Forgotten forests: Regenerating the kelp forest highway
The rich resources of Pacific kelp forests helped humans populate the Americas. Now depleted by as much as 95 percent, they need our help to recover. The kelp forests off the coast of Ensenada in Baja California once supported a thriving community of sea creatures. Now much depleted, they need our help to recover. Video by National Geographic CreativeWorks
The story goes that sometime during the last Ice Age, perhaps 20,000 years ago or so, small bands of seafaring humans followed the fertile coastal waters of the Pacific Rim from Asia north into Beringia—the hinterland between Russia and Canada—so entering the Americas for the first time. There followed a rapid intergenerational migration down through the continent all the way to Central and South America. How were humans able to spread so quickly across such a vast area? Some of the latest research suggests it was thanks to a unique ocean ecosystem: kelp forests.
The 'kelp highway hypothesis' has largely replaced the Clovis theory, which held that terrestrial hunter-gatherers crossed the Bering land bridge in order to reach America. Instead, many researchers now believe that maritime peoples took a largely linear route along America's west coast, harvesting a wide variety of resources from the system of kelp forests that runs all the way from present day Alaska to Baja California and beyond. Fish, shellfish, and marine mammals would have provided reliable year-round sustenance. The kelp itself can be eaten, while its strong stipes (stems) were likely fashioned into fishing lines and tools. Baja California is close to the southernmost reaches of the Pacific kelp forest highway that stretches all the way from Alaska to Mexico. Photograph by Celeste Sloman
Kelp refers to more than 100 species of large brown seaweed. After coral reefs, kelp forests are among the most productive marine ecosystems on Earth. They provide both food and shelter to thousands of species including invertebrates, fish, marine mammals and seabirds. Kelp grows quickly, adding up to 18 inches (45 centimeters) a day if conditions are optimal, reaching an average height of 100 feet (30 meters). Together, it forms dense forests—three dimensional structures in the water column that offer a wide variety of habitats and ecosystem services from the seabed through the mid-levels to the canopy close to the surface. One of the fastest growing organisms on Earth, kelp can reach heights of 200 feet (60 meters) and more, creating a range of habitats in the water column, from sea bed to canopy. Photograph by Celeste Sloman
For Mexican marine biologist Rodrigo Beas, there is nothing quite like these forests. 'First time I saw the kelp forests, I was like, wait, you can fly in a forest?' he exclaims. Beas grew up with coral reefs on his doorstep, but on a chance visit to the cooler waters of the Pacific he encountered bull kelp for the first time and fell in love. Like its terrestrial counterparts, giant kelp supports a complex and delicate ecology, from microscopic algae to urchins, stars and jellyfish to rockfish, bass and gobies—all the way through to sea otters, sea lions, sharks and cetaceans.
'Kelp forests provide all these different resources and a lot of them are fished or fishable,' Beas explains. '[But] when the kelp forest is gone, all the different species associated with the kelp forest are gone, too.'
Like so many natural ecosystems around the world, many kelp forests are struggling as a perfect storm of impacts, including overfishing, pollution, disease and climate change, take their toll. Perhaps the most pressing and immediate of these challenges has been an explosion in sea urchin populations—caused by warming ocean waters. Marine biologist Rodrigo Beas prepares to dive one of the few healthy tracts of kelp forest that remain near Ensenada in north Baja California. Successive heatwaves have reduced forest cover by more than 90 percent in the area. Photograph by Celeste Sloman
Kelp is algae that thrives in cold, nutrient rich waters—even slight temperature increases can disrupt the way it photosynthesizes and kill it off. 'Between 2013 and 2016, we recorded 355 days of marine heatwaves,' says Beas. 'So, it was very hot water over a long period of time and that reduced the forest coverage by 80 percent in this area of Mexico.'
With its quick-growing capabilities, kelp should be able to bounce back, but that's where the sea urchins come in. According to Beas, when kelp forests are thriving, purple sea urchins remain relatively passive, staying in their cracks and crevices and feeding mainly on kelp detritus.
'When the kelp is gone, the sea urchins switch their behavior to more active and aggressive eating and the reef gets covered with sea urchins and nothing but sea urchins,' Beas explains. 'They produce these sea urchin deserts. And as the kelp forests disappear, so do the sea otters, sharks, lobsters, crabs and fish that feed on sea urchins, helping to control their population.' Purple urchins have overrun the kelp forests—a stress response triggered by a lack the kelp detritus they usually feed on, which causes them to eat more aggressively. Photograph by Celeste Sloman
This is a classic example of how climate change can massively affect trophic cascades, triggering widespread destruction across an ecological system—and impacting human livelihoods, too. Fishing communities have had to adapt to rapidly shifting dynamics, as their traditional fisheries are disrupted. Many of the invertebrates and fish species that thrive in the kelp forest have a high economic value, so the human cost of this ecological crisis is mounting. In northern California, for example, the red abalone fishery, worth millions of dollars annually, has been closed indefinitely.
There is no easy answer to arrest the decline in kelp forests—but efforts are underway to help them recover. Volunteer divers armed with hammers and other tools are culling purple sea urchins in strategic locations, creating cleared zones where kelp can regenerate. There's evidence that this hands-on approach can be successful in giving kelp the breathing space it needs to make a comeback. Scientists are also exploring ways to make kelp more resilient to warming waters—potentially seeding heat-resilient species of kelp in highly damaged areas. Kelp forests are one of the most productive marine ecosystems on the planet. They're also resilient and there is hope that they can recover with our help. Photograph by Celeste Sloman
Beyond their historical significance and economic value, kelp forests are powerful allies in the fight against climate change, sequestering vast amounts of carbon and buffering coastlines against storms that are likely to become increasingly violent. They're also living laboratories for understanding how marine ecosystems might adapt to changing conditions.
Kelp has been around for 23 million years. It has survived ice ages and heatwaves and provided a pathway for humans to populate an entire continent. Bringing it back will require the kind of ingenuity and collaborative effort that drove those early migrations in the first place.
To protect vital marine ecosystems like kelp forests, we need to understand them better. It's one of the reasons that Prada Group teamed up with UNESCO-IOC to create SEA BEYOND educational program—a global initiative that teaches ocean literacy to thousands of children in schools around the world, inspiring young generations to safeguard the ocean. 1% of the proceeds from the Prada Re-Nylon for SEA BEYOND Collection benefit SEA BEYOND.
Find out more about how understanding our ocean can be the very thing to help save it; and more about Prada Group's work with UNESCO-IOC here.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
14 hours ago
- Newsweek
Black Woman Left Stunned by Genetics of Both Children: 'Came Out Blonde'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A mom from Colorado was left stunned by her two children who have defied genetics. Nadiyah Luwan Smith (@nadiismiith) posted a clip on TikTok of her two children—both born with blue eyes and blonde hair, despite having predominantly Black and Puerto Rican heritage. In the video, Smith captures her son, Kuhvari X'Xivion Simmons-Smith, who is three-quarters Black and one-quarter white, and her daughter, Malaïa Louwella Smith, who is half Black and half Puerto Rican. Nadiyah Luwan Smith's 6-month-old baby who is one-quarter white and three-quarters black with blonde hair and blue eyes. Nadiyah Luwan Smith's 6-month-old baby who is one-quarter white and three-quarters black with blonde hair and blue eyes. @nadiismiith Both children, however, have inherited features commonly associated with European ancestry: fair skin, blonde hair and blue eyes. Smith's mind was blown by genetics in her multiracial babies. "My son's father is half Black and half white, I'm full Black, so my son is a quarter white and three quarters Black," the 26-year-old told Newsweek. "My daughter's father is Puerto Rican, so she's half Puerto Rican and Black." She and her husband Charles Robert Simmons, 28, were expecting more brown features, since Black is the most dominant race in both cases. Both Smith's parents are Black, with brown hair and brown eyes—traits she inherited as well. Simmons, though adopted, knows his biological father is also Black with brown hair and brown eyes. His mother, however, is white with blonde hair and blue eyes—a genetic detail that turned out to play a key role in their children's appearance. When their son, was born with blonde hair and blue eyes, "we were honestly stunned," Smith said. "The whole pregnancy we were just picturing a more brown baby considering Black is our most dominant race between us," she continued. "So when he came out blonde hair, blue eyes we had to ask ourselves who he inherited his features from. Sure enough it was grandma!" Smith's clip went viral within a few days of posting. Pinned to her profile, the 20-second clip has been viewed over 312,000 times. Dozens of users commented, many of whom shared their own stories of how genetics have played out in their children. "Mine are opposite! One-quarter Black, three-quarters white. They're all 4 different, but you can tell they're all siblings," one user wrote. "My daughter is half Black, one-quarter Mexican, one-quarter white. She has natural blonde 4a hair," another shared. "My kids are one-quarter Black and three-quarters white and they both didn't get my blue eyes. But my daughter did get light brown straight hair and their dad and I both have dark curly hair. You just never know!"
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
How many ice ages has the Earth had, and could humans live through one?
Curious Kids is a series for children of all ages. If you have a question you'd like an expert to answer, send it to curiouskidsus@ How many ice ages has the Earth had, and could humans live through one? – Mason C., age 8, Hobbs, New Mexico First, what is an ice age? It's when the Earth has cold temperatures for a long time – millions to tens of millions of years – that lead to ice sheets and glaciers covering large areas of its surface. We know that the Earth has had at least five major ice ages. The first one happened about 2 billion years ago and lasted about 300 million years. The most recent one started about 2.6 million years ago, and in fact, we are still technically in it. So why isn't the Earth covered in ice right now? It's because we are in a period known as an 'interglacial.' In an ice age, temperatures will fluctuate between colder and warmer levels. Ice sheets and glaciers melt during warmer phases, which are called interglacials, and expand during colder phases, which are called glacials. Right now we are in the most recent ice age's warm interglacial period, which began about 11,000 years ago. When most people talk about the 'ice age,' they are usually referring to the last glacial period, which began about 115,000 years ago and ended about 11,000 years ago with the start of the current interglacial period. During that time, the planet was much cooler than it is now. At its peak, when ice sheets covered most of North America, the average global temperature was about 46 degrees Fahrenheit (8 degrees Celsius). That's 11 degrees F (6 degrees C) cooler than the global annual average today. That difference might not sound like a lot, but it resulted in most of North America and Eurasia being covered in ice sheets. Earth was also much drier, and sea level was much lower, since most of the Earth's water was trapped in the ice sheets. Steppes, or dry grassy plains, were common. So were savannas, or warmer grassy plains, and deserts. Many animals present during the ice age would be familiar to you, including brown bears, caribou and wolves. But there were also megafauna that went extinct at the end of the ice age, like mammoths, mastodons, saber-toothed cats and giant ground sloths. There are different ideas about why these animals went extinct. One is that humans hunted them into extinction when they came in contact with the megafauna. Yes, people just like us lived through the ice age. Since our species, Homo sapiens, emerged about 300,000 years ago in Africa, we have spread around the world. During the ice age, some populations remained in Africa and did not experience the full effects of the cold. Others moved into other parts of the world, including the cold, glacial environments of Europe. And they weren't alone. At the beginning of the ice age, there were other species of hominins – a group that includes our immediate ancestors and our closest relatives – throughout Eurasia, like the Neanderthals in Europe and the mysterious Denisovans in Asia. Both of these groups seem to have gone extinct before the end of the ice age. There are lots of ideas about how our species survived the ice age when our hominin cousins did not. Some think that it has to do with how adaptable we are, and how we used our social and communication skills and tools. And it appears that humans didn't hunker down during the ice age. Instead they moved into new areas. For a long time it was thought that humans did not enter North America until after the ice sheets started to melt. But fossilized footprints found at White Sands National Park in New Mexico show that humans have been in North America since at least 23,000 years ago – close to the peak of the last ice age. Hello, curious kids! Do you have a question you'd like an expert to answer? Ask an adult to send your question to CuriousKidsUS@ Please tell us your name, age and the city where you live. And since curiosity has no age limit – adults, let us know what you're wondering, too. We won't be able to answer every question, but we will do our best. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Denise Su, Arizona State University Read more: What will the Earth be like in 500 years? Small climate changes can have devastating local consequences – it happened in the Little Ice Age Last of the giants: What killed off Madagascar's megafauna a thousand years ago? Denise Su does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Yahoo
Beyond de-extinction and dire wolves, gene editing can help today's endangered species
Have you been hearing about the dire wolf lately? Maybe you saw a massive white wolf on the cover of Time magazine or a photo of 'Game of Thrones' author George R.R. Martin holding a puppy named after a character from his books. The dire wolf, a large, wolflike species that went extinct about 12,000 years ago, has been in the news after biotech company Colossal claimed to have resurrected it using cloning and gene-editing technologies. Colossal calls itself a 'de-extinction' company. The very concept of de-extinction is a lightning rod for criticism. There are broad accusations of playing God or messing with nature, as well as more focused objections that contemporary de-extinction tools create poor imitations rather than truly resurrected species. While the biological and philosophical debates are interesting, the legal ramifications for endangered species conservation are of paramount importance. As a legal scholar with a Ph.D. in wildlife genetics, my work focuses on how we legally define the term 'endangered species.' The use of biotechnology for conservation, whether for de-extinction or genetic augmentation of existing species, promises solutions to otherwise intractable problems. But it needs to work in harmony with both the letter and purpose of the laws governing biodiversity conservation. What did Colossal actually do? Scientists extracted and sequenced DNA from Ice Age-era bones to understand the genetic makeup of the dire wolf. They were able to piece together around 90% of a complete dire wolf genome. While the gray wolf and the dire wolf are separated by a few million years of evolution, they share over 99.5% of their genomes. The scientists scanned the recovered dire wolf sequences for specific genes that they believed were responsible for the physical and ecological differences between dire wolves and other species of canids, including genes related to body size and coat color. CRISPR gene-editing technology allows scientists to make specific changes in the DNA of an organism. The Colossal team used CRISPR to make 20 changes in 14 different genes in a modern gray wolf cell before implanting the embryo into a surrogate mother. While the technology on display is marvelous, what should we call the resulting animals? Some commentators argue that the animals are just modified gray wolves. They point out that it would take far more than 20 edits to bridge the gap left by millions of years of evolution. For instance, that 0.5% of the genome that doesn't match in the two species represents over 12 million base pair differences. More philosophically, perhaps, other skeptics argue that a species is more than a collection of genes devoid of environmental, ecological or evolutionary context. Colossal, on the other hand, maintains that it is in the 'functional de-extinction' game. The company acknowledges it isn't making a perfect dire wolf copy. Instead it wants to recreate something that looks and acts like the dire wolf of old. It prefers the 'if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck' school of speciation. Disagreements about taxonomy – the science of naming and categorizing living organisms – are as old as the field itself. Biologists are notorious for failing to adopt a single clear definition of 'species,' and there are dozens of competing definitions in the biological literature. Biologists can afford to be flexible and imprecise when the stakes are merely a conversational misunderstanding. Lawyers and policymakers, on the other hand, do not have that luxury. In the United States, the Endangered Species Act is the main tool for protecting biodiversity. To be protected by the act, an organism must be a member of an endangered or threatened species. Some of the most contentious ESA issues are definitional, such as whether the listed species is a valid 'species' and whether individual organisms, especially hybrids, are members of the listed species. Colossal's functional species concept is anathema to the Endangered Species Act. It shrinks the value of a species down to the way it looks or the way it functions. When passing the act, however, Congress made clear that species were to be valued for their 'aesthetic, ecological, educational, historical, recreational, and scientific value to the Nation and its people.' In my view, the myopic focus on function seems to miss the point. Despite its insistence otherwise, Colossal's definitional sleight of hand has opened the door to arguments that people should reduce conservation funding or protections for currently imperiled species. Why spend the money to protect a critter and its habitat when, according to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, you can just 'pick your favorite species and call up Colossal'? Biotechnology can provide real conservation benefits for today's endangered species. I suggest gene editing's real value is not in recreating facsimiles of long-extinct species like dire wolves, but instead using it to recover ones in trouble now. Projects, by both Colossal and other groups, are underway around the world to help endangered species develop disease resistance or evolve to tolerate a warmer world. Other projects use gene editing to reintroduce genetic variation into populations where genetic diversity has been lost. For example, Colossal has also announced that it has cloned a red wolf. Unlike the dire wolf, the red wolf is not extinct, though it came extremely close. After decades of conservation efforts, there are about a dozen red wolves in the wild in the reintroduced population in eastern North Carolina, as well as a few hundred red wolves in captivity. The entire population of red wolves, both wild and captive, descends from merely 14 founders of the captive breeding program. This limited heritage means the species has lost a significant amount of the genetic diversity that would help it continue to evolve and adapt. In order to reintroduce some of that missing genetic diversity, you'd need to find genetic material from red wolves outside the managed population. Right now that would require stored tissue samples from animals that lived before the captive breeding program was established or rediscovering a 'lost' population in the wild. Recently, researchers discovered that coyotes along the Texas Gulf Coast possess a sizable percentage of red wolf-derived DNA in their genomes. Hybridization between coyotes and red wolves is both a threat to red wolves and a natural part of their evolutionary history, complicating management. The red wolf genes found within these coyotes do present a possible source of genetic material that biotechnology could harness to help the captive breeding population if the legal hurdles can be managed. This coyote population was Colossal's source for its cloned 'ghost' red wolf. Even this announcement is marred by definitional confusion. Due to its hybrid nature, the animal Colossal cloned is likely not legally considered a red wolf at all. Under the Endangered Species Act, hybrid organisms are typically not protected. So by cloning one of these animals, Colossal likely sidestepped the need for ESA permits. It will almost certainly run into resistance if it attempts to breed these 'ghost wolves' into the current red wolf captive breeding program that has spent decades trying to minimize hybridization. How much to value genetic 'purity' versus genetic diversity in managed species still proves an extraordinarily difficult question, even without the legal uncertainty. Biotechnology could never solve every conservation problem – especially habitat destruction. The ability to make 'functional' copies of a species certainly does not lessen the urgency to respond to biodiversity loss, nor does it reduce human beings' moral culpability. But to adequately respond to the ever-worsening biodiversity crisis, conservationists will need all available tools. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Alex Erwin, Florida International University Read more: If it looks like a dire wolf, is it a dire wolf? How to define a species is a scientific and philosophical question How redefining just one word could strip the Endangered Species Act's ability to protect vital habitat One green sea turtle can contain the equivalent of 10 ping pong balls in plastic Alex Erwin does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
