The Ocean Skeleton

New 2009 Update

2009-01-08T21:48:00.002+08:00

Hey guys. Happy 2009 :] Sorry that you haven't seen us around online in a while. With college apps and a bunch (more like a ton) of other stuff going on, we've been pretty busy. Anyway, just a small bunch of updates. Yes, Ocean Skeleton is planning on continuing their awesome ocean conservation saga.

So first off, congratulations to Joseph (the guy with the shark avatar), he got accepted early decision to Brown University!!! :D
Secondly, the Ocean Skeleton (this very blog you're reading) won second place in the Young Marine Biologist Award 2008 Blog Competition hosted by International Year of the Reef. How cool is that?

The first place winner, this blog here, did a really good job too :] Pretty spiffy.

Thirdly, I've been working on a CNY project... and as you know. CNY is coming up (Happy Year of the Ox). So I don't want to reveal any details about it yet but I'll be sure to (I promise!) keep the blog updated about it. I will say it has something to do with shark fin soup. We'll see how it goes.

Quick Update

2008-09-09T09:41:00.003+08:00

Just a quick list of posts that might be written in the future:

Hanauma Bay (Oahu, Hawaii) Case Study
Coral Bleaching
Environmental implications of the next US election
More news updates
Current initiatives/projects around the world

Yes, even though this blog was created to enter in the YMBA 2008 blog competition, my team member and I have decided to continue the blog even after the competition ends.

As of right now The Ocean Skeleton has over 30 posts which were all created in the time span of 2 weeks.

A Visit to the Waikiki Aquarium

2008-09-07T20:01:00.008+08:00

I made a cool video and a nice slideshow and posted them both on YouTube. I got positive responses for them, so I'm sharing it on here as well.

This was all recorded at the Waikiki Aquarium in Honolulu, Hawaii (on the island of Oahu). The Waikiki Aquarium is often cited as the 3rd oldest public aquarium in the United States. Here's there website by the way: http://www.waquarium.org/

Oh, and cool fact: The Waikiki Aquarium was the first aquarium in the world to maintain the chambered nautilus and the first to breed them (there's a pic of one in the slideshow).

Every single one of these video clips and pictures are from my own camera (that's actually true for the entire site, including the header design, unless pics are linked to somewhere else).

Enjoy. :)

Video:

Slideshow:

Thanks a lot, Hollywood.

2008-09-07T10:06:00.008+08:00

With the proliferation of movies such as Jaws and the typical James Bond fight scene with sharks, it’s no wonder we see sharks as vicious beasts, lying in wait to take chunks out of our flesh. This assumption could be no further than the truth. In fact, most sharks aren’t suited to hunting prey as big as humans and are more afraid of us than we are of them. After all, we kill 100 million sharks a year for shark’s fin soup and other uses. Sharks, on the other hand, kill six to ten people a year, much, much less than the amount of people killed yearly by lightning. The only reasons that sharks would attack humans are because they occasionally mistake us for their prey or they feel threatened by us.

The number one victims of shark bites are shark fishermen. It should be obvious that they’re not hunting humans; they’re fighting for their lives as they get dragged out of the water and viciously have their fins cut off. The U.S. National Parks Association states that being attacked by a shark is extremely rare and goes on to state that if you want to practice safety, the number one tip is to not carry dead fish with you because the shark would want to eat it. Another tip was to not try to touch or ride the sharks as that might scare them into attacking. It is fairly obvious that they’re not vicious human-hunters. In fact, the National Parks Association says that most species of sharks attack humans only when they mistake them for seals and sea lions, which happens very rarely due to sharks’ incredible sense of smell and ability to detect electrical fields.

So, sharks are not monsters and do not actively prey on humans. In fact, it is the other way around.

Every year humans kill 100 million sharks. We kill them for shark’s fin soup, which can sell for 100 US dollars a bowl in Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Singapore. We kill them for sport, and we kill them by accident while fishing for other aquatic life. By far the worst are the shark finners. They catch the sharks, pull them out of the water, cut their fins off, and then dump them back in the water where the sharks sink to the bottom and suffocate (most species of sharks need to be able to move to breathe, as they have no way to push water across their gill surfaces). Even if they didn’t suffocate, they would starve from not being able to move and eat.

We cannot keep fishing 100 million sharks per year out of the ocean. Sharks are not your typical fish. Sharks only reach adulthood at the age of 20 years, so they rarely produce offspring before then. Given their long reproduction time, they can’t recover anywhere near as fast as we are killing them. Furthermore, as top predators they control the top of the food chain, without them there would be effects on the lower levels of the food chain, the fish they eat would have less constraints on their population, and would then affect the level below them. This would continue on through all levels of the food chain. For example, without sharks, perhaps the numbers of fish on coral reefs would increase a drastic amount. Then, instead of eating bacteria or algae, the increased population of fish may resort to eating coral polyps. We are not sure of the effects yet, but by removing the top predator in an ecosystem, it would be like removing lions and cheetahs from an ecosystem. All the grazing animals that they ate would no longer be eaten, so there would be more of them, and they could overgraze the land and cause desertification. Scientists hypothesize this is what could happen to the oceans and plankton (the “grass” of the sea) were sharks to disappear.

Furthermore, regarding the actual shark fin soup, the flavor doesn’t even come from the shark’s fin. Shark fin is made out of cartilage, which has no taste. The flavor instead comes from chicken stock or other meat. The eating of shark’s fin comes with the common misconception that it prevents cancer because sharks don’t get cancer. That could not be further from the truth. Sharks do suffer from cancer just as humans do, and, as top predators, sharks actually have high concentrations of toxins (like mercury) resulting from human pollution in their bodies because they eat many other fish contaminated by these toxins. Not only does shark’s fin NOT prevent cancer, in fact, it is more likely to INCREASE the toxins in your system.

Sharks are not dangerous to humans and are a key part of ocean ecosystems. They cannot recover from the way we are massacring them and they must be protected.

[Image taken from here.]

Did You Know?

2008-09-07T08:41:00.008+08:00

This post is more like an added supplement to the "Threats" post.

Coral reefs are disappearing faster than rainforests.

One cigarette butt that enters the ocean contaminates one gallon of water forever.

Scientists predict that 70% of the world’s coral reefs may well be destroyed over the next 20-40 years, unless we stop cyanide fishing, pollution, sewage, erosion and clumsy tourism.

Top 3 threats: Overfishing, global warming, pollution

here

Since 1986, most coral reefs in Singapore have lost up to 65% of their live coral cover . Visibility also dropped from 10m in the 1960s to 2m or less today.

Reclamation is one of the biggest problems to coral reefs in Singapore.

Currently, no national policy or specified agency exists to manage coral reefs in Singapore. (There are, however, "strong measures and consistent monitoring of effluents throughout the nation help to curtail risks from marine pollution").

Yes, I have posted this graph up before: (Joseph and I question the "sedimentation" column. The turbidity of water is questionable in Singapore. We believe sedimentation does play a major part in Singapore.)

[Image taken from here.]

By the way, the graph is there to show readers that reefs in Singapore are under major risks and it looks like it is mostly due to coastal development and shipping.

Our original threats to the coral reef post: Click here

The Great Pacific Garbage Patch

2008-09-06T23:00:00.002+08:00

In between California and Japan, just north of Hawaii, there is an area of the sea that the rotating current from Japan to California and back winds up in. This causes a huge portion of the debris that flows into the oceans to arrive in this patch. There are more than 6 of these garbage dumps in our oceans.

It is estimated that the surface area of the Great Pacific Garbage dump is only slightly smaller than Africa, and that this only amounts to the plastic on the surface. A great deal more plastic gets covered by enough algae and barnacles to sink. In 1998, Charles Moore of the Angalita Marine Research Foundation took samples of the surface and found that on the surface, there was 6 times as much plastic as there was plankton.

Furthermore, tiny plastic pellets known as nurdles, which are used in the plastic manufacturing process, have the unfortunate resemblance to krill and fish eggs which results in them being eaten by fish and seabirds. This becomes a problem because plastics collect toxins

Studies done have shown that free-floating plastics in the ocean act like sponges and magnets for toxins. Many chemicals that we dump into the ocean, on purpose or by accident, readily stick to the surfaces of free-floating plastic. The measurement results stated that in many cases, the surfaces of plastic had one million times the amount of chemical concentrated on their surface than the surrounding water had. When animals consume these pellets, they are consuming all of the chemical that goes along with them.

Even though it is more expensive to do so, we must recycle all the plastic we can and try to avoid using plastic whenever possible. The best estimates say that plastics will take hundreds of thousands of years to biodegrade, so we have to avoid allowing plastic to escape our hands into the environment. Hopefully one day we have the technology to pull all of this trash out of our seas.

[Picture from lolcats].

Information gathered for this post was taken once again from Alan Weisman's The World Without Us.
The chapter where we got our information for this post is chapter Chapter 9: Polymers are Forever.
Here's the Amazon page: Click here

An Interview with Mr. Crawford

2008-09-05T21:05:00.004+08:00

Mr. Fred Crawford - he's a pretty cool guy. He's head of the SAVE aluminum recycling initiative and he can teach college level physics to high school students. The Ocean Skeleton interviewed him about his thoughts about coral reef conservation. He answers pretty brilliantly. The first part of the interview was added to the ICCS post here.

Q: Why should coral reefs be protected?

Q: What's the best way to motivate people to help the coral reefs?

Q: What are the coral reefs' biggest problems?

Ooh... progress for the GBR?

2008-09-05T19:01:00.005+08:00

A short article, yes, but it has news of progress.

Earlier on, I wrote an article about Australia's Great Barrier Reef and how it may not survive the next 30 years. Well, it looks like some change is taking place.

According to this article, Australia's environment minister, Peter Garrett, is taking matters into his own hands. He's temporarily stopped a tourist development (called Reef Cove Resort) in north Queensland because of claims that sediment run-off will damage the Reef.

[Quote] "There can't be any construction at the site until I'm satisfied that the developer appropriate remediation work and could complete the construction of this development in a responsible manner in full compliance with the approval conditions without any impact on the marine environment and the Great Barrier Reef itself," Mr Garrett said.

Apparently, Reef Cove Resort is looking for legal advice in regards to this matter now.

Go Mr. Garrett! :D

Other articles about Mr. Garrett's awesomeness:

A news article about him blocking a coal plan.

His Wikipedia page.

His website.

Seafood beware - a new threat of poisoning.

2008-09-04T19:28:00.007+08:00

So this is interesting. The article is a little complicated to understand if you haven't taken a course about marine biology before though.

Basically, when corals die, algae growth blankets over the dead skeletal structures. This algae cover is a prefect for colonization by dinoflagellates (a type of plankton) of the Gambierdiscus genus. What's the big deal is that these microscopic organisms secrete toxins into the atmosphere which is ingested by fish and travels up the food chain in bioaccumulation. When humans eat the contaminated fish, they are infected by Ciguatera.

Bioaccumulation is a growing worry for humans. Toxins ingested by fish pass on to us when we eat them and humans can get sick at very high poisonous dosages because of it (the highest concentrations are in top predators, for example sharks - for mercury poisoning).

According to this article, in French Polynesia and in Caledonia (where the effect is particularly strong), about 100,000 people are severely infected annually. One of the most telling symptoms is a burning sensation in the mouth and throat after the fish has been eaten.

A similar effect has also been noted when giant clams have been consumed (although cyanobacteria is what causes it, and not the Gambierdiscus dinoflagellates).

The research study links that because global climate change can kill coral reefs (through bleaching) which then degrades the environment so that microrganisms like the ones describe in the article can thrive, global climate change therefore could not only express a sign of degraded fishing grounds, but also of the presence of emerging cardiovascular diseases and poisoning.

Watch what you eat.

[Image taken from lolcats.]

An Excerpt from an Interview with Mr. Neihart

2008-09-03T12:57:00.003+08:00

Mr. Doug Neihart is a deputy principal of Singapore American School's high school division (this is his second year at SAS). Mr. Neihart did participate at ICCS last year and he plans to attend again this year. The other excerpt of the interview can be found on the ICCS post.

The Ocean Skeleton asked him how he would motivate people to help the coral reefs.

The Reef Revealed

2008-09-02T21:09:00.003+08:00

You know that image we've all had, the one of a reef filled with colorful little fish darting between corals? Well, sorry to burst your bubble, but that’s actually absolutely, and completely wrong. Kingman Reef, regarded as the most natural reef on Earth due to its isolated area that protects it from pollution and many other problems that plague our reefs, shows how it really is out there.

On land, we are used to a food chain where there are many grazers and few top predators. In a healthy reef, it is the exact opposite. 25 pound red snappers with fangs, sharks, and other big predators are the most common sight, contributing to over 70% of the biomass.

The small fish are also present in massive swarms. They reproduce extremely fast to make up for the fact that so many of them are eaten by predatory fish. In fact, parrotfish will sometimes even change sex to make sure there are enough of them to keep their reproductive rates up.

To also follow-up from the parrotfish post, a healthy ocean zone such as Kingman reef only has 1 million bacteria per milliliter of water because parrotfish and other small herbivorous fish graze on the algae and keep bacteria levels low. Around populated islands such as the Line Islands, samples show up to 15 million bacteria, using up oxygen and suffocating coral, allowing more and more slime to strangle the reefs.

Kingman reef is a sign that our very idea of reefs as havens of colorful little fish is actually an unhealthy reef. Instead, reefs are the home to many of these fish but many more predators and large ocean fish who spawn and grow there.

Even Kingman reef isn’t completely safe from our influence though. Only one shark during the White Holly research vessel’s voyage there was actually a fully-grown, matured adult over 20 years old. The rest were still adolescent sharks, so it seems that shark finners had attacked some of this population in their yearly 100 million shark catch which goes on to be sold as shark’s fin soup in places like Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Singapore at up to $100 a bowl.

[Photo from a National Geographic article about Kingman Reef.]

If you want to learn more check out Alan Weisman's The World Without Us.
It's a great book (a bestseller) and it's got some neat stuff. The chapter where we got our information for this post is chapter 19: The Sea Cradle.
Here's the Amazon page: Click here

If you want to learn more about Kingman's Reef, here's the Wikipedia page.

Dead in 30? Australia's Great Barrier Reef

2008-09-01T19:22:00.008+08:00

Australians are worrying about their tourist economy as it looks like that their famed Great Barrier Reef might not be able to survive the next 30 years.

Professor Hoegh-Guldberg, from the Centre for Marine Sciences at the University of Queensland, named several of the Reef's biggest problems which include ocean acidification and coral bleaching. Apparently, carbon dioxide levels are increasing at 1 to 2 ppm (parts per million) per year (about 380 ppm) and it has never been that high for the past 720,000 years. Even the industrial revolution had lower levels of atmospheric carbon - around 280 ppm.

Coral bleaching, another problem that's causing stress to the Great Barrier Reef , has previously been manageable, according to Professor Hoegh-Guldberg. Coral bleaching has been occuring over the past 30 years and there have been 6 major bleaching events since the 1980s. However, the difference is that this time, the reefs don't have time to recover.

This other article here goes into further detail about what Professor Hoegh-Guldberg says in his talk.

We're at that "fork in the road", people. Better decide which path we want to take.

[Image taken from here.]
(The site also links to a page about the Great Barrier Reef being polluted by pesticides)

Seaweed Poison - Good or Bad?

2008-09-01T18:13:00.007+08:00

Chemistry sure causes a lot of really weird things to happen to the ocean (besides acidification and temperature change...). A study is suggesting that seaweed might be stunting coral reef growth from the chemicals they release into the water around them.

The study in Sydney has researchers proving that some seaweeds or algae have the ability to produce toxic chemical signals that "deter coral larvae from settling on reefs devastated by bleaching, storms, or other impacts". I guess that can work in favor for the corals though. They can find better homes this way because they could move to a place where bleaching hasn't destroyed everything.

Does the seaweed/algae thing sound a little familiar? A previous post from this blog might jog your memory.

Seaweed can produce other signals too, like ones that encourage coral growth. So seaweed has a good side and a bad side. A good side because some help corals grow (calcareous red algae) and a bad side because they compete with corals for the ocean floor space and are competition for the same resources. According to past observations, algae nearly always beat the corals in the race to resettle the devastated area. However, factors like the number of organisms that eat the algae also need to be considered - like turtles.

[Quotes]

"On the Great Barrier Reef we have been relatively lucky, but elsewhere we have seen a number of instances where seaweeds simply took over the reef, completely preventing the corals from coming back," said McCook (Laurence McCook of ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies (CoECRS) and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority).

"The greatest threat seems to be when we get thick mats of algae combined with sediment runoff, which smother the reef and stop corals gaining a foothold - a serious problem for our coastal reefs", he added.

NTA Zones Supplement.

2008-09-01T14:31:00.003+08:00

A supplement to a previous post regarding NTA zones (no-take areas).

Just to explain it again, NTA zones were set up to protect fish in the late 1960s and early 1970s, before climate change was a major issue.

Anyway, I found another article, posted today about the study. This one in particular has a lot more info about the actual study itself.

Apparently the study conducted by an international team of scientists from all over the world was "the largest study of its kind to have been carried out, covering 66 sites across seven countries and spanning over a decade in the Indian Ocean".

[Thats pretty cool.]

Previous work by this same team includes investigations to the 1998 coral bleaching even that affected coral reefs all around the world.

I think this article is the most comprehensive of all the other ones so far.

"They conclude that while the existing zones should not be removed, new areas are needed in the right place to protect corals against the effects of rising temperatures."

There we go. :)

Fishy want a cracker? No. Fishy want algae.

2008-08-31T09:56:00.011+08:00

Hi everyone, I just ran into some interesting information.

So there’s this common misconception that parrotfish eat away at and damage reefs. While it is true that some parrotfish species (those that grow to one meter or longer in adulthood) do end up eating some coral polyps, the main diet of parrotfish is algae.

Parrotfish, especially the small ones, actually protect reefs by eating algae. When algae and seaweed grow over coral, they can choke the coral and out compete with the coral for nutrients, suffocating the reef.

Although it is the big parrot fish that tend to feed off coral, they redistribute a lot of the calcium carbonate onto the floor of the reefs, providing minerals into the water and creating beaches

One of the current problems in the Caribbean is that one herbivorous species of sea urchin that would eat the algae off corals is now nearly extinct, leaving the parrotfish alone in keeping the reefs free of algae. Now over-fishing is threatening the parrotfish population as well, and the reefs are getting overgrown with algae and dying. In the Caribbean, it is not uncommon to see parrotfish on a restaurant menu.

If by any chance you do run into this case, please voice your concerns to the restaurant management or write a letter to the local government informing them of what that particular restaurant is doing. It would be within reason for local governments to comply with restricting fishing parrotfish as a good part of their economy is based on tourism brought by reefs so they should be concerned by any threats to our reefs.

[Image taken from here.]

This picture of a parrotfish was taken while Adrienne was snorkelling in Hanauma Bay in Hawaii. Pretty cool, even though its not that great quality... (It's tough trying to keep something centered through a snorkel mask!).

The International Coastal Cleanup Project - Singapore

2008-08-30T10:56:00.012+08:00

The International Coastal Clean up is a world-wide effort coordinated by the Ocean Conservancy to collect data and to clean trash and debris from beaches worldwide. Established in 1977, the program records and identifies activities that litter the oceans and uses the information to help make ocean policies and to educate the public. Their aim is to create positive change in favor of the environment in which we all are a part of.

This 2008, the annual ICCS clean-up will be conducted on September 20th.
NUS (National University of Singapore) coordinates it. The website can be found here or on the side menu bar. If you're not in SG but live near a body of water, check the Ocean Conservancy ICC page to see ways in which you can help your part of the world locally.

ICCS isn't the only beach clean up in Singapore though. There are a lot all the time (and they always welcome more volunteers). The Sembawang Beach Clean-up, coordinated by the Navy Region Center Singapore Public Works/Environmental department, takes place on Earth Day (usually).

"This is one of [the] initiatives to involve the community and to bring about positive change, teamwork, a sense of belonging and making a difference," said Cmdr. Alice Wilson, an environmental engineer for the NRCS. "It is important to increase public awareness and to do our part."

The Sembawang Beach is actually one of Singapore's few remaining natural sandy beaches (did you know the ones at Sentosa are all fake and man-made?).

"I get a great sense of satisfaction from seeing the finished product of a clean beach that people can enjoy... to know that just because a small group of volunteers had the energy and will to make a difference is a great contribution not only to the community but to mother Earth," said Lt. Cmdr. Carmen Gaston.

[Quotes and information from the Sembawang Community Beach Clean-up was taken from the April 2008 issue of the Merlion Star.]

Cleaning up beaches (or mangroves, or anything really) can help coral reefs too - trash that might get washed away into the coral reefs and cause environmental stress is removed. It's a good thing.

Both Joseph and I have participated in this event - It's really fun and it makes you feel really good. You connect with a lot of people too. All you need is a pair of shoes you don't mind dirtying and a good attitude. So we'll see you around on September 20, 2008.

GET INVOLVED.

As an added bonus: Here are a couple interviews (they're more like podcasts...) that we were able to conduct with staff members of Singapore American School regarding ICCS.

Mrs. Kate Thome
Mrs. Thome was director and creator of ICCS for 10 years (she's not anymore).

Mr. Fred Crawford
Mr. Crawford teaches college-level physics at SAS. He is also the leader of the aluminum recycling initiative in SAS's SAVE club.
Q: What is ICCS? What does ICCS do?

Mr. Doug Neihart
Mr. Neihart is the deputy principal of SAS.
Q: What are your thoughts about ICCS?

Acidic Oceans Supplement

2008-08-29T14:49:00.004+08:00

An article in the Honolulu Advertiser's website showed up regarded the acidification of ocean water. I wrote a previous post about it here.

It basically just talks about the plan they are considering implementing to combat greenhouse gas emissions. The new policy has two major strategies, a long term goal and a short term one. They want to limit fossil fuel emissions to stabilize atmospheric carbon dioxide and build the reef's resilience so that reefs could potentially recover from acidification.

The article also reveals that to some scientists, acidification is the most significant threat to oceans today.

[A quote from the article] "It's happening much faster than we realized," said C. Mark Eakin, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration coral reef watch coordinator. "Sometime this century, coral reefs are no longer going to be able to keep with the rate of erosion. Five years ago I wasn't scared, but now I am."

Just wanted to share. :)

Labrador Beach: Case Study

2008-08-29T11:49:00.004+08:00

I borrowed several books from Mr. Early some time ago and one of them was called "Rhythm of the Sea: The Life and Times of Labrador Beach". It's a book filled with glossy pages with a lot of photographs of Labrador beach.

Frankly, before looking through the book, I didn't really know much about Labrador Beach except for snippets that I grabbed from the web about students going there to see the reef for its biodiversity. It's supposed to be the last rocky shore or reef on the Singapore mainland or something similar to that. I also knew from it's Wikipedia page (which doesn't have much information on it, actually), that it used to be a nature reserve but was later downgraded to that of a nature park.

Flipping through the pages of the book, I've realized that its mostly about the species of organisms you can find out there. Labrador beach takes immense pride in its biodiversity and plethora of species. The photos are nice even though the water looks really murky (I thought reefs needed clear waters?). One of my favorite pictures is on page 75 of the Ozlus guttatus crab. Did you know that the Smart Alec octopus is believed to be the smartest of all invertebrates? It's been suggested that it may be capable of conscious thought and can learn.

So here's the case study: Labrador beach is about 300 meters long. As stated before, it is Singapore's last remaining rocky shore - other areas have been reclaimed or covered with sand in numerous "beach-improvement" schemes. But now, recent developments on the Southern coastline threaten the Labrador stretch of beach (I've attempted to visit, and the book is right, there's a lot of construction sites).

Have I already mentioned that Labrador beach is the only place in SG with a decent stretch of corals? Well, it is.

Anyway, in the book, Labrador beach has been coined as a "living labratory" that has been often used by marine biologists and students. Many research work has taken place here (especially with rare or new species of organisms). Programs and training (like that of 3 generations of university staff) have taken place here - the book argues that the demise of Labrador beach "would not only waste all previous training efforts, but it would also curtail any future attempts at cultivating a love and respect for the seashore in our future generations".

The book's epilogue concludes the case study by making several quick points:

Conservation is difficult in "land-hungry Singapore", which makes it a difficult and controversal issue. Many sacrifices have been made for economic gain in the name of "progress". We have all grown up in a world that is used to squandering its resources. Because of that, once, long ago, we "plead[ed] ignorance and necessity in our continued assault on Mother Nature."

[Quote] "It is sad to note that while many governments and people are prepared to pay enormous sums of money to conserve a piece of art, building, or culture, the same kind of sentiment hardly exists for their natural heritage."

The book doesn't really expand on what exactly we can do, but the fact that Labrador beach is now a protected sanctuary would probably make Singaporeans feel proud of this great natural resource that they have (and they should be).

[Image taken from here.]

The Chek Jawa Case Study

2008-08-28T17:50:00.004+08:00

I know that this doesn't have much to do with coral reefs, but the case study stands to give some inspiration that people can make a difference.

Ever since I heard its story (which actually wasn't that long ago) I've wanted to visit Chek Jawa. And I definitely plan to. I got a hold of the brochure and everything so that I know how to get there and make arrangements and everything.

What is Chek Jawa? Well, it's a wetland reserve about 100 hectares. It's its own island and has several ecosystems in one area - like Labrador beach it's one of the few places that still has a natural rocky shore in this part of the world. It's also got sandy beach, seagrass lagoon, coral rubble, mangroves, and coastal forest ecoystems.

This place was virtually unknown before its rich biodiversity was discovered almost by chance during a low tide in the early 2000's. Around the same time, the government unveiled its latest land reclamation project plans for Chek Jawa. The news didn't go so well over the public, however, and there were many efforts to reverse the plans. What's beautiful about Chek Jawa's story is that, the people were successful in their conservation effort - in December 2001, the government surprisingly backed down and let the National Parks Board take over Chek Jawa's management. This just goes to show that people can influence change; it's all about how involved you want to be.

Recently, in early 2007, Chek Jawa was closed to the public as it was put into major environmental strain - damaging rains had upset saltwater balance and had drastically affected the ecosystem. The park was closed off to allow the wetlands to recover. Half a year later, in July, the park was re-opened with some added developments like a visitor's center and boardwalks. Visitors also no longer needed to join a guided tour.

Links

Chek Jawa homepage
Chek Jawa Wikipedia Article
A site about a film documentary based on events at Chek Jawa

[Image taken from here.]

Coral protection zones in the wrong place

2008-08-28T05:34:00.004+08:00

Wow. Several news articles regarding NTA zones, global climate change, and coral reef conservation appeared today (and yesterday) - although they all seem to have emerged from a same basic source. They all mention a study that was published in the science journal PLoS ONE.

First of all, for the one's who don't know, NTA zones, or no-take area zones (redundant?), prohibit people from fishing in those areas. It was meant to be a policy that would (mainly) comabat the overfishing in coral reefs and to stop boats from destroying the reef's skeletal structures.

The articles about NTA zones:
here
here
here
here

One article, claims that "conservation zones in the Indian Ocean... are not preventing coral reefs from collapsing due to warmer temperatures or helping to speed their recovery..." Marine biologists (like the one the article cited from Newcastle University) have commented on this problem by saying that the reason behind this is because most of the "non-fishing areas are located in warmer waters where coral reefs have a harder time surviving when temperatures rise suddenly".

Also, apparently fishing limits that used to keep boats and people out of fragile areas do not protect coral the way many scientists had thought.

When I first read the article I thought that their conclusion was to stop concentrating on reefs that are failing and to concentrate on the ones that are recovering. I was confused by this and thought that maybe I had not read it very carefully, because I didn't think just concentrating on the recovering ones and leaving the failing ones to die was a very well thought out idea. However, the second article gave me a better understanding on what the study wanted to do.

According to the (better-written, in my opinion) second article, coral reefs need to be protected and managed on a global scale (which i agree with).

"They concluded that while existing conservation zones should not be removed, new zones are urgently needed to protect coral reefs and to aid their recovery from mass die-offs caused by rising temperatures." [An excerpt.]

So the basic idea is that NTA zones are in the wrong place.

However, what confused me from the first article is reworded here:

"New protected zones are needed that focus on areas identified as escaping or recovering well from climate change impacts. But a major focus needs to be shifted towards increasing the resilience of the system as a whole - that means reducing as many other locally derived threats as possible."

Which seems to make more sense than what the other article insinuated. And, more clarification from the article:

"We are not suggesting that we scrap the existing NTAs - in terms of protecting fish stocks they have been quite successful. But they are not effective against global warming - and in order to ensure the long-term survival of this rich marine community that is what we need to address."

...the third article seems to just reinforce the second one.

Oh and the fourth article offers very slightly different information.
A quote: "Advanced wastewater and storm-water treatment, reduction of sedimentation and runoff from agricultural areas, and no discharge zones for boater sewage are all ways to ensure that corals can survive," Quirolo says. "Merely expanding protected areas without cleaning up the water will not."

My advice is to check out the second article and the fourth article to learn more.

Guess it goes to show that it is always a good idea to cross-reference information.

Baby corals might give insight to global climate change resistance

2008-08-27T20:45:00.007+08:00

There's this lady who's researching coral juveniles and how corals grow. She, Iliana Baums (that's her name - she's a professor at Penn State), hopes to find out how exactly do corals react to climate change. At the same time she's teaching an international workshop of 28 aquarium professionals in Puerto Rico to educate them so that they know how to participate in the protection of corals.

Her experiment requires her to collect particular populations of coral that can withstand high temperatures. It's pretty interesting reading about exactly what she has to do to collect the samples. It looks like everything has been thought out pretty well. The juvenile corals she collects will be subjected to a variety of higher-than-normal and lower-than-normal water temperatures in order to pinpoint those offspring whose parents can tolerate abnormal water conditions. After she figures out which ones can survive or not, she'll research their genomes for genetic information that will reveal how particular coral can resist abnormal water temperatures.

A NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) scientist, Margaret Miller, is also partnering with Baums for the experiment. She'll do the same experiment with corals from Florida, where water temperature is lower. Later the two will compare data and draw conclusions about the corals' abilities to tolerate global climate change.

The workshop Baums is doing with the aquarium professionals is also helping the coral reefs.
Poachers and a lot of fisherman capture their organisms in non ecologically safe ways like through the use of sodium chloride.

What Baums aims to do is to teach the aquarium professionals how to properly collect coral spawn, do fertilization experiments, raise larvae, and care for larvae so that the need to collect the animals from the wild will no longer be an issue.

Acidic Oceans

2008-08-27T20:16:00.007+08:00

While checking the news feeds today I found an article by Deborah Zabarenko (an environmental correspondent) reporting on the rising acidic levels of our oceans and their effects on coral reefs.

What I know: Our oceans are the Earth's biggest carbon dioxide reservoir - partly because of all the plankton that use the carbon dioxide for photosynthesis.

What the article's message is: We really need to work together to cut down on those everextending greenhouse gas emission levels.

"Ocean acidification is another threat to corals caused by global warming, along with rising sea levels, higher sea surface temperatures and coral bleaching, the scientists said." According to the article, ocean acidification won't only affect marine waters, but terrestrial ecosystems as well. And it will influence humans too because "coral reefs offer economic and environmental benefits to millions of people, including coastal protection from waves and storms and as sources of food, pharmaceuticals, jobs and revenue".

So the article also claims that the oceans have been absorbing some 525 billion tons of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide over the last two centuries (1/3 of which is human generated). That's some heavy statistics.

What's really sad is that the article reports that in some places, the acidic phenomenon has started to dissolve shells and skeletons of starfish, clams, and corals. Places affected include the Pacific North American continental shelf from Mexico to Canada.

So how does the acidification of the ocean waters work?

Here's the equation for those chemistry-affiliated people (Sorry, no subscripts):

H2O + CO2 = H2CO3

Need an explanation?
Water combines with carbon dioxide to create carbonic acid. The equation balances out perfectly mathematically.

So what's being done?

Here are the last four sentences of the article:

"Stabilizing carbon dioxide emissions was the Honolulu Declaration's top long-term recommendation. The key short-term recommendation was to nurture coral reefs that seem to have natural resilience against acidification. This could be adopted immediately by managers of protected marine areas, Causey said. The Honolulu Declaration will be presented to the United Nations and to other global, regional and national forums".

While cross-referencing the article's contents, I came across this site.

Gary Novak's theory, while interesting, is a bit questionable as it is hosted on his own site with no backing from an accepted scientific community or a credible media source. Furthermore, he seems to be somewhat of an extremist, seeking to discredit many prominent scientific opinions - most of his posts are labeled fraud and sham - and does not cite any evidence or measurements to support his strange theory that the oceans are becoming less acidic instead of more acidic.

See, I have full reason to support the theory that the oceans are becoming increasingly acidic. measurements taken of our earth's atmosphere overwhelmingly indicate we have increased the CO2 in our atmosphere by 1/3rd, from 280 parts per million to 380 - it's only natural that some of it would end up in oceans (since as Adrienne mentioned, the oceans are the biggest CO2 reservoir in the world). Given that CO2 + H2O = H2CO3, carbonic acid, it thus makes sense that increased CO2 = increased ocean acidity. Q.E.D.

Don't Feed the Wild Fish

2008-08-27T11:31:00.007+08:00

Just a quick news update that I thought was pretty cool. There's this organization, right. It's called the Coral Reef Alliance (CORAL). You've probably heard about it if you've ever searched up "coral reefs" on Google or some other search engine. They're pretty big on the coral reef conservation thing. They're based in California, by the way.

Anyway, I came across this cool news article on MarketWatch. Apparently Leisure Pro? The scuba diving company? They've teamed up with CORAL to help spread awareness on endangered coral reefs. That's pretty cool that there are things being done to make a difference. Anyway, Leisure Pro has taken the first step (of hopefully many) to help the reefs by not selling fish food. They've got this ideology that "the practice of feeding wild fish can have disastrous effects on coral reefs by altering predator-prey relationships and pushing delicate ecosystems out of balance." There's this example they use: "when people feed algae grazers like surgeonfish, the fish fill up on fish food and eat less algae, causing the algae to flourish and potentially smother the reef."

That's pretty similar to how in Singapore and in places like Nepal, you're not supposed to feed wild monkeys. Because they grow dependent on people and it just messes a lot of stuff up. Same with bears in national parks in the USA. I don't even think Hanauma Bay in Oahu (that place is amazing) allows you to buy fish food to feed the fish anymore either. Which is good.

Here's another quote from the beginning of the article:

"In observance of International Year of the Reef 2008, Leisure Pro is drawing on its extensive customer base to educate the public about reef destruction and the ways CORAL is working to protect coral reefs and the communities that depend on them. "

So yeah. I just thought that was cool to share. :) Check out what CORAL is doing sometime. They've got some really neat stuff on their site.

Some algae might have superpowers.

2008-08-26T18:36:00.004+08:00

There's a really cool research experiment going on at University of Miami in the USA.

Basically, coral reefs are in a crisis. But (aha!), there is hope. A Dr. Andrew Baker from the University of Miami discovered that corals that have survived some of the ocean's hottest temperatures contain a unique algae called symbiont D.

Baker's amazing experiment involves injecting this algae into some corals and then observing them under a microscope to see what happens to the algae.

Here's my favorite part of the article:

"...I think the thing that pushed me over the edge was that we are in crisis mode. We're losing corals left, right and center. Unless we do something very fast, it's going to be a moot point whether or not we should have tried something because there aren't going to be any corals left to do it with."

I think he hit the nail right on the head with that. :)

And cool - it looks like Dr. Andrew Baker was awarded the "prestigious 2008 Pew Fellowship in Marine Conservation to help protect reef corals from climate change" (there's a picture of him on the article too, if anyone wants to know what a marine biologist looks like).

I do have mixed feelings for the project though. What other effects would the algae have on the coral and the surrounding ocean? Introducing it to corals around the world may not be a great idea if it throws off the balance of the ecosystem, right? There might have been other reasons to why this algae can't be naturally found among some coral (unless its just because of distribution - which would then go back to my first concern about ecosystem balance...).

In any case, even if this experiment turns out to be a success, I don't think that the battle for the coral reefs would be over. There's still a lot to do and a long way to go. We're not off the hook for endangering one of Earth's most amazing ecosystems yet.

Anyway, here's another article from the New York Times about Dr. Baker's research. In this though, they credit him from the Marine Program of the Wildlife Conservation Society. It goes into a little more detail then the other article.

Neat, huh?

(This picture is of Dr. Andrew Baker was taken from the NY Times article which can be found here.)

The Sharks, the Dogs, and the Fishermen.

2008-08-26T16:04:00.010+08:00

For all you cat and dog lovers out there... this might just make your blood boil. It is simply horrendous. By the way, the National Geographic article is from October 2005. And for those of you who are skeptical or want another source to clarify, you can read this article from Snopes.

This practice is disgusting and must end. Animal lovers, ocean lovers, everyone who isn't a Nazi or a disgusting sadist needs to support me here. This practice must stop. It is not okay to kill sharks. It is not okay to torture animals. And it is utterly, disgustingly barbaric to stick large fish-hooks through the snouts and paws of still living cats and dogs, let them bleed for a full day, and then take the still LIVING, BLEEDING animals on ships and drop them overboard, letting the blood attract sharks who then impale themselves on the giant hooks. This practice actually took place on the French island of Réunion. Some islanders believe stray cats and dogs are nothing but vermin and that they can freely practice this kind of fishing. Since these actions are illegal, the practice now takes place under the cover of nightfall.

The fishing of sharks is bad for the ecology in the first place, because sharks are slow reproducers and top predators, they are not replenishing anywhere near as fast as the rate they are fished, and furthermore as top predators, the killing of a shark is the equivalent on land of the killing of a tiger or lion, and by removing these top predators, we are upsetting the entire balance of ecology below them, having knock-on effects that can even lead to plankton depletion and quicker global climate change when our largest carbon-dioxide removing and oxygen producing plankton populations get decimated. Now on top of this, there are civilized people barbarically torturing our pets, "man's best friend", in pursuit of killing sharks which is ecologically devastating to start out with. Did these people learn morality from a 1930's Nazi secret police training school? I hope one day these monsters will pay for their crimes.

[Image take from here.]

[Bush+Coral Reefs] To consider, or not to consider: that is the question.

2008-08-25T20:50:00.020+08:00

[This blog does not aim to offend anyone with different political preferences in any way.]

Although I abhor President Bush's war in Iraq and most of his leadership activities, it seems that one of his environmental policy proposals is actually making an intelligent choice for the future of our planet. This one in particular aims to protect marine life in several large expanses of area in the central Pacific Ocean (where the USA possess several islands). So I guess that I am probably inclined to approve of his environmental policies in any areas where oil is not involved...

Bush: "Sorry, but even though polar bears in Alaska are vulnerable to becoming an endangered species, they can't have that land for their homes and to breed their cubs! We need it for oil! Tell them to stop being selfish!"

Luckily, Bush's time as President is almost over. I pray that the next President will stop the oil drilling in Alaska and devote the funding towards creating more solar and wind power in the U.S.A., which will further help our oceans and our own land-wandering kind by lowering our greenhouse gas emissions. After all, corals are extremely sensitive to temperature and global warming has the potential to cause coral bleaching to a massive extent, devastating our corals and marine life that remain.

Enough of my Bush-bashing though. It seems that before he leaves his office, he plans on making a positive impact (or at least consider it). Two years ago, Bush implemented policies to fully protect the reef systems in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands by creating a gigantic marine nature reserve in the region, covering over 300,000 square kilometers of water (and the depths beneath that surface area, of course). Bush may be planning to do the same with all the other U.S. islands in the Pacific that have significant coral reefs around them. These islands include Baker, Howland, Jarvis, Johnston, Kingman, Palmyra, Wake and Rose Islands.

We are, however, skeptical to if the proposal will actually be approved. His announcement is at least seemingly promising.

A quote from the article:

"The world's coral reefs and coral species are in trouble. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration recently reported that nearly half of US coral reefs are in poor to fair condition. And a large group of international scientists recently reported that one-third of reef-building corals face elevated extinction risk from climate change and local impacts."

Want more info? Check out the Marine Conservation Biology Institute.

Here's another article about the subject.

Radiation in Singapore waters?

2008-08-25T16:14:00.012+08:00

So here's some environmental news that's a lot closer to home. It turns out that a U.S. nuclear powered submarine that stopped in the Changi Naval base in September two years ago leaked trace amounts of radioactive water into the base. Studies done by both the U.S. and Singapore governments have concluded that the amount of radiation was very low, less than that of a common smoke detector, and had almost no possibility of harming marine life or human health.

However, this is still a chilling reminder that although we depend on water for survival, rely on the ocean ecosystems for our oxygen, and eat food out of the water, we still possess a very loose attitude towards what we put in the ocean, which we depend on for life.

Here's what I think: sure, maybe this time the radioactive water was too minute to cause harm, but let's remember that in the nuclear department alone, the U.S. has plenty of nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers, Russia has nuclear submarines littering the Siberia coast, in disrepair and leaking radioactivity into the Arctic waters. Aside from that, our oil spills, garbage, and especially our plastic waste seem to enjoy winding up in the oceans. The planet graciously provides what we need to survive, and in return we treat it with extreme callousness. We have to protect our oceans if we want to keep it for the years to come.

[Image taken from here.]

So... What do we do?

2008-08-25T16:13:00.043+08:00

"Though this be madness, yet there is method in 't". - (Shakespeare's Hamlet; Act II, Scene II).

What we're doing to our coral reefs scares me. It should scare you too.

I mean, look at what we're doing to them now:

Our reefs are polluted with fertilizers and pesticides from agriculture, our sewage, and our trash. Our fishing destroys the reefs through overfishing, cyanide and chemical fishing, dynamite fishing, and through using other damaging equipment. We release silt into the tater through logging, increased development and use of land, and shipping. Our boats drop anchors on them and drop diving gear on them. We chop them down for jewellery and sculptures. Runoff that we cause through soil erosion upsets their nutrition balance. Our global warming heats them up so that they eject their sunlight-absorbing algae which feeds them. We are killing one of the earth's most useful and beautiful natural resources. [link]

So what can we do to change that? Quite frankly, there is one very simple answer.

GET INVOLVED.

Most people don't do it though. It just doesn't seem to be in their best interests.

For those of you who want to make a difference though... a little change goes a long way.

Don't pollute/litter
Make sure your products are reef friendly
Have any aquariums? Make sure those fish were caught legally and in an ecologically sound manner (not with things like sodium chloride).
BE AN INFORMED CONSUMER
Education/information is key
Recycle
Conserve power
CONSERVE WATER
Report dumping or other illegal activities
Don't anchor or physically vandalize the reef
Don't have physical contact with any coral reefs - touch hurts them
Volunteer at beach clean-ups
Write to government representatives to take action
BOYCOTT shark fin's soup
Use ecological waste recycling systems (like Wastewater Gardens) in your community or in your own home
Search other ways through articles or the Internet to help groups, projects, initiatives, and ways to help - in this time and age, information and knowledge is only a click away and should be used responsibly
PARTICIPATE

More links:

NOAA has a very comprehensible list
This is from the Planetary Coral Reef Foundation

The Benefits.

2008-08-25T16:13:00.042+08:00

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks". - (Hamlet; Act III, Scene II).

So here's the low-down on what's up. People don't like to help unless it benefits them in some way. It's like the golden rule concept. People only do things for each other because they think that in the future, someone else (if not the same person) will return the favor.

It's a sad truth because it can basically be summed up to conclude that on a grand scale, human nature is inherently selfish. I wish I didn't have to believe it, and there are some people who have proven that statement false on a minor scale - I greatly respect those people- but this is what its come to I guess.

So here's a list of benefits (in no particular order) that try to capture what exactly coral reefs do for us humans.

supports extraordinary biodiversity (25% of ocean's species)
natural breakwaters (to shield from storms)
aesthetic appeal
oxygen (plankton are responsible for photosynthesis and the ocean is the biggest carbon dioxide reservoir in the world)
food/protein source
MEDICINE (some scientists believe that cancer remedies and treatments for other illnesses can be found here)
tourism/jobs (largest industry in the world)
research for bone growth in humans (similar to how coral secrete limestone)
important role in biogeochemical cycles (especially the carbon cycle)
high economic value
CaCO3 (Calcium carbonate) helps maintain pH balance so life is sustainable in those poor-nutrient conditions

Informational Links:

A page from the University of Texas.

IYOR's take on things.

Threats? What threats?

2008-08-25T16:13:00.041+08:00

"True is it that we have seen better days". - (Act II, Scene VII; Shakespeare's As You Like It).

There is a lot of things out there that damage our reefs and harm the environment, some natural (like hurricanes, typhoons, and storms), and some... not-so-natural.

We humans probably serve as the the most distinguishing culprit for coral reef degradation. Global climate change (which causes coral bleaching) and pollution (all forms) are probably two of our worst crimes against these extraordinary ecosystems.

It's sort of ironic, really. Like the rainforests (coral reefs are even known as the rainforests of the sea...), coral reefs do a lot for our Earth and for us. [A later post will delve in further into the benefits of coral reefs.] And a lot of us treat our environment like its... well. Expendable.

It's pretty overwhelming once you get your head wrapped around just how warped humanity is. I mean, these are just threats to the reefs by humans. The world has a ton of other environmentally damaging problems besides the ones here.

In no particular order, I give you a quick-off-the-top-of-my-head-list: Threats to the coral reef.

human development/expansion
overfishing
land reclamation
dredging of shipping channels/dumping of earth spoils
global climate change (bleaching)
destructive fishing (cyanide, dynamite, bottom trawling, muro-ami/banging on the reef with sticks, etc.)
careless tourism
POLLUTION (trash, pesticides, fertilizers, plastics, sewage, spills, etc.)
sedimentation/soil erosion/deforestation
coral mining
freshwater runoff
acid rain
acidification
eutrophication (causes algal bloom)
Factories/power plants/buildings that release hot water that can kill organisms
filters that kill fish and plankton
carbon dioxide (not related to global climate change) - dissolves skeletons
ozone depletion/ultraviolet radiation (contrary to popular belief ozone depletion and global climate change are NOT related)
natural threats caused by our influence (e.g. crown of thorns starfish which eats coral used to be eaten by the triton snail* which humans have driven to endangeredment
growing human population

*we overfish triton snails because their large shells are considered pretty and can be made into trumpets

[image from lolcats.]

Informative Links:

WWF's take on threats.

University of Virgin Island's assessment.

This one from the UN Atlas has a great map.

This is from the Coral Reef Alliance (they explain a bit more about carbon dioxide).

And for local interests', a page about Singapore's reef threats.

[image taken from here.]

Note: The "sedimentation" column seems a bit trippy. The turbidity of water is pretty high in Singapore - it's sort of really murky. Unless the soil erosion due to coastal development and the like weren't included and the column just represented natural soil erosion... (which should still show more than a "low threat" because of storm/drain runoff...).

First Post.

2008-08-25T16:10:00.026+08:00

So what exactly are coral reefs?

Dictionary definitions differ from book to book. So do textbooks. How exactly can a noun be that hard to define?

Maybe it's because we still don't know much about the ocean. It is commonly said that scientists today know more about the moon then they know about the deep blue sea.

Technically, and scientifically-wise, coral reefs are "massive deposits of calcium carbonate by colonial stony corals and other organisms".

But whenever I hear the term "coral reefs" I don't really regard that definition at all.

"There is something special about coral reefs. The warm, clear water, spectacular colors, and multitude of living things captivate almost everyone who sees a reef. Coral reefs rival that other great tropical community, the rain forest, in their beauty, richness, and complexity. Tropical rain forests and coral reefs are also similar in that basic physical structure of both communities is produced by organisms. Both reef-building corals and the giant trees of a rain forest create a three-dimensional framework that is home to an incredible assortment of organisms. Coral reefs are such massive structures, in fact, that they must be considered not only biological communities but geological structures, the largest geological features built by organisms."

-an excerpt from the book, Marine Biology (4th edition) by Dr. Peter Castro and Dr. Michael E. Huber (Ch 14)

Coral reefs cover less than 0.2% of the ocean floor. Thats a very small number. Yet, they can support so much biodiversity and life (I think the number is over 25% of ocean species).
What's also astounding about them is that the water they live in is very nutrient-poor. Well, corals (which are classified as cnidarians), even with their extreme sensitivity, they are amazingly adaptable animals. They have many ways to feed themselves and can reproduce in many ways. The fact that coral reefs are endangered is very unnerving because it shows that even these extremely adaptable animals can't handle the stress on their environments (so it must be very drastic).

However, like all marine ecosystems, they do need specific conditions to thrive in like certain temperatures, turbidity levels, salinity levels, and pH levels.

An interview with Mr. Early about the biology of coral reefs:

About Us

2008-08-25T16:10:00.025+08:00

Adrienne
email: a1a2aaa@hotmail.com

Adrienne is currently senior at Singapore American School. She is from Oahu, one of the eight main Hawaiian Islands. At SAS, she has studied college level environmental science as a junior and has also completed courses in marine and molecular biology.

Adrienne has been a member of SAS’s SAVE (Students Against the Violation of the Environment) for many years and has contributed to various projects. Such activities include selling recyclable bags (to stop the use of plastic ones) and designing a SIGG water bottle (to advocate the boycott of plastic water bottles). She has also designed several posters for the club.

Adrienne participated in the annual ICCS clean up for Singapore's mangroves in 2007 as a team leader. She has also been a participant in other initiatives and programs like the Roots and Shoot's Wildlife Parade and has been an assistant and volunteer in a nature learning camp regarding the water quality of Singapore's Seletar Reservoir.

Her two favorite environmental-related movies are Sharkwater and Wall-E. Adrienne also likes to pursue other interests like art, equestrian activities, and gymnastics.

Joseph
email: joseph.taintedwisdom@gmail.com

Joseph is a current senior attending Singapore American School. He was born and raised in Singapore. In his four years of high school at SAS he has had a major concentration in science due to his interest in engineering and environmental studies.

His passion for the sciences has lead him to study accelerated chemistry, take two college level physics courses, as well as study molecular and marine biology. Joseph even does volunteer tutoring for physics.

In 2007 he took part in an Environmental Science program at Brown University and has been interested in pursuing an environmentally associated field of study since. In the years 2005 and 2006 Joseph took part in the annual ICCS clean-up for Singapore's mangroves.

His other interests include debate and running cross country.
Joseph is not really known for having spare time.

Mr. Steve Early
email: searly@sas.edu.sg

Born and raised in rural eastern Washington state, Steve has been interested in the marine environment since he was captivated as a child by the adventures of Jacques Cousteau in his television program “The Undersea World”. Reinforced by family holidays to the sea shore, and a program of study at university in biology, he obtained his diving certificate and explored the freezing cold waters of the Puget Sound. A move to the Dominican Republic led to eye-opening (and comfortable) tropical diving in the Caribbean. A move to the Singapore American School and an opportunity to design and teach a course in Marine Biology to high school students 10 years ago has made for a highlight in his career.

Singapore American School
http://sas.edu.sg
http://hseagle.sas.edu.sg (High School)

The Singapore American School (SAS) is a private international school in Singapore. Established in 1956, the school offers an American-based curriculum from preschool through to Grade 12 for approximately 3,700 expatriate students, making it the largest international school in the world.

The Singapore American School offers extracurricular activities in all of its divisions. The High School however, offers the largest number of student-run clubs/organizations.

The largest club at the Singapore American School, SAVE Club (Students Against Violating the Environment Club), participates heavily in international and local environmental awareness campaigns and projects, such as, participating at the annual Singapore ICCS, to being apart of Jane Goodall's international Roots & Shoots organization. Along with clubs, SAS also offers a large and diverse range of honor societies, including the National Honor Society.

Taken from Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore_American_School]