Autumn 2021

FIELDNOTES Autumn 2021

letter from the editors Another quarter has come and gone and yet again another edition of Fieldnotes has been meticulously

curated, filled with experiences of undergraduate research conducted in the College of the Environment and our perspectives on the community around us. Finally, after three quarters of collaborating online, we have returned to campus and to our usual conference room. Though masked, it’s such a lovely thing to be able to see everyone’s faces, not confined to a box on a Zoom call. Though this new world we live in is constantly evolving, falling back into some sense of normalcy with an in-person quarter is a much welcomed change.

This quarter we dive into the effects of vessel disturbance on Harbor Seals in the San Juan Islands in our featured article. On campus we highlight research from changing patterns of fish calls in glass sponge reefs, to environmental health disparity, to the response of Daphnia magna to hypoxia. Within our community we take a closer look at the Washington State logging industry and Department of Natural Resources, programs developed by UW faculty to monitor whale activity and limit ship-strike risk, and how Traditional Ecological Knowledge is integral to climate adaptation. In addition to our usual selection of articles, we are excited to publish our first sci-comm comic as well, describing the value of lignin phenols in marine environments for informing climate change research.

We continue to thank the College of the Environment for their generous support throughout our endeavors. In addition, we thank Rachel Fricke for her guidance, wise words, and continued support throughout the quarter.

COVER PHOTO ALYSON LIU

Best,

2 fieldnotesjournal.org

meet the team MADDIE BROOKS EDITOR-IN-CHIEF

ALYSON LIU EDITOR & DESIGNER

BELLA HILLYER EDITOR & DESIGNER

ANNA MICHAEL EDITOR

LAUREN GREENLEAF EDITOR & DESIGNER

SHAWREE ZHANG EDITOR

LOU PERINI EDITOR

RACHEL FRICKE GRADUATE ADVISOR FIELDNOTES / AUTUMN 2021 3

table of contents feature article 6

HARBOR SEAL (PHOCA VITULINA) BEHAVIOR IN RESPONSE TO VESSEL DISTURBANCE AT YELLOW ISLAND AND GOOSE ISLAND, SAN JUAN ISLANDS, WA, USA

by Courtney Carpenter, Clare Ogle, and Greta Weise

research communications 12 IMPACT OF NOISE POLLUTION IN GLASS SPONGE REEFS

by Tam Ta 14 EFFECTS OF PERCHLORATE AND HYPOXIA ON MOLECULAR PHYSIOLOGICAL RESPONSES IN DAPHNIA MAGNA

by Alexandria Rios 16 SCIENCE COMIC: LIGNIN PHENOLS IN MARINE ENVIRONMENTS

by Elise Littell

community features 20 DO YOU TRUST US? HOW WASHINGTON STATE MANAGES 100 YEAR OLD FORESTS

by Shawree Zhang and Maddie Brooks 23 WHALESAFE: HOW SCIENTISTS ARE LEVERAGING DATA TO PREVENT WHALE-SHIP COLLISIONS

by Lauren Greenleaf, Anna Michael, and Bella Hillyer 26 ECOLOGY THROUGH AN INDIGENOUS LENS

by Alyson Liu and Lou Perini

4 fieldnotesjournal.org

feature

PHOTO LISSA BREWER

Harbor seal (Phoca vitulina) behavior in response to vessel disturbance at Yellow Island and Goose Island, San Juan Islands, WA, USA

BY COURTNEY CARPENTER, CLARE OGLE, & GRETA WEISE* *Authors contributed equally to this manuscript ABSTRACT

The Salish Sea is an area with high vessel traffic that can negatively affect marine mammals’ allocation of energy to

different activities, or their energetic budgets. Harbor seals, which use haul out sites to rest and rear their pups, have been shown to exhibit altered behavior in response to vessel disturbance. Therefore, vessel traffic near harbor seal haul outs may be detrimental, especially when vessels are not in compliance with current regulations. While the Salish Sea harbor seal population is believed to be at equilibrium, the management of the species can set an important precedent for the treatment of other pinnipeds. To understand the impacts of vessel traffic on harbor seal behavior in the Salish Sea, we conducted a pilot study comparing harbor seal behavior in response to vessel disturbances at Yellow Island and Goose Island in the San Juan Islands, WA, USA. Tracking vessel traffic within 400 m of each site, we monitored behavioral responses during and following vessel disturbances. We found that while vessel traffic differed between sites, kayaks most frequently came within the 91.4 m buffer zone set by the Marine Mammal Protection Act (100% of kayaks at Yellow Island and 42% at Goose Island).

Kayaks also caused the most vigilance, or alert behavior, of any vessel type at both locations (44% ± 6% at Yellow Island and 32% ± 19% at Goose Island). Additionally, while behavioral trends in response to vessel disturbances varied between sites, harbor seals show signs of habituation over time as well as in areas of higher vessel traffic. These findings contribute to the understanding of the impacts of vessel disturbance in the Salish Sea and have important implications for management.

INTRODUCTION

Harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) are

the most common pinniped species in Washington State, breeding and feeding within the Salish Sea yearround (Jeffries et al. 2000). The species is considered recovered following their rebound from a significant reduction in population size in the mid-twentieth century (Jefferson et al. 2021). The current population within the Salish Sea is estimated to be at equilibrium, maintaining approximately 50,000 individuals (Ashley et al. 2020). In 1972, the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) granted protections, including a buffer zone of 100 yards (91.4 m) between human disturbance and marine mammals, regardless of conservation status (Roman et 6 fieldnotesjournal.org

al. 2013). Despite such regulations, violations that disturb harbor seals regularly occur (Johnson and AcevedoGutiérrez 2007).

Harbor seals can often be found hauled out, or laying, on beaches and rocks for thermoregulation, resting, predator avoidance, and pupping (London et al.

2012). The percentage of seals found at haul out sites increases during breeding and molting seasons, which occur from June through August in the San Juan Islands (Jeffries et al.

2000; Cunningham et al. 2009). This increase coincides with peak tourism season, which sees an influx of vessels traveling by known haul out sites (Johnson and Acevedo-Gutiérrez 2007). Past studies show that vessel disturbance can cause behavioral changes in seals, including increased vigilance, or alertness, and flushing, or

retreating into the water (Suryan and Harvey 1999; Johnson and AcevedoGutiérrez 2007). As vessel traffic continues to increase globally and is expected to increase within the Salish Sea, it is important to fully understand the impact vessel disturbance has on harbor seals to better manage the species and enforce regulations (Tournadre 2014; Seely et al. 2017).

Vessel disturbance can cause behavioral changes in seals, including increased vigilance, or alertness, and flushing, or retreating into the water.

FEATURE ARTICLE

We performed a comparative study between two locations within the San Juan Islands to better understand vessel compliance and the impact of vessel disturbance on harbor seal behavior.

The objectives of our study were to (i) determine if vessel disturbance and corresponding harbor seal behavior differed between the study sites, (ii) determine which vessels caused the most disturbance, and (iii) measure compliance of vessels to the MMPA buffer zone. Based on previous visits to both locations, we predicted that there would be more vessel disturbance at Yellow Island and therefore seals would exhibit more signs of habituation to vessel disturbance at this location.

We also predicted, given past findings, that kayaks and other non-motorized vessels would cause the highest disturbance at both locations (Henry and Hammill 2001; Johnson and Acevedo-Gutiérrez 2007; Cates and Acevedo-Gutiérrez 2017).

specific distance thresholds. Vessel types included large or small motorized boats, sailing boats, kayaks or other personal non-motorized vessels, and passenger vessels. A kayak group was considered a single vessel because they generally moved as one unit. Distance of closest approach by each vessel was tracked by recording the time at which each vessel crossed within 400 m (i.e., entry into our observational zone), 300 m, 200 m, and 100 m of the haul out site. Entry within 100 m was used to approximate compliance with the buffer zone distance set by the MMPA. We visually approximated distance by using known distances to landmarks surrounding each site.

Additionally, the interval of time each vessel spent within its closest approach was recorded to match this data with behavioral data for the purpose of analysis. We calculated the mean number of vessels per day and the

percent occurrence of each vessel type for both locations. We also calculated the percent of total vessels and each vessel type entering within either 200 m or 100 m at their closest approach.

Behavioral sampling

We used both interval and opportunistic scan sampling to measure harbor seal behavior throughout each six-hour period of observation. We performed interval scan samples every 20 minutes. For each scan sample, we recorded the time and tallied the number of seals exhibiting each behavior including vigilance (i.e., head up, eyes open, scanning their surroundings), flushing (i.e., retreating into the water), moving (e.g., shifting position or moving further up the shore), and “other” (e.g., resting, aggression, or other social behaviors). We performed opportunistic scans when a vessel

METHODS Study sites

We collected data from 10-13 August 2021 at Yellow Island (48°35’29” N, 123°02’03” W) and Goose Island (48°27’29” N, 122°57’19” W), both small islands located off San Juan Island, WA, USA. Observations were made approximately 200 m and 400 m from the haul out at Yellow Island and Goose Island respectively. We conducted observations from about three hours before to three hours after low tide, alternating between the two locations each day, with a total of 12 hours spent at each location over the four-day period. We waited 15 minutes between setup and beginning observations to allow the seals to acclimate to our presence. Each member of our team was assigned an observational role, which rotated each hour to counteract observer bias.

Vessel traffic

To quantify vessel traffic, we tracked every vessel that entered within 400 m of the haul out sites. For each observed vessel we recorded vessel type and the times at which the vessel crossed

FIGURE 1. Percent of each vessel type observed within A) 200 m and B) 100 m at closest approach during total hours spent at Yellow Island (light blue) and Goose Island (dark blue). Observations made between 10-13 August 2021.

FIELDNOTES / AUTUMN 2021 7

FEATURE ARTICLE

entered within 200 m of the haul out site, recording time, disturbance type, and behavior. We took opportunistic control samples when no vessels were seen within 400 m of the haul out site, following the same protocol as above.

Behavior data was analyzed by calculating percent of seals exhibiting each behavior during each scan.

We combined this percent behavior data with data for vessels entering within 200 m and sorted these data chronologically to match scans with disturbances. The two interval scans that followed each disturbance were also assigned to the same disturbance.

This created the immediate disturbance response, “response at next interval (1)”, and “response at next interval (2)” categories. We calculated an average and standard deviation for each category from the recorded percentages across the two days of observations.

RESULTS Vessel traffic

Over 12 hours of observations at each location, a total of 173 vessels at Yellow Island and 196 vessels at Goose Island were observed within 400 m of the haul out sites. An average of 14.4 ± 5.7 and 16.3 ± 5.6 (mean ± SD) vessels per hour occurred at Yellow and Goose Island respectively. Large motorized boats were the most common vessel type at both locations (44-63%), while small motorized boats were the second most common vessel type (22-34%).

Sailing boats, kayaks, and passenger vessels were less common, in total making up less than 30% of all vessels at both locations.

Analysis of vessel traffic found that 38% of vessels at Yellow Island and 17% of vessels at Goose Island passed within 200 m of the haul out sites at closest approach (Fig. 1A).

Additionally, while a small percentage of total vessels entered within 100 m of the haul out sites (4% at Yellow Island and 6% at Goose Island), 100% of kayaks (n = 3) at Yellow Island and 42% of kayaks (n = 12) at Goose Island entered within 100 m (Fig. 1B). At Goose Island, 17% of passenger vessels (n = 18) also entered within 100 m at closest approach (Fig. 1B).

8 fieldnotesjournal.org

FIGURE 2 Average percent (± SD) of observed seals displaying vigilance during a disturbance compared at Yellow Island (light blue) and Goose Island (dark blue) by vessel type. Observations made between 10-13 August 2021.

Behavior

At Yellow Island there were several observable trends in behavior. During disturbance, there was an increase in average percent vigilant for all vessel types (Fig. 2). Following disturbances by small motorized and passenger vessels, vigilance levels decreased to a near control level in the next two intervals (Fig. 3A). The control average percent vigilant was comparatively lower at Yellow Island (10% ± 15%, n = 8) (Fig. 2). Kayaks elicited the highest average percent vigilant at 44% ± 6% (n = 3) (Fig. 2). During disturbance, increases in vigilance coincided with decreases in “other” behaviors (Fig. 3A and B). Flushing was rarely exhibited for any vessel type except kayaks, which had the highest average percent flushing at 4% ± 6% (n = 3). Moving at Yellow Island was variable with vessel type, showing no clear trend.

Goose Island had fewer clear trends in behavior. The average percent vigilant was variable both during and after disturbances (Fig. 3C). The control average percent vigilant at Goose Island was 16% ± 8% (n = 8) (Fig. 2). Kayaks elicited the highest average percent vigilant at 32% ± 19% (n = 6) at Goose Island (Fig. 2).

The “other” behaviors category was variable for all vessel types, except kayaks (Fig. 3D). During kayak

disturbances, there was a 25% decrease in “other” behaviors (Fig. 3D). Flushing was exhibited during disturbances from kayaks (14% ± 25%, n = 6), large motorized boats (2% ± 5%, n = 8), and passenger vessels (1% ± 3%, n = 6). There was a consistent decrease in movement during disturbance for all vessel types, but movement after disturbance was variable.

DISCUSSION Despite increased vessel traffic within the Salish Sea over the past two decades, we observed harbor seals displaying less extreme responses to vessel disturbance compared to previous studies (Henry and Hammill 2001; Johnson and Acevedo-Gutiérrez 2007), suggesting habituation to vessel presence. Additionally, kayaks appeared to be the main cause of extreme disturbance responses in our study. This finding is consistent with past studies, which observed kayaks frequently violating the 100 yard buffer zone set by the MMPA (Johnson and Acevedo-Gutiérrez 2007). Understanding the trends and implications of habituation as well as compliance of vessels to current regulations is essential to improving future management and education efforts.

FEATURE ARTICLE

Vessel traffic trends During 12 hours of observation at Yellow Island, we recorded a total of 173 vessels passing within 400 m of the haul out. This number is striking when compared to a 2007 study done

by Johnson and Acevedo-Gutiérrez, who recorded 187 vessels within 600 m of the Yellow Island haul out site in approximately 115 hours of observation. This comparison suggests that vessel traffic has increased substantially within the San Juan Islands. Additionally, we observed a higher average number of vessels per hour at Goose Island compared to Yellow Island, indicating that, on average, Goose Island experiences approximately 24 more vessels within 400 m over a 12-hour period than Yellow Island. However, at Yellow Island we observed a higher percentage of total vessels passing within 200 m of the haul out site. These differences may become important when considering how harbor seals react to vessel

traffic at different haul out locations.

Additionally, our observations were conducted on weekdays and may not reflect the likely greater weekend vessel traffic.

When examining compliance of various vessel types within the MMPA buffer zone, most vessels stayed beyond 100 m at their closest approach, with kayaks being the most common violators of the buffer zone distance.

This result is supported by Johnson and Acevedo-Gutiérrez (2007), who found that 86% of kayaks passed within the buffer zone at Yellow Island.

At Goose Island, passenger vessels, commonly whale watching boats, also came within this buffer zone distance.

These results show that vessels generally linked to tourism frequently break regulation and are important to consider when examining management efforts.

Behavioral trends Our prediction that harbor seals would be most vigilant during kayak

disturbances was supported at both locations. At Yellow Island, the trend of increased vigilance during disturbance was common across all vessel types and was paired with a decrease in “other” behaviors, most commonly resting. This shift in behavior during disturbances may negatively impact their energetic budgets as it reduces time spent resting. However, this trend was not as clear at Goose Island.

Additionally, not all vessel types showed a clear trend in seals returning to control levels of vigilance in the intervals following disturbance. This may be due to the compounding effect of multiple disturbances occurring during recovery intervals and small sample sizes.

Across both sites, the average percentage of seals moving immediately following a disturbance lacked a clear trend. Due to the variability in what caused movement and the relatively low levels in which it occurred, it is difficult to draw conclusions on how boat disturbance

FIGURE 3 Average percent (± SD) of seals exhibiting A) vigilance at Yellow Island, B) “other” at Yellow Island, C) vigilance at Goose Island and D) “other” at Goose Island. For each disturbance, behavior was evaluated at (left to right) a control (lightest blue), immediate disturbance response, “response at next interval (1)”, and “response at next interval (2)” (darkest blue). Observations made between 10-13 August 2021.

FIELDNOTES / AUTUMN 2021 9

FEATURE ARTICLE

directly affects movement. An increased sample size for opportunistic behavioral scans for each vessel category may help reveal trends in future studies. We observed kayaks initiate flushing events in which 4% and 14% of seals flushed on average at Yellow Island and Goose Island respectively. Harbor seal sensitivity to kayaks is common (Mathews et al.

2016). This is noteworthy considering no other vessel type initiated flushing at Yellow Island. Although we witnessed this sensitivity, our flushing observations are still relatively low compared to other harbor seal studies (e.g., a flushing average of 86% in Henry and Hammill 2001).

Habituation

Based on both the trends in vessel traffic and responses to disturbance we observed, we believe it is possible that habituation to vessel disturbance has occurred within the harbor seal population in the San Juan Islands.

Past research has shown a positive correlation between vessel traffic and harbor seal disturbances (Johnson and Acevedo-Gutiérrez 2007). Therefore, we would expect the number of disturbances to have increased with increasing vessel traffic. However, we found that disturbances have not increased and observed fewer extreme behavioral responses, such as flushing, than in past studies (Henry and Hammill 2001; Johnson and Acevedo-Gutiérrez 2007). Habituation may also vary across haul out sites.

Compared to Yellow Island, seals at Goose Island were exposed to greater vessel traffic yet displayed less vigilance during disturbance.

Given high fidelity to haul out sites within the Salish Sea (Hardee 2008; Jefferson et al. 2021), it is reasonable that differences in habituation may occur between haul out sites. Based on differences observed between the two sites, we believe that harbor seals at Goose Island may be somewhat more habituated to vessel disturbance than those at Yellow Island. While habituation to vessel disturbance may result in less flushing, and therefore less energy expenditure during

10 fieldnotesjournal.org

disturbance, habituation can also have several negative implications for harbor seals. These implications may include increased vulnerability to both vessel strikes and predation (Olson and Acevedo-Gutiérrez 2017).

Future Implications

This research has important implications for the future of pinniped management and public education.

We saw 100% of kayaks at Yellow Island violate the 100 yard buffer zone protected by the MMPA, a 14% increase in non-compliance by kayaks at Yellow Island compared to Johnson and Acevedo-Gutiérrez (2007). Our results show that kayaks were the main vessel type to initiate flushing, one of the more energetically costly behaviors we observed (Suryan and Harvey 1999). Therefore, we suggest better education at kayak tour companies focusing on what regulations are in place and the penalties for violating those regulations. Additionally, increased signage near harbor seal haul outs may improve compliance.

We also observed the benefit of buoys acting as a visual aid to assist boats in determining the buffer zone. At Yellow Island, most vessels stayed beyond a buoy located about 100 m from the haul out site. This buoy is dual purpose as it was installed to warn boaters of a shallow reef in that region. We agree with Johnson and Acevedo-Gutiérrez’s (2007) suggestion that implementing more buoys would decrease the number of boats coming within the buffer zone distance, leading to decreased disturbance.

While harbor seals are not currently a threatened species, their protection sets an important precedent for the treatment of pinniped species within the Salish Sea.

Overall, the goal of future management should be to educate the public, while also limiting their interactions with pinnipeds for the safety of both parties. While harbor seals are not currently a threatened species, their protection sets an important precedent for the treatment of pinniped species within the Salish Sea. Through the non-compliance observed in our pilot study, it is clear that further research is needed to monitor human disturbance of harbor seals in the San Juan Islands and that education and management surrounding compliance will be important to consider moving forward.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We would like to thank Eric Anderson for his constant encouragement and guidance throughout this process. We would also like to thank W. Breck Tyler and Maria Kuruvilla for their support and knowledge. We appreciate the willingness of Friday Harbor Laboratories staff to provide resources necessary to conduct this study.

Additionally, we would like to thank The Nature Conservancy for allowing us to conduct research at Yellow Island.

research

PHOTO RACHEL FRICKE

Impact of Noise Pollution in Glass Sponge Reefs

BY TAM TA Glass sponge reefs (GSRs) are deep water ecosystems

consisting of glass sponges that have spicules made of silica.

These sponges fuse their spicules, which form a skeletal structure that remains after their death (Leys et al. 2007).

These skeletons are the platform on which new sponges settle and form a reef structure like GSRs. These ecosystems are only found off the Pacific coast of Canada, and are home to over 115 taxonomic groups of invertebrates and fish (Dunham et al. 2018). Several species of endangered rockfish (Sebastes spp.) are found in higher abundance in undamaged GSR (Archer et al. 2020), suggesting that healthy GSRs may be critical for the conservation of this fish population.

In addition to being a critical habitat, a dense population of glass sponges are able to remove 0.96 g of carbon per meter square (Dunham et al. 2018), comparable to an old-growth forest. Therefore, GSRs are valuable for the conservation of endangered rockfish, as well as reducing the onslaught of climate change on marine ecosystems.

Unfortunately, these glass sponges are extremely fragile due to their silica components. As a result, GSRs have incurred a lot of damage from anthropogenic impacts such as trawling and deep sea cables (Dunham et al. 2015). Due to the fragile nature of GSRs and the depth at which they exist, it is difficult to implement traditional research methods such as scuba diving or ROVs in an efficient and affordable manner. However, the rockfish are soniferous, meaning they vocalize as a form of communication (Širović and Demer 2009). Remote monitoring methods such as acoustic recording could provide a less invasive and more affordable way to study GSRs. These fish calls can be used to infer the relative abundance and activity levels of rockfishes in GSRs. This could provide important information about the activities of the soniferous fish communities that call these GSRs home. It could also tell us about the prevalence of anthropogenic noise in GSRs which could disrupt fish calling behaviors and community dynamics (Cox et al. 2018).

Remote monitoring methods such as acoustic recording could provide a less invasive and more affordable way to study GSRs. Because GSRs were only just discovered in the 1980s, there have been no studies that look into the impacts of noise pollution on soniferous fish behaviors in this ecosystem.

12 fieldnotesjournal.org

In two separate two-month-long sound recordings from the Lions Bay Sponge Reef and the Bella Bella Sponge Reef, vessel noise was detected 69.5% and 49% of the time, respectively (Archer et al. 2018). This demonstrates the high prevalence of noise pollution in GSRs. In this study, we will assess the impacts of boat noise on fish calling behaviors in a GSR ecosystem and provide a more in-depth look into how GSR’s soniferous fish community might respond to noise pollution.

In our study, the fish calls were recorded at the Bella Bella Sponge Reef (52.2333 N 128.2512 W, Central Coast region of British Columbia) using a ST-300HF hydrophone (Ocean Instruments, Auckland NZ). A two-month long recording was made from August 21 to October 22 of 2017.

An automatic fish call detector (Mouy 2021) was run to identify fish calls in all of the recordings. Similarly, a vessel noise detector was run on the recordings; the vessel noise data was reported every minute as a binary variable (present/ absent). Before data analysis, we performed a manual detection check on the detections in 1% of the minutes in the dataset to check for and minimize bias in the automatic detector.

FIGURE 1 Bar graph to compare sound pressure level intervals and the proportion of fish calls in each sound pressure level interval with or without boat presence. The x-axis represents sound pressure levels separated by 5 dB intervals, starting at 70 dB. The y-axis represents the proportion of fish calls in each sound pressure level interval.

The colors represent the presence or absence of boat noise.

First, we examined the relationship between boat noise and broadband sound pressure level (how loud a noise is between 20 Hz-48 kHz, measured in dB re 1 µPa) using a linear regression. We found that boat noise correlates with elevated sound pressure level (effect size 8.28 ± 0.06, p-value < 0.001), suggesting that boat noise might be a significant contributor to the sound pressure level in GSRs. Next, we employed a logistic regression model to determine the

RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS

A

B

C

FIGURE 2 Tile graph to illustrate (A) the number of fish calls, (B) boat noise, and (C) sound pressure level in each hour of every day in our recording. The x-axis represents the date and the y-axis represents the hour of the day. The colors correspond to the number of fish calls, minutes with a boat, or the sound pressure level dB in each hour.

probability of detecting a fish call in each minute of every day, in relation to boat noise presence and broadband sound pressure level. We found that fish calls were less likely to occur in the presence of boat noise (effect size −0.36 ± 0.05, p-value < 0.001). We also found that an increase in sound pressure level correlates with an increase in probability of

fish calls being present (effect size 0.54 ± 0.04, p-value < 0.01). However, the presence of boat noise decreases that interaction (effect size −0.48 ± 0.04, p-value < 0.001). This means that when the increase in sound pressure level is due to a boat, fish are less likely to call than when sound pressure level increases without a boat present.

Overall, our findings indicate that boat noise can significantly reduce the probability of fish calls in GSRs. Notably, the same relationship was observed during periods of very low sound pressure levels, suggesting that the reduction in fish calls might be behavioral rather than masking (i.e., boat noise making it impossible to hear fish calls that are present). Our results are supported by a similar study by Correa et al. (2019), which found significantly higher call rates and complexity at locations with lower boat noise in the Western Mediterranean Sea. Our study illustrates the impact of noise pollution on deepwater ecosystems like GSRs. This could have significant implications on the soniferous fish community, for example, masking mating calls, disrupting daily choruses, and generally reducing communication within the community.

Future research could examine the masking effects of boat noise on fish calls to determine whether or not their response is in fact behavioral. Additional research could document species’ fish calls and make it possible to acquire biodiversity and community composition from acoustic data.

In conclusion, we hope our findings will help inform future regulation of vessel traffic and human activities surrounding GSRs in order to facilitate the recovery and conservation of these valuable ecosystems.

PHOTO ROV (remotely operated vehicle) captured image of the Bella Bella Sponge Reef shows an abundance of rockfishes and invertebrates that reside in the reef.

Effects of Perchlorate and Hypoxia on Molecular and Physiological Responses in Daphnia magna

By Alexandria Rios Perchlorate is a water-

soluble chemical compound that is ubiquitous in our environment and is known to be toxic to humans. Perchlorate is not currently federally regulated in drinking water despite its known endocrine-disrupting FIGURE 1 Daphnia magna, an established effects. In vertebrates, model for ecotoxicology. perchlorate acts directly on the thyroid through competition with iodide, at the sodium iodide symporter, which can interfere with iodide’s function as a thyroid hormone precursor (Steinmaus 2016).

In addition, perchlorate can also cause downstream effects on development and reproduction. To date, the effects of multiple environmental stressors on aquatic invertebrates, including Daphnia magna are not well understood.

14 fieldnotesjournal.org

FIGURE 2 D. magna utilizing cyclic parthenogenesis. Under favorable conditions the species reproduces asexually, whereas they begin to reproduce sexually when environmental conditions are unfavorable. From Ebert (2005).

D. magna, commonly referred to as water fleas, are aquatic microcrustaceans and recognized models for ecotoxicology (Figure 1). These small crustaceans have transparent body structures that allow us to observe their organs, organ systems, and even their heart beating. D. magna are an important keystone species in many different waterbodies, including lakes and temporary pools (Ebert 2005). Specifically, D.magna are native to the freshwater lakes of Tacoma. This species allowed us to conduct studies investigating the physiological and molecular effects following exposure to natural and anthropogenic stressors.

D. magna undergo cyclical parthenogenesis, which allows them to switch between asexual and sexual modes of reproduction (Figure 2).

Daphnia are an important keystone species in many different waterbodies, including lakes and temporary pools.

Under stressful environmental conditions they can produce ephippia consistently every 3 to 4 days (Ebert 2005). An insufficient amount of oxygen (hypoxia) is another characteristic of D. magna that indicates environmental stress in its aquatic habitat which can be seen by their ability to increase the expression of the protein hemoglobin. This upregulation results in an observable phenotypic shift in color from clear to pink (Colbourne et al. 2011) (Figure

RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS

3). Using this model, I conducted research in order to understand the effect of environmental stressors.

The overarching goal of this study was to evaluate the interactive effects of hypoxic and acute perchlorate exposure on D. magna.

FIGURE 3 D. magna experiencing hypoxic The endocrine system environments resulting in the upregulation of crustaceans includes of hemoglobin genes and causing the ecdysteroids and juvenile phenotypic shift from clear to pink. Taken from hormone (LeBlanc 2007). Ebert (2005).

In D. magna, juvenile hormones play a role in switching between asexual to sexual modes of reproduction (Wuerz et al. 2019). This regulation of juvenile hormone, as well as other hormones, may be disturbed by endocrine-disrupting environmental contaminants such as perchlorate.

A

B

FIGURE 4 In the gene expression pilot study I conducted I analyzed the hemoglobin genes (dhb1, dhb2, and dhb3) as well as the β-actin and GAPDH as housekeeping genes. (A) hemoglobin gene dhb1 is present in wells 2-7 and dhb2 in wells 9-14. (B) the hemoglobin gene dhb3 is present in wells 2-7. While β-actin is present in wells 2-7 and GAPDH in wells 9-14 in the lower portion of the gel for both images.

For my initial experiments, I chronically co-exposed D. magna to hypoxia and perchlorate. I tested the hypothesis that D. magna responds to hypoxia and perchlorate through transcriptional regulation of hemoglobin and phenotypic plasticity. I conducted an experiment in order to analyze the upregulation of hemoglobin genes (dhb1, dhb2, and dhb3) after exposure to perchlorate and hypoxic environments.

After amplification of genes through processes including RNA extraction, cDNA synthesis, and PCR, I was able to gauge relative levels of gene expression through gel electrophoresis (Figure 4). My gel electrophoresis data presents with preliminary data of the hypoxia and perchlorate co-exposure (24 hours) showing that all targeted and housekeeping genes were successfully amplified.

The data generated from these studies is critical for future policy related to perchlorate regulation.

Qualitative analyses suggest that there is an increase in the upregulation of the dhb1 hemoglobin gene in the anoxic treatment group which is further exacerbated by perchlorate at 100 mg/L. The pattern seen in dhb1 is not present in the dhb2 and dhb3 hemoglobin genes, suggesting that the three genes may have different functional roles. Further work is required to quantitatively evaluate these potential differences using quantitative real-time PCR. Characterizing the effects of perchlorate and hypoxia on D. magna allows us to understand how this environmental toxicant may affect the molecular and phenotypic responses in the context of a rapidly changing environment. Furthermore, the data generated from these studies is critical for future policy related to perchlorate regulation, which will ultimately help protect human and environmental health.

FIELDNOTES / AUTUMN 2021 15

SCIENCE COMIC:

LIGNIN PHENOLS IN MARINE ENVIRONMENTS

BY ELISE LITTELL My name is Elise, and I’m an artist in science with an interest in different methods of scientific outreach to nonscientific communities. This is important to me because as someone with a developmental disorder, I sometimes have a lot of trouble breaking into a topic when the only resources available seem to be videos or complex scientific papers.

If my brain isn’t quite right, it can be very easy for me to bounce off of those

16 fieldnotesjournal.org

without taking anything in. In order to try out a type of science communication I don’t often see, I made a comic about lignin phenols in marine environments.

Lignin phenols are a plant molecule that we learned about in my marine organic chemistry class, and I find them to be really interesting, both by themselves and because of their intriguing potential uses in tracking climate change. Thank you for reading!

RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS

FIELDNOTES / AUTUMN 2021 17

RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS

18 fieldnotesjournal.org

community

PHOTO ALYSON LIU

Do You Trust Us? How Washington State Manages 100 Year Old Forests

By Shawree Zhang and Maddie Brooks

T

he Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is no stranger to being sued. From geoduck harvesting regulations to boat ramp restrictions, litigation about the use of federal lands rages on as both the public and private interests are at hand. Most visible of all is how the state’s trusted land consisting of older forests are handled. While harvesting lumber from these lands is profitable, the tone is shifting from profitability to protection as interest groups are looking to change the way our state manages its natural resources.

Background In 1889, Congress granted the newly formed state of Washington millions of acres of land, packed densely with some of the oldest growth trees in the country, to help fund public institutions by way of logging. Timber, being a lucrative industry, would allow the state to grow, and the continuous maintenance and replanting of the land meant this resource would generate more revenue as the state expanded and the need for public funding increased.

These federally granted lands, now settling into about 3 million acres across Washington State (Washington State Department of Natural Resources 2021), are “held in trust”, meaning there is a legally binding agreement stating that the proceeds from the land must be used to generate revenue for the state. Land can be used for harvesting timber or other biomass products, or could be leased for agricultural use, or even green energy in the form of wind farms or solar fields (Washington State Department of Natural Resources 2021). In addition to tangible goods, activities happening on the land also generate income via recreational activities, such as a park entry fee needed for all DNR managed land 20 fieldnotesjournal.org

(Washington State Department of Natural Resources 2021).

Specific trusts go towards specific causes, the largest being the Common schools trust, comprised of about 1.8 million acres of forest and agricultural lands. This revenue

COMMUNITY FEATURES

goes exclusively to the construction of K-12 schools in Washington State (Washington State Department of Natural Resources 2021). Other beneficiaries include the Charitable, Educational, Penal and Reformatory Institutions trust, which supports correctional facilities, or the University Trust, which supports the University of Washington specifically.

The sale of trusted land generates a substantial amount of revenue for the state’s K-12 school system, in addition to other important public works. As the DNR operates to produce the most revenue from their land trusts as possible, keeping the land in prime condition is key to their success as a profitable enterprise.

The actual sale of timber by the DNR from these land trusts is based on auction, with general estimates of land value based on tree species, density, and quality of lumber (such as age). Though the state protects “old growth forests”, which are defined using specific characteristics such as soil disturbance and tree mortality rates, forests that don’t quite fit the bill are put on the chopping block. Over the October 2021 auction cycle, over 10 million dollars were generated via lumber sale, averaging a profit of 27% over the value of land estimated by the DNR (Department of Natural Resources 2021).

Specific trusts go towards specific causes, the largest being the Common schools trust, comprised of about 1.8 million acres of forest and agricultural lands. This revenue goes exclusively to the construction of K-12 schools in Washington State (Washington State Department of Natural Resources 2021). Other beneficiaries include the Charitable, Educational, Penal and Reformatory Institutions trust, which supports correctional facilities, or the University Trust, which supports the University of Washington specifically.

The sale of trusted land generates a substantial amount of revenue for the state’s K-12 school system, in addition to other important public works. As the DNR operates to produce the most revenue from their land trusts as possible, keeping the land in prime condition is key to their success as a profitable enterprise.

The actual sale of timber by the DNR from these land trusts is based on auction, with general estimates of land value based on tree species, density, and quality of lumber (such as age). Though the state protects “old growth forests”, which are defined using specific characteristics such as soil

the DNR operates to “Asproduce the most revenue from their land trusts as possible, keeping the land in prime condition is key to their success as a profitable enterprise.

“

disturbance and tree mortality rates, forests that don’t quite fit the bill are put on the chopping block. Over the October 2021 auction cycle, over 10 million dollars were generated via lumber sale, averaging a profit of 27% over the value of land estimated by the DNR (Department of Natural Resources 2021).

The Lawsuits Between the need to provide for its beneficiaries and the fact that a significant portion of these funds are obtained through timber harvest, it is perhaps not surprising that the DNR has been involved in an important lawsuit since 2020, led by the nonprofit organization Conservation Northwest.

Conservation Northwest accused the Department of not doing enough to protect habitat for the marbled murrelet, an endangered Washington seabird that nests in old growth trees. Chief among the claims brought against the DNR by environmentalists is the insistence that these lands are meant to be held “for all the people,” not only used to generate funds for select beneficiaries (Conservation Northwest et al. v. Franz et al. and Wahkiakum County et al. 2020).

The beneficiaries don’t agree. Ironically, as the DNR was sued for not protecting enough habitat, some of its beneficiaries - including but not limited to the city of Forks, the Quillayute Valley School District, and the Clallam County Fire District Number 4 (Concrete School District et al. v. Washington Department of Natural Resources et al.

2020) - have also sued, accusing it of sacrificing profit to set aside acres of habitat that marbled murrelets may never

FIELDNOTES / AUTUMN 2021 21

COMMUNITY FEATURES

use. Reduced profit means reduced funds to pay teachers or replace stadiums (Bush 2020). Skagit County, another beneficiary, filed a similar but separate lawsuit a few days before (Bush 2020).

All of the DNR’s forested, managed trust lands are certified under the Sustainable Forestry Initiative standard, and approximately 176,000 acres of those lands are also certified under the Forest Stewardship Council US Forest Management Standard. The Department’s website states that it manages timber harvests according to “accepted best practices for sustainability” (Washington State Department of Natural Resources 2021).

However, this may not be enough. As Conservation Northwest’s lawsuit reveals, there is growing criticism and scrutiny around the DNR’s logging practices, and interest in changing how these lands are managed.

Resolutions?

Perhaps spurred by these lawsuits, Washington’s current Commissioner of Public Lands, Hilary Franz, is conducting an investigation into older trees that aren’t already under conservation status. This means forests that are old, but not old enough to be protected from logging under the current rules. Franz is hoping that the investigation will form the basis for a more holistic approach to management in the future (Mapes 2021).

The DNR is also participating in a large-scale research project being conducted in the Olympic Experimental State Forest on the Olympic Peninsula, known as the T3 Experiment. The University of Washington’s Olympic Natural Resources Center is also involved in this research, which is exploring alternative management strategies, investigating ways to have more sustainable methods of harvest and replanting while still being able to provide

among the claims “Chief brought against the DNR by the environmentalists is the insistence that these lands are meant to be held ‘for all the people’, not only used to generate funds for select beneficiaries.

“

for beneficiaries. A unique aspect of the study is its focus on incorporating the input of local communities, and its goal to support sustainability while keeping in mind that humans are also a part of the environment (Washington State Department of Natural Resources 2018). With projects like this, the DNR is investing in communication and social science, a development that will hopefully continue to grow as it takes more public feedback into consideration.

Finding the right balance between conservation of the environment and continuation of the market is always difficult, and the DNR is seeking new ways to maintain that balance in a changing world. With different interest groups to please and a multitude of unique forests to upkeep, it's no wonder why it remains difficult to find this equilibrium (not to mention maintain it). Though the DNR holds our land in trust, will its practices continue to hold the people of Washington’s trust as well?

WhaleSafe: How Scientists Are Leveraging Data to Prevent Whale-Ship Collisions

BY LAUREN GREENWOOD, ANNA MICHAEL, & BELLA HILLYER

W

hales have captivated the interest of the public for hundreds of years. They are one of the ocean's most popular and well-known species, and they are a critical part of the marine ecosystem. However, whales are facing more threats than ever. As climate change progresses and our oceans become more and more busy as global trading expands, whales are under constant threat of ship collisions. Blue, humpback, and fin whales are all endangered across their ranges. Along the coast of California in particular, these whales are facing a sharp increase in the frequency of lethal ship strikes, with over 80 whales killed each year (Rockwood et al. 2017). To address this issue, a group of people from a variety of universities and institutions combined their efforts and created WhaleSafe, an online tool that combines and analyzes data from a variety of sources with the goal of predicting whale presence in the Santa Barbara Channel and relaying that information to shipping companies to prevent fatal whale-ship collisions.

The Santa Barbara Channel is a hot spot for whaleship collisions. This 70 mile-long waterway is the primary entry and exit point from the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles – two of the busiest ports in the United States (Port Technology International Team 2020). Simultaneously, the Santa Barbara Channel is an important feeding ground

PHOTO Humpback whale by Robbie Shade. Licensed under Creative Commons 2.0.

for multiple species of threatened and endangered whales, including blue, fin, and humpback whales. Unfortunately, it is also the site of numerous whale and ship collisions.

Whales play an important part in the ecosystem, so protecting them is critical. Blue whales can consume four to eight tons of krill a day (National Marine Sanctuary Foundation 2020), which helps regulate marine ecosystems by limiting the krill population. In addition to benefiting the ecosystem, whales also benefit local economies. They can bring in billions of dollars through ecotourism each year. A study by the International Monetary Fund estimates that a single whale is worth over 2 million dollars when considering their carbon, ecotourism, and fishery enhancement benefits.

Most importantly, whales play a crucial role in combating climate change. They help redistribute resources using a concept called the “whale pump.” Whales feed in the depths of the ocean, and when they surface, they bring minerals such as iron and nitrogen with them. These minerals are necessary for plankton growth. Phytoplankton are primary producers that are responsible for producing an estimated 50% of the world’s oxygen by capturing over 37 billion metric tons of CO2 (Chami et al. 2019). Additionally, the whales themselves act as carbon reservoirs. Scientists estimate that each great

FIELDNOTES / AUTUMN 2021 23

COMMUNITY FEATURES

whale absorbs 33 tons of carbon throughout its life. After the whale’s death, stored carbon is brought to the bottom of the ocean with the whale’s carcass. As we continue to learn about the impacts whales have on our world, we are also learning how important it is to preserve them.

WhaleSafe was created with the goal of reducing the frequency of whale-ship collisions. This program combines data from acoustic hydrophone buoys, whale sightings, and the Predictive Blue Whale Habitat Model into an interactive map so that any ocean user can see where whales might be in the Santa Barbara Channel. Using this program, they can plan their routes accordingly to minimize the risk of collisions.

Every day, the data is combined to create a rating of whale presence (low, medium, high, very high) in the Channel. In addition, a Voluntary Vessel Speed Reduction Zone alert pops up at the top of the website during peak blue, humpback, and fin whale migratory season. Dr. Briana Abrahms, University of Washington faculty member and lead developer of the blue whale predictive habitat model, says, “WhaleSafe tracks the speeds of vessels to see if they are slowing down for whales and assigns shipping companies a letter grade for whether or not they comply with the speed limit recommendation.” This feature helps keep companies accountable and also provides data on vessel speeds through the Santa Barbara Channel.

24 fieldnotesjournal.org

tracks the “WhaleSafe speeds of vessels to see if they are slowing down for whales and assigns shipping companies a letter grade for whether or not they comply with the speed limit recommendation.

“

PHOTO Blue whale killed by a ship strike. Photo by Craig Hayslip, Oregon State University Marine Mammal Institute. Licensed under Creative Commons 2.0.

COMMUNITY FEATURES

Developing WhaleSafe was not always smooth sailing.

According to Callie Steffen, one of the WhaleSafe leads from Benioff Ocean Initiative, they tried both high risk and low risk approaches. She says, “One of the technologies that we tried to implement was a thermal camera on Santa Cruz Island. With the thick marine layer in the Santa Barbara Channel, it ended up not having the detection range we had hoped for.” Instead, they turned to whale sighting data collected by the Channel Islands Naturalist Corp (CINC), a joint program between the Channel Islands National Park and Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary (CINMS).

However, when COVID-19 hit, the trained naturalists at CINC were no longer able to go out with whale watching boats, which according to Steffen, meant “their high quality sightings datastream was halted.” Through outreach conducted by CINMS and Steffen’s team, the captain and crews of local whale watching companies that had previously hosted CINC agreed to step in and use Whale Alert to continue collecting that high quality data.

Research demonstrates that in busy, coastal areas, like the Santa Barbara Channel, slower ships save whales. The NOAA and the Coast Guard have implemented a 10-knot voluntary speed limit for large ships based on seasonal patterns of whale prevalence in the Santa Barbara Channel.

WhaleSafe displays real-time whale and ship data for the

live in an “Whales expansive habitat

where we cannot constantly monitor them, so predictive models are often the best bet at identifying their possible locations.

“

Channel. From May 2020 to December 2020, 940 large vessels, weighing in at over 300 gross tons, transitted 634,366 nautical miles throughout the Santa Barbara Channel. Of these commercial ships, 54% cooperated with the 10-knot voluntary speed limit. Shipping companies are given grades based on their cooperation with the speed limit. The highest grade was MSC Mediterranean Shipping Co. (A; 90.1%) and the lowest grade was HMM Co. Ltd. (F; 19%). Throughout the time the voluntary speed limit was intact, the whale presence was either very high (173 days; 80.47%) or high (42 days; 19.53%), indicating the positive impact of WhaleSafe’s monitoring on the whale population.

Although there is a lot of data to support whale presence ratings, these ratings are not absolute. Not all whales make calls that would be picked up by the hydrophone buoys, and not every whale that breaches is spotted by a tourist or survey vessel. Whales live in an expansive habitat where we cannot constantly monitor them, so predictive models are often the best bet at identifying their possible locations. Dr. Abrahms describes the Predictive Blue Whale Habitat Model as a “weather forecast system, but for whales.” Just as a weather forecast tells you what the weather might be like, the predictive model describes suitable habitats rather than solely where whales have been spotted.

WhaleSafe’s launch was made possible through the collaboration of members of various environmental organizations and university faculty members, and the data is being updated by whale watching companies. For these efforts to benefit whale populations, vessels must follow the recommended speed limits. While the letter grades posted on the WhaleSafe website attempt to hold companies accountable, shipping vessels still have to adhere to a scheduled arrival time, affecting their ability to slow down. In an interview, Morgan Visalli of the Benioff Ocean Initiative explains that companies with large shipping portfolios, such as Walmart and Target, could make a difference by including whale safety in their sustainability plans (Lohan 2020). Public awareness of the importance of whale preservation can provide the push these large companies need to implement whale protective shipping strategies.

FIELDNOTES / AUTUMN 2021 25

Ecology Through an Indigenous Lens

By Alyson Liu and Lou Perini A s the global climate continues to rapidly change, the

search for environmental solutions becomes more dire.

The global synthesis of ideas has avalanched with the rise of education, instant communication, and more general social cohesion. “Science” in a general nature has been studied by all different people throughout history, but stigmas, stratification, and colonialism in the academic world have allowed Western paradigms to dominate the forefront of these efforts. Thus, the global climate crisis has put emphasis on scientists to create new technologies and perform elaborate experiments with extensive empirical data collections. However, it is often forgotten that our knowledge of the world is older than its Western iteration and wider than its rigid structure. Indigenous peoples across the globe live and have lived in harmony with the land for millenia, embracing humanity’s interconnectedness with natural processes and retaining a wealth of knowledge from it. The way the world works around them goes beyond a scientific understanding, and into a cultural and spiritual realm.

“

Indigenous peoples across the globe live and have lived in harmony with the land for millenia, embracing humanity’s interconnectedness with natural processes and retaining a wealth of knowledge from it.

“

Traditional Ecological Knowledge, or TEK, is the accumulation of knowledge, beliefs, and deep cultural connections that Indigenous peoples have established with the land from direct observation. This system of knowledge has been passed down orally through generations and is heavily based upon intimate experiences with flora, fauna, and the land itself. Central to this perspective are principles of reciprocity between humans and the environment; one cannot flourish without the other. Nonhuman beings are not degraded to inanimate items referred to as “it.” There is no separation between Homo sapiens and the environment that 26 fieldnotesjournal.org

we depend upon for everyday life; rather, everything in this world is deeply interdependent. Holding these principles as fundamental truths leads to practices and ways of living that are sustainable and allow ecosystems and their gifts to renew for the next generations to come. Instead of viewing things as “resources” and as ecosystem “services,” things like food, water, and raw materials are gratefully received as sacred gifts from the Earth. It is understood that when what is taken exceeds what is needed, this system of reciprocity is broken and its sustainability begins to flounder.

In a different light, Western science follows a rigid procedure of scientific method involving objective experiments and data analysis in which the observer is a completely separate entity from the observed. Knowledge has become very specialized and broken down into a multitude of different fields of study in order to answer highly specific questions. The reductionist and typological nature of this makes each individual piece of science its own, often forgetting how these pieces interact with one another and play a role in the bigger picture. However, this rigid structuring does have its benefits. Scientific methodologies allow for data that is replicable and that can be verified, thus providing a universal basis for reaching conclusions that can then be shared and built upon. The human race is capable of more than ever before, and it is undeniable that the power PHOTO Chinook salmon swimming upstream. Indigenous peoples have long utilized salmon as a primary food source and they are highly respected culturally. Photo by NOAA. Licensed under Creative Commons 2.0.

COMMUNITY FEATURES

of science has opened the doors to many advancements and incredible achievements. Things like medicine, alternative fuel sources, and other technological leaps are irrefutably innovative and beneficial to many.

“

Neither is wrong, neither is right on its own. We need the benefits of both.

“

The question now arises of whether or not the strengths of both may join forces in order to work towards common goals of sustainability. Sarah Mayer, a third year plant biology and anthropology student at UW, helped us to attempt to answer this multifarious question. “Neither is wrong, neither is right on its own. We need the benefits of both,” explains Sarah. However, the sheer divergences between these two ways of viewing and learning about the natural world make the union of the two inherently difficult. “Science seeks specificity, when culturally or broadly it does not need to be specific,” explains Sarah. “Since science cannot validate the individual experience or ways of knowing that are informed by anecdotal or oral histories, Indigenous contributions have been and will continue to be excluded.” Indigenous knowledge is frequently discarded as outdated and primitive,

and its degree of validity often depends on how much it aligns with Western criteria. While Western science provides a framework to ask questions, its demand for absolute answers creates gray areas around things that do not fit neatly into this framework or simply cannot be defined.

Moving forward within the world of academia, it is crucial to recognize that there is no “correct” way to think about the world. The planet that we inhabit holds an incredibly rich and unfathomable diversity of beauty. The way that we interpret this has no confines or limits. Different systems of knowledge can learn from one another; not as tools, but as libraries of experience to learn from with open ears. As non-Native students, we encourage you to continue to learn more about Indigenous ecology and environmental justice by reading Braiding Sweetgrass by Robin Wall Kimmerer and As Long as Grass Grows by Dina GilioWhitaker. In addition, you may reach out to Sarah with the contact information below with any questions.

Sarah Mayer slemayer@uw.edu PHOTO Tahoma (Mt. Rainier) is a highly dynamic landscape. Indigenous place names record geologic events and are often instructive of the hazards people may encounter when traveling there. Photo by Jim Culp. Licensed under Creative Commons 2.0.

references HARBOR SEAL (PHOCA VITULINA) BEHAVIOR IN RESPONSE TO VESSEL DISTURBANCE AT YELLOW ISLAND AND GOOSE ISLAND, SAN JUAN ISLANDS, WA, USA by Courtney Carpenter, Clare Ogle & Greta Weise Ashley, E.A., J.K. Olson, T.E. Adler, S. Raverty, E.M. Anderson, S. Jeffries, and J.K. Gaydos. 2020. Causes of mortality in a harbor seal (Phoca vitulina) population at equilibrium. Frontiers in Marine Science 7:319.

Cunningham, L., J.M. Baxter, I.L. Boyd, C.D. Duck, M. Lonergan, S.E. Moss, and B. McConnell. 2009. Harbour seal movements and haul-out patterns: implications for monitoring and management.

Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 19:398-407.

Hardee, S.E. 2008. Movements and home ranges of harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) in the inland waters of the Pacific Northwest. Master’s thesis, Western Washington University, Bellingham, WA. Henry, E., and M.O. Hammill. 2001. Impact of small boats on the haulout activity of harbour seals (Phoca vitulina) in Métis Bay, Saint Lawrence Estuary, Québec, Canada. Aquatic Mammals 27:140148 Jefferson, T.A., M.A. Smultea, E.J. Ward, and B. Berejikian. 2021.

Estimating the stock size of harbor seals (Phoca vitulina richardii) in the inland waters of Washington state using linetransect methods. Public Library of Science 16.

Jeffries, S.J., P.J. Gearin, H.R. Huber, D.L. Saul, and D.A. Pruett.

2000. Atlas of seal and sea lion haulout sites in Washington.

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 1-157.

Johnson, A., and A. Acevedo-Gutiérrez. 2007. Regulation compliance by vessels and disturbance of harbour seals (Phoca vitulina). NRC 85:290-294.

London, J.M., J.M. Ver Hoef, S.J. Jeffries, M.M. Lance, P. L. Boveng. 2012.

Haul-Out Behavior of Harbor Seals (Phoca vitulina) in Hood Canal, Washington. Public Library of Science 7.

Mathews, E.A., L.A. Jemison, G.W. Pendleton, K.M. Blejwas, K.E. Hood, and K.L. Raum-Suryan. 2016. Haul-out patterns and effects of vessel disturbance on harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) on glacial ice in Tracy Arm, Alaska. Fishery Bulletin 114:186-202.

Olson, J.K., and A. Acevedo-Gutiérrez. 2017. Influence of Human Exposure on the Anti-Predator Response of Harbor Seals (Phoca vitulina). Aquatic Mammals Journal, NFP 43.

Roman, J., I. Altman, M.M. Dunphy-Daly, C. Campbell, M. Jasny, and A.J. Read. 2013. The Marine Mammal Protection Act at 40: status, recovery, and future of U.S. marine mammals. The Year in Ecology and Conservation Biology 1286:29-49.

Seely E., R. W. Osborne, K. Koski, S. Larson. 2017. Soundwatch: Eighteen years of monitoring whale watch vessel activities in the Salish Sea. Public Library of Science 12.

Suryan, R.M., and J.T. Harvey. 1999. Variability in reactions of Pacific harbor seals, Phoca vitulina richardsi, to disturbance. Fishery Bulletin 97:332-339.

Tournadre, J. 2014. Anthropogenic pressure on the open ocean: The growth of ship traffic revealed by altimeter data analysis. Geophysical Research Letters 41(22):7924-7932.

28 fieldnotesjournal.org

IMPACT OF NOISE POLLUTION IN GLASS SPONGE REEFS by Tam Ta Archer, S., W. Halliday, A. Riera, X. Mouy, M. Pine, J. Chu, A. Dunham (Epelbaum), and F. Juanes. 2018. The first description of a glass sponge reef soundscape reveals fish calls and elevated sound pressure levels. Marine Ecology Progress Series 595.

Archer, S. K., A. S. Kahn, M. Thiess, L. Law, S. P. Leys, S. C. Johannessen, C. A. Layman, L. Burke, and A. Dunham. 2020. Foundation Species Abundance Influences Food Web Topology on Glass Sponge Reefs. Frontiers in Marine Science 7.

Cox, K., L. P. Brennan, T. G. Gerwing, S. E. Dudas, and F. Juanes. 2018.

Sound the alarm: A meta-analysis on the effect of aquatic noise on fish behavior and physiology. Global Change Biology 24:3105–3116.

Dunham, A., J. Pegg, W. Carolsfeld, S. Davies, I. Murfitt, and J. Boutillier.

2015. Effects of submarine power transmission cables on a glass sponge reef and associated megafaunal community. Marine Environmental Research 107:50–60.

Dunham, A., S. K. Archer, S. C. Davies, L. A. Burke, J. Mossman, J. R. Pegg, and E. Archer. 2018. Assessing condition and ecological role of deep-water biogenic habitats: Glass sponge reefs in the Salish Sea. Marine Environmental Research 141:88–99.

Leys, S. P., G. O. Mackie, and H. M. Reiswig. 2007. The biology of glass sponges. Advances in Marine Biology 52:1–145. Širović, A., and D. A. Demer. 2009. Sounds of Captive Rockfishes. Copeia 502–509.

EFFECTS OF PERCHLORATE AND HYPOXIA ON MOLECULAR PHYSIOLOGICAL RESPONSES IN DAPHNIA MAGNA by Alexandria Rios Colbourne, J.K., et al. 2011. The ecoresponsive genome of Daphnia pulex.

Science 331(6017):555–61.

Ebert, D. 2005. Ecology, epidemiology, and evolution of parasitism in Daphnia. 1st ed. Bethesda (MD): National Center for Biotechnology Information.

Steinmaus, C.M. 2016. Perchlorate in water supplies: Sources, exposures, and health effects. Current Environmental Health Reports 3(2):136–143.

Wuerz, M., Whyard, S., Loadman, N.L., Wiegand, M.D., and Huebner, J.D. 2019. Sex determination and gene expression in Daphnia magna exposed to juvenile hormone. Journal of Plankton Research 41(4):393–406.

DO YOU TRUST US? HOW WASHINGTON STATE MANAGES 100 YEAR OLD FORESTS

by Shawree Zhang and Maddie Brooks Bush, E. 2020. Environment groups, logging interests and communities across Washington sue over state’s plans to sell timber. The Seattle Times.

Bush, E. 2020. Skagit County sues over timber harvest, teeing up fight over Washington’s forests – and money. The Seattle Times.

Concrete School District et al. v. Washington Department of Natural Resources et al. 2020. Skagit County Superior Court.

Conservation Northwest et al. v. Franz et al and Wahkiakum County et al.

2020. King County Superior Court.

Department of Natural Resources. 2021. Board Sale Results. Department of Natural Resources.

Mapes, L. 2021. Amid climate crisis, a proposal to save Washington state forests for carbon storage, not logging. The Seattle Times.

Washington State Department of Natural Resources. 2018. 2018 Olympic Experimental State Forest Science Conference | Linking Science to Natural Resource Management. Washington State Department of Natural Resources.

Washington State Department of Natural Resources. 2021. Forest and Trust Lands. Washington State Department of Natural Resources.

Washington State Department of Natural Resources. 2021. Forest Certification. Washington State Department of Natural Resources.

Washington State Department of Natural Resources. 2021. Funding Schools and Services. Washington State Department of Natural Resources.

Washington State Department of Natural Resources. 2021. Recreation.

Washington State Department of Natural Resources.

WHALESAFE: HOW SCIENTISTS ARE LEVERAGING DATA TO PREVENT WHALE-SHIP COLLISIONS

by Lauren Greenleaf, Anna Michael & Bella Hillyer Chami, R., T.F. Cosimano, C. Fullenkamp, and S. Oztosun. 2019. Nature’s solution to climate change: A strategy to protect whales can limit greenhouse gases and global warming. Finance & Development 56(4).

Lohan, T. 2020. Cargo vessels are killing more whales — and a new effort aims to save them. The Revelator.

Port Technology International Team. 2020. Five busiest ports in the U.S. Port Technology International.

Rockwood, R.C., J. Calambokidis, and J. Jahncke. 2017. High mortality of blue, humpback and fin whales from modeling of vessel collisions on the U.S. West Coast suggests population impacts and insufficient protection. PLOS ONE 12(8): e0183052.

National Marine Sanctuary Foundation. 2020. Sea wonder: Blue whale.

ECOLOGY THROUGH AN INDIGENOUS LENS

by Alyson Liu and Lou Perini Maweu, J.M. 2011. Indigenous ecological knowledge and modern western ecological knowledge: Complementary, not contradictory.

Thought and Practice: A Journal of the Philosophical Association of Kenya (PAK) New Series 3(2): 35-47.

Mazzocchi, F. 2006. Western science and traditional knowledge: Despite their variations, different forms of knowledge can learn from each other. EMBO Rep. 7(5):463-466.

FIELDNOTES / AUTUMN 2021 29