Day: July 24, 2017

reader comments
0

Across the globe, invasive species have caused no end of trouble. Their populations can explode because they have no natural predators. Or they are predators themselves who push native species to the brink of extinction. They can upset ecosystems that had evolved a fine balance.

But, according to a new study published this week in PNAS, not every invasive species is a negative. In some cases where we’ve wiped out a key component of the local ecosystem, an invasive species can take its place. The study’s example? An invasive algae can restore lost habitat to coastal ecosystems, providing a nursery for species like crab and shrimp.

The work that led to this conclusion took place in tidal flats on the coast of North Carolina. Normally, this type of geography is broken up by distinct habitats provided by different organisms: coral reefs, beds of sea grass, and oyster reefs. The habitats formed by these species provide shelter for other species, allowing entire ecosystems to develop. But, over the last century or so, many of these habitats have been wiped out, leaving bare sediment behind.

A helpful invader

In some areas, however, an invasive species of seaweed called Gracilaria vermiculophylla has moved in. Gracilaria forms clumps on what would otherwise be a largely featureless patch of sand and sediment, and it can survive exposure during low tides. The seaweed is not entirely harmless, as it can grow to extreme densities in some habitats, consuming much of the oxygen in water and causing problems for other species.

Along the North Carolina coast, however, Gracilaria seems to be present in low-density populations, with small clumps spread across a wide area. So, an international team of researchers decided to test whether the Gracilaria populations generated any of the ecosystem functions that were provided by species that have since been displaced. To do so, the researchers defined a series of five-meter-by-five-meter plots on what was otherwise a bare patch of coast. These were either left bare as controls or planted with Gracilaria at different densities.

Once a month, the researchers returned to the sites and measured seven different ecosystem functions. Ten months later, they tabulated the results and determined whether the density of Gracilaria influenced any changes that occurred.

Two of the measures—stabilization of the seafloor at the site and changes in the decomposition of material—were unaffected by the seaweed’s presence. But it did slow the flow of water through the area. And the habitat it created attracted more animals and a larger variety of species. Plots with the seaweed present also served as nurseries, with many juveniles present from a number of species, including commercially harvested fish, crabs, and shrimp.

The amount of seaweed required for these effects varied. Any of the algae at all was enough to attract other species, but the area didn’t become a nursery until there was a higher density of Gracilaria around.

When to fight

So, overall, having Gracilaria in this environment appeared to be a good thing. “This invasion has an overall positive, density-dependent impact across a diverse set of ecosystem processes,” the authors conclude. And that, they argue, doesn’t fit with the traditional response to invasive species, which is to get rid of them.

Instead, the authors argue, we should think carefully about alternative approaches. If we’re not going to restore the original habitat, such as a bed of sea grass, then leaving Gracilaria around would be better for the ecosystem as a whole. And, if we are going to kill off Gracilaria and try to restore the native habitat, then we should try to ascertain whether the restoration will work. In some cases, invasive species outcompete the natives. But in others, environmental changes (human driven or otherwise) killed off the natives before Gracilaria even appeared. Unless the earlier conditions can be restored, too, then we’re not going to be able to return to the native habitat.

And, if we’re going to keep Gracilaria around, we probably will want to control its population levels so that it doesn’t lead to overgrowth and oxygen depletion. But the authors found that different population levels are needed for specific ecosystem functions. So any management efforts will have to take that into account.

The clear takeaway is that there is no one-size-fits-all solution to invasive species. Instead, we have to decide what our ultimate goal is and adjust the management strategy to meet that goal. And doing so may involve learning to live with the invaders.

PNAS, 2017. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1700353114  (About DOIs).

reader comments
0

SpaceX’s drone landing ships have already proven that uncrewed vessels can handle some of the most dangerous jobs at sea. Now, two Norwegian companies are poised to put robo-boats into one of the most dull: hauling cargo down the fjord.

Two Norwegian companies are teaming to construct a short-range all-electric coastal container ship that will eventually operate autonomously—eliminating up to 40,000 diesel truck trips per year. The ship, the Yara Birkeland, will begin operations in 2018 with a crew, but it’s expected to operate largely autonomously (and crewless) by 2020 (regulatory clearance permitting, of course).

The $25 million Birkeland—described by some shipping executives as the “Tesla of the Seas”— is being jointly developed by the fertilizer company Yara and the maritime and defense technology firm Kongsberg Gruppen. The ship will initially be crewed from an on-board control center within a cargo container. Eventually, the container will be moved ashore, and the ship will be remotely operated. It will navigate autonomously by utilizing GPS and avoiding collisions using a combination of sensors.

Birkeland will be a relatively small “feeder” cargo ship; its journeys will be short jaunts down a fjord on Norway’s Baltic Sea coast from Yara’s factory to a larger port. There, containers of fertilizer will be loaded onto larger seagoing ships for international transport. Currently, Yara ships these containers over land.

“Every day, more than 100 diesel truck journeys are needed to transport products from Yara’s Porsgrunn plant to ports in Brevik and Larvik,” Yara’s president and CEO Svein Tore Holsether said in a statement issued by the two companies. “With this new autonomous battery-driven container vessel we move transport from road to sea and thereby reduce noise and dust emissions, improve the safety of local roads, and reduce nitrous oxide and CO2 emissions.”

VIDEO

A Kongsberg Gruppen video shows the concept for the Yara Birkeland.

Petter Ostbo, Yara’s head of production, told the Wall Street Journal that the Birkeland is just the start. The company hopes to invest in larger autonomous ships for even longer routes and “maybe even move our fertilizer from Holland all the way to Brazil” when international regulations for crewless vessels are set.

Norway has invested significantly in autonomous ships, and it’s moving rapidly toward allowing crewless shipping to ply its territorial waters. Kongsberg in particular has been involved in a number of projects pushing the art and science of drone ships forward—the company has developed a prototype autonomous offshore utility ship with Automated Ships Ltd (ASL), and it’s working with ASL and the offshore oil rig supply company Bourbon Offshore to build an uncrewed oil rig support ship.

But long-range uncrewed merchant shipping remains uncharted territory. And the artificial intelligence algorithms required for fully autonomous trips—which would be required for trans-oceanic voyages with limited or questionable communications bandwidth—are still under development. It still may be some time before robots put merchant seamen out of work.

Getty Images | Alex Wong

reader comments
9

Senate and House Democratic leaders today proposed new antitrust laws that could prevent many of the biggest mergers and break up monopolies in broadband and other industries.

“Right now our antitrust laws are designed to allow huge corporations to merge, padding the pockets of investors but sending costs skyrocketing for everything from cable bills and airline tickets to food and health care,” US Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) wrote in a New York Times opinion piece. “We are going to fight to allow regulators to break up big companies if they’re hurting consumers and to make it harder for companies to merge if it reduces competition.”

The “Better Deal” unveiled by Schumer and House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was described in several documents that can be found in an Axios story. The plan for “cracking down on corporate monopolies” lists five industries that Democrats say are in particular need of change, specifically airlines, cable and telecom, the beer industry, food, and eyeglasses. The Democrats’ plan for lowering the cost of prescription drugs is detailed in a separate document.

No meaningful broadband choice

In broadband, the market “is so concentrated that consumers rarely have any meaningful choice of provider, and prices are high enough to be prohibitive for many,” the Democrats’ plan says. “In over 50 million households, Americans have no choice at all for Internet provider[s offering broadband speeds]; they are forced to pay the exorbitant price their single carrier requires, if they get service at all… And the largest companies rank the lowest on customer satisfaction rankings—they don’t need to improve their service because there is no competition.”

The biggest home Internet providers in the US are Comcast, Charter, AT&T, and Verizon. The Democrats didn’t mention any Internet providers that they want broken up, but said they want to stop AT&T’s proposed $85.4 billion purchase of programmer Time Warner. Democrats wrote:

Consolidation in the telecommunications is not just between cable or phone providers; increasingly, large firms are trying to buy up content providers. Currently, AT&T is trying to buy Time Warner. If AT&T succeeds in this deal, it will have more power to restrict the content access of its 135 million wireless and 25.5 million pay-TV subscribers. This will only enable the resulting behemoths to promote their own programming, unfairly discriminate against other distributors and their ability to offer highly desired content, and further restrict small businesses from successfully competing in the market.

Although President Trump pledged to block the AT&T/Time Warner deal when he campaigned for president, AT&T is now in “early talks” with US antitrust officials regarding “possible conditions that could secure approval” of the merger, according to Bloomberg.

Shift burden of proof to merging firms

Today, US antitrust regulators and other federal agencies “can only consider the narrow, short-term effects of a merger on price and output, and have the burden of proving that consolidation would be anticompetitive,” the Democrats’ plan said.

Democrats said they are proposing “new merger standards that require a broader, longer-term view and strong presumptions that market concentration can result in anticompetitive conduct.” Regulators would have to determine whether mergers “reduce wages, cut jobs, lower product quality, limit access to services, stifle innovation, or hinder the ability of small businesses and entrepreneurs to compete.”

Companies seeking permission to complete the biggest mergers would face a stricter test. The proposed standards would automatically presume that the largest mergers are anticompetitive and should be blocked unless the merging companies can “establish the benefits of the deal.”

That’s somewhat similar to how the Federal Communications Commission reviews mergers. The FCC uses a public interest standard that forces merging companies to prove that deals benefit the public. But the FCC only reviews mergers when FCC licenses are transferred. In the case of AT&T, the Republican-controlled FCC allowed Time Warner to sell its licenses in advance so the companies can avoid a full review of their merger. AT&T thus just needs approval from the Department of Justice, which could sue to block the AT&T/Time Warner merger on antitrust grounds.

Democrats also proposed tougher post-merger review standards. There would be “frequent, independent reviews” of mergers after they are completed and more resources for regulators to ensure that companies meet any conditions imposed on the mergers. The proposed post-merger reviews would also examine whether changing “economic circumstances” have affected a merger’s impact on competition.

“Regulators would be empowered and required to take corrective measures if they find abusive monopolistic conditions where previously approved measures fail to make good on their intended outcomes,” the plan says.

The Democrats also want a new “consumer competition advocate” who would research markets and consumer complaints, and recommend competition investigations to the Federal Trade Commission and Departure of Justice.

“The advocate will consider the full range of potentially anticompetitive behavior, from traditional areas like price fixing to newer challenges like the role that online platforms play in keeping our markets fair and open,” the proposal says. Regulators would have to publicly justify any decision not to pursue an investigation recommended by the competition advocate.

Democrats remain minority party

The Democrats’ plan likely stands little chance of being enacted as long as Republicans control the House, Senate, and White House. But Democrats are trying to tell voters how things might change if they do well in next year’s midterm elections.

Schumer acknowledged that in the past two elections, Democrats “failed to articulate a strong, bold economic program for the middle class and those working hard to get there.” Democrats will seek support of Republicans in Congress, “but more important, we must start rallying the American people to support our ideas,” he wrote.

Beyond mergers and telecom, Democrats said they want “tough new enforcement” to prevent price gouging in prescription drugs, with a new government agency dedicated to stopping unfair pricing. “The enforcer will be charged with investigating drug manufacturers and protecting patients and taxpayers from egregious prescription drug price increases,” Democrats wrote. “The agency will identify drugs that have unconscionable price increases and impose fines on the manufacturer that are proportional to the size of the price hike, reinvesting the money from the fines into new cures research and development at the National Institutes of Health.”

Democrats also proposed new job creation and training policies.

“The past six months have exposed the toxic special-interest priorities at the core of the Republican agenda,” Pelosi wrote in The Washington Post. “The American people deserve better.”