- Email: [email protected]
Seabird disaster
centres of populahon Taken as a whole, these figures confirm the predtcted DDT residue concentration in the surface mixed layer of oceamc water of 5 parts per 10~:, based on rainfall stahstJcs and calculated concentrations of DDT residues m rainwater Cox also found that less than 10% of the DDT reszdues m the whole x~ater extracts could be accounted for m particulate material extracted by a centrffugatlonf-titration procedure Unless the remaining 90% of DDT residues ts m soluble form ~t must be attached to particles less than 1-2,, m dmmeter Since it is known that most of the particulate volume and nearly all the particulate surface area m seawater is accounted for by particles less than 21, m diameter this ~s a very plausible concluston It is also posstble that DDT metabohtes may exist as mlcelles or aggregates that cannot be taken up by particulate matter Expertmental evldence produced by Cox now suggests that phytoplankton cells have a saturauon value for DDT which is independent of the ambient DDT concentration Thts unphes that DDT uptake is by adsorption on to the cell surface rather than by phase partlt,oning of DDT between seawater and the hp,d component of the algal cell, as had previously been supposed. Th~s finding, If confirmed, has important Lmplicauons. It is quite likely that, ff a large fraction of DDT residues is fixed to parhcles less than l-2u in diameter, the amount of "available" residues m the ocean is extremely small. Uptake of DDT b? the seston would therefore be closely coupled w~th input pulses determined by such factors as seasonal run-off from the land. Avadable DDT residues that may rise during these periods would be taken up by the phytoplar~kton Clearly we need to know a good deal more about DDT transport in the pelagic environment
Seabird Disaster The Torrey Canyon d~saster was responsible for I0,000 known deaths of seab~rds, the mystemous wreck of seab~rds m the Irash Sea m the autumn of 1969 claimed a known 15,000 casualties. Both catastrophes attracted great pubhclty A recorded kill of nearly 13,000 seabtrds by oil pollution on the north-east coast of Britain in the first six weeks of 1970 attracted very httle attention except to those ~mmedlately concerned and, indeed, was dlsbeheved by the authonues responsible for treating oll slicks at the tame Only one larger oil pollution disaster to seablrds ~s on record and that was off the Freslan islands in 1969, m which over 14,500 birds are known to have died The north-east d~saster has now been summarized and anabsed by Greenwood, Donally, Feare, Gordon and Waterston (Scottish Birds, 6, 235-250, 1971). The scale of the d~saster was probably masked by the fact that more than one od spdl was responsible, httle olt came ashore and dead or dying b~rds were washed up on coasts from Aberdeen to the Humber and over a period of about s~x weeks Fifty or more species were affected but the chaef casualties were gudlemots (5,203 known dead), elders (2,124), razorbills (1,599) and, m the north, little auks (955) Not all parts of the coastline could be surveyed and, of course, many b~rds are lost at sea and go unrecorded The authors, with extreme cauuon, estimate
that at least 50,000 birds were kdled and the figure could well be higher than that. Samples of stranded oil taken for analys~s have estabhshed that pollution was by heavy fuel od and not, as Is more usually the case m Bnttsh waters, of crude off Analysts of wind records dunng the period, and other evidence, suggests that fuel od was d~scharged some way off the east coast during December and that b.~ early January it had spread out on a broad front from the Tay to the Humber O11 comang ashore on the Northumberland coast ~as probably from a da'terent source. There was a fresh dtscharge off the Tay m mid-January and th~s travelled north. A long period of generally southeasterly winds m late December and m January ensured that the oil affected an exceptionally ~lde area of sea but came ashore m small quantities and only m a few areas The quantity of oil discharged may have been relatively small, but the damage tt caused to seab~rds was qmte dlsproporuonately great The Board of Trade (now the Department of Trade and Industry) has responslbd~ty for dealing with od at sea beyond the 1 mtle lumt It is prmcipaUy concerned with protecting tourist beaches and fishery interests, and has generally adopted the pohcy of treating od at sea only when the source of the od pollution is known This ts because many od slicks are reported by atr slghtmgs but few are located by ships sent to deal w~th them, rather because the original report was m~staken, or because the oil dispersed naturally As the authors report, the Board of Trade came in for a good deal of eroticism at the time because of the very bruited acUon it took, but if, "as the authors suggest, the total amount of otl was small, finding ~t and deahng w~th 11 effectively may not have been as easy as It sounds. More valid crltic~sm is certainly that the Board of Trade's remit was too narrow m that it was required to deal only with pollution that threatens coastal amemtles. T h s may soon be changed so that the protection of concentrataons of seabtrds becomes a legatlmate claim on the Department of Trade and Industry This leaves the problem of dee~dmg when seabrrds are seriously threatened, for obwously not every od shck will receive treatment and some system of priormes will have to be established The authors claim that 1t was difficult to persuade the authomt~es that the numbers of oded btrds coming ashore was m any way abnormal In fact the oil caused the greatest loss of seabtrds recorded m Britain and the second largest anywhere With the detaded evidence that has now been presented, the Department of Trade and Industry wtll have to accept the fact that experienced naturalists are not excitable senttmentahsts and do know what they are talking about Nature Conservancy and the Royal Society for the Protection of Btrds are responsible and experienced bodies that mxght well be called upon to advise m future, and 1t would be a good thing to see their advice taken occasionally.
Food Resources of the Ocean The veteran of the Soviet research fleet, the Vltyaz', formerly used mainly for geologtcal and geodesic research, ~s at present mvesugatmg the "'theoretical principles of b~ological productw~ty m the deep-water 131
Seabird Disaster The Torrey Canyon d~saster was responsible for I0,000 known deaths of seab~rds, the mystemous wreck of seab~rds m the Irash Sea m the autumn of 1969 claimed a known 15,000 casualties. Both catastrophes attracted great pubhclty A recorded kill of nearly 13,000 seabtrds by oil pollution on the north-east coast of Britain in the first six weeks of 1970 attracted very httle attention except to those ~mmedlately concerned and, indeed, was dlsbeheved by the authonues responsible for treating oll slicks at the tame Only one larger oil pollution disaster to seablrds ~s on record and that was off the Freslan islands in 1969, m which over 14,500 birds are known to have died The north-east d~saster has now been summarized and anabsed by Greenwood, Donally, Feare, Gordon and Waterston (Scottish Birds, 6, 235-250, 1971). The scale of the d~saster was probably masked by the fact that more than one od spdl was responsible, httle olt came ashore and dead or dying b~rds were washed up on coasts from Aberdeen to the Humber and over a period of about s~x weeks Fifty or more species were affected but the chaef casualties were gudlemots (5,203 known dead), elders (2,124), razorbills (1,599) and, m the north, little auks (955) Not all parts of the coastline could be surveyed and, of course, many b~rds are lost at sea and go unrecorded The authors, with extreme cauuon, estimate
that at least 50,000 birds were kdled and the figure could well be higher than that. Samples of stranded oil taken for analys~s have estabhshed that pollution was by heavy fuel od and not, as Is more usually the case m Bnttsh waters, of crude off Analysts of wind records dunng the period, and other evidence, suggests that fuel od was d~scharged some way off the east coast during December and that b.~ early January it had spread out on a broad front from the Tay to the Humber O11 comang ashore on the Northumberland coast ~as probably from a da'terent source. There was a fresh dtscharge off the Tay m mid-January and th~s travelled north. A long period of generally southeasterly winds m late December and m January ensured that the oil affected an exceptionally ~lde area of sea but came ashore m small quantities and only m a few areas The quantity of oil discharged may have been relatively small, but the damage tt caused to seab~rds was qmte dlsproporuonately great The Board of Trade (now the Department of Trade and Industry) has responslbd~ty for dealing with od at sea beyond the 1 mtle lumt It is prmcipaUy concerned with protecting tourist beaches and fishery interests, and has generally adopted the pohcy of treating od at sea only when the source of the od pollution is known This ts because many od slicks are reported by atr slghtmgs but few are located by ships sent to deal w~th them, rather because the original report was m~staken, or because the oil dispersed naturally As the authors report, the Board of Trade came in for a good deal of eroticism at the time because of the very bruited acUon it took, but if, "as the authors suggest, the total amount of otl was small, finding ~t and deahng w~th 11 effectively may not have been as easy as It sounds. More valid crltic~sm is certainly that the Board of Trade's remit was too narrow m that it was required to deal only with pollution that threatens coastal amemtles. T h s may soon be changed so that the protection of concentrataons of seabtrds becomes a legatlmate claim on the Department of Trade and Industry This leaves the problem of dee~dmg when seabrrds are seriously threatened, for obwously not every od shck will receive treatment and some system of priormes will have to be established The authors claim that 1t was difficult to persuade the authomt~es that the numbers of oded btrds coming ashore was m any way abnormal In fact the oil caused the greatest loss of seabtrds recorded m Britain and the second largest anywhere With the detaded evidence that has now been presented, the Department of Trade and Industry wtll have to accept the fact that experienced naturalists are not excitable senttmentahsts and do know what they are talking about Nature Conservancy and the Royal Society for the Protection of Btrds are responsible and experienced bodies that mxght well be called upon to advise m future, and 1t would be a good thing to see their advice taken occasionally.
Food Resources of the Ocean The veteran of the Soviet research fleet, the Vltyaz', formerly used mainly for geologtcal and geodesic research, ~s at present mvesugatmg the "'theoretical principles of b~ological productw~ty m the deep-water 131