Polar Bear News: the Emergence of Noise Pollution as a Threat and a Climate Change Denier Smackdown
Posted September 29, 2008 in Saving Wildlife and Wild Places, Solving Global Warming
Two interesting polar bear items caught my attention this week.
First, last night BBC’s Science in Action had a fascinating piece on tests of polar bear hearing thresholds (that is, what is the spectrum of sound that polar bears can actually detect?) being conducted in San Diego. This work is more significant than it may appear because several studies suggest that noise pollution can have a negative effect on polar bear behavior (particularly denning behavior). And oil exploration and development? Well, it ain’t quiet. NRDC flagged this potential last year, in a letter to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service:
Noise disturbance from seismic activities of oil exploration as well as ground and air transportation can be heard within 300 meters of dens…Exposure to noise from drilling and vehicles may cause bears to abandon their dens In other circumstances, den disturbance has been linked to lower birth weight in female cubs.
As one of the scientists in the Science in Action story says:
Noise is a potential problem and it has been in their environment for decades now. The combination of noise disturbance on top of the implications of climate change for polar bears are the problem. Noise in and of itself is not a problem for polar bears, but if you layer it on top of the impacts of climate change, then you have the potential for a real problem.
Second, two of the world’s foremost polar bear researchers, Ian Stirling and Andrew Derocher, just published a world-class smackdown of an article that appeared in Ecological Complexity last year suggesting that polar bears in the Western Hudson Bay weren’t threatened by global warming and, even if they were, could adapt. The whole thing is worth checking out, but this bit (responding to the suggestion that polar bears can compensate to the decline of seals in the Arctic by eating more vegetation) was my favorite:
Polar bears are large animals that, similar to their brown bear relatives, require energy dense foods in the form of fat and protein, to maintain body size and population densities (Hilderbrand et al., 1999; Felicetti et al., 2003). They got that way be eating seals, not berries. (Robbins et al., 2007).
Ouch!
Comments are closed for this post.
Comments
Jeff — Sep 30 2008 03:02 PM
If the sounds of oil well drilling operations bothers a polar bear, a reasonably intelligent polar bear could adapt by relocating a short distance (I know, the bear would be inconvenienced). Another expectation would be that polar bears would learn to live with the noise, especially if it's associated with food in the oil rig's garbage dumpsters.
"Noise in and of itself is not a problem for polar bears, but if you layer it on top of the impacts of climate change, then you have the potential for a real problem," as one of the scientists in the Science in Action story says.
The scientist was probably misquoted. Perhaps he actually said,".... then you very likely might have the potential for another research grant. The subject definatedly could use more study...."
For about a week every year, salmon swim upstream to spawn. The brown bears feast upon them. What do brown bears eat the rest of the year to maintain body size and population densities? Whatever it is, it works for them. Why won't it work for polar bears? This suggests that, perhaps, additional research could be useful.
I used silly sarcasm to comment on the equally silly double-speak pronouncements (if, likely, very likely, could, would, should, might, maybe, appears, possibly, perhaps, etc.) used to hide the fact that research has been inconclusive, and to convey my opinion that mankind actually does not threaten the polar bear. The hardy polar bear is well suited to continue his existance. Unlike man, the polar bear is not in control of his environment... he's at the mercy of it. There I go again. Forgive me.
Thanks for your time.
Dan Staley — Sep 30 2008 04:25 PM
Sounds to me like Jeff has never had a class in the natural sciences. IME folks that argue this way are utterly ignorant in the natural sciences.