By James A. Foley
A loggerhead turtle captured and tagged off the Mexican coast in 2005 has been spotted again, albeit a long way from the warm waters of the Baja Peninsula. The turtle was found earlier this month in Japan.

The loggerhead was found on the shores of Yakushima Island in Japan's far south, according to the Kyodo News agency.

The a visitor to the island spotted a metal tag on the loggerhead bearing the letters "NOAA" -- the acronym for the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

A museum on Yakushima confirmed that the tagged loggerhead is the first known occurrence of an individual loggerhead crossing the Pacific Ocean from Mexico to Japan, Kyodo News reported.

However, as a destination, Yakushima is apparently popular among loggerhead turtles. Yakushima's beaches are known to have the highest occurrences of shore-landing and eggs laid by loggerhead turtles in all of Japan.

According to NOAA, Pacific loggerheads migrate over 7,500 miles (12,000 km) between nesting beaches in Japan and feeding grounds off the coast of Mexico.

Officials on Yakushima contacted NOAA to learn that the turtle has been captured off the coast of the Baja California Sur state in western Mexico in September 2005.

Kyodo reported that the turtle did not lay any eggs on Yakushima because of an apparent injury on its flippers.

Takashi Ishihara, a senior researcher at the nonprofit Sea Turtle Association of Japan, told Kyodo that loggerhead born in Japan travel to waters near Mexico on the Kuroshio current before returning to breed in the same area they were born. It has been unclear how long the process takes, but the discovery of the tagged turtle "showed for the first time that sea turtles are sexually mature in about 6 to 7 years," Ishihara said. "This is valuable data for analyzing the ecology of sea turtles."

Source: http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/3268/20130731/turtle-tagged-mexico-2005-resurfaces-japan.htm

By: James Whittaker | james.whittaker@cfp.ky

Lionfish cullers are urged to use containment devices like this one carried by Tom Shropshire of Off the Wall Divers. Lionfish hunters are being urged to stop feeding speared lionfish to predators, including moray eels, amid concerns that they are showing more aggressive behaviour toward divers. 

The warning comes as new research in the US shows marine creatures have not learned to prey on lionfish, which have no natural predators in the Atlantic and are a threat to other species because of their voracious appetite.  

The average lionfish eats 60,000 reef fish before it is 2 years old, according to researchers. It had been hoped that eels, snapper and reef sharks could be “taught” to target the fish, curbing its unchecked population explosion across the Caribbean and beyond. 

But environmental watchdogs say this doesn’t work and is only making predators associate divers with food.  

John Ferguson, one of the founding members of the Cayman United Lionfish League, was bitten on the hand by a green moray eel as he hunted for lionfish during a dusk dive last week. 

Mr. Ferguson is concerned that the practice of directly feeding eels is changing their behaviour, making this usually shy creature more of a nuisance to divers. He and other regular lionfish hunters have warned that they are often followed by eels on dives at all times of day.  

”We are seeing more aggressive behaviour from snappers, eels and groupers. This can be attributed to people culling fish and either feeding them directly or just leaving them on the reef for something to eat. Now we not only have spotters for lionfish, we have the need for predator spotters to warn of approaching danger. 

“I ask that we stop this feeding underwater immediately. The message has to be, if you spear a lionfish, put it in a containment device and take it out of the water.” 

It is illegal to feed fish or encourage wildlife interaction in Cayman’s territorial waters outside of Stingray City and sandbar, according to the Department of Environment. 

Jason Washington, another member of CULL and the operator of Ambassador Divers, said the practice was done with the best of intentions by divers who wanted to encourage potential predators to associate lionfish with food. But he said research suggested they were actually linking divers with food and becoming more aggressive. 

The solution, he said, was for all lionfish hunters to carry a containment device, rather than leaving dead fish on the reef or on the end of their spears for other fish to eat. 

“It is not that diving here is dangerous. We have a small issue that can be easily fixed with a little education. Feeding lionfish to predators has been shown to be ineffective. It is not doing anything, except creating trouble for ourselves,” Mr. Washington said. 

He added that there were potential consequences for any type of human activity that changed the behaviour of fish.  

Bradley Johnson, a research officer at the Cayman Islands Department of Environment, said feeding lionfish to predators does more harm than good.  

“We don’t want people to do it,” he said. “It is against several marine conservation laws. You are not only endangering yourself, you are endangering everyone else who uses that site by teaching the predators to associate divers with food.” 

Mr. Johnson said divers had reported being harassed by moray eels and there had been instances of other divers being bitten, both by eels and barracuda, across the Caribbean. 

A study published last week by the University of North Carolina showed that predators had no influence on lionfish abundance. 

“Lionfish are here to stay, and it appears that the only way to control them is by fishing them,” said Professor John Bruno of the research team. 

The research, detailed online 11 July in the journal PLOS ONE, focused on the effect of natural predators, such as sharks and groupers, on the population of two species of red lionfish on 71 reefs of the Caribbean over three years. 

The manual “Invasive Lionfish: A Guide to Control and Management”, a reference book produced for professionals involved in lionfish control, also warns feeding lionfish to predators has not proven to have any effect and is actually dangerous and counter-productive. 

It states: “There is no conclusive evidence that native predators are learning to prey upon lionfish. Unexpected effects of fish feeding activities include aggressive changes in predator behaviour during interactions with divers.” 

Mr. Ferguson urged all lionfish cullers to take their catch out of the water and take advantage of the nine restaurants currently buying the fish at around $5 a pound. 

“We have got to eat them to beat them. It’s the only way,” he added. 

Source: http://www.compasscayman.com/caycompass/2013/07/30/Hunters-warned-not-to-feed-lionfish-to-predators/#.UfeCO2YwVnQ.facebook

Like most people, Bill (environmentalist and co-founder of 350.org), is not an activist by nature. There’s really not that many people whose greatest desire it to go out and fight the system. His theory of change was that he’ll write his book, people will read it and they’ll change. But that’s not how change happens. What is required is to make a little noise, be a little uncomfortable, and push other people to be a little uncomfortable. The moment has come where we have to take a real stance, because we’re reaching limits.

The biggest limit that we’re running into may be that we’re running out of atmosphere into which to put the waste products of our society, particularly the carbon dioxide that is the ubiquitous byproduct of burning fossil fuels. We burn coal, or oil, or gas, we get CO2 and the atmosphere is now filling up with it.

We know what the solutions for dealing with this trouble are; we know many of the technologies we need to get off fossil fuel and onto something else. The thing that is preventing us from doing it is the enormous political power wielded by those who have made and are making vast windfall profits off of fossil fuels.

One of the things that humanity is facing is the need to dramatically reduce its carbon footprint over the next 40 years. We’re no longer at the point of trying to stop global warming. It’s too late for that. We’re at the point of trying to keep it from becoming a complete and utter calamity.

The most important climatologist, Jim Hansen, had his team at NASA do a study to figure out how much carbon in the atmosphere was too much. The paper they published may be the most important scientific paper of the millennium to date, said we now know enough to know how much is too much. Any value for carbon in the atmosphere greater than 350 parts per million is not compatible with the planet on which civilization developed and to which life on earth is adapted.

That’s pretty strong language for scientists to use. Stronger still if you know that outside today, the atmosphere is 395 parts per million CO2. And rising at about 2 parts per million per year. Everything frozen on earth is melting. The great ice sheet of the arctic is reduced by more than half; the oceans are about 30% more acidic than they were 30 years ago because the chemistry of sea water changes as it absorbs carbon from the atmosphere. And because warm air holds more water vapor than cold, the atmosphere is about 5% wetter than it was 40 years ago. That’s an astonishingly large change.

Source: http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/do-the-math/

Por Rafael Joglar

Durante los últimos 30 años, un grupo de estudiantes, profesores y empleados hemos trabajado arduamente en un sueño común: crear un bosque urbano en el corazón de la Universidad de Puerto Rico en Río Piedras. Le hemos llamado el Bosque Urbano de la UPR. El objetivo principal de este bosque es conservar y fomentar la biodiversidad en el Recinto, así que, entre otras medidas, será sembrado de especies nativas, endémicas y en peligro de extinción de Puerto Rico. También será un lugar para recreación pasiva y disfrute de la Naturaleza, además de ser un recurso educativo, ya que servirá como un laboratorio vivo.

Para hacer realidad este sueño hemos ofrecido charlas educativas en todas las facultades del Recinto y el Senado Académico. Hemos hecho reuniones con rectores, marchas, campamentos de desobediencia civil, simposios y reflexiones ambientales, entre otras actividades. Se evolucionó de la protesta a la propuesta. En todo momento se fomentó la participación más amplia posible en la toma de decisiones sobre los usos que le daríamos a ese “bosque” e inclusive se llegó a escribir un hermoso libro sobre su biodiversidad.

Hasta hace muy poco tiempo, contra viento y marea, habíamos sido exitosos en mantener vivo ese sueño. Y aunque por más de 30 años soplaron vientos a nuestro favor, recientemente han soplado vientos huracanados cargados de ignorancia y destrucción.

Mientras en Puerto Rico se comienza a hablar de la ética de la tierra, de aumentar del 8% al 35 % del territorio dedicado a la conservación, de mitigar los efectos del cambio climático mediante reforestación y de proteger las cuencas hidrográficas, en la UPR irónicamente hemos dado unos pasos gigantes en la dirección contraria. Con el título de “Construcción de acera principal, bancos y alumbrado del proyecto Parque del Centenario” se decide que el área “necesita” un acceso peatonal de 12 pies de ancho en concreto y con iluminación, a pasar por el centro del bosque. Según un comunicado, en las siguientes fases se “edificarán aceras de conexión con la acera principal y veredas”. En palabras sencillas, en la UPR se ha logrado matar el sueño y el bosque a la vez. Aunque en el proyecto original contemplaba algún acceso peatonal, el mismo era mediante paseos tablados y pasando por áreas en la periferia del bosque, nunca por el centro.

El proyecto actual ha comenzado el desastre ambiental y de biodiversidad más grande en la historia moderna de la UPR, ya que, entre otras cosas, fragmenta irreparablemente el bosque y su biodiversidad. Dicho proyecto se aleja demasiado del concepto establecido para el área en los últimos 30 años. Viola todos los acuerdos no negociables establecidos en el 2005. Justifica lo injustificable: destruir la única área verde en la UPR que no ha sido impactada y que tiene la mayor riqueza de biodiversidad de todo el Recinto. Trasgrede numerosas leyes y reglamentos ambientales. Trae problemas ambientales, ecológicos, de seguridad, de mantenimiento y económicos, entre otros.

Como si todo lo anterior fuera poco, el proyecto seguramente causó la muerte de “Jeremías”, una rana toro (Lithobates catesbeianus) que vivía en el bosque antes de este proyecto. Seguramente está muerta como consecuencia de este desastre. Su muerte, real o simbólica, representa la muerte real de miles de otros habitantes de este bosque (coquíes, ranitas, siguanas, lagartijos, gongolíes, caracoles, plantas, entre otras muchas especies).

Aunque se han cometido numerosos errores en esta área, aún podemos sacarla adelante y lograr nuestra meta: crear un bosque urbano en el corazón de la Universidad de Puerto Rico en Río Piedras. Podemos pasar de la teoría a la práctica en temas de la ética de la tierra y la conservación de biodiversidad. Con la ayuda de personas e instituciones comprometidas con la conservación podemos hacer de éste un proyecto emblemático del cual todos nos sintamos orgullosos. Puerto Rico está observando, no perdamos un minuto.

Para ver más fotos de este desastre ambiental sucediendo en la Universidad de Puerto Rico Rio Piedras visite aqui

Recurso: http://www.elnuevodia.com/columna-quienmatoajeremias-1560139.html

The Fraunhofer Institute for Interfacial Engineering and Biotechnology IGB and its European partners have developed several effective processes for eliminating persistent pollutants from wastewater. Some of these processes generate reactive species which can be used to purify even highly polluted landfill leachate while another can also remove selected pollutants which are present in very small quantities with polymer adsorber particles.

Biological stages in wastewater treatment plants are not able to remove substances such as drugs, found in the wastewater of medical centers, or halogenated compounds and cyanides from industrial wastewater. This is why antibiotics and hormonally active substances such as bisphenol A from plastics manufacturing have already accumulated in the environment and can be traced in ground water and even in some samples of drinking water. Such persistent pollutants require a special purifying treatment to remove them from wastewater. Our tests have shown that oxidative processes with hydrogen peroxide or ozone as the oxidizing agent are especially effective.

It is usually necessary to adapt or combine various processes in order to be able to degrade the many different components present in industrial wastewater in an effective and efficient manner. The Fraunhofer Institute for Interfacial Engineering and Biotechnology IGB runs a pilot plant in Stuttgart for testing standard processes either individually or in any desired combination. The IGB has added two new methods which generate reactive species, especially hydroxyl radicals, efficiently. Hydroxyl radicals oxidize pollutants into smaller, more degradable organic molecules or mineralize them completely to carbon dioxide. In the first method, reactive molecules are generated electrochemically in a combined anode/cathode process and in the second by means of atmospheric pressure plasma. Neither method requires the addition of additives.

Oxidative electrochemical treatment of landfill leachate

Within the CleanLeachate project funded by the EU (grant agreement no 262335) the Fraunhofer IGB has developed an oxidative process which does not require additives and which is, thanks to its electrochemical operating principal, suitable for treating extremely turbid wastewaters. A consortium of six partners from five European countries is currently treating highly polluted leachate from landfill sites with a combined anode/cathode process, in which a membrane separates an electrolytic cell into two separate chemical reaction areas. Top priority was given to choosing the most suitable electrode material, especially for the anodes, where the hydroxyl radicals are generated as reactive species when voltage is applied. The polluted water flows past the anode where it is oxidized and is then pumped to the cathode where the components are reduced.

The treatment is now being tested in continuous operation on a landfill site in Czechia. This has lead to improvements such as the lowering of the chemical oxygen demand and the overall nitrogen concentrations to below legal limits and the fulfilment of wastewater regulations. To make the process ready for marketing, a prototype was automated and made portable to test further types of wastewater, while gathering experience and reliable data for further optimization steps.

Open plasma processes for water purification

Another new approach for purifying water involves the use of an atmospheric pressure plasma. A plasma is an ionized gas containing not only ions and electrons but also chemical radicals and electronically excited particles as well as short wave radiation. Plasma can be ignited by means of an electromagnetic field e.g. by applying high voltage. The plasma glow is characteristic and can be seen in the fluorescent lamps of neon signs used for advertising purposes. In a technical sense, plasma processes have already been used specifically for modifying and cleaning surfaces for a long time now.

This principle is currently being applied by the partners of a joint water plasma project, funded by the EU, entitled "Water decontamination technology for the removal of recalcitrant xenobiotic compounds based on atmospheric plasma technology," grant agreement no. 262033, in which a plasma is used for purifying water in an oxidative process. The result is a plasma reactor in which the reactive species formed in the plasma can be transferred directly to the contaminated water. The reactor is "open" so that the plasma is in direct contact with a flowing water film. The plasma reactor is designed in such a way that a plasma can be ignited and maintained between a grounded electrode in the form of a stainless steel cylinder within the reactor and a copper network acting as high voltage electrode. To do so, high voltage is applied. The copper network is on a glass cylinder which acts as a dielectrical barrier, also shielding the reactor to the outside. Polluted water is pumped upwards through the stainless steel cylinder in the center of the plasma reactor. When the water flows down the outer surface of the cylinder, it passes through the plasma zone between the stainless steel cylinder and the copper network where the pollutants are oxidized.

In laboratory experiments, Fraunhofer researchers were able to decolor a methylene blue solution completely within a few minutes. Cyanide was also broken down effectively by 90 percent within only 2 minutes. Based on such promising results, the process is now being tested on a larger scale. One of the project partners is working with a demonstrator which can purify 240 liters of contaminated water in one hour. The results will be used to continually optimize the design of the reactor and its process controls. The ultimate aim is to bring the reactor to market together with further partners from industry. The open plasma process has a high potential due to the fact that there is no barrier between the plasma, where the oxidative radicals are formed, and the contaminated water.

Removing trace substances with selective adsorber particles

Pollutants can also be removed effectively from wastewater with selective adsorbers. An adsorption stage is particularly effective when pollutants are strongly diluted, present in low concentrations or highly specific. The process is also advisable when a wastewater component is degraded to a toxic metabolite in biological purification stages. In such cases, it could be better to remove the substance selectively by pre-treating the wastewater before it reaches the wastewater plant.

To this aim, the Fraunhofer IGB has developed a single stage, cost-effective process for producing polymer adsorber particles. In NANOCYTES®, our patented process, functional monomers are transformed into small nanoscopically sized polymeric adsorber particles, so-called specific polymeric adsorber particles (SPA)[GDC1] , with a cross-linking agent. The selectivity of the adsorber particles can be increased by adding the target molecules to be removed from the water to the mixture. The trick works like this: once the monomers have been polymerized, the target molecules can be removed from the adsorber particles. They leave behind a kind of "imprint" which adsorbs the target pollutants.

These particles possess a high specific surface area and the particle surface is easily accessible without limitations. In addition this approach offers a large flexibility in the design of the surface chemical properties and the adsorption behavior. A large variety of different monomers (mono-, bi- and trifunctional) can be used. They are selected on the basis of physico-chemical properties such as solubility, miscibility and non-covalent interactions with the target molecules. The particle properties can therefore be tailor-made for special separation problems.

Fraunhofer researchers have been able to remove bisphenol A and penicillin G selectively from wastewater. The adsorber particles are chemically and thermically stable and can be used for a wide range of applications e.g. as a layer in a composite membrane or as a matrix on packing materials. Once the pollutants have been adsorbed, the adsorber particles can be regenerated and re-used. An adsorption column is available at the Fraunhofer IGB for research experiments.

Systems solutions for water supply and water treatment

These innovative processes for water treatment complement the Fraunhofer IGB's portfolio in the fields of water purification and water treatment. Together with further processes for water treatment and recovering wastewater components as energy and fertilizing salts, the Fraunhofer IGB is steadily optimizing wastewater treatment plants and improving DEUS 21, a system for the semi-decentralized purification of household wastewater.

Source: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130726092401.htm

Por: Ricardo Arias para NotiCel

Algunos  usaban botellas de bebidas energizantes, otros sus recogedores basculantes, y aún más usaban sus candungos de agua picados por la mitad…

¿Ya adivinó? Estamos hablando de algunos de los instrumentos que se utilizaron para recoger basura y colillas de cigarillo en la playa de Ocean Park para el tercer Festival de la Colilla, celebrado en la mañana del jueves. Y colillas se recogieron por montones. 16,732, para ser precisos.

Registro marcado de las colillas de ciggarrillo que se recogieron, segmentado por área. (Ricardo Arias para NotiCel) Ya pasadas las 1:00 de la tarde, las colillas de cigarrillo brillaban por su ausencia en la arena. Cierto es, removerlas todas es una tarea monumental y casi imposible, mucho menos en un día, pero no puede negarse que en pocas horas, los 150 voluntarios que participaron en el evento ejecutaron una labor digna de reconocimiento.

Esta es la tercera vez que se celebra el Festival de la Colilla, una iniciativa que es producto de los esfuerzos del Capítulo Estudiantil Sociedad Ambiente Marino (CESAM). Abimarie Otaño, estudiante de Ciencias Naturales en la Universidad de Puerto Rico en Río Piedras, y miembro de la directiva de la organización, asegura que mantener la tradición en estos pasados tres años ha tenido sus frutos, el más evidente siendo el hecho que se recogieron casi 10,000 colillas menos que las que se recogieron el año pasado. Para Otaño, esto es señal de que hay más preocupación por mantener recogida la playa.

“Estamos asumiendo que sí el mensaje está llegando a la comunidad y las personas que visitan la playa están más conscientes. Esperamos que con el tiempo se reduzca el número de colillas en la arena, de aquí a tal vez un año. Si logramos eso, entonces podemos movernos a otras playas, a otros ecosistemas que podamos ayudar. Escogimos esta playa porque es la playa preferida por los universitarios. Es la más cerca y la más accesible.”

El recogido contó con la participación de voluntarios del Estuario de la Bahía de San Juan, el Sierra Club, la Juventud Hostosiana, Arrecifes Pro Ciudad Inc, y la Asociación del Tinglar de Puerto Rico, entre otros grupos que también participaron.

La actividad tuvo varios propósitos:

1) Conservar el valor ecológico de esta área, que es el hábitat de reproducción de la tortuga tinglar, uno de los reptiles que el Departamento de Recursos Naturales y Ambientales (DRNA) tiene clasificado como estar en peligro de extinción. La tortuga anida entre los meses de marzo y junio.

2) Crear conciencia acerca del efecto dañino  de la basura excesiva en las playas, utilizando la playa de Ocean Park como eje central para promover que este tipo de actividades se celebren más a menudo. De esa manera se pretende estimular que la comunidad conserve el área de manera rutinaria, sin que la CESAM u otras organizaciones dedicadas a la protección del ambiente tengan que intervenir. De esta manera, la CESAM puede dirigir sus esfuerzos hacia otras playas y otras áreas con alto valor ecológico que también ameritan atención.

Imperan las necesidades del tinglar

La necesidad de estimular la reproducción de la tortuga tinglar fue el objetivo principal de este festival, y para que se pueda cumplir, la CESAM tiene previsto  llevar a cabo esta actividad indefinidamente durante los próximos años, o por lo menos hasta que pueda asegurarse que el ambiente sea propicio para la propagación de la especie.

Otaño nos explicó el proceso:

“El tinglar sale del agua sólo cuando va a poner los huevos. Viene a la playa, anida, deja sus huevos, y no vuelve hasta el próximo año cuando se reproduce. Eso lo puede hacer hasta cinco veces, en un su temporada de reproducción. Esos huevos permanecen enterrados aproximadamente 60 días. La comunidad espera ese nacimiento para presenciar el evento, y nosotros (CESAM) aprovechamos y ofrecemos la información necesaria y entrenamos a las personas para que ellos puedan dirigir la eclosión. El propósito de la organización es que  la especie logre un éxito de supervivencia óptimo para que el animal pierda su clasificación como uno en peligro de extinción.”

En los últimos días, han eclosionado huevos en tres nidos de tinglar.

“Los tinglares están a punto de desaparecer, y todo esto es a causa de nosotros mismos. Esa especie tiene más de cien mil años de evolución. Las tortugas se han podido adaptar al ambiente, pero nosotros no nos hemos podido adaptar a ellas, y lo que hemos hecho es perjudicarles la existencia, con las construcciones en las carreteras, y la manera en que hemos contribuido a lo que conocemos como calentamiento global. Todos estos factores ambientales sí afectan la especie, porque es posible que dentro de 5 años nazcan más féminas”, señaló Otaño.

De ser probada cierta esta hipótesis, el proceso reproductivo de las tortugas quedaría afectado en el futuro, ya que el sexo de las mismas es determinado por la temperatura del ambiente. A más calor, más hembras, mientras que los varones tienden a nacer a consecuencia de temperaturas más bajas.

Recurso: http://www.noticel.com/noticia/145498/recogen-mas-de-16000-colillas-en-el-festival-de-la-colilla.html

By: Svati Kirsten Narula
Discovery Channel's Shark Week, usually the primary excuse for shark-related news content each year, has been upstaged.

Last week, Elliot Sudal became an overnight celebrity after spending 45 minutes wrestling a shark out of the water and onto the beach in Nantucket. Sudal's stunt drew some criticism from activists who argue that the 200-pound sand shark he wrestled faced a reduced chance of survival after the encounter. But in the context of traditional shark-human interaction, and particularly of other shark-human contests being debated this summer, the video actually conveyed something positive: that a shark fight can be entertaining even if both parties come out alive.

Sudal is an experienced fisherman and a conservationist; he has a degree in environmental science and biology, and he's not interested in eating or killing sharks -- he just likes wrestling with them. "Especially the big ones, the big females, those are the ones you want to keep alive," he says, because the largest sharks are often females at the height of their reproductive capacity. Sharks don't even taste that good, says Sudal, who once tried a black tip shark in Florida, where he does most of his fishing. "I could just go and catch a striped bass, which is much more delicious." He enjoys catching sharks because "it's like the pinnacle of big game fishing. It's an intense, exciting battle, and it's cool to see the sharks and see what's out there. I've been fishing all my life and there's a lot of work that goes into it and a whole culture behind it that I enjoy."

Courtesy Elliot Sudal"Obviously," he says, "it's not the best thing in the world for a shark, but, I let 'em go, I try to be as careful as possible, I only have them out of the water for thirty seconds to a minute. I mean, they're sharks - they're pretty tough! Even NOAA has a shark tagging program that emphasizes catch and release. I feel like catch-and-release shark fishing isn't the worst thing ever."

"Catch and release," in fact, is a hot topic in shark sport these days, which previously has been much bloodier than Sudal's one-man match.

The sport of shark fishing has its roots in Montauk, where charter-boat captain Frank Mundus harpooned great whites in the 1950s, coined the term "monster fishing," and reportedly inspired the character Quint in Peter Benchley's Jaws. In the decades since, Montauk has been a hub for traditional shark fishing tournaments that draw crowds of anglers and spectators. Finding the sharks in the ocean isn't the crux of this sport. It's fairly easy to attract sharks from late May to July in the Northeast by chumming. The fun, according to enthusiasts, comes from hauling a shark in once hooked -- an affair that can last over an hour. The competitions offer cash prizes, by the pound, to those who bring in the biggest fishes -- typically 300-plus-pound Mako and Thresher sharks. Historically, the only way the general public has been able to take part in these events is by ogling at the sharks that get strung up and weighed onshore at the end of the day.

At this year's Monster Shark event, hosted by the Boston Big Game Fishing Club in Oak Bluffs, a total of just twelve individual sharks were "taken," or killed. Tournament director and BBGFC President Steve James proudly emphasizes his strict minimum size requirements that fishermen must follow as they choose which sharks to throw back in the ocean or bring back to shore to weigh in. According to the BBGFC website, 97-98% of sharks caught during the tournament are released alive.

But though the tournament's impact on the local shark population would seem, from these numbers, to be fairly small, the opposition among the townspeople of Oak Bluffs is significant. Six months ago residents petitioned for the Monster Shark Tournament to either go "all catch and release" or get off the island. Animal rights activists have been showing up at this event for years in protest of, in the words of Vineyard resident Sally Apy, "a digusting spectacle that is clearly so corrupt in so many ways."

Part of the reason for the opposition, though, comes from what happens to the sharks after release, according to Apy. Because the fishing occurs with various types of tackle, including j-hooks that tear into shark tails, throats and stomachs, post-release mortality is a given for at least a fraction of the sharks. A NOAA-sponsored study published in 2010 -- one of the few available on this topic -- found roughly 26% post-release mortality rates for Threshers hooked by the tail. Even hookless wrestling like Sudal's can be harmful, because sharks have difficulty breathing when being dragged backwards.

Some tournaments, such as the 31-year-old Ocean City Shark Tournament in Maryland, have started requiring fishermen to use only circle hooks, which embed in shark jaws and are thought to increase a shark's chances for post-release survival. James refuses to make his fishermen use circle hooks, insisting that there is no research to back up the idea of lower post-release mortality rates associated with circle hooks. "It's not that I'm against circle hooks, not at all. I use them all the time on my boat when I fish for Bluefin tuna. I handed them out at my tournament - everyone got at least ten circle hooks. But at the end of the day, it's not clear that the circle hook is doing a whole lot."

'We don't do this for whales, we don't do this for elephants, we don't do this for tigers -- but yet, because this is a fish, it doesn't matter?'James has been in this business for over thirty years, and says he cares deeply about fisheries management. He sits on numerous state and federal committees where he works alongside respected marine biologists and policymakers. But he has not, so far, been open to what other scientists say is a legitimate problem with his signature event.

The problem with the tournament, says Sharon Young, Marine Issues Coordinator for the Humane Society, "is not so much the carnage, but the messaging behind what they're doing." Dr. Bob Hueter, a shark biologist at Mote Marine Laboratory, echoes Young: "I am against kill tournaments because they send a particular message, and it's a message that sharks don't need right now." There was a time, decades ago, when Hueter would participate in research and data collection at kill tournaments, but he says that such practices are not necessary today, and he believes that tagging and tracking live sharks is more valuable than collecting samples from dead ones. He is not against commercial or recreational shark fishing, though, provided there are certain regulations in place -- in other words, he is not out to protect the life of every individual shark. Few opponents of "kill tournaments," as they call non-catch-and-release events, believe that it is simply wrong to kill an individual shark. What troubles these advocates -- or "the people with feelings," as James calls them -- is the cavalier spirit of kill tournaments. They may be small in scale, says Hueter, but because they are so public and high-profile, they can undermine the work of conservationists who have labored for years to raise awareness and combat public perception of sharks. Although the fishermen involved in kill tournaments are quick to point out that they care about conservation, too -- after all, there would be no sport fishing without sustained populations of the target species -- the message is easily obscured among the gory visuals of flesh and blood on the docks at kill tournaments. In previous years, the tournament has been broadcast on ESPN.

A carcass on the docks at a shark tournament in Montauk in 2007. (Keith Bedford/Reuters) James gives out prizes for three species of shark: the Mako, Thresher, and Porbeagle. An article in the Vineyard Gazette last week generated comments like one from Christine Powers of Waltham, MA, who calls the event "the Gallows on the Harbor spectacle." Wrote Powers: "A harmless 20-year-old porbeagle shark has died in the prime of her life. Hopefully, next year's tournament, if it returns, will be strictly catch and release. A few years ago, while returning to our vacation rental from an early dinner at the Ocean View, we happened upon the gory weigh-in and turned away in disgust."

James says such talk is overblown. "We hang them up, we weigh them, and if the crew wants to take pictures of 'em, great," he says, when asked about local opposition. "But the idea that they're hanging or being displayed on every pylon in town -- I know the way the animal activists like to twist that. The truth is we put the fish up on the gallows, get a weight on it, then we shut the scale down. Generally speaking the crew jumps out, takes some pictures. The crowd likes to take a picture of the fish hanging up in the air so they got some perspective [with regards to its size] with the people around it, then we put it on a cutting board, the marine biologists go at it, they do a stomach content and a necropsy and then my guys take over, skin it, head it, and then chop it into wheels and pass it back to the guys so they can get it in their cooler."

By the way, he adds, "The Porbeagle shark, the Mako and the Thresher are all outstanding fish to eat. In fact if you just take inch-thick pieces and you slap 'em on the grill, they taste and resemble very much like swordfish."

But Young, at the Humane Society, says that aside from the concerns of those who don't like the gore, there's a serious conservation concern that's getting overlooked. "Every year at the international conference on international trade in endangered species, the U.S. co-sponsors a measure to ban international trade of Porbeagles -- and these guys," she says, talking of the competition organizers, "are giving prizes for them." The Mako sharks are in a similar position, according to Young, because the current fisheries management plan for Makos in the U.S. "asks fishermen to voluntarily release all caught Mako sharks alive, and yet again, they're offering prizes to kill them here." The message these organizers are sending is that, if they're not officially listed as endangered, they don't count, and "'The idea that you get to see these animals is what's really important. The fact that they're dead shouldn't bother you.' To me, it harkens back to the days when you had trophy hunters go marching out in Africa and come back with elephants. We don't do that stuff anymore. We understand that there are fragile species."

Young also thinks there's some species prejudice going on. "We don't do this for whales, we don't do this for elephants, we don't do this for tigers -- but yet, because this is a fish, it doesn't matter?"

Sean and Brooks Paxton -- the "Shark Brothers" -- have been working with Hueter and the Guy Harvey Ocean Foundation in Florida for many years to encourage catch-and-release as a best practice in sport fishing. Their first major event was the Guy Harvey Ultimate Shark Challenge and Festival, which featured satellite tagging for research purposes, the mandatory use of circle hooks, and live streaming from boats to shore.

The Paxton brothers have consulted with tournament organizers all over the world to help them create entertaining and money-making all-catch-and-release events, including the Shark's Eye tournament at Montauk Marine Basin this coming weekend. "We think this event is an important point on a timeline in the evolution of recreational shark fishing. Montauk is, after all, the birthplace of this sport," says Sean. Brooks adds, "We've consulted with tournaments from South America to Florida to Ocean City, Maryland, but since this is Montauk, where it all started, this event proves that shark-release fishing is definitely catching on in an even bigger way."

The tournament is largely sponsored by the Guy Harvey Ocean Foundation and has strong support in the community. An environmental group, Concerned Citizens of Montauk, and New York-based artist April Gornik lobbied for it, and many charter boat captains in the area have said they've been looking for something like this for a long time.

'We're trying to show fishermen that you can go out and have fun and not have to bring something in,' says Darenberg, who expects Shark's Eye to be a Montauk fixture 'for years to come.' According to Montauk Marine Basin owner Carl Darenberg, this isn't the first no-kill tournament ever held in Montauk (there was one in 2006), but it is the first no-kill tournament in which all sharks will be tagged with satellite-based tracking devices. And, of course, circle hooks will be mandatory. Tagged sharks will be named by the anglers who catch them, and anyone will be able to track the sharks online via the OCEARCH Global Shark Tracker. "We're trying to show fishermen that you can go out and have fun and not have to bring something in," says Darenberg, who expects Shark's Eye to be a Montauk fixture "for years to come... it's going to grow and grow and grow."

Those who support the shift to all-catch-and-release fishing tournaments say, aside from the benefit to shark populations, it's simply more satisfying to watch a shark swim away after being caught than it is to watch its carcass hang upside down on land. Wendy Benchley, whose late husband Peter gained fame for writing Jaws (and, years later, expressed dismay over the unintended consequences the story had on sharks), says, "I think these catch-and-release tournaments are much more exciting, especially if you have live stream video." With today's technology, audiences on shore can watch the anglers "bring the sharks alongside the boat, and wrestle with them, and wrangle them to figure out how long they are. And then to watch everybody cheer on the boat and on shore as the shark goes off to patrol the seas for another day is really exhilarating."

Back at Martha's Vineyard, James, who ran a few all-catch-and-release tournaments of his own in the 1990s, scoffs at the idea of taking advice from someone who, he says, "lives on the blood money from Jaws," and is extremely skeptical about the viability of a purely catch-and-release tournament. "Oh my God, it's gonna be a disaster for them," he says of Shark's Eye. "It all sounds great, but good luck. Good luck. Do you want to come down and watch a catch and release tournament? It's a little like going to the submarine races! ... There's nothing to watch - unless you've got a live television feed, but who's gonna pay for that equipment?"

There won't be live streaming at Shark's Eye this weekend, but the Paxtons are confident in the event's success even without it. "Just because you may not be able to do live streaming, -- that's an expensive proposition -- there are other ways. First you've got to get anglers on board," says Sean. There are two components to the more traditional competitions: prize money for the anglers and the public involvement back on the dock with the weigh-in. "So we started looking for ways to replace those elements, you know make sure there was good prize incentive there, and bring in media attention, and then bring the science in." They think they've "crack[ed] the code," as Sean puts it. "It used to be that you would bring your catch back and it would hang there dead for a few minutes and people would take pictures and that was it. Then it was over. Now, they can satellite tag a shark and this shark can go on for the six to eighteen months or however long the satellite is programmed for and they can brag, 'Look, that's my shark that I tagged in Montauk in the North Atlantic and now it's down in Florida.' It's a cultural shift in the way we are thinking about this resource."

Wendy Benchley agrees. "We want them to survive, to keep a balance in the ocean - and that's the message you get from a catch and release tournament, but not from kill tournaments." She now works with the non-profit organization Shark Savers and is an Environmental Defense Fund trustee, and says, "I am thrilled that Montauk and hopefully Martha's Vineyard are going to catch-and-release. It's taken too long."

Whether the Martha's Vineyard tournament changes format remains to be seen. Due to opposition from Oak Bluffs residents, James plans to move the Monster Shark event to Newport, Rhode Island next year, and hopes to run another kill tournament in New Bedford, Massachussetts, but says he will also "run some form of the tournament in Oak Bluffs next year."

"I'll leave it up to the selectmen in terms of what they want to do," he says, referring to the non-binding referendum that the town of Oak Bluffs passed recently demanding a change in the tournament's format. "It's hard to believe that the town would want to go down the path of all-release, but," he says with a laugh, he's happy to release the sharks right in the harbor if that's really what they want. "We talked about putting up a zipline over the harbor and you can drag your feet [above the sharks]!"

It isn't a joke the anti-kill activists appreciate. Only time will tell whether catch-and-release will continue to gain traction, but Sudal's viral shark-wrestling video suggests deathless contests can still entertain, and organizers in Montauk are optimistic. "People seem to love their sharks no matter what," says Sean Paxton. "What we're seeing now, though, is that they love their sharks more alive than dead."

Source: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/07/letting-sharks-off-the-hook/278117/

Anahí Aradas
BBC Mundo
Una bacteria de Bolivia especialmente prolífica en la generación de polímeros podría ser clave en la fabricación plásticos biodegradables y no tóxicos para el organismo humano.

El bacilo, de una cepa hasta ahora desconocida, fue bautizado comoBacillus megaterium uyuni S29 y la descubrieron en uno de los llamados "ojos de agua" del salar de Uyuni, en el sur del país.

La bacteria boliviana demostró ser muy productiva, capaz de generar un polímero de propiedades térmicas que lo hacen más fácilmente procesable que el producido por otras bacterias, y que podría ser muy útil en la fabricación de, por ejemplo, materiales de embalaje alimentario o bolsas de basura.

¿Plástico y bacterias?Hace tiempo que la ciencia investiga el uso de microorganismos para generar polímeros, compuestos químicos a partir de los cuales se pueden elaborar plásticos.

Pero a diferencia de los polímeros que se sintentizan químicamente, los que resultan de microorganismos permiten fabricar plásticos naturales, biodegradables y biocompatibles. Y de hecho, ya algunos de estos materiales se utilizan en la industria farmacéutica y cosmética.

Aunque la industria todavía sigue decantándose por el uso de procedimientos químicos, empleando esencialmente derivados del petróleo, para la elaboración de estos materiales al ser los procedimientos con bacterias todavía muy costosos.

Sin embargo, la investigadora Marisol Marqués, doctora en Ciencias Biológicas de la Universidad Politécnica de Cataluña (UPC), confía en que en un futuro próximo la bacteria boliviana pueda dar buenos frutos.

Bacterias y polímerosLa bacteria es capaz de producir grandes cantidades de polímeros cuando se la somete a gran estrés.


"Es conocido que hay bacterias que en condiciones extremas, tanto de temperatura, de presión o concentración de sal, pueden sintetizar cantidades importantes de polímeros de reserva, como por ejemplo el conocido como poli-beta-hidroxibutirato (PHB)", le explicó la científica a BBC Mundo.

La bacteria boliviana pertenece a este último caso al habitar en un entorno con altas concentraciones de sal. Tras ser cultivada en el laboratorio en un estudio preliminar, demostró poder generar grandes cantidades de PHB, que los investigadores aprovecharon para producir micro y nanoesfereas con antibióticos en su interior.

Este tipo de bacterias acumula el poliéster PHB, tal y como nosotros acumulamos glucosa, para dotarse de energía en el momento que la necesiten. Para optimizar la producción, lo que hicieron los científicos fue disminuir la concentración de nitrógeno en el cultivo, para que así la bacteria reaccionara acumulando más PHB.

Este procedimiento lo llevaron a cabo en conjunto científicos de la UPC y de la Universidad Técnica de Graz (Austria), que lograron así que las bacterias generaran la mayor cantidad de PHB del género Bacillus que se conoce hasta el momento.

Optimizar resultadosA pesar de los buenos resultados, Marqués afirma que este sistema para producir plásticos biodegradables y biocompatibles es poco competitivo económicamente frente a los procedimientos químicos.

Pero ahora el equipo de la UPC planea seguir investigando y optimizar así la producción del polímero utilizando esta bacteria, así como estudiar varias aplicaciones, entre ellas la generación de plásticos para bolsas de basura, embalajes o sistemas para eliminar el salitre.

Los trabajos sobre la bacteria boliviana fueron publicados en las revistascientíficas Food Technology Biotechnology y Journal of Applied Microbiology.


Recurso: http://www.bbc.co.uk/mundo/noticias/2013/07/130715_ciencia_bacterias_polimeros_bolivia_aa.shtml

Por Limarys Suárez Torres / lsuarez1@elnuevodia.com

La manera  en que Puerto Rico ha utilizado su terreno, erigiendo construcciones que interrumpen el flujo natural del agua, ha convertido a la isla en un lugar donde vivir en “estado de emergencia” será una constante.

Varios planificadores consultados por este diario puntualizaron ayer que el País mantendrá su incapacidad  de mitigar y reponerse de las inundaciones repentinas, como las provocadas por una onda tropical la semana pasada,   si continúa la práctica de construir sin visión de futuro y en zonas inundables.

“Como sociedad hemos ocupado el espacio que los ríos usan para descargar grandes caudales de agua y también nos hemos aproximado a la orilla del mar donde éste entra cuando hay marejada ciclónica y alto oleaje. La planificación que Puerto Rico ha descansado en obras de ingeniería de control de inundaciones y esas obras cuestan mucho realizarlas y mantenerlas”, dijo Félix Aponte, planificador.

El evento de lluvia del  jueves  estableció un récord de precipitación en la zona metropolitana de 9.23  pulgadas de lluvia y provocó que se inundaran las principales vías públicas, dejó a 40,000 abonados de la Autoridad de Energía Eléctrica (AEE) sin el servicio de luz y cientos de damnificados en San Juan, Carolina y Cataño.

 Además el Aeropuerto Internacional Luis Muñoz Marín tuvo que cerrar por tres horas lo que obligó  que  15 vuelos fueran desviados hacia Aguadilla.

Ayer, otra onda tropical dejó lluvia e inundaciones en Arecibo, Barceloneta y Hatillo aunque no en la misma magnitud.

“Estamos experimentando eventos de lluvia más extremos con más frecuencia por el cambio climático y esa infraestructura que no está bien mantenida es incapaz de manejar estos grandes caudales de agua. El espacio que los ríos necesitan para esa función es el mismo que nosotros hemos urbanizado. Hay que dejarle el espacio a la naturaleza y nosotros adaptarnos a sitios más altos y más lejos de los cuerpos de agua”, destacó Aponte.

El planificador reconoció que redefinir los espacios urbanos será costoso pero hay que hacerlo antes de que la naturaleza nos pasando una factura aun más alta por la  planificación inadecuada.

“Esos costos cada vez serán mayores si dejamos las cosas como están porque seremos una sociedad más vulnerable. La anomalía de la onda tropical de la semana pasada va ser la normalidad del clima de los próximos años y negar esa realidad sería insensato. Hay que comenzar un proceso de uso y manejo de terreno inteligente que reconozca esa realidad del clima y la naturaleza”, apuntó.

“Desastres humanos”

Por su parte, Gabriel Rodríguez Fernández, presidente de la Sociedad Puertorriqueña de Planificación destacó que se está fallando en corregir situaciones recurrentes y el país tiene que invertir en medidas de prevención para reducir los riesgos.

“La inversión que se debe hacer es la relocalización de las actividades. En estos tiempos de crisis y ahora con el cambio climático la planificación es mucho más importante”, dijo.

Rodríguez Fernández catalogó las constantes inundaciones urbanas como “desastres humanos”.

“La naturaleza es como es. El río busca su cauce y la gente es la que se le mete en el medio. Puerto Rico depende que el gobierno federal ayude. Así es  como atendemos las emergencias, pero eso no es sostenible y no podemos seguir en negación. Tenemos que planificar para enfrentar mejor los riesgos naturales, geológicos y económicos”, sostuvo.

Mientras, Epifanio Jiménez, exdirector de la Defensa Civil, ahora la Agencia Estatal para el Manejo de Emergencias y Administración de Desastres (AEMEAD), destacó que mitigar es prepararse para que no suceda lo mismo bajo circunstancias iguales y ahí es que el gobierno está fallando malamente.

 “Hay muchas cosas que se pueden hacer en preparación y mitigación que no conllevan grandes gastos. No se está mitigando como deberíamos”, dijo.

Recurso: http://www.elnuevodia.com/laingenieriadeundesastre-1557732.html

Por BBC Mundo

Dos de los proyectiles eran bombas explosivas que estaban desarmadas antes de ser lanzadas y las otras dos eran artefactos inertes o no explosivos, según fuentes militares.
Podría ser el colmo de las pesadillas para un ecologista: bombas que caen en los alrededores de la Gran Barrera de Coral en Australia, un área protegida que es Patrimonio de la Humanidad y que se estima que ya perdió más de la mitad de sus corales en las últimas tres décadas.

Pero no es un mal sueño: sucedió de verdad el pasado martes, aunque los datos sólo empezaron a salir a la luz este fin de semana.

Afortunadamente las cuatro bombas no explotaron, pero permanecen bajo el agua dentro del área protegida, a unas 18 millas de distancia del arrecife coralino más cercano.

Este lunes, la marina estadounidense dijo que está considerando su retiro y la autoridad que administra las más de 135,000 millas cuadradas de área marina protegida, la Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, pidió "la rápida recuperación de las bombas".

Eso, a pesar de que considera que el riego que suponen para el medio ambiente marino es "bajo".

El incidente ocurrió durante el programa bienal de ejercicios militares conocido como Talisman Sabre, en el que participan tropas de Estados Unidos y Australia.

Estos ejercicios tienen lugar en un área de entrenamiento militar, la Shoalwater Bay Military Training Area, dentro de la zona protegida, en Central Queensland, a unas 62 millas al norte de la ciudad costera de Yeppoon.

Las autoridades militares de EE.UU. indicaron que dos aviones AV-8B Harrier, que vuelan con poco combustible, tuvieron que arrojar las bombas en un lugar no previsto tras detectar la presencia de barcos civiles dentro de la zona aprobada para su lanzamiento, en la isla de Townshend.

Al parecer, los aviones dejaron caer las bombas para aliviar lastre, porque se estaban quedando sin combustible y no podían aterrizar con tanta artillería a bordo.

Dos de los proyectiles eran bombas explosivas que estaban desarmadas antes de ser lanzadas y las otras dos eran artefactos inertes o no explosivos, según fuentes militares.

Un ejercicio que fue mal

El comandante William Marks, portavoz de la Séptima flota estadounidense, le dijo este lunes a la cadena estadounidense ABC que los pilotos no tuvieron otra opción más que arrojar las bombas en la zona de la Gran Barrera de Coral.

"La prioridad fue encontrar un lugar en el que hubiera el menor impacto. Creemos que las soltamos en un lugar que no suponía una amenaza para la navegación", dijo el comandante, Marks, quien aclaró también que el lanzamiento "de emergencia" se realizó en coordinación con las autoridades australianas.

Según el portavoz, se desconocen las razones por las que había barcos civiles dentro de la zona de entrenamiento.

Las bombas están e una profundidad de unos 50 metros, y a una distancia de 50 kilómetros de la costa y de 30 kilómetros de los corales.

Según un comunicado de la autoridad australiana que administra la zona protegida "el impacto inmediato sobre el medio ambiente marino se cree que es insignificante".

Sin embargo, para muchos grupos ecologistas y activistas del país, lo ocurrido refleja los peligros que entraña realizar maniobras militares en esta zona y es sólo el más reciente de un historial de incidentes.

“La Bahía de Shoalwater tiene una de las costas más prístinas de toda Queenlad", que incluye humedales protegidos, hábitats de tortugas y de dugongos y rutas migratorias de las ballenas, dijo Robin Taubenfeld, activista de la organización Amigos de la Tierra de Australia.

"La guerra nos es compatible con el medio ambiente, y el entrenamiento militar no puede ser "verde". Ni la isla de Townshend, el verdadero destino de estas bombas, ni ninguna otra parte de la Gran Barrera de Coral, deberían ser utilizadas para la actividad militar", dijo Taubenfeld, que pidió el cese de los ejercicios bianuales.

Ejercicios polémicos

Pero la polémica en torno a estos ejercicios militares es anterior al incidente de las bombas.

Los Talisman Sabre han sido objeto de múltiples críticas desde su inicio en 2005, no sólo por parte de ecologistas sino también por parte de grupos comunitarios de activistas, que denuncian su impacto ambiental y social.

Algunos residentes en localidades cercanas como Yeppon se han quejado del ruido de las explosiones y los vuelos de las aeronaves a baja altura.

Otros tienen preocupaciones medioambientales.

Una de ellas es el impacto que las detonaciones submarinas y los sonares, que usan la propagación del sonido bajo el agua para navegar, puedan tener sobre las poblaciones locales de ballenas, tortugas, dugongos (parecidos al manatí) y corales.

Pero la oposición a los ejercicios no es universal: varios funcionarios de la ciudad cercana de Rockhampton, en Queensland, valoran los ingresos que cada dos años aportan a la economía de la zona los 28,000 efectivos estadounidenses y australianos que participan en los ejercicios militares.

Y paradójicamente, algunos ecologistas creen que el hecho de que se haya delimitado una zona para entrenamiento militar ha evitado el desarrollo de la construcción y la agricultura en la costa, dos de las principales cusas del deterioro del arrecife en otras partes del país.

"Preferiríamos que no tiraran bombas sobre el arrecife pero lo principal en nuestro radar es la urbanización en otros puntos de la costa", dijo Felicity Wishart, de la Sociedad australiana para la conservación marina.

Entretanto, varios estudios publicados la semana pasada alertan de que en 2011 la salud general de la Gran Barrera de Coral empeoró, pasando de "moderada" a "pobre".

Destacan, además, que desde 1985 se ha perdido un 50% de la superficie coralina.

El enorme arrecife, de casi 1,600 millas de longitud, alberga a 1,500 especies de peces y 4,000 tipos de moluscos, según datos de la Convención del Patrimonio de la Humanidad de la ONU.

Recurso: http://www.elnuevodia.com/eeuudejacaerbombascercadelagranbarreradecoral-1557014.html