning his work studying human behavior in fisheries at the time of the Alaska snow crab fishery collapse in 2022, Terrance realized this work would be of use to people. “Despite all the sub-groups of people within this fishery that differed from one another in where they liked to fish, how risky they were willing to fish, how weather tolerant they were, one thing that really stood out as a commonality was how adaptive they were,” Terrance shared. “Yes, each person had preferences, but they responded very quickly to a changing ocean.”
One of the things that Terrance likes about his research is getting to speak with people. “Is it bad to say I got bored of fish?” Terrance joked during the conversation. “On a serious note, I do love speaking with people and then relating that to fishery science. A big part of my study was interviewing and casually speaking with people about the snow crab fishing industry in Alaska, and what adaptation to the closure looked like.” Almost all crab boats in the region can also handle salmon tending for the sockeye runs, which is what they usually do during the off-season for crab, and in the event of a closure of the fishery, many people move into alternative industries altogether, such as construction.
A member of the both the Hilborn and Punt Labs at SAFS, Terrance hopes to continue working with the crabbers to explore another aspect of human behavior: learning through social networks. He hopes to see if the social networks of the crabbers have impacts on the economic efficiency of fishing. Information on the whereabouts of crab is a hot commodity, and fishers may only want to share this information with their partners.
The second area of Terrance’s research switches gears to focus on global biodiversity trends. Starting small with just one marine mammal taxonomic group – seals – the plan is to scale up the methods used to count species and identify trends on a global scale. “We hear many stories about species, such as seals, doing well and recovering after the introduction of the Marine Mammal Protection Act. But this doesn’t mean to say that in other areas of the world, the trend is the same,” Terrance said.
When asked why the focus is on seals, Terrance shared a few reasons. “Seals are just step one in this project, but I wanted an animal that could have an impact. People care a lot about marine mammals such as seals, whales, polar bears, otters. But some of these species have noisier data or it’s just harder to collect the data. Seals are a great first step because they’re easy to count as they come ashore.”
The project is essentially counting how many seals there are in the world over time, and seeing how they are recovering – or not – since protective legislation was introduced. “In Washington we have a lot of success with seal populations, but you shouldn’t gloss over local-level detail from other regions of the world. Some populations need more help, and it would be good to have more information on trends to use in management,” Terrance said.
Like many other marine mammals, there was a massive culling of seals until the early 1900s, with industrial-level uses of their hides, whiskers and fat. The same reason Terrance says they’re a good species to start his research with – because they come ashore – was one of the reasons why it was so easy to overhunt them.
Niamh Owen-McLaughlin
It’s not just seals that are considered a conservation success story. Pinnipeds as a whole are considered a success story due to the global, unilateral ban on trade. But threats still exist. “There isn’t one threat that rules all when it comes to pinnipeds. Nets, human interaction, disease, food scarcity, environmental change – these are all factors still very much a threat to pinniped populations,” Terrance shared.
“The big picture for my seal project is to hopefully develop methods that we can use to say this is what the trends are with seals, this is how we count them, and then upscale and apply this to other species such as sea turtles, sea birds, sharks, fish, whales and move up through the marine animals chain,” he said. Working on gathering data from available online sources and inputting it into a central database, Terrance is currently in the data collection phase of this work.
A 3D view of ocean conservation and fishing activities
In recent years, there has been a global push to expand marine conservation efforts, but the quality of the implemented conservation network has often been neglected in favor of quantity. In a new paper published in Nature Communications, Juliette Jacquemont tackles one of the limitations of marine spatial planning by conducting the first global assessment of the 3D distribution of fishing activities and conservation coverage. As with many other marine features, such as species distribution, this information has until now only been assessed in two-dimensions, overlooking the vertical dimension inherent to the ocean, which reaches an average depth of 3,800 m. This simplistic representation of the ocean has remained unchallenged in part because until recently, most human activities and impacts were limited to coastal and shallow areas where the vertical dimension is more limited.
Juliette Jacquemont
This representation shift is particularly important given the current context of marine conservation. With the ratification of the United Nations (UN) Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)’s Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), a commitment to protect 30% of Earth’s oceans, coastal areas and inland waters by 2030, and the ‘High Seas’ treaty, which now provides legal instruments to implement marine protected areas in the High Seas, an increasing amount of protection coverage will be targeting deep, vertically complex areas. The High Seas are areas beyond national boundaries, covering two thirds of the planet’s oceans, and where much of the deepest zones of the ocean are found. These advances in marine conservation are paralleled with increasing human activities targeting deep marine ecosystems, with fisheries pursuing deeper stocks as shallow ones deplete, and prospects for deep-sea mining multiply.
Hoping to better inform the next wave of conservation, Juliette’s PhD work at SAFS aims to augment existing 2D spatial planning tools of the ocean by adding a third dimension: depth. How are ecosystems at different depths captured by global conservation efforts, and how does this contrast with the depth distribution of fishing activities? These were a couple of the questions driving Juliette’s work with her co-authors, including her advisor, SAFS Professor Luke Tornabene.
Using a global fisheries dataset (the Global Fishing Watch), which captures 60% of all large-scale, industrial fishing effort in the world, Juliette overlaid spatial information on fishing activities, gear types, and ocean bathymetry maps (which provide the depth of ocean floors). This allowed her to identify the depth at which fisheries are occurring, in comparison to the depth covered by marine protected areas, which she obtained using the World Database on Protected Areas.
What she discovered was an uneven distribution of conservation coverage across depths, with the shallowest ecosystems, down to 30 m, receiving the most protection. In contrast, mesophotic (60-300 m) and abyssal (3500-6000 m) depths were woefully behind global conservation targets, a result of being “out of sight, out of mind”, but also because of the lack of legal instruments to implement conservation beyond national jurisdictions. Furthermore, Juliette found that a surprising large proportion (over a third) of fishing activities occurred in deep-sea (deeper than 300 m) areas. Additionally, an important part of epipelagic and mesopelagic fishing occurs in areas overlying abyssal depths, which might be impacting the fragile abyssal benthic communities which depend on pelagic biomass.
Figure from Jacquemont et al., 2024.
Another concerning result from Juliette’s work is that many of the areas that have received the most conservation effort correspond to areas where the least fishing occurs, a phenomenon called “residual conservation”. Residual conservation is often motivated by ease of implementation, as no interference with human activities arises from the newly implemented conservation unit. However, the ecological additionality of these conservation actions is limited, as these areas were already protected ‘de facto’. This common mechanism has led to the incidental representation of some deep marine ecosystems at the limits of territorial waters, which are usually under less human uses than shallow, coastal ones. Unfortunately, the associated levels of protection of these areas are often weak, providing little protection from potential future uses.
While the remoteness of deep ocean ecosystems has also resulted in them not being very well-described by science, the development of new surveying tools, for example rebreather diving and remotely operated vehicles, is unveiling a staggering amount of diversity, often extremely sensitive to extractive activities because of slow growth and low productivity. As such, deep ecosystems appear as priority areas to actively conserve and avoid irreversible impacts from “boom and bust” fisheries and multiplying mining prospects.
Many things aligned at the same time as Juliette began her research in this area. She always had an interest in global conservation targets and in weaknesses limiting the efficiency of the global conservation network. Being a member of the Fish Systematics and Biodiversity Lab at SAFS, which has a focus on deeper ecosystems, solidified the idea of looking at representation across the depth dimension. With the High Seas treaty and the updated Global Biodiversity Framework being ratified while working on her paper, it makes her findings even more relevant as nations will have to expand their conservation network to cover 30% of their territorial waters, requiring the inclusion of deep-sea areas.
This study revealed important knowledge and management gaps that Juliette intends to investigate in future research. In particular, the lack of information on the depths targeted by fishing gear types and targeted species, and the absence of discrimination between pelagic and benthic activities in the Global Fishing Watch dataset, constitute major limitations in understanding the 3D footprint of fisheries and the 3D space they impact. In parallel, developing follow-up studies at the regional scale would better account for small-scale fisheries (commonly under-represented in global datasets), local fishing practices, specificities of area-based management plans, and of ecosystem distribution. This, in turn, would provide actionable recommendations at the regional scale for policy- and decision-makers to account for the vertical stratification of marine life and human uses, as well as the multiple connectivity processes through which impacts might trickle between pelagic and benthic systems. While working on this area of study, Juliette is also participating in research efforts to better describe understudied and under-protected marine ecosystems, such as mesophotic reefs.
Are wild salmon following hatchery salmon? Testing the Pied Piper hypothesis
Ever heard of the Pied Piper? What about in the context of fisheries research? Taking the concept embodied by the Pied Piper story of strong but delusive enticement, Maria Kuruvilla applied it to hatchery fish and wild salmon in three Washington State rivers during their migratory journey downriver. Maria conducted her research as a PhD student in Professor Andrew Berdahl’s lab at SAFS.
Each year, salmon species in the Skagit, Dungeness, and Puyallup Rivers begin their migration downriver, spawning in the upper reaches of the river, then making their way to the marine environment of the Puget Sound. In these same rivers, hatcheries managed by State and Tribal governments exist to supplement salmon as part of conservation efforts, especially in the face of declining populations.
Maria’s Pied Piper hypothesis is based on the idea that hatchery fish – which are released in large numbers each year and migrate downriver immediately – are playing the role of the Piper. The children? The wild salmon encouraged to follow. This could be a problematic scenario if wild fish migrate at a time that they wouldn’t normally and enter the marine environment at sub-optimal conditions. Such conditions include the size and weight of fish, or oceanographic conditions not as favorable to juveniles.
Maria Kuruvilla
Testing this hypothesis in the three rivers with two species of salmon – coho and Chinook – Maria found results consistent with the hypothesis in four out of the six populations tested. So how do you tell the difference between wild salmon and hatchery salmon? “Hatchery salmon are usually bigger, plus they have a tag or a clip on the fin that allows tracking and distinguishes them from wild salmon,” Maria shared.
The typical migration period for wild juvenile Chinook salmon is from March to July and the typical migration period for wild juvenile coho salmon is from April to June in Washington’s Skagit, Dungeness, and Puyallup Rivers.
Using smolt traps located near the mouth of the rivers, fish present in these traps are usually at the final stages of their downriver migration, and so it’s a good location to collect data on which fish are present: hatchery, wild, or both. Using this data, provided by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Puyallup Tribe of Indians, Maria plotted the migrations of hatchery and wild salmon, then did a deeper dive on the data to figure out if hatchery salmon are influencing wild salmon migration.
When released, hatchery salmon usually complete their migration downriver and enter the marine environment within one to two days. Wild salmon, however, are typically on a more protracted migration timeline. By collecting data on environmental stimuli, such as water temperature and flow, which is also known to affect wild salmon migration, Maria can rule this out as a possibility in the influence data.
“Looking at the whole peak and duration of migration, my data shows that as the number of hatchery salmon increases in a river, the duration of wild salmon migration decreases. This is consistent with the Pied Piper hypothesis and suggests that wild salmon are being influenced by the migrating hatchery salmon”, Maria said. “Generally, a population all migrating over the space of a day or two is not beneficial, as ocean conditions may be unfavorable or there could be a lot of hungry seals waiting, things like that.” There is also an important possibility to consider in Maria’s work, which she shared: “There might also be advantages of hatchery salmon influence on wild salmon migration. Moving with a big group of hatchery salmon could provide an increased level of protection from predation when entering marine environments.”
Hatcheries have a lot of control on how and when they release fish into rivers, and this is where Maria hopes her research will be particularly useful. “Managers of hatcheries can take the results of my paper and edit their release timing if needed, to more closely align with wild salmon migration patterns, or even marine conditions when it’s most favorable for fish to transition from freshwater to marine environments,” Maria said.
Maria Kuruvilla
There were two salmon populations part of Maria’s study that didn’t correspond to the Pied Piper hypothesis, which Maria explained could be a result of hatchery release decisions. “The theory is that the Skagit River hatchery released their Chinook salmon quite late in the migration season, and a lot of wild Chinook had already left the river, or this particular part of the river, by that point in time.” For the Dungeness River coho, the wild salmon are usually in the headwaters, whereas the release of hatchery salmon is more downstream. “And so, it’s possible that the wild coho are not being influenced as much in this situation,” Maria shared.
This study not only looks at how hatchery salmon affect the migration timing of wild salmon, but also supports the idea that salmon rely on social cues to decide when to migrate. Just like in other animal populations, social behavior can influence these timing decisions and it’s becoming more recognized that considering social behavior is important for understanding migration timing. If salmon and other species use social information to make better decisions during critical events like migration, a decrease in population size could impair their decision-making. This, in turn, could lead to further population declines.
Recently defending her PhD at SAFS, Maria is now a post-doctoral fellow at the University of Victoria. The manuscript is currently under peer review by the Movement Ecology Journal; however, the preprint is available for reading below.
Canines for conservation: Southern Resident killer whale research
Alongside two student researchers from her lab, SAFS Assistant Professor Amy Van Cise has been out on the Puget Sound for a few days conducting killer whale research. Working with a team comprised of UW students, Wild Orca, and San Diego Zoo Wildlife Alliance, they’re assisted in locating fecal samples from the whales by Wild Orca’s poop-sniffing dog, Eba.
Amy Van Cise, with student researchers Sofia Kaiaua and Mollie Ball, were aboard the Wild Orca boat with Research Director Dr. Deborah Giles, who is also a Resident Scientist at Friday Harbor Laboratories, where she teaches Marine Mammals of the Salish Sea in the Spring. Recent UW Marine Biology and Oceanography graduate, Aisha Rashid, was also present, now working for Wild Orca. They were joined by Hendrik Nollens from the San Diego Zoo Wildlife Alliance, and Eba’s handler, Jim Rappold.
NOAA research permit #26288 (Wild Orca)
To collect samples, Wild Orca drives slowly about 500-1000m downwind of the killer whales (preferably behind them), waiting for Eba to catch a scent. Once she does, one of her trainers (either Giles or Jim Rappold) works with Eba to have her direct the boat to the sample location, where the team then scoops it out of the water and carefully spins it down, pours off the excess sea water, and stores it in a conical tube on ice until they can get it in a freezer.
From a single sample, the collaborative research team can get hormones (to tell things like pregnancy, stress, or nutritional stress), genetics (to ID the whale, determine diet composition, and/or look a gut microbiome and parasites), and also look at toxins/contaminants.
NOAA Research Permit #26288 (Wild Orca)
The trip has also been used to collect content to develop an outreach video based on the diet research underway at the WADE lab and how it fits into the broader conservation goals for Southern Resident killer whales. For the video, Mollie and Sofia interviewed Dr. Michael Weiss, who is the Research Director of the Center for Whale Research, and Jay Julius, the former Chairman of the Lummi Nation, full time fisherman and father, and the Founder and President of Se’Si’Le.
-
- The research team aboard the Wild Orca boat.
-
- UW student researchers in the WADE lab interview Dr. Michael Weiss, Research Director of the Center for Whale Research.
All photos of killer whales are taken under NOAA research permit #26288 to Wild Orca
Examining the gap between ecological science and environmental management
Working for more than 15 years in Alaska’s Bristol Bay region, Sarah O’Neal is part of the SAFS PhD program. Recently publishing a new paper in BioScience examining the gap between ecological science and environmental management, Sarah’s article focuses on indirect ecological effects and how these are often defined differently in regulatory decisions. Indirect ecological effects are those in which the interactions of two species are modified by another species or abiotic factor (for example, valuable metals like copper, physical habitat alteration, and other factors).
Sarah O'Neal
Part of a larger effort involving her PhD research, advised by SAFS Professor Daniel Schindler, Sarah led a team that reviewed more than 20 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents for proposed mining projects across the US, to compare the treatment of indirect effects in regulatory versus ecological literature.
What she found was a clear dichotomy between regulatory and academic definitions of indirect effects, which in turn has far-reaching consequences when being used to make environmental management decisions. Where does this disconnect come from? “In part, some of this comes down to the terminology used in science, by scientists,” Sarah shared. “Especially when evaluating indirect ecological effects – which are by nature a bit harder to define and assess than direct ecological effects – the terminology used can be confusing. The ecological literature often uses overly complicated and redundant language, and is limited in its utility by regulators as a result.”
Sarah O'Neal
In some of her other PhD work, Sarah is using GIS and statistical tools to consider spatial correlation within stream networks, as opposed to the more common method of Euclidean (straight) line-to-line distance. Doing this in concert with environmental DNA (eDNA), Sarah collected data from a small watershed in Bristol Bay, only accessible via helicopter. These eDNA methods were particularly useful for covering more ground in this remote part of the world with difficult access. “What’s cool about this research is that it’s one of very few watersheds in the area that doesn’t support a ton of salmon,” Sarah shared. “The assumption was that it didn’t support any salmon at all, but we found evidence to the contrary. Now we can plug this into the spatial stream network and predict salmon distribution throughout that watershed.”
Why is work like this important? Because it ties directly into the work behind NEPA documents when considering proposed mining and other development projects. “The importance of headwater streams to fish as well as their contributions to downstream habitat are often overlooked, so developers often assume alteration of headwater habitats will have minimal effects to aquatic life. Our work shows that this isn’t the case,” Sarah added.
Copper is one of the most toxic elements to aquatic life, even at levels far below regulatory criteria. It impacts the ability of salmon to find their way home, find food, detect predators, find mates, and even find other family members. “The known impacts of copper on fish behavior—even at concentrations well below legal limits—is a clear example of indirect effects being overlooked in a regulatory context,” Sarah shared. Improving this situation, according to Sarah, would require regulators and scientists to work together to come to an ecologically relevant and legally applicable definition of indirect effects to ensure they are considered in environmental assessments. To bolster the ability to regulate indirect effects of development, ecosystem-wide experiments before, during, and after the development of a project are critical. In regard to more comprehensively incorporating indirect effects into regulation, Sarah added, “We have a job to do as scientists to simplify our language and make it more understandable. We showed that in a quantitative way in this new paper.”
Sarah O'Neal
Another area of Sarah’s work, funded by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and others, is to evaluate sculpin, a bottom-dwelling small fish, as a bio-indicator species of contamination. “Sculpin are a good fit for this because they don’t have swim bladders and therefore generally don’t move very far over their lifetime. They’re easy to catch, sensitive to many contaminants, and ubiquitous,” Sarah shared. “Right now, we’re comparing the utility of sculpin relative to other species in the watersheds we’re studying in relation to the effects of copper.”
Over the course of her research, Sarah has worked with numerous partners including Trout Unlimited, the University of Alaska Anchorage, EPA, Bristol Bay Native Corporation, the National Park Service, the Center for Science in Public Participation, United Tribes of Bristol Bay, the Bristol Bay Native Association, the Nature Conservancy, Nondalton Tribal Council, and the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.
Sarah O'Neal