Biodiversity Conservation in Britain:
"sdef!"
Mon, 27 Jan 1997 02:29:39 +0000
Biodiversity Conservation in Britain:
Science Replacing Tradition
Clive Hambler and Martin R. Speight
[The images were not in the original article, they are from an "English
Nature" promotional brochure!] [Image of coppicers, 12k]
Biodiversity has become part of the language of
environmentalists and politicians - all too often
without definition. It is easy to make statements of intent to conserve
biodiversity, but less easy to understand their implications. However,
ecologists have worked on diversity for many years, and their results
can be
exploited to answer some of the questions commonly asked by
conservationists. Their answers are often surprising and controversial.
Various meanings of biological diversity are illustrated in Box 1
Whilst international organisations have been concerned with the
conservation
of general `bio-diversity' for many years, British conservation has been
dominated by enthusiasts for a few popular, but species-poor, groups of
organisms. The flowering plants, birds, and butterflies have received
attention greatly disproportionate to the number of British species, and
the
methods for their conservation have often been enshrined in dogma. In
addition, British conservationists have relied on a set of ideals
founded on
'tradition'. Old dogmas die hard, but some wildlife managers have now
recognised that science, old and new, has relevance to their task, and
can
give them better results.
It may be a surprise to the public who support British conservation
organisations that scientists may see many of their activities as
counter-productive. Deep controversies exist about what we should
conserve,
and how. This would not have serious impact, given Britain's general
lack of
biodiversity, but because of our potential influence overseas it is
important that our philosophy is as objective and consistent as
possible,
and our methods are reviewed regularly.
Fortunately, scientific research is now being quoted in discussions on
site
management and environmental impact assessment. A series of conferences
organised by the British Ecological Society (BES) illustrates this
process.
However, resistance to new ideas is often very strong, and founded on
intuitive feelings and sensitivity to suggestions that the management of
sites may have been inappropriate for decades. Anyone who has attended
meetings on management will know that different people want different
things
from biological resources, and some views appear irreconcilable.
However,
ecology and the precision of expression it encourages are beginning to
force
logically compelling, if unpalatable, conclusions onto managers and the
general public.
Confusingly, different scientists may recommend different managements,
but
it is clear that the claims made for the general benefits of some
methods
are indefensible. Some of the main tenets of conservation in Britain are
now
being questioned - as we illustrate below.
Should traditional management of nature reserves generally be
encouraged?
One of the most deeply held beliefs is that traditional management
should be
continued or re-instated (e.g. Shirt 1987, Steel & Mills 1988, Warren
1993).
In Hampshire, for example, owners are encouraged to 'consider
traditional
management for all or part of a wood wherever possible' (Colebourn
1983).
Similar claims are made for the benefits of tradition in reedbeds,
heaths
and damp pastures.
How did this confidence in tradition come to be, and how is it being
eroded?
Conservationists have perhaps generally been more in favour of the
status
quo than the average member of the public or scientist. When they
encounter
a traditionally grazed, flower-rich calcareous grassland, they believe
that
the best way to preserve it is to maintain the grazing regime. Likewise,
if
a woodland was coppiced for centuries it may have attractive floral
carpets
in the spring, encouraging faith in tradition.
These views are acted upon by 'conservation volunteers' and managers
throughout the country, who enthusiastically coppice and 'tidy- up'
woodland, graze grassland and cut reedbeds. What if they are wrong? Does
abandonment of tradition always bring disaster?
It is evident in some cases that neglecting a calcareous grassland
(non-intervention management) can lead to floristic impoverishment
(Smith
1980). Likewise, neglecting some coppice woodlands over the past few
decades
has sometimes resulted in reduction in ground flora (Steel & Mills
1988),
and has been detrimental to a few butterflies (Warren 1993). These are
unremarkable observations to those who are familiar with the process of
community succession (Box 2).
However, improved understanding of successions, with a shift from
'facilitatory' models to 'inhibitory ones' (Connell & Slatyer 1977)
indicates that management can release succession and be
counter-productive.
Further, studies on the 'Upper Seeds' experiment at Wytham in Oxford
have
confirmed that the fauna of a calcareous grassland may become more
numerous
and diverse if unmanaged. For example, spring or autumn grazing produces
an
impoverished community of spiders (compared to neglect), whilst heavier
grazing produces a distinct, species-poor, short-grassland assemblage
(Gibson et al 1992a).
Experiments at other sites show that many invertebrates suffer under
grazing
or cutting; sites become less species-rich and support less biomass. A
decade ago Morris and Plant (1983) noted that 'unfortunately, nature
conservation continues to be dominated by concepts of grassland
management
derived from agriculture and other inappropriate sources'. They
advocated
rotational management which allows a number of stages of succession on
the
same site. This provides refuges for those organisms which do not
appreciate
the attention of a sheep's mouth or foot.
By contrast, coppicing involves a rotation which is often too rapid and
drastic for woodland species, including many shade- or moisture-loving
organisms such as lichens, bryopyhtes, and ferns (Rose 1976). There are
even
cases where neglect can benefit the flowering plants, whilst coppicing
harms
them. In Suffolk one of the county's most eminent botanists caused
furore by
suggesting that plants had suffered under re-instatement of a coppice
regime
(Simpson, 1989) - partly because of the smothering of the ground by tall
herbs and scrub on the now nutrient-rich soil.
Generally, 'neglected' coppice is improving gradually as a habitat, and
many
coppices neglected for decades or centuries are very rich in wildlife
and
rarities (Duffey 1973, Harding & Rose 1986, Sterling & Hambler 1988,
Sterling 1988, but see Key 1990). This improvement could be speeded up
by
management such as re-introductions and importation of dead wood.
Neglected
coppice woodlands also store more carbon than active ones (Hambler
1990).
What of wood pastures? Keith Kirby of English Nature suggested at a BES
meeting (Kirby & Drake 1993) that we should perhaps depart from the
traditional management, by planting flowering scrub as food sources for
adult insects; also it has been suggested that deliberately wounding
trees
could increase their value to dead-wood insects (Bratton & Andrews
1991).
Reedbeds are another of the traditionalists' favourite habitats.
However,
studies of a broad range of taxa suggest that tradition - which destroys
old
reeds - is damaging to biodiversity; here again, invertebrates were
found
more likely to thrive under rotational management, or neglect (Bibby &
Lunn
1982, Decleer 1990, Tscharntke 1992).
The management chosen should therefore depend on the aims for the site,
not
on tradition. Experiments are required to devise optimal managements for
chosen taxa, with minimal risk to other groups. Conservationists have
often
been selective in the types of tradition they support: hunting, for
example,
is seldom advocated, yet it may lead to woods which are otherwise little
disturbed. In marine ecosystems, amongst the most neglected in wildlife
conservation, traditional hunting such as lobster potting is much less
damaging than more modern and high-tech scallop dredging or trawling.
[none of these images were with the original article, but this one and
the next one are worth downloading, honest! This one is 'the eco-wipe' -
28k]
Do species depend on tradition?
It is widely claimed that species 'depend on' coppicing or sheep grazing
(e.g. Key 1990). However, such management is unlikely to have been
around
long enough, or to have been sufficiently consistent, for species to
have
evolved which depend on it. Coppicing, for example, was performed on a
cycle
varying from a few years to a few decades, both on the same sites under
different owners and in different areas (Peterken 1981). 'Tradition' is
difficult to define.
The simpler explanation is that some species have opportunistically
exploited extractive agricultural and woodland managements - just as
some
have exploited modern cereal fields (Speight 1976). The woodland gap and
edge conditions coppicing creates from high forest has allowed
gap-loving
species to usurp the true forest species. A similar process is now being
observed amongst butterflies in fragments of rainforest (Lovejoy et al
1986). Other species have spread from cliffs and gaps to the devastated
landscapes of calcareous grasslands - where forests have been reduced to
a
thin smear of life between rock and sun.
Perhaps some species of artificial habitats have now lost their original
natural habitats, at least in Britain. However, such early-successional
habitats should be easier to re-create, and such species less
internationally rare, than the late-successional ones. Some species may
have
survived here because traditional management prevented woods becoming
potato
fields, or suffering other short-term exploitation. However, much of
Britain's wildlife has survived despite traditional management (Sterling
&
Hambler 1988; Bratton & Andrews 1991).
Just as the 'Noble Savage' of the tropics has come to be seen as an
environmental pillager (Coe 1982; Borgerhoff Mulder 1991), we should
recognise that the simple traditional practices of Europeans abused
habitats
for millennia (Hambler 1990), and were certainly not designed to protect
biodiversity. Traditional management developed solely to exploit
wildlife,
and has narrowly failed to exterminate many of our native species (Box
3).
If we continue with tradition some relatively tolerant species will
survive;
if we replace old methods with management designed to protect wildlife,
then
we have a better chance of helping our biodiversity into the hands of
our
grandchildren - and an opportunity to enhance it.
If you look after the plants, will the invertebrates look after
themselves?
The belief that management for flowering plants is sufficient has been
complemented by the related saying that 'if you look after the
butterflies,
many other invertebrates will be well served' - (B.U.T.T. 1986, see also
Warren 1993).
We need to ask, however, if our mere 1,500 vascular plant species, or a
trivial 58 species of butterfly, can indicate the requirements of over
28,500 invertebrate species, some 15,000 fungi, and the unknown
diversity of
British micro-organisms - including protozoa, bacteria and viruses
(Anon,
1994)? How many butterflies live under stones, in damp rank grass, in
uncut
reedbeds, in mud or rotting wood? Far too few to be taken seriously in
all-out biodiversity conservation.
Of course, the reasons sun-loving flowering plants and butterflies
achieve
disproportionate interest include their conspicuousness and their
aesthetic
appeal. These are hardly scientific criteria worthy of consideration in
choosing management for conservation. Moreover, it is the very
atypicality
of these groups which make them appealing to us. It should be obvious
that
they cannot represent the best interests of the innumerable cryptic,
small,
soft and moisture loving creatures and plants. Most invertebrates are
smaller than a butterfly's eye.
Again, consideration of the theory of succession dispels the view that
we
can simply manage for vascular plant richness. Late-successional
habitats
will be poorer in these plant species, but generally richer in
invertebrates
(Southwood et al . 1979), microorganisms and other predominantly
shade-loving taxa (Berg et al 1994). Of course, some invertebrates will
benefit from management for flowering plants, and short, heavily grazed
calcareous grassland supports some plant-specific herbivores and
thermophilous invertebrates like the blue butterflies, so prized by
grassland managers. But, in general, heavy grazing produces a faunistic
assemblage more typical of disturbed ground (Gibson et al 1992a, 1992b).
The fundamental reason for a conflict between invertebrate and plant
conservation is that most invertebrates, unlike plants and butterflies,
do
not exploit the sun's energy directly - indeed, it is hazardous to them.
Further, invertebrates often live in and on dead plant material. Dead
wood
and dead grass is of little interest to flowering plant
conservationists,
except in so much as it may increase soil fertility and so reduce the
floristic diversity. Botanists have long dominated conservation
management
in Britain, yet few appear to realise that some 70% of the energy flow
through a terrestrial ecosystem is through the decomposer community, not
the
herbivores. Thus, as the pretty plants and their specialist herbivores
decline during succession, less loved invertebrates (and many
vertebrates),
start to thrive, many feeding on abundant decomposer organisms, often in
the
soil.
In aquatic systems, particularly marine ones, the flowering plants do
not
dictate management. Several of the marine and coastal environments of
Britain are of international significance, and support many threatened
animal species. They are also the least cared for of all British natural
habitats, and many are much more polluted than would ever be tolerated
on
dry land. There are encouraging signs (in the Marine Nature Conservation
Review, and Anon. 1994) that the difficulties of objectively evaluating
the
relative biodiversity and conservation value of marine sites are being
overcome. Sampling methods for aquatic organisms are improving. It has
recently been discovered that there are vastly more microorganisms in
marine
environments than had been imagined - another challenge for biodiversity
conservation.
It is only now that major gaps in our predominantly botanical SSSI
designations are being filled, where key sites for invertebrates have
been
overlooked. The importance of pasture woodland for dead-wood
invertebrates
and for internationally important lichen communities is being recognised
(Harding & Rose 1986), as is the importance of our sub-littoral
ecosystems.
Landscape aesthetics and public access constrain what can be achieved on
some of these sites.
Do rare species deserve priority?
The international conservation community sometimes despairs at the
parochial
British attitude to wildlife. Internationally rare species and habitats,
if
rare because of man, deserve the highest priority (Anon. 1994): without
help, such species and habitats will be lost globally and forever. By
contrast, the loss of a species from the northern end of its climatic
range
in Europe is a problem mainly for a few geneticists who could study
similar
issues elsewhere. Indeed, such species may be unnaturally widespread
since
man cleared the forests.
This dilemma is worse since many species may not be locally rare. This
is
epitomised by the peculiar situation in a reserve in England where
grassland
is being grazed with the intention of encouraging blue butterflies, at
the
expense of one of the country's largest populations of Crested Newts,
Triturus cristatus. The newts would much prefer long damp grass. Blue
butterflies (and that other popular group, the grassland orchids) are
abundant in Europe on waste ground and roadsides, whilst Crested Newts
are
in decline even in their last substantial European population -
Britain's.
A further problem is that populations on the edge of their range are
responsive to climatic changes which may negate or render redundant
resources which have been devoted to them. The rapid rise and fall of
butterfly populations illustrates this clearly. Our efforts could be
better
spent on more tractable problems than trying to create the micro-climate
of
Spain on English grasslands.
Rarity should be assessed globally, if consistent priorities are to be
set
to conserve species from ultimate, not local, extinction. Mature forest,
and
wetlands, are in decline internationally, as are many of their
specialists.
Should management aim to Increase diversity?
This problem is complex, because few people distinguish the different
ecological definitions of 'diversity' (Box 1). Indeed, since there are
many
conspicuous species in open habitats, high habitat diversity which
includes
open areas may lead to a mistaken impression of high species richness.
Should maximum species richness be a goal? Or, given the inevitable
conflicts of interest between those interested in different taxa, should
some species receive more weight? Scientists are beginning to suggest
some
should be treated more seriously than others: 'species quality' counts
for
more than quantity. Fortunately, the quality of biodiversity in an area
may
be measured more easily than total biodiversity. If sites with
indications
of high quality are conserved, then we will protect a wider range of
genetic
resources in specialist species.
Quality and quantity of blodiversity
The important species are not those which are prettiest, or easiest to
see,
but include those which are endemic, threatened or are 'keystone'
specialists which are fundamental to their ecosystems. These might
include
burrowing or detrivorous organisms. Researchers and environmental
consultants are starting to consider the 'quality' of species on site
lists,
concentrating on specialist and 'indicator' species and discounting
vagrant
'tourist' species, or very common and tolerant species, from measures of
community value.
Richness of species and quality of species would not necessarily be
expected
to correlate, except in late-successional habitats, where interactions
between species are stronger. This is because the species of temporary
habitats are more mobile than those of established habitats, and mobile
species will often be more common and widespread. For various British
organisms, Prendergast et al (1993) have already found rarity and
richness
do not coincide.
Habitat diversity
High diversity of habitat is clearly an undesirable general goal: the
costs
and benefits depend on the scale of the habitats. A diverse park or
garden
may have more landscape or educational appeal than a dense, dark oak or
spruce monoculture, and more species of vascular plants - but more
specialist, vulnerable, and globally rare species could inhabit the
woodland. Mud and sea lochs may not be diverse, but are important
habitats.
Coppicing, which turns woodland into glorified scrub, is again a useful
example. It is often thought to increase habitat diversity since the
rotational cutting of patches of the coppice woodland gives an
impression of
variety. However, this may be an artefact of the way people see
habitats:
fractal geometry shows that architectural diversity is scale-dependent,
and
to many organisms there may be more habitat diversity in a mature
woodland
although it may seem homogeneous to an animal as large as a human. The
smaller the organism, the greater the rate of loss of habitat as felling
occurs. A large late-successional habitat, such as a forest with natural
treefall gaps, will often have a high habitat diversity - with both very
high species richness and quality.
To saproxylic organisms, species requiring large or complex structures,
or
abundant foliage, coppicing does not increase diversity. Sterling and
Hambler (1988), and Waring (1988) have found coppicing damaging to
woodland
spiders and moths. It may benefit butterflies like the Pearl-bordered
and
Heath Fritillaries, Boloria euphrosyne and Mellicta athalia . However,
such
butterflies have alternative habitats on woodland edges, rides, and even
on
grasslands and heathlands respectively (Thomas 1986). Is it ethical to
'diversify' or create habitat for them at the expense of the woodland
species such as the epiphytic 'lower' plants - the true natives of much
of
our landscape, with nowhere else to go except extinction? Woodland
nature
reserves are supposedly secure as woodland habitats - and large ones are
the
best places to aim for true forest conservation. Common habitats should
not
be created from rare ones to increase diversity.
A further problem with habitat diversity is that it may be created at
the
expense of large, homogeneous blocks of habitat, and therefore more
edges
are created, between small habitat fragments. In some circumstances,
edges
are beneficial, but a rapidly increasing scientific literature suggests
organisms of the edge and matrix around a habitat can be inimical to
those
of the interior.
Woodland specialists and edge-effects.
Woodland, once the dominant habitat of Britain, now covers only 10% of
the
land. If we want to conserve the ecological processes of forests,
woodland
specialists should be given priority over species which have a greater
range
of potential habitats, and which are more tolerant of stressful, open
environments. Woodland interiors are coming to be seen as very different
from their edges (Soulé 1986; Laurance & Yansen 1991). Edge biology has
enormous implications for the shape of woodlands, and the positions of
clearings such as rides and roads within them.
Studies of British woodlands with advanced environmentally benign
'knockdown' sampling methods have shown that forest specialist
invertebrates
may suffer in a way similar to the forest specialist birds of the
Americas
when their habitats are fragmented (Ozanne 1991). Specialists decline
rapidly near the woodland edge, and are rare on isolated trees. These
results are supported by work on the ground faunas of deciduous woods
near
York (Usher et al in prep.). We have found detrimental edge-effects
penetrate at least 25m into an Oxfordshire conifer woodland (Ozanne et
al in
press) and further studies will clarify whether this is a general
pattern of
relevance to minimum forest sizes and corridor widths.
Britain has presumably lost most woodland specialist mammals and birds
which
inhabited its great forests before they were destroyed: few vertebrates
thrive on short grass, and the species that live in forest gaps
generally
are mobile and have alternative habitats. Many birds require tree holes
and
dead wood, and there is a paucity in certain elements of our avifauna
(such
as woodpeckers) in comparison with larger and more natural woods in
Europe.
Unfortunately, we cannot be sure what we have lost. Are we still losing
specialist invertebrates? Examination of the Red Data Books shows that
we
are. (Box 3, also Kirby & Drake 1993).
image of emerging woodland being destroyed, with some revealing words
from an English Nature publication - again this was not with the
original article and is just an extra, - 45
Other dogmas, old and new
Several common phrases echo round debates on conservation. 'We should
let in
more light' suggest the botanists, unaware perhaps that the high
surface-volume ratios of most microorganisms and invertebrates render
them
vulnerable to the environmental stresses of open habitats. A dead tree
in
the sun is only slightly more use than no dead tree at all, since it
will
tend to petrify rather than become a home for decomposers.
'Set-aside (ex-arable) land should be in strips' may be a fledgling
modern
dogma supported by the idea of corridors. But the corridors will not be
adequate for the species that need them most: the late-successional,
poorly
dispersing, edge-sensitive, K-selected species which are most at risk on
land in Britain. These will not be functional corridors to many
saproxylic
organisms. Better perhaps to have large blocks of grass or heath or real
woodland, than strips which will be of as little use to specialists as
are
cereal fields. Ironically, field edge habitats may be worse than none at
all, if predation and other edge effects now being discovered in
temperate
and tropical America (Soulé 1986, Brash 1987, Laurence & Yansen 1991)
are
general ecological phenomena. We already know that small heathlands do
not
support true heathland communities, but are influenced strongly by
vagrants
(Webb 1989).
'Conifer monocultures are poor for wildlife' is another view which may
soon
change. Studies of exotic plantations in southern Britain have shown
that
when the previously neglected tree canopy is sampled, woodland
specialists
and other invertebrates can be found in very great abundance (Ozanne
1991 &
in press). Conifer leaves live a long time, present a lot of cover even
in
winter, and many inconspicuous animals graze the microfungi on their
surfaces.
An interesting dogma, in that it is propagated by many scientists, is
that
the Equilibrium Theory of Island Biogeography (ETIB) is useful in
reserve
design (Diamond 1975). However, the theory actually contributes nothing
to
the debate on single large or several small reserves (popularly known as
the
'SLOSS' question), or the question of reserve shape (Simberloff 1986).
Several assumptions are, as anticipated by the original proponents of
the
model, unrealistic. Worse, ETIB predicts species richness, not quality.
Fortunately, modern studies revealing the importance of perimeter/area
and
edge/core ratio effects have generally led to the same conclusions as
those
claimed to be derived from ETIB, and can predict the abundance of
specialists (Temple, 1986; Laurance, 1991). We have perhaps ended up
with
the right general strategies for the geometry of reserves (large and
circular) but for the wrong reasons! At least searching for equilibria
made
us think. Similarly, trendy 'metapopulation' models ignore edge-effects.
Doubtless, other dogmas will come and go, but science should reduce the
duration and impact of each.
Conclusion
With increasing amounts of Britain's wildlife coming under the control
of a
few land-owners and conservation groups, the diversity of land
management
itself may decline on the best remaining wildlife habitats. It is
therefore
crucial that conservationists keep up with and employ research in
ecology.
Recent conferences, and the Biodiversity Action Plan (Anon. 1994)
suggest
that communication between practitioners and researchers is improving.
Researchers have often found their results unpalatable to practitioners,
but
should not give up collecting and disseminating them. Practitioners must
come to appreciate the scope of their responsibilities to wildlife in
its
fullest sense, and be less swayed by their fondness for charismatic
taxa.
Conservationists should always remember what Charles Elton (1966) called
the
'importance of Cover'. As structural complexity increases, so does the
microclimatic amelioration, and so does the availability of sites and
plant
structures suitable for animals' oviposition, over-wintering,
web-building,
crypsis, courtship etc.
There is more damp material for decomposers, more substrate for
microbes,
more prey for predators, and there are more hosts for parasites. There
is
simply more niche-space in late-successional habitats. In general, the
damper and more structurally complex the habitat, the more biodiversity
it
can support.
Therefore, most organisms become more numerous as succession proceeds.
In
marine systems, this can be witnessed by snorkelling over sub-littoral
rocky
substrates round Britain. Invertebrates and micro-organisms (including
viruses) form the bulk of the numbers and species of organisms in any
site:
the main pool of biodiversity; these will increase until biomass
accumulation stabilises naturally - a point seldom reached in Britain,
where
traditional and other managements interrupt successions.
Late-successional
and damp habitats are often heavily exploited. Biodiversity conservation
should emphasise these habitats, and although a case can of course be
made
for conservation of early-successional stages as well (Usher 1993), we
suggest the philosophy of conservation will be more consistent if we see
a
paradigm shift to give late-successional environments more emphasis.
Biodiversity is so Immense, even in temperate regions, that we cannot
hope
to elucidate the individual requirements of all the species we wish to
conserve. In a search for tractable, yet biologically sensitive
indicator
species, the birds are emerging globally as a valuable tool to short-cut
some of the research required. A superb document from the ICBP
biodiversity
programme shows the way forward (ICBP 1992). But for smaller areas,
birds
cannot represent all the fungi, microbes, protozoa and invertebrates
that
comprise most of our biodiversity. Other groups, such as leaf miners and
spiders can represent some specialists on plant species and structures
(Sterling et al 1992; Sterling & Hambler 1988), whilst ancient woodland
indicator beetles can contribute by revealing a historical continuity of
woodland habitat (Harding & Rose 1986; Speight 1986).
Finally, we expose ourselves to accusations of hypocrisy from tropical
countries if we encourage them to protect their forests, whilst
recommending
we continue to chop down our own by traditional methods. We should
submit a
scientific, not traditional, approach for the world's scrutiny.
Scientific
paradigms may be challenged more often, and be less damaging, than those
of
dogmatists - and may slow the loss of British species. However, a
diversity
of conservationists may benefit biodiversity, and the intensity of the
current debate about such controversial issues should benefit wildlife
in
general.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
http://www.hrc.wmin.ac.uk/campaigns/ef/earthfirst.html
South Downs EF!, Prior House
6, Tilbury Place, Brighton BN2 2GY, UK
Environmental Engineering News
Jean Francois Giraud
Sun, 26 Jan 1997 20:45:46 -0500
Environmental Engineering Electronic Newsletter (EEEN)
ELECTRONIC NEWSLETTER
Jan. 24, 1997
================================================================
INSIDE THIS SAMPLE ISSUE...
* THE NEWSLETTER
* IN THE NEWS
* CALENDAR OF EVENTS
* HOW TO SUBMIT NEWS TO THE EEEN NEWSLETTER
* CADMIUM AND CHROMIUM PLATING REPLACEMENT
* HEALTH AND SAFETY
* NEW TECHNOLOGY
* GENERAL ISSUES
* PENALTIES
* REGULATIONS
* ECONOMIC INDICATORS
* Q & A
* LETTERS
* CLASSIFIED ADVERTIZING
================================================================
THE NEWSLETTER
Welcome to this sample issue of The Environmental Engineering
Electronic Newsletter. The Newsletter was founded with the goal
of keeping the scientific community informed about upcoming events
and the latest developments in environmental technologies. If
you are not satisfied with the amount or content of information
about the environment found in traditional media, if you expect
quick, easy and inexpensive access to news and product information,
then EEEN is the answer.
EEEN is an electronic newsletter distributed weekly via email
for engineers, students, and practitioners in the fields of
Environmental Engineering. EEEN publishes news items,
journal table of contents, announcements, requests for
assistance, calls for papers, notices of professional meetings
and conferences, position announcements, information about
industry newsmakers, new product announcements, legislative items,
new or related WEB sites, technical insights intelligence services
and other items of interest to the Environmental Engineering
community.
Thank you for considering subscribing to The EEEN Electronic
Newsletter, and good luck in your endeavours. If you ever
have any questions or for subscribtion information
feel free to e-mail us at: jgiraud@cam.org
================================================================
IN THE NEWS
This "sample" electronic newsletter does not show all nor
complete news items.
*Keystone Helicopter Corporation of West Chester, Pa is
sentenced for hazardous waste violations. The sentence is
to pay a $75,000 criminal fine and conduct a free one-day
seminar for industry on compliance with hazardous waste laws
and the Safe Drinking Water Act. Jan 17 1997
*111% earnings turnaround for Environmental Technologies corp.
For first quarter. Jan 16 1997
*Atlas Environmental inc is seeking reorganization under
Chapter 11 of the Federal Bankruptcy Code. Jan 16 1997
*Mobil inc has announced a new environmental business venture,
Mobil Environmental Management Services (MEMS), MEMS goal is
to improve the management of environmental clean-up projects.
Jan 14 1997
*IDM Environmental Corp. (Nasdaq: IDMC, IDMCW) should report
revenues of $25 million for 1996 compared with $39.4 million
for 1995. Jan 14 1997
*"Uranium, the radioactive material used in nuclear reactors,
may find a more environmentally 'friendly' use in helping
to eliminate dangerous pollutants from industrial
smoke emissions." ref. Nature News Service
*"Bottom-up Ecological Processes Better for Clear Waters,
Study Finds." ref. UC Davis News January 16, 1997
...
For more info http://www.cam.org/~jgiraud
================================================================
CALENDAR OF EVENTS
This "sample" electronic newsletter does not show all nor complete
calendar of events items.
*OSHA Voluntary compliance-safety Phone 404 894-2400
Orlando, Fla, Jan 13-17
*The 1997 Conference on corporate Environmental, Health and
Safety Excellence. 212 980-7014 New York, NY, Feb 4-5
*The OSHA Laws and regulations, 301 921-2345
Orlando Fla, Feb 18-19,
*Hazardous wastes management seminar, 908 859-9400
Durham NC, Feb 25-26,
*Second Industrial Energy Efficiency Symposium & Expo
202-586-9496, Arlington, VA, Feb 25-27
*Levereging Alternative Resources to accelerate commercial
development, 202-414-4110, Philadelphia,Pa, Mar 9-10
*8 th Annual U.S. hydrogen Meeting & Exhibition 202-223-5547
Alexandria Va, Mar 11-13
*1997 International Clean Water conference: Today's Science for
tomorow's policies 415-855-2010, Baltimore Md. Mar 25-27
*Water resources Planning and Management Division.
703-295-6000, Houston, Tx, Apr. 6-9
*Nineteenth National Industrial Energy Technology Conference '97
409-847-8950, Houston, Tx, Apr. 22-24
*R'97:Recovery, recycling, re-integration 3rd International Congress
exhibition, 41-22-761-1111, Geneva, Switzerland, Feb 17-19
*Fifth International recycling exhibition 44-1707-27-5641
Paris, France, March 26-28
For more info http://www.cam.org/~jgiraud/encal.txt
================================================================
HOW TO SUBMIT NEWS TO THE EEEN NEWSLETTER
THE EEEN reports information about Environmental issues
found through the various media and from industry members
themselves, EEEN also accepts news from readers and
announcements of updated/new related web sites. If you find
any news about the environment, the environmental
industry, or have a resource you want announced through
THE EEEN newsletter, please contact us at jgiraud@cam.org
================================================================
CADMIUM REPLACEMENT
================================================================
This sample electronic newsletter does not show the complete cadmium
replacement report.
Replacement of Cadmium Plating:
Applications are in: Transportations and medical industries.
Defence related applications are likely to occur in 1997.
Author JF Giraud, engineer: jgiraud@cam.org
Table of contents
1 Recommendations
2 Introduction / Background
2.1 Benefits of eliminating Cadmium plating
2.2 Problems associated with Cadmium plating
2.3 Alternatives to Cadmium plating
2.4 Corrosion background
2.5 Performance evaluation of selected alternatives:
3 Discussion
3.1 Properties Cadmium plating vs IVD vs Zn-Ni vs MLIO
4 Results
4.1 Cadmium plating requirements (TP #, TP #)
4.2 Ion Vapour Deposition of aluminium (IVD)
4.3 Zinc Nickel
4.3.1 Zinc Nickel test matrix
4.4 Multi-Layer Inorganic Overlay (MLIO) Coatings
4.4.1 Multi Layer Inorganic Overlay Results
5 Specifications / References
6 Photographs
1 Recommendations
IVD Aluminium and Zinc Nickel plating are two environmentally
acceptable technologies that offer potential to fulfill all the
requirements of Cadmium plating. Our recommendation is to transition
IVD Aluminium to aircraft use. IVD is recommended because no
hazardous wastes have to be treated. Also preliminary studies and
research indicate that more than 90% of aircraft parts
currently coated with Cadmium could be coated with IVD Aluminium,
with no change in overall performance. The remaining parts would
require supplemental treatment in addition to IVD Aluminium or
another type of treatment. Large scale IVD Aluminium systems have
been available for about twenty years, this process could easily
be implemented or subcontracted.
.......
-------------------- * --------------------
This "sample" electronic newsletter does not show the complete newsletter.
The following sections were not included.
* HEALTH AND SAFETY
* NEW TECHNOLOGY
* GENERAL ISSUES
* PENALTIES
* REGULATIONS
* Q & A
* LETTERS
* CLASSIFIED ADVERTIZING
================================================================
For more information you may contact us at: jgiraud@cam.org
Thank you for your time and consideration.
(c) Copyright 1997, Procad, All rights reserved.
