Primary Source vs. Secondary Source: Seafood Crisis

A recently published National Geographic article entitled “Seafood Crisis” uses the research of the “SeafoodPrint” study to draw attention to the effects of overfishing and explain the steps that need to be taken to combat this crisis. “SeafoodPrint” is a study conducted by the University of British Columbia’s Fisheries Centre (lead by Daniel Pauly), the Pew Charitable Trusts, and National Geographic.

Part of this study includes analyzing global “catch losses” (Srinivasan, Cheung, Watson, and Sumaila, 2004) and their effect on world hunger. Both sources highlight how unsustainable our current rate and methods of fishing are. They don’t allow populations to restore themselves. The authors of the study defined overfishing as when “after the year of maximum catch the species stock fell to fifty percent of its maximum level for at least ten consecutive years”( Srinivasan, Cheung , Watson, and Sumaila, 2004). The study also brought up a very interesting point; different species of fish have different levels of effect the entire ocean population. Catching predator fish higher on the food chain has a greater effect or “footprint” than smaller, herbivore fish. The primary study did focus on how this lost food source could be used to feed the poorer countries with large fishing resources. However the National Geographic article brought up the issue of how in our current system the poorer nation’s are being dominated by the wealthier and are losing their resources, which they need far more to feed their people. Overall the secondary article provided a constructive interpretation and application of the information of the study.

References

· Srinivasan, Cheung , Watson, and Sumaila. 2004. The Pew Environmental Group. http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/News/Press_Releases/Protecting_ocean_life/Pew%20OSS%20Food%20Security%20FINAL.pdf?n=8950

· Greenburg, Paul. October 2010. National Geographic. http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2010/10/seafood-crisis/greenberg-text/2

Transgenic Potatoes: A Cure for World Hunger?

I found the primary source to be much more comprehensive and detailed than the secondary source, however the reader must keep in mind that the author of the primary source did a two year study on the topic, while the reporter who wrote the newspaper article hadn’t. While the author of the newspaper article mentioned a few of the more basic but still important facts regarding the experiment there was a large amount of material they completely neglected to mention.

The first piece I discovered on the subject was a newspaper article in The London Free Press, which was entitled Researchers Develop Protein-Packed Potato. This piece became my secondary source, meaning that the author used their own personal interpretation of the original work to write it. The second written work -that is, the one cited in the secondary piece- was entitled Next-generation protein-rich potato expressing the seed protein gene AmA1 is a result of proteome rebalancing in transgenic tuber. This second piece is called the primary work, and was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The primary work is the piece originally written by the scientists who did the research on the subject.

The primary source, Next-generation protein-rich potato expressing the seed protein gene AmA1 is a result of proteome rebalancing in transgenic tuber, talked about the results of a two year long experiment regarding potatoes that had been genetically modified to contain more protein, and therefore more amino acids. There are 21 “essential” amino acids, and since humans can only make eleven of them this means we gain the other 10 from our diet. These essential amino acids make up polypeptide chains, which in turn form three-dimensional structures of protein; therefore the protein, and by extension the amino acids are a required part of a healthy and well balanced diet. Unfortunately it is very difficult to find a single food that contains all of the essential amino acids, so the developing countries are at a disadvantage and are more prone to suffer from protein malnutrition. This can lead to a variety of symptoms, from the weakening of the immune system to permanent brain disabilities in children (Agrawal et al., 2010).

In this study, the potatoes had specific genes originating from AmA1 (Amaranth Albumin 1) implanted in them in order to increase the levels of amino acids they contained. This resulted in not only an increase in the amount of protein contained inside the potatoes but also in the average biomass which means that farmers of these potatoes would have a better crop yield than farmers using “wild” tubers. The potatoes are considered a balanced source of protein because they contain values that greatly exceed the standards set by the World Health Organization (Agrawal et al., 2010).

As stated in the London Free Press article, the genes implanted in the potatoes originated from the Amoranth plant. It is an edible, wide-leafed vegetable that has been used as a grain crop in the United States since the 1970’s (Reuters, 2010). This makes it the ideal candidate for the donation of part of its genetic code to be engineered for the tubers because the Amoranth is already edible, unlike many of the other potential gene donors. Other than the Amoranth gene, a couple of the other edible candidates were the Brazil nut and Sunflower seed, however they were rejected because when these were used it resulted in an increase in one amino acid at the expense of all the rest (Agrawal et al., 2010).

In addition, the genetically modified potatoes were tested on live animals, specifically rats and rabbits (Agrawal et al., 2010). The London Free Press article almost completely failed to mention that any such study had been done. This is a serious gap in the information that should be given to the public, as lots of people are concerned about the uses of genetically engineered foods and the effects they could potentially have on people in today’s society (Reuters, 2010). In the study involving rats ingesting either the “wild” tubers or the genetically modified ones, there were no observations of toxicity. In addition, the studies involving testing the potatoes on the skin of rabbits proved them to be non-irritating and therefore it was concluded that there were no allergic reactions present (Agrawal et al., 2010). In the secondary resource all that was said was that the potatoes had been “fed to rats and rabbits with no adverse consequences.”

Another study that the newspaper article failed to mention was that the tests on the genetically modified potatoes were also completed in seven different simulated climatic regions. In this way they were able to test what some of the potential crop yields could be in different geographical areas. The primary source discusses this topic extensively, as it pertains to the issue of trying to improve nutrition in developing countries (Agrawal et al., 2010).

While a secondary source such as a newspaper article can be a fairly reliable resource it is better to trace the information back to the primary source in order to find the most accurate information. In doing so you can also read the original information exactly as the person doing the study intended for you to.

References

Reuters (2010). Researchers develop protein-packed potato. London Free Press. Retrieved September 21, 2010 from http://www.lfpress.com/life/eat/2010/09/21/15423036.html.

S. Chakraborty, N. Chakraborty, L. Agrawal, S. Ghosh, K. Narula, S. Shekhar,
P Naik, P. P, K. Chakrborti, and A Datta. (2010) Next-generation protein-rich potato expressing the seed protein gene AmA1 is a result of proteome rebalancing in transgenic tuber. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Tuesday Sept 21, 2010, 1-6.

Primary Vs Secondary - Birds Dying in the Oilsands

September 7, 2010, The Star printed an article titled “Birds dying in oilsands at 30 times the rate reported, says study”. The study which the article was based upon was published in The Wilson Journal of Ornithology only 7 days prior. That isn’t a lot of time for a tale to develop, or facts to become strewn or the size of the fish Billy caught to grow from 8inches to 80. However it becomes apparent like any other news agency, The Star, can also pick and choose which bits to pull from the primary source in order to develop their report.

I would like to first draw your attention to the title of the article, specifically at the end of the caption where the words “says study” are recorded. I, like many readers, see those 2 words and immediately my interest is sparked because a study must surely mean it’s true, right?. However thanks to this assignment which has involved locating and contrasting the original study, or primary source, to that of The Stars’, the secondary source, I have come to see what the true value of those 2 words are when recorded in a secondary source’s headlines and/or captions. It truly is unfortunate that the news, with which most people go to in order stay up to date with the world, is often a misleading account with the overall detail, and value lacking in comparison to that of the primary context.

The Star’s account starts in quick and gets to their main point which they have formulated the rest of the report around, and that is that there needs to be a more credible scientific monitoring system put into place, not just leaving it up to the oil companies. Already the articles target is revealed and that is the companies working in the Alberta Oil Sands; and the weapon of choice, some tidbits of research from the study conducted by Kevin Timoney.

To start I will bring up something which became a pet-peeve of mine during the reading of this article, and it is how The Star constantly says things that are simply vague and lack general information as to where or how such things came about. For example “combined with other studies” and “adjusted for the increased size”. Which studies? Are they relevant and up to date? And how was the adjustment made? By simply adding a value? By guessing?

Within the actual study these things are told to us in greater detail, and the entire picture is made clear. In fact in the study, Timoney says that the studies he combined his survey results with are quite possibly out of date, from the 80’s, and are only used because no new study or research has shown that deterrent efforts (so birds don’t land in the oil polluted ponds – tailing ponds) have increased or changed. Yet, he still notes, both the province and oil companies clearly say that efforts have increased and technologies have been upgraded. The only reason he chose to use the older reports is because he is basing all his study off of his own independent work as well as other works of independent study (he doesn’t want to use what the government releases – only what people who are not “connected” have found)

As for that adjustment made to calculate the mortality rates due to tailing ponds, because of the increased size since previous studies, again from the 80’s, Timoney simply calculated mortality rates for a small, a medium and a larger pond and multiplied the area of these ponds to represent the whole 120.6 square kilometers of tailing ponds. Again, he states in his study that the ponds he used to make these estimates could lead to results that are way off because some ponds could be more, for lack of a better word, deadly to birds than others.

Another major issue with the article is that within it, it is reported that birds are dying at least 30 times the rate suggested by government and industry. This is not true. Looking at the study, you clearly see the number that this stat was calculated from is the LOWEST reported mortality rate, however not the overall or even the average. There are multiple companies, and multiple tailing ponds with which numbers are generated from. In the study Timoney takes all the numbers and gets an average, and then compares that to his estimates from his extrapolated data. It comes out to being a greater rate still at around 12times greater, but 30 times greater as The Star reports is a big stretch, and again based on the LOWEST reported number from ONE company.

Lastly Timoney gives credit to all the areas of possible error, and hand in hand with my previous point, his annual mortality numbers are between 458 – 1630 birds, and he states that given the migration pattern for the given year, even the weather as when it is bad birds tend to land (more likely to get oil covered) all affect the actual value. But again The Star chooses to leave this out and simply picks the biggest number, compares it to the smallest reported by the oil companies and reports it. In fact the number they base their stats on is 1,973deaths which is the 14 year median, not even Timoney’s calculated annual mortality rate.

Sure there are things that are reported in The Star’s article that are true and representative of the study, however its clear the major points, the numbers they choose, the lack of detail, and the way they present their “facts” are completely off the mark from the primary context of the study. It’s misleading and it’s done with an agenda in mind. Nowhere in the actual study does Timoney attack the oil companies saying they aren’t doing a good enough job, is it implied? Sure, but the efforts of his study were to simply discover accurate values for the number of birds dying. The Star on the other hand, and as I stated at the beginning, took some tidbits of information from the study, selected a target – the oil companies, and wrote a piece making them look like the enemy. Science in my mind, and especially this study, isn’t carried out to label people as “bad” or “good” but to get somewhere in terms of understanding, and a foundation of accepted beliefs. News, in I bet everyone’s mind, is carried out to make money for the paper, the editor, and the reporter. What better way to do so than to pick a hot topic – oil sands, environment – slap on a “says study” and print it. The paper didn’t even have the link to the primary text, I had to find it! That speaks volumes to me.

Primary Source - http://www.thestar.com/news/sciencetech/environment/article/857638--birds-dying-in-oilsands-at-30-times-the-rate-reported-says-study Reported September 7 2010

Secondary Source – Not located on internet but in library. September issue of The Wilson Journal of Ornithology. Printed September 1, 2010.

Taylor Workman

Trying to post!

Transboundary Species at Risk in British Columbia

Una Kim
ENVS 1020

Newspapers and other articles written for the public is often biased and critical information is often left out. Newspaper companies only write what the public want to hear to sell more of their papers and other information that should have been presented is not. The focus from the actual interview or study is changed to please the reader. This isn’t necessarily wrong, but many times what is important is left out. And although it may not be something the reader wants to read, it is often something the reader needs to read and something that needs to be brought to our attention.
I read a newspaper article on The Vancouver Sun titled: B.C. wildlife needs more protection, study says by Gerry Bellett. It was based on a study titled: On the Edge, British Columbia’s Unprotected Transboundary Species by Michelle Connolly, Keith Ferguson, Susan Pinkus, And Faisal Moola. The study was about transboundary species at risk in British Columbia. 98% of the wildlife in British Columbia are transboundary (Bellett 2010). There are different laws to protect living organisms depending on where you are. Some places allow hunting animals, and in some areas the animals and wildlife are protected and hunting is illegal The problem is that animas do not understand political boundaries and they do not understand that they are protected in some areas and hunted in others (Bellett 2010).
The newspaper article did not change any information or tweak facts to make the article more interesting or appealing to the reader, but there were obvious differences between the article and the actual study itself. The study was obviously more detailed and more facts and statistics were included to prove that transboundary species were at risk. The study explained more clearly what it meant that wildlife was transboundary. Animals migrate across borders and sometimes even live inbetween them because these boundaries are unknown to them. Pollen and seeds are also spread everywhere by insects and animals as they move around from place to place (Connolly, Ferguson, Pinkus, Moola 2010). The article however did not explain what it meant to be transboundary and the focus was moved quickly to the main point.
The main point of the article learned towards the legal side of things. The article talked more about recommendations presented to the minister of the environment, and about laws that should be put down in British Columbia to protect the vast amount of species that moved across its borderline. This was also discussed in the study but many different reasons for why this should be done was explained. The study focused on maintaining the diverse ecosystem in British Columbia and talked a lot about the interactions between animals and the biodiversity in the area. The study pointed out that even if only one species of wildlife went extinct, it could effect all the other wildlife in the area because of how they all interacted with each other and needed each other for survival (Connolly, Ferguson, Pinkus, Moola 2010). The article did not touch upon the subject of ecosystems and biodiversity.
Reasons for why these species should be protected were also not discussed in the article. We humans benefit greatly from the many different ecosystems around us and the plants and animals do things for us that we could never do ourselves. For example, we could never clean the air and provide clean oxygen like plants do for us. Or clean the water and provide food for the 3 billion people on this planet (Connolly, Ferguson, Pinkus, Moola 2010). Without the help of the natural environment we would be left without any raw materials to work with and human kind could come to a fall. The article left out the reasons for why it was so important to protect these species and the focused was moved to the legislative side of things.
The article mentioned three endangered transboundary species in British Columbia. The grizzly bear, linx, and the wolverine. These three animals are very well known and loved, but they’re not the only species that are at risk. Vascular plants, non-vascular plants, birds, insects, molluscs, mammals, fish, amphibians, and reptiles are also at risk (Connolly, Ferguson, Pinkus, Moola 2010). The most endangered are the amphibians and reptiles but they weren’t even mentioned in the article because the public holds more interest in the big bears and cute cats. The focus was moved from the most endangered species to other species that would be more of interest to the general public.
The study was a lot more informative and all the facts whether you wanted to hear them or not were presented. There were many more statistics on things and the focus was more towards the importance of preserving the ecosystems that we have. It focused on how we have to think of generations ahead of us and how healthy ecosystems were precious and would benefit us in many different ways. I found that the article skipped over that and talked more about the laws that should be put down and the steps the government was taking to try to protect the wildlife. The article did not change any information or deliberately hide anything from the public but rather just had a different focus to it.


Article: http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/wildlife+needs+more+protection+study+says/3559853/story.html
Primary source: http://www.davidsuzuki.org/publications/downloads/2010/On-the-Edge-Sept-2010.pdf

Biodiversity in Deforested Areas

In a study published in August 2010 it was discovered that deforested areas in Southeast Asia contain much of their original biodiversity, even after being logged twice. According to Edwards et al. (2010) at least 75% of dung beetles and bird species survived in forest that was twice-logged. A possible outcome of this new information is the inspiration it could instill in conservationalists to stop the introduction of palm oil plantations which drop biodiversity levels and destroy habitats Hance (2010).

A large discrepancy between the primary and secondary source is the amount of information given, in particular the method of how the data was collected to reach the conclusion that a relogged forest in Borneo is worth protecting. In the secondary source, Hance (2010) simply mentions that birds and dung beetles were surveyed because they are an inexpensive indication of the level of biodiversity within the forests. On the other hand, Edwards et al. (2010) go into a much higher level of detail in describing how they received their data, indicating why dung beetles were chosen not simply because they were a simple, cost effective organism to measure, but also because of their close link to mammals and ecological importance. The primary source also describes the specific area studied how the samples were taken and what factors in the subjects were measured. The use of mist nets, point counts and baited pitfall traps were used to record data on the local fauna by Edwards et al. (2010).
The secondary source failing to describe the method definitely weakens the strength of their argument simply due to the fact that it lacks any elaboration. Simply stating that birds and dung beetles were surveyed as biological indicators is not an adequate reason to come to the conclusion that 75 percent of species remained after a forest that has been twice cut.

The primary source does include a fully described method which does serve to strengthen their argument. Due to the explanation of the method in elaborate detail it is far easier to see how the conclusion of the study was reached. However, the argument made by the research may be weakened by the specificity of the experiment. This specificity is presented through the limited types of subjects studied, as well as the different locales each part of the study took place.
The dark areas [below] are unlogged forest while the medium grey is once logged forest and the light grey is twice logged forest. When calculating if the subject’s populations had dropped due to logging Edwards et al. (2010) counted the species within the unlogged forest to compare those values to logged and relogged areas. Due to the distance between each area of study, results may have been obscured. For instance, the light grey area may have initially had the largest population of dung beetles, but after logging its population is recorded as equal to the population in the dark grey area. It could be incorrectly assumed that the dung beetle population was unaffected by deforestation when comparing the two areas.


(Edwards et al. 2010)


The results of the study are also displayed differently between the two sources. The primary source gives exact values, tables and graphs to reinforce their argument. For instance, in the graph below the mean abundance of endangered bird species in two types of experiments were measured in unlogged (black), once-logged (grey) and twice-logged (white) forests (Edwards et al. 2010).




(Edwards et al. 2010)

Contrary to this the secondary source contains few statistics and no tables or graphs, however several key statistics such as the stat that states 75% of species survived after a second round of logging, although roughly half lost abundance have been included (Hance 2010). The primary source goes into far greater depth interpreting and displaying its results to explain how it reached its conclusion, whereas the secondary source does little other than display the main points briefly. For this reason the primary source definitely strengthens its argument, although the secondary source’s argument is not necessarily weaker as it covers the main results reached by the primary, albeit with brevity.

The style of writing varies greatly between the two articles particularly in terms of vocabulary. The primary source’s target audience is the scientific community and due to this the vocabulary used is at a considerably higher level than the secondary source. The meaning of words used in the primary source like dipterocarp forests and avifauna would inevitably be lost on the majority of average readers, thus the secondary article, which has been written for the general public, uses simplified vocabulary to convey a similar message to its target audience. It is also apparent who the target audience is by comparing how the information of the study is formatted. The secondary source is arranged in short paragraphs that summarize the findings of the experiment, including only a handful of the statistics from the primary source. On the other hand, the primary source has a very traditional scientific layout; starting first with the abstract which is followed by the introduction, the method, the results and finally a discussion about the findings. Many statistics, graphs, tables and references to other studies can be found throughout the paper which also allows its format to vary from the secondary source.
Both the primary and secondary sources strengthen their argument through each individual chosen style of vocabulary and format. The arguments are strengthened due to the way each style easily attracts its audience. A casual reader would more likely be inclined to read a brief and easy to read article, which is offered by the secondary source. Whereas a scientist, perhaps interested in how the conclusion was reached, would be more inclined to read a more formal and professional scientific paper offered by the primary source.

In conclusion, the secondary source is a fair, but brief representation of the original article. It conveys the main idea of the study, the potential for conservation in deforested areas in Southeast Asia, in a direct and informal manner which contrasts sharply with the structured format of the primary source. The secondary source presents no visible inconsistencies with the primary and contains an argument strong enough for the average reader to be assured, however it does not present an adequate amount of information to provide any valid proof seen in the primary source. Both articles play well to their target audiences and are viable sources of information on the topic of biodiversity in deforested areas.


References:

Hance, J. (2010). Logged forests retain considerable biodiversity in Borneo providing conservation opportunity . Retrieved from http://news.mongabay.com/2010/0812-hance_logged_borneo.html

Edwards, D., Larsen, T., Docherty, T., Answell, F., Hsu, W., Derhé, M., Hamer, K., Wilcove, D. (2010). Degraded lands worth protecting: the biological importance of Southeast Asia's repeatedly logged forests. Proceedings of the Royal Society B Retrieved from http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2010/08/03/ rspb.2010.1062.full.pdf+html?sid=efdb4490-fcc4-45c1-9fbe-a09a25fea3f4

Comparison of Primary and Secondary Articles

Primary articles are pieces of literature that contain original documentation by scientists and authors who conducted the research or study. These sources are not external authors’ account of the research conducted, but merely the first article introducing a study in a specific field of work. These primary sources are often journal articles that are peer-reviewed. From these primary sources, secondary sources are born. Secondary sources are peer-reviewed articles of the primary literature. They are second accounts of generally the same topic, but not written by the original author. Secondary source authors will often critique the accuracy, clarity and importance of the article and sometimes expose their own opinion about the topic. The secondary source A New View on Sea Level Rise: Has the IPCC Underestimated the Risk of Sea Level Rise? is a peer-reviewed article that summarizes important data and research that has been conducted pertaining to sea level rise. One of this article’s primary source, Climate Change Experts Clash over Sea Rise ‘Apocalypse’, targets the method of establishing sea level rise in the future. These articles are similar in that they both cover the main topic of increasing sea level rise, however they differ in target audience, presentation, limitations, statistical data and strength of evidence.

Both articles display the gradual panic that is setting in due to global sea level rise and both also give estimations of this rise in future years. They cover the social and political ramification linked to such a controversial topic, while also basing most claims on scientific grounds. Both articles also explain the methods used to estimate sea level rise, such as the semi-empirical approach. The main difference between these articles is that the secondary article focuses more on comparing the IPCC’s (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) estimations versus other scientist’s accounts of sea level rise. Whereas the primary source is presented in a way that the actual statistical data seems less important than the political and social controversies that are connected to the effects of global warming on sea level rise.

The secondary article was found on Nature Reports: Climate Change, which is an online news database that carries articles and reports specific to climate change. As of now, this is an online database but in April 2011, it will be sold in print as a science magazine. It was written by Stefan Rahmstorf and published on April 6^th, 2010. Rahmstorf uses more than one primary source to explain that the IPCC’s projections on sea level rise (18 to 59 centimetres from 1990 to the 2090’s) is a gross underestimation in comparison with other scientist’s research. Rahmstorf exposes that the physical climate models used by the IPCC fail to include the melting of Greenland’s and the Antarctic ice sheets and their contribution to sea level rise. He then goes on to explain that using the semi-empirical approach is more accurate since it is based on the idea that the rate of sea level rise is proportionate to the amount of global warming. Rahmstorf is successful at remaining unbiased by explaining the limitations of both methods of estimating sea level rise. He is capable to assess both methods and describe the positive and negative outcomes to each. Although this secondary sources topic strays from the primary articles, it is a very effective and informative piece of literature.

The primary article that has undergone peer-reviews covers the controversy in calculating sea level rise. It is laid out in such a way that it gives the studies results first, then continues to be examined and explained by scientists. This primary article focuses on the controversy that is predicted to unravel due to the results of the experiment. The article is also slightly more specific in its scientific findings but tends to leave out other methods in which to calculate global sea level rise.

In the primary article, a specific example of what was researched states: “Rahmstorf then parted company from colleagues by extrapolating the findings to 2100 — when the world is projected to have warmed by up to 6.4C unless greenhouse gas emissions can be reduced. Based on the 7in increase in 1881-2001, Rahmstorf calculated that such a spike in temperature would raise sea levels by up to 74in — a jump that stunned other experts.” This article only presents Rahmstorf’s findings and continues to exploit the controversy involved with it. The secondary article uses more than one finding to show the unstrength in claims of the primary article. A specific example of this is stated: “Over the course of the twentieth century, the rate of sea level rise has roughly tripled in response to 0.8 °C global warming2. Since the beginning of satellite measurements, sea level has risen about 80 per cent faster, at 3.4 millimetres per year3, than the average IPCC model projection of 1.9 millimetres per year. The difference between the semi-empirical estimates and the model-based estimates of the IPCC can be attributed largely to the response of continental ice to greenhouse warming.” This secondary article does a great job in exposing multiple methods of determining sea level rise. This chart found in the secondary article displays the estimates for twenty-first century sea level rise from semi-empirical models.

In conclusion, both the secondary and primary articles explore the topic of sea level rise and the effects that it has. Both are informative articles but have different target audiences, presentation, limitations, statistical data and strength of evidence to prove their theses. The secondary article is significantly longer than the primary article due to the fact that it compares various methods of determining sea level rise. The primary article can be found at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6982299.ece and the secondary article can be found at http://www.nature.com/climate/2010/1004/full/climate.2010.29.html.

Bibliography:

Rahmstorf, S. (6 April 2010). A New View on Sea Level Rise: Has the IPCC Underestimated the Risk of Sea Level Rise? Retrieved from http://www.nature.com/climate/2010/1004/full/climate.2010.29.html on September 23, 2010.

Leake, J. (10 January 2010). Climate Change Experts Clash over Sea Rise ‘Apocalypse’. Retrieved from http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6982299.ece on September 23, 2010.

Arctic Life in Peril

A comparison by Rachael Young

ENVS 1020

The Centre for Biological Diversity and Care for the Wild International have recently documented new and disturbing facts concerning global warming and it’s detrimental effects. With Shaye Wolf at the lead, Extinction: It’s Not Just for Polar Bears was set off in September of 2010, which covers most, if not all, aspects of how global warming is affecting Arctic life, including the endangerment of seventeen species. This report was cited in a recent article for CNN, Arctic Species under Threat, by Matthew Knight, and as mentioned by Mr. Knight, polar bears are one of the most popular icons for the global warming catastrophe, but certainly not the only one.

The report starts off chronicling the most severe consequences on the Arctic itself, describing how increased heat temperatures are decreasing sea ice levels, snow cover, the ice sheets and the glaciers; these are some of the most defining and important features of the Arctic. As stated in the report, the Arctic is the earth’s warning system, meaning that whatever happens to it, we can expect the same kind of damage to the rest of the planet and so it must be protected. Every form of life becomes adapted to its surroundings, and that is no different for the species found in the Arctic. Therefore since that environment is changing so drastically and rapidly those species are all struggling to survive the change, as is understood in the report and briefly implied in the article.

As previously mentioned, the report and the article for CNN talk about how there are seventeen species being negatively impacted by the changes to the Arctic, covering both land and sea animals. Mr. Knight briefly touches on ocean acidification which is detailed in the report by Mrs. Wolf. As Mrs. Wolf explains, the ocean absorbs carbon gasses from the air and this in turn causes its chemical makeup to change; this change greatly disturbs the life forms found in the Arctic waters, and if it continues it will also impact other bodies of water close to it. And finally the report gives many helpful suggestions about how to conserve the Arctic, and how to stabilize and ultimately reduce the effects of global warming on it, which the article also briefly touches on.

Though both the report and the article both cover this subject, there are significant differences in the style, strength of claims and limitations of work presented by each paper. While the report goes into far more detail, presenting data, facts and general information concerning ever aspect mentioned above and more, the article of course cannot go into as much detail as it would no longer be an article. And while the report makes strong claims, easily backed up by the research done by Mrs. Wolf and her team, the article does not have the evidence to be able to make stronger claims and the question of course is whether this makes a difference.

In fact yes, this most certainly makes a difference; the strength of the claims made by the report reaches people on a different, higher level, since the information is so much more disturbing when presented with hard facts and images proving everything they are trying to say.

Summer sea-ice minimum in 1979 (far left) and

2007 (left). Sea ice is melting across the Arctic,

and loss of summer sea ice has been particularly

rapid. Images courtesy NASA Goddard Space

Flight Center Scientific Visualization Studio

Extinction: It’s Not Just for Polar Bears, Shaye Wolf, CBD.

One such image, like the one illustrated above is an example where there is nothing to dispute; it is a hard fact which is difficult to not accept. This benefit of the research paper is lost on the article and so the reader doesn’t have as great an appreciation of the severity of the situation when reading the article compared to seeing these images and reading the statistical evidence straight from the primary source.

Another important part of the report made by Mrs. Wolf is that it does not simply list the seventeen species like a checklist but instead goes into detail about each one; including its origin and background, area of where it resides, and of course how, specifically in relation to that particular species, climate change is impacting it. Mrs. Wolf also explains how they are all inter-related and also how the changes made to the Arctic, though it is seemingly so far from the rest of us, will end up affecting us just as much in the long run.

Staying on that topic Extinction: It’s Not Just for Polar Bears outlines for us clear and concise steps that need to be taken in order to affect the right change, unfortunately this is a section of the report that the article failed to give enough attention to. This section is so important because while reading the formal report given by Mrs. Wolf, the reader may start to feel helpless in their ability to do anything about this situation, as I did, once they reach the end however, there is an entire section dedicated to explaining to the reader how they can make a difference, no matter how small it seems. Not only does it tell how we can make a difference but it also outlines for us how to become involved in these organizations, because as Mrs. Wolf says we must “become the change we want to see”(Wolf 2010).

Overall the article, Arctic Species under Threat, was a satisfactory representation of the report given by CBD and CWI, Extinction: It’s Not Just for Polar Bears. However since there is always room for improvement, the article could have put more focus on certain key elements of the report. For example, as mentioned above, the section in the report dedicated at least 2 pages concerning information on how communities and individuals can become involved in making changes in the aspirations of reducing the affects of the global warming catastrophe, whereas the article only briefly mentioned a single idea on how to increase the chances of the Arctic’s survival. Also there could have more details given about the actual affect that greenhouse gasses, acidic oceans and the warming of the planet, is having on the various species and components of the Arctic, on this the article is much too brief. Also it would have been interesting to hear the viewpoint of the author, Mr. Knight, on the material that he covered in his article.

Therefore though the article is a satisfactory representation of the original primary source, it could have been more detailed and given more helpful information to the reader about how to get involved.

Works Cited

Knight, Matthew. "Arctic species under threat, report warns - CNN.com." CNN.com International - Breaking, World, Business, Sports, Entertainment and Video News. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Sept. 2010. http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/americas/09/14/arctic.wildlife.extinction.threat/

"Extinction: It's Not Just for Polar Bears." Center for Biological Diversity. N.p., n.d 2010-09-23 http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/climate_law_institute/the_arctic_meltdown/arctic

_extinction_report.html

“Extinction: It’s Not Just for Polar Bears.” Centre for Biological Diversity. N.p., n.d. 2010-09-23

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/climate_law_institute/the_arctic_

meltdown/pdfs/ArcticExtinctionReport_Final.pdf

Contribution of Toxic Elements from Oil Sands Developments in Athabasca River

In a study conducted on toxic elements contributed by oil sands development in the Athabasca River in Alberta, Canada, has brought forth the hidden claims of the government. An article written in The Tyee titled Oil Sands Pollute with Fish-Killing Toxins, New Study Shows Detection of high heavy metals levels in Athabasca River contradicts government claims, publicizes the study and journal written by David Schindler and five other authors. The journal which the article references was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), titled Oil sands development contributes elements toxic at low concentrations to the Athabasca River and its tributaries. The paper in which references the journal written does in fact cover much of the information in the primary source, and allows the readers to understand an overview of the study done without creating a false conclusion in which the study provided evidence. The secondary source does however miss some points, which is expected when summarizing a lengthy journal, and lacks detail behind the study, which again is expected since it is written for the general public. Some contrast between the two papers involves the lack of in depth description, which adds some bias towards the extreme amount of toxic pollutants throughout the river, and the immediate effects it has on our ecosystem.

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/37/16178/F1.large.jpg

Comparisons between the primary and secondary sources are the exceeding levels of priority pollutants (PPE) in the Athabasca River, both documents include the types of toxins which are being deposited in the river including mercury, arsenic, lead, cadmium and the list continues. Each paper goes on to describe some of the effects of the PPE on humans directly and the aquatic life which leads to bioaccumulation. The PPEs being deposited are directly correlated to the new oil sand development sites along the Athabasca River. Another common topic in both sources is the falsification of claims made by both the government and Regional Aquatic Monitoring Program (RAMP) towards the amount and types of pollutants being deposited by upgrading facilities though leaching of mine sites and particulates in the air. The evidence from the study directly proves that the levels of the priority pollutants exceeds “Canada’s or Alberta’s guidelines for the protection of aquatic life…” (Schindler, 2010), the secondary source also agrees with this and follows suit in mentioning guideline infractions. The Tyee quoted Schindler about a comment made about RAMP supporting his idea that, “Any monitoring program that can’t detect these kinds of contaminants is an incompetent program” (Nikiforuk, 2010), the comment was under the subheading “Ramp should be scrapped” in the article. The primary source had the same impression about RAMP writing “…the oil sands industry substantially increases loadings of toxic PPE to the AR [Athabasca River] and its tributaries via air and water pathways. This increase confirms the serious defects of RAMP, which has not detected such patterns in the AR watershed.” The media article follows suit in justifying the ideas of the journal and allowing the readers to feel as strongly about the misleading information produced by RAMP, which “every year monitors water quality and fish health on the river since 1997. Yet every year the industry-funded group gives the oil sands industry a clean bill of health: ‘no effects’.” (Nikiforuk, 2010). These are just a few of the points the secondary source covers which are directly relative to the primary source.

Differences in the sources stems from lack of the information translated from the journal to the news article. The first major contrast in the secondary source from the primary source is the data given about “polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons on the snowpack over a four month period” (Nikiforuk, 2010), stating that “The study documented… equal to a 5,000 barrel oil spill on the Athabasca River watershed every year.” (Nikiforuk, 2010). From the information gathered the primary source did not mention the link between the amount of polycyclic aromatic compounds (PAC) and an exact data comparison to an oil spill. The news article was correct about the deposition within the 50km radius being high, but the amount being equal to a set data of ‘spilled oil’ was misleading and not mentioned in the journal. Another difference in information stated from the primary to the secondary source is the reference towards PPE levels, some toxic elements were actually considerably lower in 2008 compared to 1978. The lower levels of aluminum, vanadium and thallium have most likely been in direct relation to the installation of precipitators on oil sand processing plants. The flip side to that statement is the evidence collected, which is mentioned in both sources, that confirms deposition levels of many other toxins (PPE) have greatly increased in 2008 than they were in 1978-81. The primary source indicates that some elements may be more readily found at different distances from an oil sands development site, since “particulate elements decline more rapidly with distance… than do dissolved elements.” (Schindler, 2010).

The sources compared both had comparable claims and the secondary source followed a very well established guideline of what the published journal was explaining. Most of the points in the news secondary source were well summarized from the primary source, and quotes from Schindler and his paper allowed the reader to connect the secondary source to the primary source, with facts and statistics. Nikiforuk, the author of the article titled Oil Sands Pollute with Fish-Killing Toxins, New Study Shows Detection of high heavy metals levels in Athabasca River contradicts government claims, had a well established news article, referencing the journal titled, Oil sands development contributes elements toxic at low concentrations to the Athabasca River and its tributaries, authored by Schindler and five other colleagues.

Nikiforuk, Andrew. "Oil Sands Pollute with Fish-killing toxins, New Study Shows

Detection of high heavy metals levels in Athabasca River contradicts government

claims." The Tyee 30 Aug. 2010. 22 Sept. 2010 .

Schindler, Kelly, Hodson, Short, Radmanovich, Nielsen. "Oil sands development

contributes elements toxic at low concentration to the Athabasca River at its

tributaries." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 14 Sept. 2010. 22

Sept. 2010

4f7d-b71b-ec3b575d3a1b>.

The bluer the ocean, the fewer the storms, says study; are plankton to blame for hurricanes?

Nigel Holgate

ENVS*1020

When I was comparing my secondary source article from the New Scientist magazine, something caught my attention very quickly. Often times, important information can be misunderstood by the author. Most times this is unintentional, but bear in mind that this can happen because they may wish to write a more attention-grabbing article, or one that is easier to understand by their target audience etc. Summarizing the article and presenting all the facts in an engaging manner is often times difficult, because writers are usually not researchers! Reading a secondary source article will always give you some of the author’s perspective on the primary source article, as if you were seeing it through their eyes. This reminds me somewhat of the “Telephone” game many of us played when we were younger... The first person would say something and each person would say to the next what they thought they heard, even if it was not necessarily the real thing. If one was to read the primary source article, they would find that it contained much more information, but in a format that is usually a harder read than a secondary source. That being said, without further ado, here is my take on the secondary source article that I read versus the primary source research paper it referenced.

In a recent (16 August 2010) article from New Scientist, author Anil Ananthaswamy makes several statements about ocean colour and its relation to hurricane and typhoon frequency. He begins by saying that plankton “have a lot to answer for. By colouring ocean waters, the microscopic plants encourage hurricanes and typhoons” (Ananthaswamy 2010). In the next paragraph he suggests that, contrary to popular belief, that climate change will decrease the amount of phytoplankton in the ocean. As a result, the number and the power of hurricanes hitting Asia and the Americas will be reduced. I think there is a huge problem with this claim. The reader can be misled into thinking that deep, blue, clear oceans will mitigate the effects of global warming as a whole. There have been numerous studies that have shown that as the climate warms, the ocean warms as well, causing storms to grow in size, intensity and last longer over time (Ho 2006). Also, another weakness I find with the article is that the author fails to fully explain the fact that plankton are an integral part of the marine ecosystem. I find it interesting that the author said himself that phytoplankton are “...at the base of the ocean food web” (Ananthaswamy 2010), but did not elaborate. It seems that he meant “plankton have a lot to answer for” (Ananthaswamy 2010) in a negative way, but plankton supports marine life almost exactly like the way terrestrial plants and trees support land-based life. Clearly, the positive qualities of plankton far outshine the things they have to “answer for”.

Further on in the article, Ananthaswamy discusses how clearer waters will produce less cyclones. In the primary source article referenced by the author, “How ocean colour can steer Pacific cyclones” by Gnandesikan et al. he discusses the team’s findings. Gnandesikan’s team studied gyres, very large areas of circulating ocean currents which can spawn cyclones. The centres of these regions are usually clearer than the outside. This allows for the sun’s heat to reach depths of over 100 metres, consequently heating up the water at a deeper level. Conversely, the sun’s rays only get to the first 5-10 metres on the edges of the gyres. According to the study, this means that the top of the outside of the gyre will be warmed while deeper regions stay cooler. The reason why the outsides of the gyre is warmed is that plankton are transported by the undercurrents. Once there, they colour the ocean waters, absorbing and blocking the incoming heat from the deeper regions. Ananthaswamy goes on to state that undercurrents are more common in the central areas of the gyres, and so the heat generated is simply carried away, further cooling the area. The most interesting stat that the article’s author quotes though, is that tropical cyclone days were reduced by 35% when a gyre’s phytoplankton content was reduced by half, and when the water is virtually free of phytoplankton, cyclone days were cut by 70%. This is intriguing, because Ananthaswamy says in the next paragraph that these findings are backed up from a similar study done in the 1960s. However, upon close examination of the primary source journal, Gnandesikan et al. state that the study from the 1960s may be unreliable due to differences in measurement techniques. They go on to say later on in the article that a “clear mechanism for changing chlorophyll during this period” could not be properly explained, because in the 1960s cyclones were less frequent worldwide (Gnandesikan et al. 2010). This would raise several questions, including if ocean colour really had a significant impact, or if the study’s findings were the result of climatic variability (Gnandesikan et al. 2010).

In conclusion, I have found that it is, after all, in the secondary source writer’s best interests to write something that appeals to the most people. An author must write a convincing article, enough to allow the reader to form his or her own opinion after learning something about the presented issue. A secondary source writer does not often have the luxury of projecting uncertainty to their readers. On the other hand, primary source research papers will always have some degree of built-in uncertainty. A successful secondary source writer is one who can present all the facts in an engaging manner to readers. Most casual readers, myself included, won’t have the time or will wish to put the effort into reading a dry and not very exciting primary source paper. Ananthaswamy does a decent job of doing this for his readers, however one should always check bold claims such as “plankton are responsible for encouraging hurricanes” (Ananthaswamy 2010) or risk not being properly informed. And in the end, that’s the total opposite of what a reader wants to be.

References

Ananthaswamy, Anil. "Deep blue oceans spawn fewer tropical storms - environment - 16 August 2010 - New Scientist." Science news and science jobs from New Scientist - New Scientist. N.p., 16 Aug. 2010. Web. 22 Sept. 2010. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19319-deep-blue-oceans-spawn-fewer-tropical-storms.html

Ho, Dr. Mae-Wan. "Oceans and Climate Change." The Institute of Science In Society. N.p., 21 July 2006. Web. 22 Sept. 2010. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/OceansGlobalWarming

Roach, John. "Is Global Warming Making Hurricanes Worse?." Daily Nature and Science News and Headlines | National Geographic News. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Sept. 2010. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0804_050804_hurricanewarming.html.

Primary Source

Gnanadesikan, Anand, Kerry Emmanuel, Gabriel Vecchi, Whit Anderson, and Robert Hallberg. "How ocean color can steer Pacific tropical cyclones." Geophysical Research Leters 37 (2010): n. pag. How ocean color can steer Pacific tropical cyclones. Web. 22 Sept. 2010.

Word Count: 1,163

Blue World Gets a Bit Wetter

Nicholas Frey

Sept. 23, 2010

ENVS 1020

With the importance of the well being of Earth and keeping the Earth habitable to humans, scientists and researchers have noticed recently that the atmosphere’s water vapor amount has a direct effect on the global temperature. The article, Climate Change Gets Wet by Laurie Rich, from Discover Magazine, pulls two sources together to address the noticeable problem with water vapor and its effect on surface temperature. Andrew Dessler, from Texas A&M University, has noticed the initial relation between carbon dioxide and moisture in the lower atmosphere; while Susan Solomon, an atmospheric scientist, has noticed that the water vapor in the Stratosphere has declined. With both of these scientists the data that Dessler and Solomon have provided refers to global climate change and its possible causes.

The information that Rich provides in the article is minimal yet is enough to spark the interest of the reader and in turn causes people to do research of their own. Even though this article doesn't go in depth on Dessler’s or Solomon’ research, it does provide the reader with information that is useful to understand the main points that Rich is trying to get across in the article. Both Dessler and Solomon have plenty of research and data to prove their finding but in the article both of the sources have only a small paragraph explaining what their findings are. Rich most likely provided the short descriptions of Dessler’s and Solomon’s research to prove that both scientists are in agreement that the water vapor in the lower atmosphere has an impact on the carbon dioxide level.

Without going into much depth on the research that Dessler and Solomon provided, Rich has gone through to attain their information and to put it into context that can be easily understood. Since the article only summarized Dessler and Solomons data the reader doesn’t get the full magnitude of ether points. Thus the article would not provide the full impact that Rich is trying to get across.

In reference to Andrew Dessler’s work, the article states that as the greenhouse gases increase in the atmosphere, the more water vapour it holds, thus the increase of water vapour causes an increase of surface temperature. Dessler’s research still provides ample information and data that proves the point of his findings. Even with all of this Dessler still states that the data collected is too new to really tell the exact extent of this research and the overall outcome. While the article gives more information from the second source, Susan Solomon, about the decline in the higher atmosphere it still does not give the full information that she has collected. Solomon’s work has provided her with a large amount of data that she uses to prove but also disprove her thought of water vapor and its effect on global temperature. So Solomon ends by explaining that to fully understand if or if not water vapor has an effect on the global temperature there will have to be plenty more research on this topic. In Rich’s article it does not state the final thought it only states a fraction of the data collected to prove the point that in the stratosphere water vapor has declined in percentage in the years following 2000. Rich points out; using Solomon’s data, that Solomon agrees with Dessler that in the lower atmospheres vapor levels do have an impact on carbon dioxide levels.

In Rich’s short article she explains briefly the details about the findings of both Dessler and Solomon’s work. With further insight into both of their research the reader can conclude that Rich morphed both of her sources words to fit her article. True, Rich does state both Dessler and Solomon believe the same result about the lower atmosphere but Rich failed to imply that they both believe that this topic needs to be looked into much more, and should not be concluded until more data has been collected. With this Rich should have included into her article that both Dessler and Solomon agree on the same idea about the lower atmosphere vapor levels, and also agree that the information collected is useful but not enough to make a proper conclusion. Also Rich should include that to make this proper conclusion more data and research will have to be added to this cause. Therefore Rich should have explained more about both Dessler’s and Solomon’s work to let the reader know that this thought has still to be changed and altered.

In conclusion, Andrew Dessler and Susan Solomon both agree that in the topic on water vapor and its relation to global temperature is a possibility of climate change but needs more information to give a full conclusion. Laurie Rich’s article, Climate Change Gets Wet, raises concern on the topic of water vapors in relation to climate change hoping to make more researchers and scientists become interested and want to find more data to help with the research. Thus in the end all of this will hopefully pull together information on how to keep the planet a clean and a comfortable home for humans for many years to come.

References

Dessler, Andrew E., and Steven C. Sherwood. A Matter of Humidity. 323. (2009): 1020-1021. Web. 20 Sep 2010. http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/216/dessler09.pdf

Rich, Laurie. Climate Change Gets Wet 01 Sep 2010: n. pag. Web. 23 Sep 2010. http://discovermagazine.com/2010/may/20-climate-change-gets-wet>.

Solomon, Susan, Karen H. Rosenlof, Robert W. Portmann, John S. Daniel, Sean M. Davis, Todd J. Sanford, and Gian-Kasper Plattner. Contributions of Stratospheric Water Vapor to Decadal Changes in the Rate of Global Warming. 327.5970 (2010): 1219 - 1223. Web. 20 Sep 2010. <http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;327/5970/1219>.