The Ocean Blog

Blog Top

The Invisible Loss: The Impacts of Oil You Do Not See

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 9:23am
Chris Mah
Dr. Christopher Mah is one of the world's experts in the evolution and biology of the Asteroidea aka starfishes or…
A tiny larval (baby) starfish.
A tiny larval (baby) starfish.
Dr. Allison J. Gong, UC Santa Cruz

Since late April, the world has watched a devastating oil spill from a BP drilling rig spread throughout the Gulf of Mexico and become one of the worst environmental disasters in the history of the United States.

We have all seen some of the impacts on large animals: birds, turtles, dolphins, and fishes have all been shown covered in oil with clogged gills, feathers and fins. Undoubtedly, the imagery of these familiar and normally photogenic animals is a powerful, heartbreaking reminder of the damage being done in the Gulf.

But, the effect of the oil on those organisms we do not see may be even more important.

I refer to the invertebrates—animals such as shrimp, crabs, sea stars, sea urchins, clams, snails, and worms, which lack backbones (or vertebrae). These species may not make the headlines as often as larger animals, but they are critically important to the ecosystem in the Gulf. In 1993, Dr. Thomas Suchanek, a researcher at the University or California, Davis published a scientific paper summarizing the effects of oil on invertebrate communities. The paper notes that very low concentrations of oil can produce dramatic changes in invertebrate populations.

Why is this important? Invertebrates comprise the majority of animals in the marine ecosystem. They include jellyfish that live throughout the water column (and are food for turtles and fish); sea stars, which live on the sea bottom; and more importantly the many clams, crabs, shrimps and other commercially important species that are fished in the Gulf. Oil, not to mention the more toxic dispersants being used in the clean-up, can have a wide range of harmful effects, including changes to reproduction, growth, feeding, movement, behavior, and breathing. Destruction of these animals will substantially change the food webs and interrelationships among the organisms that live in the Gulf.

We immediately think about the damage affecting adult animals, but in fact, the more severe damage may be done to those animals we can’t even see—the larvae (baby forms) that live among the plankton.

Seawater is full of plankton—tiny organisms that drift on the currents. Many of these organisms are larvae, or immature animals, mostly invertebrates that grow up to become those jellyfish, crabs, and clams. In many ways, the tiny forms of these animals are the most vulnerable, which is why there are so many of them. In nature, no predator would be able to devour them all, so eventually a significant fraction of those animals grow up into adults. But what happens when you poison the environment where they live? Massive swaths of ocean containing these organisms will likely be obliterated. Some reports are already talking about “dead zones” that could affect species in the Gulf for years to come.

The ecological effects will be even more long lasting. As with the adults, these larvae are part of complex food webs and can play important direct and indirect roles in ecosystems.

The domino effect of wiping out those adults will be devastating not only to the ecology but to the economy. For example, what happens to the shrimp fishery when not only all the adults are poisoned, but the larval forms are wiped out or significantly weakened? The same question applies to almost any edible marine animal in the Gulf of Mexico.

The scope of the damage is sad even if we only see images of poisoned pelicans and other large vertebrates, but what we do not see that may be the most widespread and devastating legacies of the Gulf oil spill.

Editor's Note: Our guest blogger, Dr. Chris Mah, is an expert in the evolution and biology of sea stars. He works in the Department of Invertebrate Zoology at Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History and regularly shares his studies and adventures on the Echinoblog.

blog_pager_btm

Comments

Write What You Think About This Page

it has a lot of information about oil spills should read it

its hurt me inside to see this sea life in danger

something must be done to prevent and avoid such happenings if future. lets learn from our past mistakes.

great

BP is really dumb and we should shut them down!!!!!!!!!
Come on everyone!

I BET YOU DON`T THINK THAT EVERY TIME TOU GAS YOUR CAR UP!

you all are babies grow up

I hate BP! >:(

The ocean does not deserve to be treated like this!!!

I vote get rid of BP. from BRITAIN!

We are an ignorant society for continuing along the oil slicked path we tread upon. We (the people) will never step up to the greedy oil pigs that run (and ruin) our country. The technology for clean energy is here. Why must we continue this way. It sickens me.

I think this article is very interesting and important, and needs to be available to all kind of public, I think this matter is mostly understandable for ecologists, biologists, and professionals related to the ocean, but people who are not in this field does not know about the tragic ecological, and economical dissaster this oil spill leads to... specially because for the marine species, it will take many many years to restock naturally their population, so the food chain can restore.

i agree with your statement..

One question that troubles me: I have no doubt that the oil spill and the dispersants will have and are having a devastating effect on the northeastern Gulf ecosystem. But isn't that area, particularly from east Texas to Alabama, already defined as a dead zone with a low DO and toxicity from the chemicals flushed down the Mississippi? What is the incremental impact of the spill in that large area? Phyllis

I would also add that organisms outside of the immediate sense perception of humans, the microsphere, contribute a bit over 70% of the world’s primary productivity. All of that comes from the ocean by single-cell plants.

The oil won't do ANY of that any good...

Why is this happening to the ocean?

Because we're addicted to oil!

The rig did not belong to "British Petroleum" as people are so fond of bandying around. This company is an international conglomerate with the name BP. They have not used this old name for years and the use of it encourages ridiculous anger aimed at British people.

Better read this. Just do a Google on who is BP
BP (formerly known as "British Petroleum") is a global oil, gas and chemical company headquartered in Britain and responsible for the largest environmental disaster ever in the United States, the April 20, 2010, blowout of its Deepwater Horizon oil well in the Gulf of Mexico (discussed in more detail below). The company owns numerous refineries and chemical manufacturing plants around the world. [1] BP is the United Kingdom's largest corporation. Its global headquarters are in London, and its U.S. headquarters are in Houston, Texas. Its major brands include BP, AmPm, ARCO, and Castrol. (From sourcewatch.org)

The rig belonged to Transocean Ltm., but it was BP that submitted, and then altered, the design of the well that led to the blowout. It was BP that chose the risky option of using only 6 centralizers on the final string of casing when their own analysis demonstrated that channels would be created in the final cementing of that casement.

It was BP that told the Schlumberger crew that a cement-bond log on that final cement job was unnecessary even though it was clear that the practice was standard operation in the completion of wells, and would have found some of the flaws inherent in the design that led to the blowout.

It was BP that chose to ignore industry standards when it chose not to fully circulate the drilling mud which would have given indication of dangerous levels of formation fluids in the mud.

It is BP that chose to not install a lock down sleeve that would have provided another redundancy against communication of formation fluids through the well head.

It seems apparent that BP chose a sub-standard design that ignored standard protocol in an attempt to save a couple of days on-site. Their attempt, if successful, would have saved only a fraction of the total cost of the well bore, and in relation to the profits that the reservoir hold, not even a mere pittance.

No one that I am aware of is angry at the British people, but we are furious at the criminal neglect of a company that has long flouted industry standards, and chooses people over profits... going all the way back to its days as the Anglo Iranian Oil Company.

"chooses people over profits" should read profits over people.

Sorry. Solius

Thank you for pointing this out. This was an error introduced during editing, and we have corrected the name.

Share your comments here.

* When you click submit, your comment will be added to the queue for review and will be published after approval.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Filtered words will be replaced with the filtered version of the word.

More information about formatting options