A study last year found that men living in rural areas have lower sperm counts than their urban counterparts. Now, researchers say they’ve found a possible reason for the difference. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Chris Lehman has more:
Transcript
A study last year found that men living in rural areas have lower
sperm counts than their urban counterparts. Now, researchers say
they’ve
found a possible reason for the difference. The Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Chris Lehman reports.
Researchers compared urine samples of men with high and low sperm
counts.
They found that men with low sperm counts were far more likely to have
high
levels of three common pesticides in their urine. Many farmers use the
pesticides to kill weeds and insects on corn, soybeans, and other crops.
Doctor Shanna Swan is a researcher at the University of Missouri. She
says
the study showed that men from all walks of life in the rural areas are
affected, not just those who work directly with the chemicals…
“This is not a study of farmers, it’s not a study of men who work in
industry producing these chemicals. This is the general population.”
Swan says it’s unclear how the pesticides reach the men. She says it’s
likely that men are ingesting the chemicals through their drinking
water.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Chris Lehman.
At least one city in the region has passed a controversial law that would ban or severely restrict the use of pesticides. Environmental activists are calling the move a great victory. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Dan Karpenchuk reports:
Transcript
At least one city in the Great Lakes region has passed a
controversial law that would ban or severely restrict the use of pesticides.
Environmental activists are calling the move a great victory. The Great
Lakes Radio Consortium’s Dan Karpenchuk reports:
For years, environmentalists have warned of the dangers associated with the overuse of
pesticides and herbicides, claiming that those chemicals are poisoning the land and
waters.
Now Toronto’s city council has passed a bylaw aimed at reducing pesticide use.
Katrina Miller of the Toronto Environmental Alliance says it’s an amazing win.
“We have a bylaw that’s going to protect children, it’s going to protect the environment.
We saw a city council that has decided to listen to the citizens of Toronto and the doctors
and nurses instead of falling under pressure from the industry lobby.”
The debate leading up to the vote was bitter and emotionally charged. One
representative of a lawn care company was ejected.
Lorne Hepworth is a spokesman for the pesticide manufacturers. He says the ones to
suffer from the new bylaw will be homeowners.
“At the end of the day what this amounts to is a deterioration in their property values,
you know, score one for bugs and dandelions and zero for the property owner.”
Under the bylaw anyone wanting to use pesticides will have to make a case to an advisory
board. It will be made up of representatives from the city, environmental groups and
lawn care companies.
The new bylaw will not be enforced until 2006.
For The Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Dan Karpenchuk.
Genetically modified crops are planted throughout the Midwest, but some scientists are concerned genes from these crops could escape and work their way into weedy plants. With these genes, weeds could become more vigorous and harder to kill. New research shows this can happen between closely related crops and weeds. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Cristina Rumbaitis-del Rio prepared this report:
Transcript
Genetically modified crops are planted throughout the Midwest, but some scientists are
concerned genes from these crops could escape and work their way into weedy plants. With
these genes, weeds could become more vigorous and harder to kill. New research shows this can
happen between closely related crops and weeds. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Cristina
Rumbaitis-del Rio prepared this report:
Genetically modified crops have been around for quite a while. In the U.S. last year more than 88
million acres were planted with genetically modified soybean, corn, cotton and other crops. Some
of these plants are engineered to be more resistant to herbicides, making it easier for farmers to
get rid of weeds without damaging their crop. Others are engineered to resist plant-eating insects.
But some scientists worry about the ecological effects of these crops. Allison Snow is a professor
of ecology at Ohio State University. She studies genetically modified sunflowers. Snow says she
got involved in this research when genetically modified crops were first being introduced because
she was afraid no one else was looking at the environmental effects of these crops.
“It was kind out of a fear factor for me of wanting to make sure that someone was watching to see
what the environmental effects might be.”
The sunflowers Snow studies have a gene added to them, which produces an organic insecticide
that kills insects feeding on the plants.
According to Snow, the problem with these pesticide-producing sunflowers is the insect-killing
gene can be transferred from crop sunflowers to their weedy cousins, which are often growing on
the edges of fields. Bees, flies and other insects can transfer the gene to the weeds by cross-
pollinating the plants, which are close relatives. Snow’s research shows once the gene gets into
the weed population, the weeds become insect-resistant as well.
“The new gene worked really, really well in the weeds. It protected them from the insects. And
because they were protected, they had more energy to devote to making seeds.”
Snow says the most startling result was the number of seeds these weeds were making.
“In one of our study sites, they made 55% percent more seeds per plant – just because of one
gene. Which is kind of unheard of. We’ve never seen a result like that – where one gene would
cause the whole population to suddenly start making 55% more seeds.”
The gene might make weeding a more difficult task, but Snow says she wouldn’t quite call them
“super weeds,” a term some environmentalists have used.
“We might see that the weedy sunflowers become worse weeds, I wouldn’t call them super
weeds, because to me that would imply that they have many different features instead of just one
that causes them to make more seeds. But I could imagine in the future there might be enough
traits out there that could turn a regular weed into something much more difficult to control – like
really would be a super weed.”
Snow says she will have to do more research to see if the extra seeds made by the weeds will turn
into more weeds and hardier weeds in farmer’s fields.
But, she might not be able to finish her research on sunflowers because the companies that make
the crop have decided not to renew her funding and won’t give her access to the sunflowers or the
genes.
“It was all about stewardship and responsibility.”
Doyle Karr is a spokesperson for pioneer hi bred, one of the companies which makes the
sunflowers. He says the company realized a few years ago there wasn’t enough demand for the
product to justify commercially producing it. As a result, he says, the company couldn’t continue
funding sunflower research, and doesn’t want to be held responsible for keeping the gene safe
while the research is being conducted.
It’s an issue of a biotech trait that we are not pursuing and not bringing to the market, and if we’re
not bringing it to the market, we can’t justify taking the responsibility of having that trait out
being worked with, with a third party.”
While some academic researchers argue the universities take on legal liability when they work
with genetically modified plants, Karr says the university’s liability is often limited by state law.
He says the company is ultimately held responsible if only by the court of public opinion.
“Should something happen with this gene that was not expected or a mistake happened – that
would ultimately come back to those who initially made the gene available.”
While this issue remains unresolved, Snow is continuing her research. Genetically modified
sunflowers are not the only crop to study. Snow is now working in Vietnam where weedy species
of rice grow naturally, and where genetically modified rice might be introduced in coming years.
She’s concerned the traits of the genetically altered rice might be transferred to the wild species
of rice, just as happened with the sunflowers.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Cristina Rumbaitis-del Rio.
Some weeds are developing a resistance to one of the most popular crop herbicides. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Shawn Johnson reports:
Transcript
Some weeds are developing a resistance to one of the most popular crop herbicides. The
Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Shawn Johnson reports:
Farmers like the Monsanto Company herbicide “Roundup” because it kills a wide variety of weeds
without harming crops genetically engineered to resist it. But in the past few years, crop
scientists say Roundup’s popularity has created some problems. Through survival of the fittest, a
very small number of weeds that were always resistant to Roundup have reproduced, and in some
areas now flourish. Mark van Gessel is a weed specialist at the University of Delaware. He says
it’s a situation some farmers are stuck with:
“I really don’t have a lot of hope that we are going to be able to reverse this trend. We just have to learn to live with it.”
van Gessel says that means farmers will need to get away from exclusive use of Roundup and
other less common herbicides that contain its active ingredient. So far, weeds resistant to
Roundup have popped up in Delaware, Maryland, and California as well as in Tennessee, Ohio,
and Indiana.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Shawn Johnson.
Terry Miller, of the Lone Tree Council, is
one of the few Bay City residents trying to protect
wetlands sprouting up along the beaches of Saginaw
Bay. Many of his neighbors prefer beaches with
less vegetation. Photo by Steve Meador.
With water levels below-average in the Great Lakes, emergent wetlands are flourishing in many large, protected bays. This thick vegetation, a few hundred yards wide at most, fringes the shoreline of exposed lakebeds. Scientists and government officials say emergent wetlands are valuable resources worth protecting. Others say the vegetation is a nuisance and want it destroyed. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Steve Meador has more:
Transcript
With water levels below-average in the Great Lakes, emergent wetlands are flourishing in
many large, protected bays. This thick vegetation, a few hundred yards wide at most,
fringes the shoreline of exposed lakebeds. Scientists and government officials say
emergent wetlands are valuable resources worth protecting. Others say the vegetation is
a nuisance and want it destroyed. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Steve Meador
has more:
There’s a dull gray sky over Saginaw Bay, a large, shallow arm of Lake Huron. A brisk
wind blows off the bay toward Bay City State Park.
“This is the area that bathers come to in the summer, and as you can see, there is only a
small portion of the beach left, that much of the rest has reverted to fairly high levels of
vegetation…cattails…bulrushes… lots of vegetation.”
Terry Miller heads an environmental organization in Bay City called the Lone Tree
Council. These days, Lone Tree is an appropriate description of Miller. He’s one of the
few locals trying to protect emergent wetlands. These wetlands remain mostly out of
mind during cycles of high water. However, with Lake Huron near its lowest level in
decades, thin bands of emergent wetlands now flourish along the shores of Saginaw Bay.
Scientists call these wetlands some of the most productive in the country because they
provide critical habitat for fish and birds. Yellow perch and northern pike use them as
breeding areas, and waterfowl feed and nest there. The wetlands also reduce coastal
erosion by anchoring shoreline sediment during storms.
Terry Miller sees the value of emergent wetlands and is fighting to protect them. He also
accepts that some people are less concerned with how wetlands benefit an ecosystem than
they are with clean, sandy beaches or an unobstructed view of Saginaw Bay.
“As you can see, some of this vegetation is taller than we are, and if you’re a homeowner
sitting back in your coffee hutch looking out and not seeing water but greenery, some
may find that pleasant, but more than likely they would prefer to see the water.”
One local resident who doesn’t like the wetlands is Ernie Krygier. He says the vegetation
reduces property values and prevents access to the water. Worst of all, he says it ruins
sandy beaches, like the one at Bay City State Park.
“This park used to be just jammed, you see all the parking lot space that’s out here, you
couldn’t find a spot back when we had beaches. Now you could shoot a gun through here
and not hit anybody.”
Krygier wants the vegetation along the park’s shoreline removed. He says the place for
wildlife is in the nearby Tobico Marsh, away from park users.
“This is where people belong, that’s where nature belongs.”
Krygier’s issue with the park is part of a larger conflict with government regulators that
also involves private property. The dispute has been dubbed the “weed war” by a
property rights group called Save Our Shoreline, or SOS, that Krygier heads up.
SOS members say they have the right to remove vegetation below the ordinary high
water mark. That’s land the state and federal government says is publicly-owned
bottomland. Government regulators protect this land by requiring permits for
mechanized activities like plowing or grading. This helps preserve the dense root mat
that anchors the shoreline.
Some less destructive techniques for controlling vegetation are allowed without a permit,
including mowing, weed-whacking, and hand-pulling vegetation. Nevertheless, many
property owners have used tractors and other heavy machinery to destroy vegetation on
public land without a permit. Government regulators say this is a violation of the Clean
Water Act. They’ve sent “cease and desist” letters to many property owners, including
one state legislator.
Krygier’s main contention is that property owners have ownership rights to the water’s
edge.
“The government, the state of Michigan wants to take ownership of our property, and that
is wrong. We feel we have the law on our side.”
Some law experts say Krygier’s interpretation is wrong. Chris Shafer is a professor at
Thomas M. Cooley School of Law in Lansing. He’s had some experience in this area.
He ran the Great Lakes Shorelands program for the Michigan Department of Natural
Resources for more than 15 years.
“I think the law is real clear on this, that all of the land we’re talking about below the
ordinary high water mark on the Great Lakes is owned by the state of Michigan. It’s held
in trust for all nine million citizens of Michigan.”
Shafer says that while property owners have some legitimate concerns, they don’t own
the land out to the water’s edge as they believe. They have a right to access the water, but
no right to destroy vegetation on public land.
Shafer says that, unlike the sand dune shores of Lake Michigan, it may be unrealistic to
expect sandy beaches throughout Saginaw Bay. Dr. Thomas Burton agrees. He’s a
professor of fisheries and zoology at Michigan State University who studies wetland
ecosystems.
Burton says emergent wetlands have always been an important part of Saginaw Bay, and
that they naturally grow and recede as water levels fall and rise. He says wetlands are a
vanishing resource along the Great Lakes, and that the small portion of coastline that’s
not sandy beach should be protected. Burton says property owners are missing the bigger
picture.
“To call it a ‘weed war’ to me is very short sighted, and really says that the person doesn’t
either, A. understand the importance of these wetlands, or B. they just don’t care about
nature at all, and are willing to destroy it just so they have a sandy beach in front of their
house, and my own opinion is that that’s a pretty lousy way to look at nature.”
Back in Saginaw Bay, Terry Miller says his crusade to protect emergent wetlands is a
lonely one, especially when neighbors tell him he’s one of the most hated people on the
beach. He says these wetlands are held in the public trust to benefit everyone who uses
the bay, and hopes that some day the effort expended by property owners will be
redirected.
“And the sad thing, the thing that I find very frustrating is that, from an environmental
perspective, our Saginaw Bay is hurting. There are a host of environmental problems that
this energy could be directed at, but it’s not.”
For now, property owners are putting their energy into changing state law. A bill before
the Michigan legislature backed by SOS would allow unpermitted destruction of wetland
vegetation on publicly-owned lands.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Steve Meador.
Zebra mussels have been colonizing North American lakes and rivers since 1991. Scientists have looked at many of the ways mussels affect those ecosystems. But a new study underway shows how those effects are moving up the food web…and are having two very different results. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mark Brodie reports:
Transcript
Zebra mussels have been colonizing North American lakes and rivers since 1991. Scientists have looked at many of the ways mussels affect those ecosystems. But a new study underway shows how those effects are moving up the food web…and are having two very different results. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mark Brodie reports:
Between 50 and 5-hundred billion zebra mussels now live in New York’s Hudson River. That’s a lot of hungry mouths to feed on the river’s zooplankton and phytoplankton. The problem is the mussels are not the only ones that like to dine on the microscopic plants and animals. A new report suggests the mussels are stealing food from some of the river’s fish.
That’s forcing those fish to look elsewhere for their meals. Sandra Nierzwicki-Bauer is the director of the Darrin Freshwater Institute, and a biology professor at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, New York. She says the zebra mussels can dramatically alter an ecosystem.
“They’re very rapid filter feeders, and as such, they’re able to remove tremendous amounts of phytoplankton, algae, bacteria in the water column. As such, the phytoplankton serves as food sources for other organisms so you really are impacting the entire food web.”
Nierzwicki-Bauer says those impacts go all the way up to fish. David Strayer is a freshwater ecologist at the Institute of Ecosystem Studies, and a lead author of the report on the Hudson River. He says his team studied fish populations in the Hudson both before and since zebra mussels colonized there.
“In open water fish species, we saw a decline in abundance, we saw declines in growth rates, and we saw that the populations of those fish tended to shift downriver compared to the period before the zebra mussel invasion.”
That means some of the most common and popular fish in the Hudson are no longer where they used to be…among them American shad, herring, and white perch. That’s because the zebra mussels are eating those fish’s food…forcing the fish to go elsewhere.
But Strayer says while some fish have had to move away from the mussels…some species have welcomed their new neighbors.
“In the same period of time, we saw populations of fish that live in the weed beds…we saw those populations increase, we saw growth rates of those fish increase, and we saw the populations of those weed bed fish shift upriver into the area where the zebra mussels lived.”
These forage fish have more to eat because the plants at the river’s bottom are growing more. That’s because the zebra mussels clear up the water, which allows more sunlight to reach the plants. Strayer says the zebra mussels have changed almost everything about the Hudson’s ecology.
But he says some of those changes have been difficult to predict, and the changes may not apply to all bodies of water where the mussels have colonized. This is one of the first studies using long term data that looks at the zebra mussels’ affect on fish populations…but there is some evidence that other bodies of water are dealing with similar situations. There have been reports that zebra mussels may be affecting smelt and chub in Lake Michigan…these smaller fish are food for larger species, such as trout and salmon. But while the results are comparable, David Strayer says the changes in the Hudson River are more pronounced than changes elsewhere.
“This isn’t because we have more zebra mussels in the Hudson than in the other places, but it’s because there are differences in the structure of the ecosystem between the Hudson River and the Great Lakes and other places that have been invaded. So, you have to be a little cautious extrapolating from one body of water to the next.”
That sentiment is shared by Andy Kahnly. He’s a fishery scientist with the Hudson River fishery unit of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. He also worked on the new study. Kahnly warns for now, the results only apply to young fish…and not adults. That’s because fish can live up to 30 years, and the data don’t go that far back.
“Quite often, changes in early lifestages will take some time to translate into changes in fish populations and then to changes in fish communities. So it takes a lot of data, a lot of years of data to see a change.”
Kahnly says that means anglers in the Hudson might begin to notice some changes over the next few years… and he says the study did find a dramatic decrease in many of the species that people catch.
“If these changes in production of young persist into the future, then definitely there will be a decrease in the abundance of the adults which people are fishing for.”
But that depends on what you’re fishing for. The Institute of Ecosystem Studies’ David Strayer says your perspective might change depending on that you’re trying to catch.
“If you’re concerned about shad populations, if you’re a shad fisherman, then you might be concerned with the zebra mussel invasion and think it’s a bad thing. If you like the weed beds, if you’re a duck hunter or a large mouth bass fisherman this might be regarded as a positive thing.”
Strayer says the study shows zebra mussels are capable of having a tremendous impact on an ecosystem. He says it also shows the importance of being careful to prevent the introduction of invasive species…like zebra mussels…into an ecosystem.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Mark Brodie.
Across the country, forests, streams and coastlines are getting extra doses of nutrients containing the element nitrogen. Researchers say the long-term impact of these unwanted compounds on the environment could be serious. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Daniel Grossman reports on some efforts to reduce nitrogen pollution:
Transcript
Across the country, forests, streams and coastlines are getting extra doses of nutrients
containing the element nitrogen. Researchers say the long-term impact of these unwanted compounds on the environment could be serious. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Daniel Grossman reports on some efforts to reduce nitrogen pollution:
A thunderstorm soaks the land and lights the sky. The electric jolts of the lightning change nitrogen in the air into compounds needed for plants to grow. Lightning, as well as microbes in the soil, converts annually nearly 100 million tons of atmospheric nitrogen into plant nutrients. Humans make the same compounds in factories and call them fertilizer, a mainstay of agriculture. Between these synthetic chemicals and a smaller quantity of related compounds produced when fossil fuels are burned, humans produce more nitrogen-rich nutrients than nature makes on the seven continents. University of Minnesota ecologist David Tilman says such extra nutrients are a concern.
“Right now half or more of the nitrogen we put on a farm field just washes through the soil and down into the groundwater into lakes, rivers, streams and into the ocean.”
This wasted nitrogen often travels great distances causing widespread damage. Tilman says on land, the nutrients cause exotic weeds to outgrow native plants. In the ocean, the nutrients cripple critical habitats. The ecologist says nitrogen pollution must be cut. One place to start is on the farm.
“We have to find some way to grow crops where the crops take up much more of the nutrients that we apply.”
(Sound of walking through grass. Quiet bird calls in background.)
Near Chesapeake Bay, farmer and agricultural scientist Russ Brinsfield walks across a patch of tall dry grass.
We’re on the edge of a field, about a sixty-acre field of corn, on the beautiful Eastern Shore of Maryland.
This field is a research plot at the Maryland Center for Agro-Ecology. Here Brinsfield is studying agriculture’s environmental impact. Chesapeake Bay’s waters have high concentrations of farmer’s nutrients, causing blooms of the toxic algae Pfiesteria. The pollution has also caused declines in sea grass beds. Brinsfield says solutions to the problem fall into two categories.
“The first series of practices are those practices that we’ve been able to demonstrate that by a farmer implementing them he can reduce his inputs without affecting his outputs… that at the end of the year have added profit to his bottom line.”
For instance, testing the soil’s nitrogen level before fertilizing. And splitting fertilizer applications into two doses rather than one so that nutrients are added only when plants need them. Such simple measures are good for environment and the bottom line. Brinsfield says in the last 10 years most farmers on the Eastern Shore of Maryland have cut fertilizer use this way. Then there’s the other category of improvements.
“We’re going to have to do some things-ask some farmers to do some things-that may cost them more to do than what they are going to get in return from that investment.”
For example, in the winter, many fields here are fallow and bare. That means top soil erodes when it rains, taking with it residual fertilizer. It wasn’t always this way.
“I can remember my dad saying to me, ‘every field has to be green going into the winter, Son.’ So all of our fields were planted with rye or wheat or barley. It served two purposes. First, the animals grazed it. And second, it held the soil intact.”
And intact soil retains its fertilizer. Such winter cover crops also prevent fertilizer loss by storing nutrients in plant leaves and stalks. This used to be dairy country and cover crops grazed by cows made economic sense. Now farmers mostly grow grains. Planting a cover crop could cut nitrogen flow from farms by 40 percent but it costs farmers about $20/acre and provides no economic benefit to them. Brinsfield says farmers need an incentive.
“For the most part, farmers are willing to participate and to do those things that need to be done, as long as they can still squeak out a living.”
To help them squeak out a living, the state pays some farmers to sow cover crops. The state also pays them to plant buffers of grass and trees that suck up nutrients before they leave the farm. Today farms in six states that are part of the Chesapeake’s huge watershed contribute about 54 million pounds of nitrogen to the bay. The goal is to cut this figure approximately in half by two thousand and ten. Robert Howarth, a marine biologist and expert on nitrogen pollution at Cornell University, says though ambitious, this target can be achieved.
“I think most of the problems from nitrogen pollution have relatively straightforward technical fixes. So the real trick is to get the political will to institute these.”
Howarth says much of the nitrogen problem could be eliminated with a blend of government subsidies and regulations. But more will be needed as well… solutions of a more personal nature.
(sound of Redbones Barbeque)
There’s a pungent, smoky aroma in the air at Redbones Barbeque in Somerville, Massachusetts. The crowded bistro serves up a variety of ribs, chicken, sausage and other meats, dripping with savory sauces. University of Minnesota ecologist David Tilman says when someone eats a meal they are responsible for the little share of fertilizer a farmer somewhere had to apply to grow a crop. If the meal is from farm-raised animals, like the heaping plates of meat served here, the amount of fertilizer is much greater than if it’s from plants.
“It takes from three to ten kilograms of grain to produce a single kilogram of meat.”
Tilman says if Americans ate less meat, they could dramatically reduce fertilizer usage. However, per capita consumption is rising. Meat consumption is on the rise globally as well. David Tilman would like that to change. He says if current trends continue, human production of nitrogen nutrients will grow to triple or quadruple what nature makes on all Earth’s lands. Professor Tilman says that in many places the impact on the environment would be catastrophic.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Daniel Grossman.
Long known for their expanses of shorn grass and highly manicured grounds, some golf course owners are taking a second look at their landscaping practices and striving to become more environmentally friendly. In the process, however, they seem to have made a few enemies. Great Lakes Radio Consortium commentator Julia King explains:
Transcript
Long known for their expanses of shorn grass and highly manicured grounds,
some golf course owners are taking a second look at their landscaping practices and striving to become more environmentally friendly. In the process, however, they seem to have made a few enemies. Great Lakes Radio Consortium commentator Julia King explains:
In a nutshell, here’s the story: Golf Course Goes Green, Neighbors See Red.
Golf course owner Tony Krebs recently saw the environmental “light” and decided to reduce his use of pesticides, gasoline, and water. He wants to mow less, grow wildflowers, re-introduce native grasses and attract wildlife. The neighbors – instead of cheering – have filed formal complaints with the city.
Golf courses have long been havens for precision landscaping, places where the great outdoors are shaped into forms… well, unfamiliar to Mother Nature. So to some residents around golf courses, a new, more natural landscape looks suspiciously like neglect. But it’s not.
For a little over a decade, the Audubon Society has been helping to “green” golf courses with their Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary Program. While any course can become a member and receive environmental tips and guidelines, members earn certification by completing projects in specified areas. Out of an estimated 20,000 golf courses in the U.S., a select 2,300 have achieved certification.
In other words, the movement towards greater sustainability in the golf world is still young. And old standards of beauty die hard. According to an Audubon source, it’s not uncommon for bordering property owners to balk at a golf course’s naturalization. Just as one man’s treasure is another’s trash, apparently one man’s “wildflower” is another man’s “weed.”
But this is more than a beauty-in-the-eye-of-the-beholder tale. Health officials have linked weed killers to everything from childhood leukemia, to gender malformation in frogs. Yet here we have well-to-do citizens banding together to fight for such chemicals.
“We live in a community,” one concerned resident said. “We have to be accountable to one another.” But he was talking about standards of property upkeep, not about public safety or about the delicate ecosystem we share.
He’s right, though, we are accountable to one another. And not only to one another, but to those who come long after we’re gone. There is a price to be paid for that so-called “perfect” landscape, and it’s a price we will all have to pay. It’s time for responsible citizens not only to tolerate sustainability, but to demand it.
Host Tag: Julia King lives and writes in Goshen, Indiana. She comes to us by way of the Great Lakes Radio Consortium.
The Asian longhorned beetle, native to China, is a serious threat to hardwood trees in the U.S. So far, populations of the beetle have been confined to Chicago and New York. Foresters are concerned that more non-native species will be introduced through expanded global trade. Photo courtesy of USDA-APHIS.
Forests in the Midwest may be under siege from exotic species more often in the future… partly because of international trade. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Rebecca Williams explains:
Transcript
Forests in the Midwest may be under siege from exotic species more often in the future… partly because of international trade. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Rebecca Williams reports:
The Asian longhorned beetle is native to China.
The beetle caught a ride to the U.S. in the wooden packing material of
imported goods. So far, the beetle has been found in New York and
Chicago.
Once a tree is infested with beetles, the best way to stop the beetles from spreading is to destroy the tree.
A National Academy of Sciences study predicts that threats to native species will increase as trade opens up between the U.S. and China. The authors say that China may become a new “donor region” for species that could become invasive.
Entomologist Deborah McCullough is an author of the study.
“You can kind of visualize this whole complex of insects and weeds and plant pathogens in Asia that haven’t had a pathway, they haven’t had a route to be brought to the country yet… and we really don’t know what all could end up coming in.”
Dr. McCullough says because China’s range of climates and plant life are similar to that of the U.S., many species that make it over here have a chance to become established.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Rebecca Williams.
Some public health experts are concerned that a changing global climate, along with increases in carbon dioxide emissions, might be contributing to a sudden rise in the number of asthma cases. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham has more:
Transcript
Some public health experts are concerned that a changing global climate, along with increases in carbon dioxide emissions, might be contributing to a sudden rise in the number of asthma cases. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports.
Worldwide, the level of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere has risen. So scientists have been studying what might happen to plants if the C-O-two level continues to rise. One study indicates the increase in C-O-two levels makes conditions more favorable for weedy species… such as ragweed, which aggravates asthma. Paul Epstein is with the Harvard Medical School and has been working with the study.
“The ragweed pollen counts go up so that doubling of asthma in the last several decades may be partially accountable just by the rise in CO-2 as well as, perhaps, prolongation of seasons and the early arrival of spring and the late arrival of fall.”
Epstein says it appears the air pollution that is believed to be causing global climate change and triggers asthma could be compounding the problem by indirectly contributing to the increase in pollen allergens. For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Lester Graham.
