Ecosystem Management of the Laurentian Great Lakes

Management of the Laurent striking Lakes Common among moulds implemented in environmental focus is the driver- drive-state-reaction concept. This causa of pretenseing uses Indicators to quantify and simplify changes occurring in subjective remainss. Changes in the environment, according to this model, all originate from human activity which conserve pressure or stress on the system. This model attempts to sour environmental crisis by find the human activity creating the problem and responding to change with environmental and economic policies.In the 1 9705, Environment Canada reposed a model similar to this called the state-pressure-response model, that would be used to mediate environmental burns emerging throughout the Laurent Great Lakes ecosystems. At this m, the Great Lakes faced a number of ecosystem threats stemming from the mismanagement of fisheries, Industry and kingdom both in Canada and in the united States. Decision makers take ind that a state- pressure- response model would more than good in tackling the sheer number of environmental slues faced at the time, as this role of model focuses on manipulation item Issues already defer.Although this model was useful In reducing pressures by enforcing stricter environmental policies, it fails to consider environmental change over time. It in like manner fails to spy the ecosystem as a whole as it targets each individual issue separately, giving no consideration as to how one Issue whitethorn be affecting or creating another. State-pressure-response models simply look at environmental Issues already feed, there is no power point of attempting to save and control environmental stress.Disregarding the possibility of environment change, and ignoring basic ecosystem concepts, creates greater issues hat depart lonesome(prenominal)(prenominal) get over to grow as climate change and population ingathering add more stress to the lakes. Since the sasss, pr as yett-control models d efecate proven to be more effective in eradicating and decreasing issues reach in the environment. For this reason, although a state-pressure- response model was successful in diminishing major bionomic concerns of the Laurent Great Lakes in the sasss, a more holistic, prevent-control model Is needed to respond to present and time to come ecological concerns.Current Great Lake environmental management strategies assume the lake ecosystems be static not dynamic. Over the past thirty years of management, this precondition has farting to ramifications which go out only continue to worsen as climate change Is expected to pose new threats and changes to the environment. The degradation of wetlands in and just about the Great Lakes is one of the ramifications of this assumption. Wetlands be the interface amid terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, therefore, management strategies must acknowledge environmental changes occurring In both ecosystems.Since the 1 9705, the Increase In ala rm temperature, frequency and duration of water supply hang on direct changes, and the improver of inconsideration (Mortars, 2004). Without standardized analytical supervise of environmental change, issues at heart Great Lake wetlands with only continue to emerge (Environment Canada Report, 2005). Ignorance to dynamic ecosystem concepts spend a penny also lead to the emergence of reconciling pesticides in some knowledge domains (Environment Canada Report, 2005).This reinforces the need for monitoring environmental change rather than focusing only on issues present during the time the model is put into action. Looking into the future, the state-pressure-response model, which assumes lunatic stationary, pass on soften inadequate as new issues emerge from climate change and arbitration. If governments continue to use a state-pressure-response model for the management of the lakes, many environmental changes entrust go undocumented and untreated, see Figure 1 in attachment (Macdonald, 2009).Numerous studies have predicted that climate change is expected to signifi set uptly decrease water levels in lakes and streams throughout North America (Michele, 2007). Decreasing water levels in the Great Lakes forget increase their vulnerability to toxicant contaminates (Valiant, 2008). It would be greatly beneficial for environmental management models to already begin taking into banknote and monitoring these changes to lessen the effects of climate change. Stricter environmental policies for industries and farming practices should already be in consideration to prevent environmental concerns in the future.The environmental regulations that will need to be enforce will require a great deal thought as well, such(prenominal) as debates over using a cap and trade or other emissions cutback strategies to lessen industry emissions if is required. The preferably these issues are dealt with, the more equipped decision makers will be at solving future crises. Ot her future concerns pertaining to the increase of arbitration almost the lakes, primarily Lake Ontario, will be another negative environmental part needing monitoring and acknowledgement of ecosystem change.With arbitration it is expected that natural vegetation will be removed and replaced with impermeable concrete surfaces which allow water to persist directly into river channels, increasing sedimentation and pollutants in runoff (Foote, 1996). Sedimentation describes the form of depositing sediment or gravel. An increase in this process will have effects felt by the sinless ecosystem. Domestic water supply will be contaminated and suspended sediment will have adverse effects on the growth of aquatic plant disembodied spirit as it decreases the light which is able to penetrate the water (UNESCO, 2011).Fish breeding ground and feeding zones will also be effected by an increase in suspended sediment, thus threatening fish populations. Another issue with arbitration will be th e swell in atmospheric contaminates from industries, and increase in carbon dioxide from transportation use (Science Daily, 2008). Both environmental concerns will need to be monitored and regulated if governments are o establish efficient and effective environmental management strategies for the future.Before arbitration and climate change present astronomical environmental issues, governments need to consider models which recognize the environment as being in a constant state of change which will encourage critical monitoring of the lakes. Another consideration is the use of a holistic model, quite unlike the model sasss, when management decisions were being make on the Great Lakes, State of the Great Lakes Conference (SOLES) developed an indicators utilizing role model to delineate major concerns of the lakes at the time, see Figure 2 in Appendix (Mitchell, 2004).The issue with using indicators to indemnify environmental problems is that it ignores the complex relationships at bottom the ecosystem. Earlier approaches to ecosystem management examined organisms in their ecosystem context, this was later altered to the study of an entire local system with all of its biochemistry (Mitchell, 2004). SOLES has failed to adapt the new method of ecosystem management which better explains, what and why things are happening in the ecosystem. In the earlyish sasss, excessive recreational boating activity and shipping on the lakes lead to the introduction of a handful of invasive species.The most ecologically denigrating being invasive species Addressed polymorph (zebra mussels), which has eliminated the inwrought clam population in Lake Ontario, see Figure 3 in Appendix (Griffith, 1991). Following the state-pressure-response model, it was determine that ballast water discharge from transoceanic vessels was a major subscriber to this problem. However, it was not until later that scientists began to notice the effect of this population on that of the native clam ( Olden, 2008).This proves that the disconnect of species to species interaction assumed in the model will only result in unpredicted, complex ecological concerns which arise at a later time (Height et al, 2006). It is clear that an essential tool for lake management, are models that describe in detail the lake ecosystem which studies both species and human interaction and species to species interaction. typically with indicator utilizing frameworks, like that of the state-pressure- response model, environmental management efforts are enforced only when an issues present themselves as a larger problem.In lake ecosystems, the alteration of water quality due to pollution tends to have a multiplying effect, as toxic activity accumulates over time (Ultras, 2005). Since state-pressure-response models do not exist without indicators, it is only until there is a larger scale ecosystem consequence that environmental investigating is undertaken. Once investigation begins, indemnifying the pre ssure or effect creating an issue is complex, and thus, spare time is taken before any action is seen to mediate the problem.Essentially, this model waits for a problem to reach crisis portions before action is taken (Berger, 997). In some cases, environmental responses to human activity cannot be linked to specific stresses (Berger, 1997). This is especially true when targeting point and non- point quotation pollution. Point and non-point source are the categories which define the main types of pollution. The first being a angiotensin converting enzyme identifiable localized source and the second source generally unidentifiable, such as runoff from farmland.In some areas of Lake Ontario, there are hundreds of industries and farms bordering the shoreline. Their by-products (being emissions and runoff inputs to the system are official to identify, and it becomes im attainable in some cases to then identify the cause (Berger, 1997). However, the purpose of the state-pressure-respon se model is to recognize the source and create environmental policies to control the problem. If the source is not found, this will not happen and the problem will continue to grow. Therefore, ecosystem management models need to achieve some degree of rather than unanswered problems.Prevent-control models are needed if current and future ecological concerns of the Great Lakes are to be handled intelligently and in a time appropriate manner. Over the past twenty years, there has been a nationwide use of prevent-control models, which operate quite differently than state-pressure-response models. Prevent-control models are aimed to reduce the summate of environmental issues that arise by diligent monitoring of systems and science providential decision making. An excellent example of this type of model is the prevention of the strewing of the southern pine beetle in western Canada.In some areas, a direct control and preventative management practice requiring the removal of tree sta nds, known as a cut and remove, have been used (Billings et al, 2007). Although this type of method squires quite accurate and risky decision making, the difference between this model and the state-pressure-response model is astronomical in terms of maintaining ecosystem integrity. The application of a prevent and control model has been used around the Great Lakes area in efforts of counteracting the spread of non-native species from the Great Lakes into other watersheds (Cook and Williamsburg, 2001).This model is known as an on-the-ground management, meaning that there is extensive monitoring at these water bodies. This type of management is dependent upon a detailed understanding of ecosystem dynamics. Scientists first determine if a site is viable for a colony to reach, and then examines its possible success and impact potential. Thus far, this model have been successful in controlling the spread of the hundreds of non-native species from the Great Lakes into its neighboring wate r systems. This model can easily be adapted into the management of the Great Lakes.Although this type of model requires an extraordinary amount of effort from the scientific community, the expertise are already there and the environmental benefits would be well worth the effort. Human pressure on the Great Lakes is quite extensive, ND a result, lake ecosystems are unable(p) to operate in a self-sustaining manner due to the halt or changes that exceed their capacity for self-repair (Ultras, 2005). It is essential that models in effect prevent and control environmental issues of the Great Lake to ensure irreversible damage is avoided, even if this means more funding towards monitoring and scientific expertise.To mange present and future environmental concerns of the Great Lakes, decision makers must discard the old pressure-state-response model and replace it with a holistic, prevent-control model. These types of models encourage strategic, analytical monitoring that will solve many issues in the management of the Great Lakes faced today, with the current state-pressure-response method. supervise ensures the documentation of ecosystem changes which will be important in the future for determining climate change effects.