Tiny
amounts of pesticides have been found in a handful of lobsters caught
in Long Island Sound and tested by the Connecticut DEEP and UConn. You
can read a good account of it in the Ct Mirror, here.
It
is an interesting finding, but it’s also perplexing. Researchers will
now look for a cause and effect link between pesticides and the 1999
lobster die-off in Long Island Sound. But it’s not clear to me how this
discovery in 2012 will lead to any conclusions about something that
happened 13 years ago.
To
review: There was an enormous die-off of lobsters in the Sound in 1999.
The die-off coincided with the spraying of pesticides to kill
mosquitoes during a West Nile outbreak. It also coincided with a period
of warming water temperatures in the Sound. And it coincided with a peak
in the Sound’s commercial lobster catch.
The
warmer water is significant because the American lobster, Homarus
americanus, is a cold-water species, and Long Island Sound is at the
extreme southern end of its inshore range. In other words, before the
Sound’s water started warming, water temperatures in the Sound were
about as warm as lobsters could tolerate anyway.
So
by the late 1990s, there were millions of lobsters living in conditions
that were unsuitable for them. The Sound’s lobster population was
stressed by a change in habitat conditions.
The
peak in the commercial catch is interesting because throughout the
1980s and 1990s, Long Island Sound – particularly the western half – was
essentially a lobster ranch. Lobstermen would consistently pull traps
crammed with 20 lobsters feeding on bait; typically 19 of those lobsters
were too small to be kept legally. So the lobstermen would throw them
back. The small lobsters would then enter more traps and continue to
feed on the bait, and so on until the lobsters were big enough to keep.
In
other words the lobstermen were essentially ranching or farming
lobsters, feeding them on bait in cages, and spurring the growth in
population. Overpopulation was another source of stress. (That, by the
way, is not just my opinion; it was the conclusion of the Connecticut
DEEP and the New York State DEC.)
Scientists
concluded a decade ago that water temperature and overpopulation were
among a few environmental stresses that led to the die-off by making the
lobsters vulnerable to a parasite that killed them.
Now maybe pesticides should be added to that list. Or not.
The
recent tests that detected the presence of pesticides in Sound lobsters
are far more sensitive than previous tests. They were able to find
concentrations of pesticides that were too small to be detected 10 years
ago.
The
tests of course don’t answer the question of whether the pesticides
were there in 1999. Also still to be determined is whether the tiny
amounts detected are enough to do any damage to the lobsters. It’s also
unknown whether pesticides will show up in a new batch of lobsters being
tested now.
And
it’s important to remember that the new tests are from this year. The
lobsters die-off happened in 1999. And once they died, they stayed dead –
the population has not rebounded.
So
if the lobster population died off in 1999, what is the significance of
pesticides found in Long Island Sound lobsters in 2012?
Again,
the presence of pesticides in Long Island Sound lobsters is an
interesting finding. But for now al it means is that pesticides were
found in a few lobsters. It does not mean – yet – that pesticides are
hurting the lobsters. Nor does it mean – yet – that pesticides caused
the lobster die-off in 1999. Further tests may answer those questions.
Does
it sound as if I am trying to rationalize or excuse the use of
pesticides? I’m not. You can read just about everything I’ve written on
this blog about pesticides and lobsters here. We as a society use way, way too many pesticides. I’m for banning or severely limiting their use.
But
the more important reality may be that there are no longer a
significant number of lobsters in the Sound because the habitat has
changed and Long Island Sound simply is no longer lobster habitat.
The DEEP's press release about it is here, although you'll notice that they bury the pesticide finding in the 13th paragraph.
What about the fact that in 1999-2001, more than just a few lobsters displayed visible signs of shell rot?
ReplyDeleteHow do we know they died off and did not simply relocate once conditions became less tolerable? Why did landings increase outside of the Sound on both the eastern and western ends?