|
Endangered Species of
the Southern US
A weekly column by Shawn Gaynor
An
unlikely carnivore
Wetland areas have always been a rarity in the steep mountain
region of the western Carolinas. Glaciers, which have facilitated the
creation of lakes and wetlands in the northern Appalachian region have
not gentled these mountains, and there were no lakes in the region at
all before the damming of rivers and streams.
Where wetlands have historically existed, around spring seepage areas
and along flood plains of the areas’ rivers and streams, they have
been impacted enormously by development. With flat land being a hot
commodity in the area, many of these wetlands have been drained, filled,
or converted to agricultural use.
Within the few remaining wetlands in the area lurks a carnivore of the
most unlikely type — a plant. The mountain sweet pitcher plant
is a perennial, revegetating each year in the same location.
Scientists are unsure how carnivorous plants evolved, but some speculate
that carnivorous traits originally developed to compensate for poor
soil with low nutrients (though the areas in which the mountain pitcher
plant grows are actually very nutrient rich). Coastal North and South
Carolina are famous for their diversity of carnivorous plants like the
Venus fly trap, but they are not renowned for growing in the mountain
areas.
Unlike the Venus fly trap, which catches its prey by closing its “jaws”
around unsuspecting insects, the mountain sweet pitcher plant lures
its prey in with nectar secreted from glands and then “catches”
the insects with spiny hairs pointed downward towards a pool of water
at the bottom of the pitcher. This pool, collected from rain, is the
plant’s stomach, where insects decay and are absorbed into the
plant.
Though the mountain sweet pitcher plant was never very widespread due
to its narrow ecological niche, it has suffered drastic decline in recent
years. Sixteen sites where the plant historically grew have now been
destroyed. Development has been the main culprit, and the US fish and
Wildlife Service lists golf courses as an especially large threat to
the plant -- three of the sixteen destroyed sites were demolished for
the development of golf courses.
The mountain sweet pitcher plant is found now in only ten locations,
mostly in the French Broad and Saluda River basins. Many of the remaining
populations cover an area of less than 50 square feet, half the size
of a typical bedroom. Four of these populations are in South Carolina,
six in North Carolina. Three of the South Carolina sites have been acquired
by the state, but in North Carolina most are on private land where their
protection relies on the cooperation of landowners.
The species has been successfully propagated in controlled conditions
and was reintroduced to one site in Henderson County at the Fall Creek
Camp for Boys, in an area that the plant had historically grown. Without
healthy wetlands to reintroduce the plant into, its viability in the
wild remains in jeopardy. Though it is not likely to disappear completely,
the day may come where it can find suitable habitat only in controlled
conditions in botanical gardens, universities, and private collections.
Common name: Mountain sweet pitcher plant
Scientific name: Sarracenia rubra ssp. jonesii
Range: Henderson and Transylvania Counties, North Carolina, and Greenville
County, South Carolina
STATUS: Endangered, Federal Register, April 14, 1989
DESCRIPTION: A perennial herb, the mountain sweet
pitcher plant grows from 21 to 73 inches tall. Its numerous and erect
leaves grow in clusters and are hollow and trumpet-shaped, forming slender,
almost tubular pitchers with a heart-shaped hood. The pitchers are a
waxy dull green with criscrossing maroon-purple veins. The hair inside
the pitchers’ tube is usually bent downward, and the tubes are
often partially filled with liquid and decayed insect parts. Flowers
of the mountain sweet pitcher plant are usually maroon with recurving
petals. The stalks are erect and bear one flower each.
Bush gives power plants
loophole on pollution control
By Andrew Gumbel
Aug. 23— The Bush administration is planning to overturn
a key provision of the Clean Air Act, in effect giving industrial companies
a green light to update their facilities without regard for pollution
controls, according to a White House document leaked yesterday.
The measure would save firms hundreds of millions of dollars while significantly
increasing industrial emissions and almost certainly contributing to
global warming.
At least until it was leaked, the administration’s Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) was due to make its final ruling on modifying
the 1972 Clean Air Act in the next few days. It appears the White House
wanted to draw as little attention to the change as possible, choosing
a moment when Congress is not in session and when the position of EPA
administrator is temporarily vacant.
Critics nevertheless wasted no time in denouncing the administration’s
plans. Jim Jeffords, the Vermont senator who quit the Republican Party
within months of President George W. Bush coming to power, described
the proposed new ruling as a “flagrant violation” of federal
law. Eliot Spitzer, the attorney general of New York state, told The
New York Times he would sue the administration as soon as it came into
effect. He said: “This makes it patently clear that the Bush administration
has meant all along to repeal the Clean Air Act by administrative fiat.”
The administration itself has refused to comment, saying the ruling
was still under review. According to the leaked document, first obtained
by a high-profile environmental lobbying group, the EPA plans to expand
the definition of “routine maintenance” on industrial plants
to include major overhauls and new equipment. “Routine maintenance,”
exempting companies from environmental protection controls, would be
defined under the new rules as anything up to 20 percent of the total
cost of the whole facility.
According to the lobby group, the National Resources Defense Council,
the new rules would invalidate a slew of recent litigation brought against
power plants by the Justice Department. It would also give power companies
— among the administration’s staunchest supporters —
virtual carte blanche to expand their facilities as they please.
“The Bush administration, using an arbitrary, Enron-like accounting
gimmick, is authorizing massive pollution increases to benefit Bush
campaign contributors at the expense of public health,” said John
Walke, director of NRDC’s Clean Air Project.
The measure would be the latest in a series of rollbacks of key environmental
protection regulations. Already in the works are plans to rewrite the
Clean Water Act in ways that would allow industries to dredge, fill
or dump waste into streams and wetlands, according to the NRDC. The
Pentagon is also seeking sweeping exemptions from federal environmental
laws for its military bases, including exemption from an estimated $28
billion in litigation costs arising from previous violations.
Intriguingly, the looser Clean Air standards have been the subject of
an internal fight within the administration over the past two years.
They were staunchly resisted by Christine Todd Whitman, the EPA administrator
who resigned earlier this summer.
The anti-clean air lobby has been led by Dick Cheney, the Vice-President
and architect of the administration’s much-debated national energy
policy. He appears to be taking advantage of Whitman’s departure,
and the hiatus before the arrival of her nominated successor, Mike Leavitt,
to push the new rules through.
Source: Independent (UK)
Probe into ‘bullying’ of GM
panel scientists
By Mark Townsend
Aug. 24— Some of Britain’s most senior scientists
are being investigated in an inquiry to discover whether opponents of
genetically modified food have been bullied to soften their stance.
Growing concern that government-appointed experts have come under pressure
from pro-GM peers to toe a bio-tech line has led Tony Blair to appoint
Nigel Griffiths, the Minister for small business, to investigate.
Griffiths insisted that the inquiry would avoid being influenced by
government spin.
“I am determined to make sure none of the facts are kept from the
public and none of it is spun. I am also making sure that filtered advice
from civil servants does not get in the way. This is too much in the
public interest,” he said.
The inquiry follows at least two cases in which leading academics selected
by the government told how they were threatened in an attempt to rig
a recent official inquiry into GM crops and food.
Dr. Andrew Stirling, of Sussex University and a member of the government’s
GM science review panel, was warned by a leading member of the scientific
establishment that his career would be ruined unless he stopped questioning
the technology’s safety. The pro-GM scientist tried to get Stirling
removed from a research project by approaching its funders.
Days earlier, another leading independent academic had told The Observer
how he resigned from the science review after fearing his funding might
be withdrawn. Professor Carlo Leifert, of the University of Newcastle,
also felt it was improper that an employee of GM giant Monsanto had
been allowed to draft a key chapter on the safety of GM foods for the
science review.
Opponents of GM crops yesterday welcomed any official attempt to investigate
whether any other academic or scientist had experienced similar pressure.
Dr. Douglas Parr of Greenpeace said: “We are pleased that the government
seems to be trying to get to the bottom of this. The intimidation of
Stirling was a brazen attempt to silence legitimate concerns about GM
crops. How many others are holding their tongues on GM issues for fear
of losing their funding and academic posts?”
Sue Flook, of the Soil Association — which wrote to Blair demanding
an inquiry into the Stirling scandal — said: “It just shows
the power that the companies can have in influencing academics and ultimately
the public. It’s unacceptable.”
Despite the revelations, Blair’s personal scientific adviser, Professor
Sir David King, who chaired the GM review panel, has persuaded Stirling
not to name his aggressor.
It comes amid growing signs that the government is cooling its support
for GM, publicly at least. Although Blair has backed research into the
use of genetic technology in several speeches, last week Ministers said
the Prime Minister had in fact never been a “gung-ho” advocate.
Yet Blair is already bracing himself for fresh criticism over the technology
when it unveils its GM crop farm trials next month.
Reports suggest they will show that GM crops can be more damaging to
neighboring fauna than conventional strains of sugar beet, maize, and
oilseed rape.
Three varieties of GM crops have been tested in hundreds of farm-scale
trials. The government is to base its decision on whether to grow GM
crops commercially in Britain on the results of these trials.
Source: Observer (UK)
|
