DAY 14: MAN’S IMPRINT ON THE SEA

text and photos by Courtney Flanagan

We are certainly over 25 nautical miles from land (180 from Bear Island actually). So whoever threw this lid overboard was not breaking a law, and to some it is of no import. This writer feels differently. To suddenly see a pristine, wild landscape besmirched by human trash is somehow shocking, and it doesn't matter if that landscape is marine or terrestrial. I have taken desert hikes in remote areas and come upon a bottle. The effect of seeing a picture of a can lid 2500 meters below the surface seems the same, disappointing somehow.

Of course pollution in the sea closer to the shore has a huge affect on marine life. This is evidently true even in Norway, a country that I think most Americans would associate with a clean environment of forests, mountains, and fjords. A lunchtime discussion however (much of my greater understanding of both Norway and science, and sometimes of life, has come from these pleasant conversations!) revealed that Norway too struggles with pollution.

Norway for example produces a certain type of marble which is pulverized and made into a liquid substance used in the manufacture of a high quality white paper. The waste from this process is dumped into the fjord, which is of course being polluted at least to some degree as a result. (This plant also employs a large number of people in its small town, a fact which raises one of the many challenges to pollution control.)

Fish, both farmed and wild, are an important part of the Norwegian's diet and so the ways in which pollution affects fish life in particular is of interest to both scientists and commercial companies. Biologist Cecile Jolly (click the link for more about this young woman) worked on this topic while pursuing her PhD at the University of Bergen.

There are of course many ways in which pollutants can affect fish health, but Cecile studied in particular the effect of pollutants on the sexual maturation of fish. She focused on pesticides used in agriculture that are washed by the rain into the fjords: One of the adverse affects on fish from this pollution is that the pollutant can mimic or block the sexual hormones: estrogen and androgen. Blocking the hormone prevents it from (going to work) at puberty. A pollutant which mimics a hormone can give a female fish, for example, masculine development which hinders its ability to successfully reproduce.

Cecile intrigued us with the fish upon which she focused her study: the Stickleback. It is a particularly interesting fish to study because of its mating rituals. The male Stickleback changes its color to a bright orange or red when it is ready to mate and builds the nest himself, using a special protein he produces that serves as a glue to hold the elements of the nest together. Then, he dances in front of the nest to attract a female! (Go on the website: www.ARKive.org and search for Gasterosteus to see the male Stickleback boogie!) After the eggs are laid, the male uses his fins to bring oxygen from the water to the eggs. All of these behaviours are controlled by androgen. Clearly, with so many clearly observable behaviours, the Stickleback was a terrific choice for examining the affect of pollution on reproduction.

One can on the bottom of a huge section of ocean is perhaps not so terrible. However, as an idealist, I would opt for a continued effort by all of us to become aware in a daily way of the imprint we are leaving on land and sea. Happily, scientists like Cecile are working to research that impact, with the hopeful result of allowing us to continue to move toward health for ourselves and our planet.