SOCIETY ACTIONS

Photo Gallery

Patagonian Rock Shores

(all rights reserved, used by permission)

A deme of our study organism, Lobaria pulmonaria, is seen in a pasture woodland in the Swiss Jura Mountains. This epiphytic lichen occurs on scattered sycamore trees (Acerpseudoplatanus) in a Picea abies-dominated landscape. As the photograph shows, L. pulmonaria co-occurs with the foliose lichens Nephroma sp. (brown) and Parmelia sulcata (grey). In the pasture woodland, clonal propagation of L. pulmonaria predominates, and few distinct genotypes are found on a tree.

(Left photo) Rana pirica frogs and Hynobius retardatus salamanders spawn in small ponds formed by melting snow in early spring in Hokkaido, Japan. After eggs hatch, the predator–prey interaction between the two species of amphibian larvae is frequently very intense. When the density of R. pirica tadpoles is high, predatory H. retardatus larvae are induced to develop a highly predacious morphology, called the predacious phenotype (right), which is characterized by large gape sizes, and allows them to swallow large prey (i.e., on the left is a H. retardatus larva of the typical, nonpredacious phenotype).

(Right photo) Conversely, when R. pirica tadpoles are exposed to predation risk from the salamander larvae, they are induced to develop the bulgy-bodied phenotype (right), which allows them to deter predation by gape-limited H. retardatus larvae. (At the left is a typical nondefensive phenotype of the R. pirica tadpole.). In this predator–prey interaction system with antagonistic morphological responses, an arms-race-like reciprocal phenotypic plasticity may be a primary determinant of morphology in R. pirica tadpoles. The predacious H. retardatus larvae, rather than the typical larvae, induce the bulgier body in R. pirica tadpoles.

(Left) Study plots on the slopes of Niwot Ridge, Colorado, overlooking the Indian Peaks wilderness. Empirical determination of the nitrogen critical loads for alpine vegetation response, along with long-term monitoring plots, indicate current rates of nitrogen deposition are changing plant species composition in the alpine habitat of the Colorado Front Range.

(Right) Upslope winds during a summer storm bring pollutant-laden air from the Denver urban corridor to the Front Range of the Colorado Rockies. Results of the “critical load” experiment described in the article indicate that vegetation changes will precede detectable changes in soil inorganic N concentrations (and in fact, buffer them to a degree) and N cycling (and eventually may be the cause for such changes), and thus monitoring vegetation, or other sensitive biota, may be the preferred metric for determining ecological responses to N deposition.

Atmospheric deposition is an important source of pollutants and nutrients to ecosystems. The need for reliable, spatially explicit estimates of total atmospheric deposition (wet + dry + cloud) is central, not only to air pollution effects researchers, but also for calculation of input–output budgets, and to decision makers faced with the challenge of finding effective policy initiatives related to deposition. Although atmospheric deposition continues to represent a critical environmental and scientific issue, current estimates of total deposition are most accurate for regions that are flat and have homogeneous canopies (cornfields, for example). There are large uncertainties, particularly across diverse landscapes such as montane regions. In their Ecological Applications paper, Kathleen C. Weathers and her colleagues describe a modeling approach to identify total deposition, as well as hot and cold spots of deposition, across highly heterogeneous landscapes (e.g., Acadia National Park, Maine, USA).

        
A limpet (Patella vulgata) with Ulva sp., a green alga, growing on the top of its shell. Intense grazing by limpets on wave-exposed shores keeps the rock almost bare; the only refuge for algae is on the ungrazed limpet shells. Wave action and grazing by limpets may limit the distribution of canopy-forming macroalgae, a key organism group on temperate rocky shores. Observations and field experiments were carried out on a series of over-topped breakwaters that provided a nearly uninterrupted gradient in wave exposure. In a biomechanical analysis we showed that breaking waves on exposed sites (flow velocity 7–8 m/s) could completely dislodge or prune macroalgae (Fucus spp.) larger than ~10 cm, while the chance of being dislodged on sheltered sites (flow velocity <2 m/s) was highly unlikely for all sizes.

Experimental transplantation of macroalgae supported the biomechanical analysis. Experimental removal of the limpet Patella vulgata, which was the principal grazer, allowed for recruitment of macroalgae on the exposed sites. In a model of limpet grazing we show that limpet densities exceeding 5–20 individuals/m 2 can explain the absence of macroalgal recruitment, while wave action >2 m/s reduces reproduction and persistence through dislodgment and battering. In a conceptual model we further propose that recruitment and survival of juvenile macroalgae are controlled indirectly by wave exposure, as the result of higher limpet densities at exposed locations. This model predicts that climate change, and in particular an increased frequency of storm events in the northeast Atlantic, will restrict canopy-forming algae to more sheltered locations.

The International Symposium on Wetland Restoration 2006 was held at Otsu, Shiga Prefecture in Japan, on 28 and 29 January 2006. Approximately 800 participants from around the world, including citizens, experts, NGO members, and government officials participated in the 3-day event, including the related programs, such as the Technical Seminar on Wetland Restoration (on 27 January) and the field trip to the Hyazaki–naiko restoration experiment site. Over 100 presentations, oral and poster, were made and intense discussions followed. At the end of the Symposium the participants adopted the “Lake Biwa Declaration on Wetland Restoration.”

The expected goal of the symposium

The goal of the symposium was to promote the implementation of wetland restoration and creation throughout the world based upon the r ecognition of the importance of wetland restoration in addressing the serious trend toward wetland disappearance around the world.

Outcome

• It was recognized that wetlands are among the most valuable and productive ecosystems on earth.

• It was recognized that it is strongly recommended that conservation and wise use be broadened and accelerated to include wetland restoration and creation because by the latter half of the last century more than half of the world’s wetlands had disappeared after being drained and filled for agriculture and urban development.

• It was recognized that activities and research on wetlands for exploring the multiple functions, values, and uses of wetlands should be promoted.

• The “Lake Biwa Declaration on Wetland Restoration” was adopted at the historic large symposium with the participation of 800 people from 15 countries.

Organizers

The Organizing Committee of the Symposium on Wetland Restoration 2006

The Committee members:

Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries of Japan, Ministry of Land Infrastructure and Transport of Japan, Ministry of the Environment of Japan, Shiga Prefectural Government of Japan, National Institute for Environmental Studies of Japan, Foundation for Riverfront Improvement and Restoration, Foundation for River and Watershed Environment Management, Japan Water Agency, Wetlands International Japan, Ramsar Center Japan, UNEP International Environmental Technology Centre, International Lake Environment Committee, Ohmi Environment Conservation Foundation, Hayazakinaiko R estoration Association, Lake Biwa Museum, Lake Biwa Environmental Research Institute, Lake Biwa Basin Network Committee

Participants: Eight hundred from 15 countries including China, Bangladesh, Korea, Uganda, India, Malaysia, Kenya, Brazil, Guatemala, Syria, Ghana, USA, Switzerland, Germany, and Japan.

Planning committee

Atsusi Makino (Lake Biwa Museum), Atsushi Ookuma ( Fisheries Agency), Etsuji Hamahata ( Lake Biwa Environmental Research Institute ), Guangchun Lei (Ramsar Bureau), Hiroji Isozaki ( Meiji Gakuin University), Hiroya Kawanabe (Lake Biwa Museum), Izumi Washitani (The University of Tokyo), Kimi Sasaki (Wetlands International Japan), Kiyoshi Yamada ( Ritsumeikan University), Koji Yamada ( Foundation for River and Watershed Environment Management), Machiko Nishino ( Lake Biwa Environmental Research Institute ), Masanori Seta ( Foundation for Riverfront Improvement and Restoration), Masato Yoshida ( Nature Conservation Society of Japan ), Motoichi Ando (Tokyo University of Agriculture), Munetsugu Kawashima (Shiga University), Noriko Takamura (National Institute for Environmental Studies), Osamu Mitamura ( University of Shiga Prefecture) , Reiko Nakamura (Ramsar Center Japan), Satoru Murakami ( Ramsar convention's group for Lake Biwa), Seiji Ozawa ( Ministry of the Environment), Takehiro Izumida (Japan Water Agency), Toshihiro Hayashi (Natec), Vicente Santiago (UN Environment Program), W. J. Mitsch (Ohio State University), Yasuro Kadono (Kobe University), Yoshiaki Yamanaka (Shiga Prefectural Government), Yoshihiro Kurahashi ( Hayazakinaiko Restoration Association), Yoshinori Kamikoshi ( Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries), Youkou Nishizawa (Ministry of Land Infrastructure and Transport), Yukihiro Morimoto (Kyoto University), Yukihiro Shimatani (Kyushu University)

Secretariat: Lake Biwa and Environmental Policy Division, Shiga Prefecturral Government

4-1-1 Kyomachi, Otsu, Shiga, 520-8577, Japan
Tel: +81-77-528-3355 Fax: +81-77-528-4833 E-mail: dc0003@pref.shiga.lg.jp

Web site: ‹http://www.pref.shiga.jp/d/biwako/›

Lake Biwa Declaration on Wetland Restoration

International Symposium on Wetland Restoration 2006

Otsu, Shiga, Japan, 28–29 January 2006

We, the 800 participants from 15 countries participating in the International Symposium on Wetland Restoration 2006, declare the following :

Wetlands are among the most valuable and productive ecosystems on earth. They are rich in biodiversity, sustain wildlife, supply natural products to us including fishery products, improve water quality, mitigate natural disasters, control floods, provide opportunities for recreation, and ease our bodies and minds. However, u ntil the latter half of the last century wetlands were considered useless and were drained and filled for agriculture and urban development. More than half of the world’s wetlands are estimated to have disappeared.

Thirty-five years have passed since the Ramsar Convention was inaugurated for the conservation of wetlands. Wetlands continue to be lost on a global scale, as revealed by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. The Convention was developed as a comprehensive framework for the wise use of wetlands, recognizing their many functions and values. It is strongly recommended that conservation and wise use be broadened and accelerated to include wetland restoration and creation. This should be addressed based on the idea of “ adapting human activities within the capacity limits of nature ” advocated in “Agenda 21.”

Restoration of lost or degraded wetlands must especially be encouraged hereafter, in addition to conservation of existing wetlands. Moreover, responding to the global advancement of urbanization, wetlands are recommended to be incorporated because of their multi-functionality. Wetlands are symbols of the harmonious coexistence between humans and nature. Restoring wetlands is expected to take the lead in building a sound relationship between humans and nature in the future.

Exploration of the functions of wetlands will be advanced through wise use of and research on wetlands. Consequently, awareness of wetland restoration by all the stakeholders, from citizen to decision makers, should be encouraged; this will lead to strong links among wise use, conservation, and restoration of wetlands. These actions will contribute to accomplishment of the UN Millennium Development Goals related to poverty reduction, human health, and environmental sustainability and biodiversity conservation.

Recognizing the importance of the wetland management mentioned above, we should work together as follows:

• Promote activities and research on wetlands for exploring the multiple functions, values, and uses of wetlands;
• Promote education and information sharing for advancing public awareness of the importance of wetlands;
• Enhance partnerships among wetland restoration and creation activities around the world;
• Promote and facilitate capacity building and empowerment of stakeholders involved in the restoration of wetlands;
• Promote wise use of wetlands from the standpoint of developing subsistence and industries such as agriculture, fisheries, and tourism;
• Evaluate and cherish the culture and spiritual wealth, comfort, and recreation that wetlands provide;
• Develop the technology and improve legal and financial systems in order to enhance wetland restoration and creation;
• Incorporate wetlands as key components for sustainable development throughout the world by evaluating the multi-functionality of wetlands;

• Make an effort to follow the progress and success of the implementation of wetland restoration throughout the world.

Richard Bradley (1688?–1732) was an Englishman of limited means, who nevertheless devoted his life to botany, horticulture, and natural history. Much of what concerned him we now call ecological subjects. His publications were numerous, often innovative, and popular (Henrey 1975, II:424–454, III:14–18, Edmondson 2002), and they were essential to his livelihood. An example of his innovation is his invention about 1717 of the kaleidoscope, as an aid to formal garden design (Edmondson 2002:187, 204).

Of his early years we only know he had a childhood interest in gardening and that he lived in the vicinity of London (Egerton 2004a), a city having many amateur naturalists (Allen 1976:Chapters 1–2). Our earliest evidence of him is a six-page prospectus for a Treatise of Succulent Plants (1710, reprinted in Bradley 1964), which he hoped to publish for subscribers; two illustrations included were probably drawn by him. Having no established reputation, he was unable to obtain enough subscribers to publish the book. Yet he clearly made a good first impression, as he attracted several influential patrons. By his time, it would have been very unusual for the Royal Society of London to admit to membership anyone lacking a university education, but there is no evidence he had such an education; nevertheless, Robert Balle proposed him for membership in November 1712, and he was elected a Fellow in December. There is no extant portrait of him; the one Lisney (1960:83) mistakenly published is of a later Richard Bradley.

Bradley’s patrons included the affluent apothecary and insatiable collector in all fields of natural history, James Petiver (1663–1718), whom we met in Part 18 (Egerton 2005:309) as John Ray’s friend. Petiver had traveled in the Netherlands in 1711 (Allen 2004), and he helped arrange for Bradley to follow his route in 1714, to tour botanical gardens, meet naturalists, and arrange the exchange of biological specimens between collectors in London and Amsterdam. Without Petiver’s letter of introduction, it is unlikely that Leeuwenhoek would have seen him when he arrived on 9 May (Egerton 1970a:57). Bradley’s hope to support himself entirely by exchanging biological specimens between collectors was overly optimistic, and since people who met him assumed he was a physician, he supplemented his income during his 5 months abroad by practicing medicine. He even wrote to Petiver for recipes for medicines for his patients, and Petiver obliged him (Egerton 1970a). Bradley also supplemented his income from his Amsterdam trip by drawing insect specimens from Amboina, East Indies, Surinam, and Curaçao, which he saw on display. He sold the drawings after his return to London to another insatiable collector of natural history items, Sir Hans Sloane (1660–1753), whose collections, after his death, became the foundation for the British Museum (MacGregor 1998). Sloane was a royal physician, who became president of the Royal Society after its previous president, Sir Isaac Newton, died in 1727 (De Beer 1975); after Petiver died, Sloane was Bradley’s most important patron (Egerton 1970b). In 1716 Bradley published two brief articles in the Royal Society’s Philosophical Transactions. The first was on the anatomy and physiology of an apple tree twig. He did not refer to the publications of the later 1600s on plant anatomy by Marcello Malpighi or Nehemiah Grew. He did clear up a confusion that he said some people had about whether bark is alive, pointing out that outer layers are not and can be removed without killing the tree, but inner layers (= cambium) are alive, containing vessels, and the tree dies if those layers are cut around the tree. He also commented that “The Seasons of Motion in Plants are the same with those Animals which sleep during the Winter. An Artificial Heat will give Motion to either of these in the Coldest time.” (Bradley 1716a). His second article (Bradley 1716b) described the progression of life on the inner part of a half melon after 4 days: several spots of moldiness appeared and grew every hour for 5 days, when the whole half-melon was covered with green and also a paler-colored vegetation. The green kind appeared to be a fungus with caps filled with ~500 “seeds.” The other kind had grass-like leaves and resembled a sort of bullrush that also produced great quantities of “seeds.” After 6 days of being covered with mold, the vegetation declined, and disappeared in two more days, leaving stinking water that soon contained small maggots, which grew for 6 days and then laid up in bags for 2 days before becoming flies (Fig. 1). Although Bradley’s discussion of mold is briefer and his illustration is less detailed than Robert Hooke’s in Micrographia (1665:122–131, 1961), Bradley at least found the “seeds” of mold that had eluded Hooke. But here again Bradley failed to cite the book of a predecessor.

Fig. 1. Illustration for Bradley’s 1716 articles: his Fig. 1 is an enlarged section of an apple twig (for 1716a); his Fig. 2 is green mold, Fig. 3 is pale bull-rush like vegetation, Fig. 4 shows maggots, and Fig. 5 is a fly (for 1716b).

These articles bolstered Bradley’s reputation and helped pave the way for publication of his History of Succulent Plants, which appeared in five installments or “decades” (1716–1727), with 10 accounts and illustrations in each decade (all reprinted in Bradley 1964). He copied one illustration from Commelin and Commelin’s Horti Medici Amstelodamensis (1697–1701) but probably drew the rest himself, from live plants (see Fig. 2). This was the first treatise on succulent plants, and the world journal on succulents plants is now named Bradlea (Rowley 1983). That publication was Bradley’s only contribution to descriptive botany.

Fig. 2. Pinpillow, or Minion Prickley Pear (Opuntia curassavica), Bradley 1716–1727, No. 4, 1964. This was also one of the illustrations in his 1710 prospectus.

He was more interested in the life of plants than their descriptions. For example, he was interested in the sexuality of plants, which Nehemiah Grew, when discussing flowers, had suggested in The Anatomy of Plants (Grew 1682:171, Roberts 1929:62–64). In 1694, Professor Rudolph Jakob Camerer at the University of Tübingen conducted experiments to demonstrate this, and reported it in De Sexu Plantarum Epistola (Roberts 1929:12–15). Bradley learned of this discovery from Robert Balle, who had sponsored his admission into the Royal Society. Bradley conducted experiments on tulips to confirm it, and in the first edition of New Improvements of Planting and Gardening (Bradley 1719–1720:22–23, Zirkle 1935:115) he reported the accidental hybridization of yellow and black auriculas in a garden. In 1719 he reported the first intentional hybridization, done by Thomas Fairchild, who crossed a carnation (Dianthus caryophyllus) and a sweet william (Dianthus barbatus) (Bradley 1719–1720, Roberts 1939:62–65). Bradley also speculated that if two “vermicules” (sperm) entered a plant ovum, “we shall find two foetus under the same covering, or else a monstrous double foetus joined together.” (Bradley 1721:106). Ritterbush (1964:97) commented that this conjecture “indicated a rare insight into questions of generation and a promise which Bradley fulfilled by the virtuosity of his speculations on plant generation.”

The fact that Bradley’s History of Succulent Plants came out in separate “decades” during several years may have given him the idea of establishing the first British horticultural periodical (Roberts 1939), A General Treatise of Husbandry and Gardening (Fifteen issues, 1721–1723 and collected into three volumes, 1721–1724). In the second issue, he published a report from a Dr. Bury of Compton, who asserted that moors or heaths could be improved by first burning the land and then adding salt and lime (Bradley 1721–1724, I:100–101). The item following Bury’s report was an abstract from the Royal Society’s Philosophical Transactions of experiments conducted by de la Prime, which found that seeds soaked in various kinds of salts did not usually germinate as quickly or as consistently as seeds that had not been soaked. Bradley apparently felt more confident about de la Prime’s conclusions than about Bury’s, because in the next issue he cautioned that land flooded with salt water needed to be cleansed before planting. Bradley knew that although many crops deplete land fertility, clover improves it (Bradley 1721–1724, II:50), and he remarked upon the luxuriant crops grown upon land that formerly held a rabbit warren (see below).

Bradley seems to have agreed with two of his correspondents, B. S. and S. C., that (in the words of S. C.)

Plants have a considerable Share of Nourishment, which they draw from the Air, by way of their Leaves and Bark, as well as from the Earth and Water by means of their Roots (Bradley 1721–1724, III:50).

B. S. reached his similar conclusion after carrying out, at Bradley’s suggestion, Jean Baptiste Van Helmont’s classical growth experiment (Bradley 1721–1724, I:35–40; on Van Helmont’s experiment, see Egerton 2004b:209). A prominent agricultural author, Jethro Tull (1674–1740), blamed Bradley for “being the chief, if not only Author, who has publish’d this phantasie” of plants deriving some nourishment from air (Tull 1733:22).

In Bradley’s book, The Gentleman and Gardeners Kalendar, Directing What Is to Be Done Every Month (1718; third edition 1720), he summarized the usual climate for each month over several decades, but in his General Treatise he summarized the weather for the past month only. This is his report for October 1721 (Bradley 1721–1724, II:54).

The Wind for the greatest Part of the Month was Westerly, and the Weather generally fair in the Day time, but frequent Rains in the Night; towards the End we had pinching Frosts, which discharged the Trees of their Leaves.

An unseasonably cold night in late spring, or an unusually long drought, might be the main factor in explaining why a certain species produced few flowers or fruit during a year. Bradley also recognized the desirability of collecting precise data on weather, and for 2–7 June 1721 he published data collected at 3-hour intervals (excepting midnight until 9:00 am) from a barometer, hygrometer, and thermometer, along with indications of weather (clear, rainy, cloudy) (Bradley 1721–1724, I:260). He gave instructions for constructing barometers and thermometers at a time when these instruments were still novel and not standardized (Bradley 1721–1724, I:217–219, 246–254). His own came from John Patrick, a prominent manufacturer of such instruments (Middleton 1964:112, 120, 355, 376, and 1966:60–61).

Following the severe winter of 1728–1729, Bradley wrote a book on it. He reported that a mole-catcher had predicted the winter’s severity from finding moles buried a foot deeper in the ground than usual. Bradley postulated that moles had buried deeper to find earthworms, which might be sensitive to impending weather conditions because of their “Structure and tender Disposition” (Bradley 1729:9). He may not have realized that moles hibernate, but he did discuss hibernation of tortoises. The severe weather forced Ruffs to winter as far south as London (normally not south of Norfolk and Suffolk) and snipe and geese south to Essex, Bedfordshire, and Buckinghamshire; sheep and cattle died late in the winter; plants from South Carolina died, and others flowered 4–6 weeks later than usual (Bradley 1729:10–21). Bradley published a number of articles on how to grow plants in artificially heated conditions, including how to build and use greenhouses (Bradley 1721–1724, I:176–183; III:133, 142). He gave instructions on how to raise Pineapple, among other species, in a greenhouse, describing how much water and light were needed to produce flowers and fruit.

Fig. 3. Pineapple (Ananas sativus). Bradley 1721–1724, III:206. He copied the main figure from Commelin and Commelin (1697–1791, Plate 57), and added figures C and D.

Bradley provided several discussions on the quantity, value, and rate of agricultural production, which resemble our modern concept of ecological productivity. The modern concept focuses on three factors: (1) standing crop (biomass), (2) production rate, and (3) material removed. Bradley addressed the second of these in his New Improvements of Planting and Gardening (1719–1720:59–71), where he urged his countrymen to raise more trees because England’s forests were seriously depleted. He explained what he thought was the most profitable way to manage forest land, including when to remove timber, and he charted expenditures and profits for the 9th, 17th, and 25th years after planting. In A Philosophical Account of the Works of Nature (1721) he discussed elm seed production and oak weight increase. His inspiration here was an article by Denis Dodart (1634–1707), “Sur la multiplication des corps vivans considerée dans la fecondité des plantes” (1703), which Bradley translated fairly completely. Dodart used the phrase “une progression géometrique croissante,” which Bradley translated as “A Geometrical Progression of Growth” (Bradley 1721:110). But one of Bradley’s readers, R. Bosworth, was dissatisfied with his account and requested further clarification of the rate at which trees grow. After further reading and pondering, Bradley concluded that the rate of growth would be about the same as the rate of money invested at 5% annually (Bradley 1721–1724, II:71), which is a compound interest rate of increase, a reasonable estimate (Blackman 1919, Egerton 1969:396–401). Bradley addressed the first and third factors in our modern concept of ecological productivity (standing crop and material removed) in articles on family vegetable gardens and vineyards. In both cases, his concern was how close the plants should be planted in order to conserve space and yet maximize yield, and he cautioned: “The Neglecting to contrive a due Succession of Crops [is a mistake ]; for in that Case, we may lose half the Profit of our Ground, which ought never to lie idle.” (Bradley 1721–1724, III:6).

He also discussed the productivity of cattle, sheep, rabbits, poultry, and fish, and he generalized on the quality of different foods (Bradley 1719–1720, Part 1:29):

I am of Opinion that the Salts . . . in Flesh, Fruit and Herbs are the same, only differing in the Proportions of their Quantities; that is, one Pound Weight of Flesh may perhaps contain twice as many Salts as the like Weight of Grain or Seed, and one Pound of Grain twice the Salts as may be found in a Pound of Herbs or Grass.

The word “salt” had no precise chemical meaning at the time, but he clearly thought that meat has more food value than grain, and grain more than herbs or grass.

He quoted letters to him from farmers, for example, on how many cows were raised per acre and how much milk they produced, but he received the most information on raising rabbits. He discussed achieving maximum production in both small-scale and large-scale rabbit warrens. In a small warren, shelters had to be provided, males had to be chained to prevent them from destroying the young, and the rabbits had to be fed with imported food. He calculated that during a year, two males, twenty females, and their offspring would consume 48 bushels of bran @ 3 pence per bushel, 12 bushels of oats @ 16 shillings per quarter, and 6 trusses of hay @ 1 shilling per truss. In addition to bought feed, “The rude Cabbage Leaves, the Turnep-tops, the Carot-tops, and the Weeds which too frequently annoy a Garden, will make up to them what is necessary” (Bradley 1721–1724, II:355). The returns upon this investment were at least six broods per year, but at Hammersmith, breeders achieved nine or ten broods per year by only allowing a doe to raise five young. However, he calculated that 20 females breeding six times a year and raising five young per brood, would produce 600 young, which could be sold when a month old for sixpence each. Deducting the two pounds and two shillings for the bought food, this left a profit of 12 pounds and 18 shillings. Besides which, “Intrails of the Rabbets will always be of Use to your Fish” (Bradley 1721–1724, II:356).

The large-scale warren he described was 700 acres, and the summer food grew in the warren itself. Although William Gilbert’s North Wiltshire land was considered some of the most barren in England, after the warren was removed and it was plowed, it produced some of the most luxuriant grain in England. Bradley attributed this unusual fertility to “the Soil being render’d fine by the working of the Rabbets, and also from the large Share of Vegetative Salts, proceeding from the Dung and Urine which by plowing were regularly mix’d, and thereby render’d fruitful.” (Bradley 1721–1724, III:30–31). However, Bradley neglected to consider that the importation of hay and hazel twigs for winter food was rather similar to adding fertilizer to the soil. This warren was stocked with 8000 rabbits, which Gilbert thought produced about 24,000 offspring annually. There was some loss due to accidents, poachers, weasels, polecats, foxes, and diseases, but Bradley provided no data on the extent of the loss.

His information on fish productivity included an informal controlled experiment. A friend stocked three ponds with small carp. One pond was at the bottom of a hill, and its fish grew half again larger than those in the other two ponds, apparently due to what washed off the hill into the pond during rains. The two remaining ponds had different bottoms, and the fish in the pond with a clay bottom grew larger than those in the pond with a gravel bottom (Bradley 1721–1724, II:92–93). Bradley himself raised fish in pans (natural depressions), and he gained some insight into which fish could be raised together and which could not. He saw eels, flounders, and silver pence bury in the mud at the bottom and snatch young fish swimming by, and eels, flounders, and perch were the only fish that could survive with pike (Bradley 1721–1724, II:349–350). Although pike and eels ate frogs, he warned (Bradley 1721–1724, II:345):

In the Spring Season, when Frogs and Toads begin to appear, suffer as few as possible in your Carp Ponds, but destroy them before they spawn, so that they and their Generation perish at once; for whether these horrid Animals do Mischief or not to the Carps, by poisoning of them, as is reported, they certainly rob the Carps of great Part of their Food.

If one raised pike and perch, the pond should contain roach and dace for their food, and water weeds “for their Shelter and Nourishment; for where there are Water-weeds, there will also be Water-Insects, which help the Feed of Fish” (Bradley 1721–1724, II:351). On a pond with large pike, however, one could not also raise ducks, because pike eat ducklings. According to Bradley’s calculations, fish ponds yield a very good yearly profit.

Despite Bradley’s advice to kill frogs so they do not “rob” carp of food, he did believe in the balance of nature (the concept remained unnamed until Linnaeus [Egerton 1973]). When a plague of caterpillars erupted on farms west of London, “Some Farmers imagin’d that the Birds which were there in great Flocks had eaten the Leaves of their Turneps, and [farmers] contriv’d all Means possible to destroy” the birds. However, Bradley convinced them that “the Birds were rather Friends than Enemies, and came there to feed upon the Caterpillars, which were in such great Numbers, that each Turnep-Plant had not less than a thousand upon it…”(Bradley 1719–1720, Part 3:58). Some ancient farmers had already known this (Aelianus, Book 3, Chapter 12). In APhilosophical Account of the Works of Nature (1721:159), Bradley generalized that “all Bodies have some Dependance upon one another; and that every distinct Part of Nature’s Works is necessary for the Support of the Rest; and that if any one was wanting, all the Rest must be out of Order.” On 13 August 1723, Bradley’s correspondent, S. C., provided data supporting Bradley’s earlier assertion that birds help farmers by eating insects (Bradley 1721–1724, III:87):

I lately observ’d a couple of Sparrows who had Young Ones, and made twenty [feeding] Turns each per Hour; and reckoning but 12 Hours per Day, let us compute what a number of those Vermin were destroy’d by that Nest alone.

40 Caterpillars per Hour.

12 Hours of feeding per Day.

480 Caterpillars destroy’d per Day.

7 Days suppos’d between Hatching and Flight.

3360 Caterpillars destroy’d by one Nest alone in one Week.

S. C. felt this was a conservative estimate, since he thought most birds feed young 14 or 15 hours per day. He further observed that the amount of fruit harvested was greater in regions where birds were not molested, and that birds thought to be eating blossoms and buds were actually searching for insects.

In A Philosophical Account of the Works of Nature, Bradley (1721) estimated that a codfish’s roe contains about 1,000,000 eggs, and following the example of Aristotle (Historia Animalium, 567b:1–3) and Matthew Hale (1677:208), he speculated on the time needed for cod to increase to a volume equivalent to the size of the earth—about 1000 years. Since this never happens, he concluded that (Bradley 1721:60)

…the more Enemies a Fish has to itself and its Encrease, so Nature has taken Care to provide it with such a Capacity of encreasing, or propagating its Species, that there is a due Allowance to make good all Losses that may happen.

Fig. 4. Bradley 1721a, plate 25. Although Bradley sought connections between plants and animals in the text of A Philosophical Account of the Works of Nature, he did not present plants and animals in the same illustrations. His FIG. I, bull-beetle; FIG. II, animalcula in semine masculine; FIG. III, adult gnat; FIG. IV, centipede from the West Indies; FIG. V, monoculus found in Thames water, with microscope.

Another aspect of the balance of nature is what we call ecological diversity. We have seen previously that John Ray gave examples of insects eating only one species of plant, and that William Derham carried this idea to such an extreme that he overlooked the possibility of competition between species (Egerton 2005). Bradley, on the one hand, cited examples of flexibility in animal diets—horses’ normal diet is grass but they eat grain, dogs eat meat, but will eat fruit, and snails seem to eat any plant (Bradley 1719–1720, Part 1:29; Part 3:71)—but on the other hand, he cited many examples of insects that specialize in eating only one plant (Bradley 1719–1720, Part 3:58–74). He was also aware of insects that feed on plants having ichneumon fly parasites. He generalized (Bradley 1719–1720, Part 3:60–61):

…it may be these Insects which prey upon others, are not without some others of lesser Rank to feed upon them likewise, and so to Infinity; for that there are Beings subsisting, which are not commonly visible may be easily demonstrated…in a Microscope.

This last thought was one of several that led Bradley to support the idea of animate contagion as a cause of disease (Williamson 1955:45–51). We saw in Part 12 (Egerton 2004b) that Girolamo Fracastoro had defended the idea of contagious germs (1546), but for him the germs were chemical atoms. Neither Fracastoro nor anyone else had established a contagion theory, and by 1720 the idea had few supporters (Winslow 1943:Chapter 8). Bradley noticed that easterly winds were frequent in March and that (Bradley 1719–1720, Part 3:54):

Caterpillars generally attend these Winds, chiefly infecting some one sort of Tree more than another … from which Observations I think we may draw the following Inferences, either that the Eggs of those Insects are brought to us by the Easterly Winds; or that the Temperature of the Air, when the Easterly Winds blow, is necessary to hatch those Creatures, supposing their Eggs were already laid upon those infested Parts of the Trees the preceding Year.

To the objection that east winds were not warm enough to hatch insects, he replied that the existence of insects in Norway, Iceland, and other cold regions showed that insects do not necessarily need much heat to hatch. Meanwhile, plague, which had wandered through Europe in fits and starts since 1347, struck Marseilles, France in 1721. Bradley responded with a little book, The Plague at Marseilles Considered, in which he reported that by 20 October, about 60,000 had died of it there (Bradley 1721b:3). Reasoning that winds that blow insect infestation might do the same for plague, and using data from previous London plagues, he predicted that the Marseilles plague would subside in the winter (Bradley 1721b:xii), and since insects are specific in their food, he suspected that diseases that attack one race of people might not attack other races (Bradley 1719–1720, Part 3:93). Bradley also knew that the streaked condition in tulips could be transmitted by grafting, and the Rev. John Laurence (or Lawrence), another horticultural author (Gilmour 1965), had found the same condition in jasmines: when a bud from a yellow jasmine was grafted onto a plain jasmine, after several years the whole tree would have leaves striped with yellow. Laurence spoke of grafting as “inoculation”(Laurence 1714:41). Bradley argued that the situation was analogous to giving a smallpox inoculation, and that the striped effect in tulips and the yellow effect in jasmines was due to the spread of a distemper from the infected plant material through the healthy plant (Bradley 1721–1724, I:202–203 and III:98). We now know that the striped effect in tulips is caused by a virus (Hall 1929:104–106). However, Bradley did not believe all diseases were caused by living beings; for example, he attributed an epidemic among chickens to poor ventilation of their coop (Bradley 1721–1724, III:68–69).

In 1724 Bradley became the first professor of botany at Cambridge University (Walters 1981:15–29), but since the position carried no salary, he was too busy publishing his books to do much teaching. He did not manage to publish “A Course of Botanical Lectures Explaining Principles of Vegetation,” (1725) which still exists in manuscript in the Cambridge Botany School Library, but he reworked the material for his Ten practical discourses concerning Earth and Water, Fire and Air, as They Relate to the Growth of Plants (1727). He did publish A Course of Lectures upon the Materia Medica, Ancient and Modern (1730), in which he discussed the need for a physic garden at Cambridge. His rival and successor as professor of botany at Cambridge, John Martyn, wrote a facetious review of it, saying it was “obliging” of Bradley to publish the book since only three or four students had heard the lectures (Williamson 1961:365).

Bradley lived a precarious economic existence and died in his mid-40s. At a time when many naturalists were content to name, describe, and classify species, he was an enterprising, open-minded naturalist who succeeded in disseminating his many and diverse thoughts on how plants and animals live and interact. His writings contain some vagueness and mistakes, but as a whole, his contributions advanced natural history in a direction that ultimately led to ecology.

Literature cited

Allen, D. E. 1976. The naturalist in Britain: a social history. Allen Lane, London, UK.

Allen, D. E. 2004. James Petiver (1663–1718), botanist and entomologist. Oxford. Dictionary of National Biography 43:894–896.

Aelianus, C. 1958–1959. On the characteristics of animals. In Greek with translation by A. F. Schofield. Three volumes. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.

Aristotle. 1965–1991. Historia animalium. In Greek with translation by A. L. Peck (Volumes 1 and 2) and D. M. Balme (Volume 3). Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.

Blackman, V. H. 1919. The compound interest law and plant growth.Annals of Botany 33:353–360.

Bradley, R. 1716a. Observations and experiments relating to the motion of sap in vegetables. Royal Society of London Philosophical Transactions 29:486–490.

Bradley, R. 1716b. Some microscopical observations, and curious remarks on the vegetation, and exceeding quick propagation of moldiness, on the substance of a melon. Royal Society of London Philosophical Transactions 29:490–492.

Bradley, R. 1716–1727. The history of succulent plants. Five decades. Bradley, London, UK.

Bradley, R. 1719–1720. New improvements of planting and gardening, both philosophical and practical. Edition 3, three parts. W. Mears, London, UK.

Bradley, R. 1721a. A philosophical account of the works of nature, endeavouring to set forth the several gradations remarkable in the mineral, vegetable, and animal parts of creation. W. Mears, London, UK.

Bradley, R. 1721b. The plague at Marseilles consider’d; with remarks upon the plague in general, shewing its cause and nature of infection, with necessary precautions to prevent the spreading of that direful distemper. W. Mears, London, UK.

Bradley, R. 1721–1724. A general treatise of husbandry and gardening, containing such observations and experiments as are new and useful for the improvement of land. 15 issues, and in three volumes, 1721–1724. J. Peele and T. Woodward, London, UK.

Bradley, R. 1729. A philosophical enquiry into the late severe winter, the scarcity and dearness of provisions, and the occasion of the distemper raging in several remote parts of England. J. Roberts and R. Montagu, London, UK.

Bradley, R. 1964. Collected writings on succulent plants. Compiled and introduced by G. D. Rowley. Gregg Press, London, UK.

Commelin, J., and C. Commelin.1697–1791. Horti medici Amstelodamensis rariorum plantarum descripto et icons. Two volumes. P. and J. Blaeu and Abraham à Someren, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

De Beer, G. R. 1975. Sir Hans Sloane (1660–1753). Dictionary of Scientific Biography 12:456–459.

Dodart, D. 1703. Sur la multiplication des corps vivans considerée dans la fecondité des Plantes. Second edition, 1719. Mémoires de l’Academie des Sciences 1700:136–160.

Edmondson, J. 2002. Richard Bradley (c.1688–1732): an annotated bibliography, 1710–1818. Archives of Natural History 29:177–212.

Egerton, F. N. 1969. Richard Bradley’s understanding of biological productivity: a study of eighteenth-century ecological ideas. Journal of the History of Biology 2:391–410.

Egerton, F. N. 1970a. Richard Bradley’s illicit excursion into medical practice in 1714. Medical History 14:53–62.

Egerton, F. N. 1970b. Richard Bradley’s relationship with Sir Hans Sloane. Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London 25:59–77.

Egerton, F.N. 1973. Changing concepts of the balance of nature. Quarterly Review of Biology 48:322–350.

Egerton, F. N. 2004a. Richard Bradley (1688?–1732), botanist and writer. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography 7:221.

Egerton, F. N. 2004b. A history of the ecological sciences, part 14: plant growth studies in the 1600s. ESA Bulletin 85:208–213.

Egerton, F. N. 2005. John Ray and his associates Francis Willughby and William Derham. ESA Bulletin 86:301–313.

Gilmour, J. S. L. 1965. The Rev. John Laurence (1668–1732): the man and his books. Huntia 2:117–137.

Hale, M. 1677. The primitive origination of mankind, considered and examined according to the light of nature. William Shrowsberry, London, UK.

Hall, A. D. 1929. The book of the tulip. Martin Hopkinson, London, UK.

Henrey, B. 1975. British botanical and horticultural literature before 1800. Three volumes. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.

Hooke, R. 1665. Micrographia: or some physiological descriptions of minute bodies made by magnifying glasses. Jo. Martyn and Ja. Allestry, London, UK.

Hooke, R. 1961. Micrographia: or some physiological descriptions of minute bodies made by magnifying glasses. Dover, New York, New York, USA.

Laurence, J. 1714. The clergy-man’s recreation: shewing the pleasure and profit of the art of gardening. Bernard Lintott, London, UK.

Lisney, A. A. 1960. A bibliography of British Lepidoptera, 1608–1799. Chiswick Press, London, UK.

MacGregor, A., editor. 1998. Sir Hans Sloane: collector, scientist, antiquary, founder of the British Museum. British Museum Press, London, UK.

Middleton, W. E. 1964. The history of the barometer. Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.

Middleton, W. E. 1966. A history of the thermometer and its use in meteorology. Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.

Ritterbush, P. C. 1964. Overtures to biology: the speculations of eighteenth-century naturalists. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.

Roberts, W. 1939. R. Bradley, pioneer garden journalist. Royal Horticultural Society Journal 64:164–174.

Rowley, G. D. 1983. Dedication to Richard Bradley, F.R.S. Bradlea 1:1–2.

Tull, J. 1733. The horse-hoeing husbandry: or, an essay on the principles of tillage and vegetation. R. Gunne, Dublin, Ireland.

Walters, S. M. 1981. The shaping of Cambridge botany. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Williamson, R. 1955. The germ theory of disease: neglected precursors of Louis Pasteur (Richard Bradley, Benjamin Martin, Jean-Baptiste Goiffon). Annals of Science 11:44–57.

Williamson, R. 1961. John Martyn and the Grub-Street Journal, with particular reference to his attacks on Richard Bentley, Richard Bradley and William Cheselden. Medical History 5:361–374.

Winslow, C. E. A. 1943. The conquest of epidemic disease: a chapter in the history of ideas. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, USA.

Acknowledgments

For their assistance, I thank Bénédicte Bilodeau, Centre Alexandre Koyré, Paris, and John Edmondson, Sciences, National Museums Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.

Frank N. Egerton

Department of History

University of Wisconsin-Parkside

Kenosha, WI 53141

E-mail: frank.egerton@uwp.edu

Ecologists love a good fight. Though we strive for objectivity in our research, we also form strong scientific opinions and defend them with territorial vigor. Debates crop up on a range of topics, from lofty ideas to minor nuances of theory. They play out continuously in the literature, at conferences, and in the constant parry and thrust of peer review. Even questions of diction can provoke a response, like the ongoing controversy over the proper way to describe predator–prey interactions. Though “predation” is the generally accepted noun, ecologists cannot agree on the best verb to describe the process, nor the adjective to characterize its result. To “predate” or to “depredate,” that is the question at hand.

Having studied seed predation and nest predation, I’ve encountered the adamant and often contrary opinions of various editors, reviewers, and co-authors. As a result, my artificial bird eggs in Tanzania were depredated, while Costa Rican rodents are currently predating my tree seeds (pending review). Those who favor the term depredate argue that predate is a malapropism in this context, interpreting its definition as to “pre-date,” or occur previously in time. Predate proponents, however, feel that their term is the intuitive extension of predation, and contend that depredate is needlessly abstruse. Others prefer the alternate and noncontroversial phrasing “to prey upon.”

In 2004, a posting to ESA’s ECOLOG-L list-serve garnered more than 30 responses to the question of predation semantics. Though the moderator asked which noun was preferred, depredation and predation, many responders included their opinion on verbs and were sharply divided between the various forms. The full text of these exchanges is available online in the ECOLOG-L archives ‹https://listserv.umd.edu/archives/ecolog-l.html›

To assess the actual usage of each term in current literature, I performed a search for predation-related articles in six popular ecological journals: Ecology, Ecological Monographs, Ecological Applications, Conservation Biology, The Journal of Ecology and The Journal of Applied Ecology. Using the archival search engine JSTOR ‹http://www.jstor.org/›, I identified articles containing the word “predation” in their title, abstract, or caption. Searches were limited to the year 2000, the most recent year for which all journal articles were available in Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). Any relevant article was considered, including reviews, research articles and essays. Within each PDF file, I used Adobe Acrobat 7.0.3 software (1984–2004, Adobe Systems Inc.) to search for the words “predate” and “depredate” used as present or past tense verbs, or as adjectives (e.g., “depredated seeds”). I also searched for verb phrases using the word prey (e.g., “prey on,” “preyed upon”). Each article was scored for the presence or absence of these terms in any context excluding references, and the scores were grouped by root word. Predate and predated were scored together, for example, as were all variations of “prey upon.” A summary of the data, sorted by journal, is presented in Table 1. Because some articles used more than one of the terms in question, the total number of root-word scores exceeds the total number of articles.

Table 1. Number of predation-related articles using variations of the terms “predate,” “depredate,” and “prey upon” in a survey of six ecological journals for the year 2000 (n = number of articles per journal).

Of the 76 articles identified in my search, the majority (43) did not employ any predation-based verbs or adjectives, avoiding controversy altogether. The remaining articles showed a preference for variations of “prey upon” (18), while comparably fewer authors used depredate (10) or predate (7). There is also evidence of editorial bias. While “prey upon” variants appeared in all publications, certain journals used depredate but not predate (Ecology, Ecological Applications, Ecological Monographs), while The Journal of Applied Ecology showed the opposite trend. Only The Journal of Ecology printed articles using both predate and depredate, where they appeared once together in the same piece. Articles in Conservation Biology used only “prey upon” variants.

These results suggest that all sides accept the validity of “prey upon,” but the predate/depredate controversy remains unresolved. With both terms in common usage, the essential question remains: “Who is correct?” For an answer I turned to the ultimate arbiter of diction in our language, the Oxford English Dictionary (OED). To the uninitiated, the OED is a trove of information whose 20 heavy volumes can do far more than press plant specimens (though they’re quite good for that as well). The format and ambitious scale of the OED set it apart from other dictionaries. Rather than relying solely upon its authors’ opinions for its definitions, the OED provides detailed usage data on each of its >600,000 entries. Hundreds of readers comb historical and current literature, documenting the earliest usage of nearly every word in the idiom. In this way the OED is a scientist’s dictionary: its definitions are supported by data. The result is an historical treatise, an ongoing record of the development of the language through time. Only two complete editions of the OED have ever been published, though updates and additions are now posted regularly to its online edition. All of the subsequent information in this essay is taken from the current online edition.

From the venerable pages of the OED we learn that both sides of our debate are correct. Predate and depredate are equally suitable terms to describe a predator/prey interaction, though their histories differ considerably. Both words share the Latin root præd, to plunder. The nouns predation and depredation first appeared in the 15th century (Fig. 1), used in relation to plundering, pillaging, and robbery. Derivative words appeared in the following decades, with depredate arriving in 1651. It is defined as “to prey upon, to make a prey of; to plunder, pillage” (OED 2005). Depredate appears to have remained the sole relevant verb until the 20th century, when the advent of modern zoological studies triggered a cascade of new terms, definitions, and phrases (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1. A timeline of predation-related terms, indicating their first documented use in the English language. Citations are adapted from the Oxford English Dictionary (OED 2005).

Predator first appeared in a 1922 volume on insect behavior and is defined as “an animal that preys upon another” (OED 2005). The phrase predator–prey showed up in 1946, soon after a new, zoological-specific definition for predation: “the action of one animal preying upon another” (OED 2005). These terms appear to have laid the groundwork for predate, which came along in a 1974 article about trout farming, and is defined as “to seek prey” or “of a predator: to prey on, eat” (OED 2005). Predate is listed as a back-formation of predation, meaning that while it appears to be a root, it actually formed recently from the truncation of the earlier word. This is a fairly common way for new words to form in English (e.g., scavenge from scavenger; emote from emotion).

The confusion over predate lies in another word of the same spelling but wholly different origins. Deriving from the suffix “pre-” and the verb “date,” predate is defined as “to date before the actual time; to antedate,” or “to precede in date; to date before” (OED 2005). This word appeared in Noah Webster’s 1864 American Dictionary, more than a century before its predation-derived double would arrive to crowd the field. It remains the only definition for predate in many abridged dictionaries, including Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (Mish 2003) and The American Heritage Dictionary (Pickett 2000).

This foray into etymology shows that the controversy over predation semantics has been a nonissue all along (or at least since 1974). The words can be used interchangeably without violating any precepts of proper English diction. Those who favor depredate can take comfort in knowing that their word has been in use for more than three centuries, while proponents of predate can be satisfied that their term developed specifically to address predator–prey interactions. And for those who have used “prey upon,” they can continue to wonder what in the world all the fuss was about.

Acknowledgments

The author gratefully acknowledges the support of NSF-IGERT Grant No. 0114304.

Literature cited

Mish, F. C., editor. 2003. Merriam-Webster’s collegiate dictionary. Eleventh edition. Merriam-Webster, Springfield, Ohio, USA.

OED Online. 14 December 2005. Oxford University Press. ‹http://dictionary.oed.com/›

Pickett, J. P., editor. 2000. The American heritage dictionary of the English language. Fourth edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

Thor Hanson
Department of Forest Resources
University of Idaho
P.O. Box 441133
Moscow, ID 83844
E-mail: thor@rockisland.com

Amicus Brief on Wetlands Regulations by ESA and Other Societies

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases: Page

Carabell v. United States, 391 F.3d 704,

(6 th Cir. 2004)……………………………………… 19

United States v. Deaton, 332 F.3d 698,

(4 th Cir. 2003)……………………………………… 20

United States v. Rapanos,

376 F.3d 629, (6 th Cir. 2004)………………………. 18

United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes,

Inc. 474 U.S. 121, (1985)………………………….. 3

S tatutes:

33 U.S.C. § 1251……………………………………. 3, 4, 21

33 U.S.C. § 1330………………………………...….. 12

Regulations:

33 C.F.R. § 328.3(a)(7)…………………………….. 17, 19

33 C.F.R. § 328.3(b)…………………......…….…..... 6

33 C.F.R. § 328.3(c)………………………….…….... 17

40 C.F.R. § 230.3(b)…………………….………….... 17

40 C.F.R. § 230.3(s)(7)………………………………. 17, 19

R.L. Delany & M.R. Craig, LongitudinalChanges

in Mississippi River Floodplain Structure

(U.S. Geological Survey 1997)………………. 17 

Gerald J. Gonthier, Ground-water-flowConditions

Within a Bottomland Hardwood Wetland,

Eastern Arkansas,16 Wetlands 334-46 (1996)…. 15, 18

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES---Continued

Legislative Material: Page

H. Rep. No. 92-911, p. 76 (1972)………….………... 4

S. Rep. No. 92-414, p. 77 (1972)………..………….. 4

M iscellaneous:

D. Albert, Borne of the Wind: An Introduction to the

Ecology of Michigan’s Sand Dunes

(Michigan Natural Features Inventory 2000)………. 15, 18

M.M. Brinson, A hydrogeomorphic

classification for wetlands, Technical

Report WRP-DE-4, (U.S. Army Engineer

Waterways Experiment Station,

Vicksburg, MS, 1993)……………………………… 11

Carpenter, et al., Nonpoint Pollution of Surface

Water with Phosphorus and Nitrogen ,

3 Issues in Ecology 1-12 (1998)……………… 13

Table of Authorities----Continued

M iscellaneous Page

D.A. Goolsby, et al., Flux and Sources of Nutrients

in the Mississippi – AtchafalagaRiver Basin:

Topic 3 Report for the Integrated Assessment on

Hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico ,

(U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, Nat’l Oceanic and

Atmospheric Admin.(1999)),

http://www.nos.noaa.gov/

Products/hypox_t3final.pdf………………… 14

R. Howarth, et al., Nutrient Pollution of Coastal

Rivers, Bays, and Seas , 7 Issues in Ecology 

1-15 (2000)……………..................................... 13

R.W. Howarth, et al.,  Sources of Nitrogen

Pollution to Coastal Watersof the United States ,

25 Estuaries  656-676 (2002)……………………. 7

Kelley, Relations Among River Stage, Rainfall,

Ground Water Levels, and Stage at Two

Missouri River Flood-Plain Wetlands…. 16

T.R. Labbe & K.D. Fausch, Dynamics of

Intermittent Stream Habitat Regulate

Persistence of a Threatened Fish at

Multiple Scales , 10(6)

Ecological Applications 1774-1791 (2000)……. 10

Table of Authorities----Continued

M iscellaneous: Page

J.L. Meyer & J.B. Wallace, Lost Llinkages and

Lotic Ecology: Rediscovering Small Streams ,

Ecology: Achievement and Challenge 302

(M.C. Press et al. eds., 2001)………..……………… 11

W.J. Mitsch, et al., Reducing Nutrient Loads,

Especially Nitrate-Nitrogen, to Surface Water,

Ground Water, and the Gulf of Mexico ,

Topic 5 Report for the Integrated Assessment

on Hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico 84

(U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, Nat’l Oceanic and

Atmospheric Admin. (1999),

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/

products/pubs_hypox.t5final.pdf …………… 14

W.J. Mitsch & J.G. Gosselink,

317-351 Wetlands (1986)………………… 15, 18

Nat’l Research Council, Nat’l Academy Of

Sciences, Clean Coastal Waters: 

Understanding and Reducing the Effects

of Nutrient Pollution (2000)……………. 7, 8, 13, 16

Nat’l Research Council, Nat’l Academy of

Sciences, Comm. on Characterization

of Wetlands, Wetlands: Characteristics

and Boundaries (1995)………………………….. 6

Nat’l Research Council, Nat’l Academy of

sciences, Compensating for Wetland Losses

Under the Clean Water Act (2001)…………… 7

Table of Authorities----Continued

M iscellaneous: Page

Nat’l Research Council, Nat’l Academy of

Sciences, Riparian Areas, Functions and

Strategies for Management (2002)…………. 15

W.R. Osterkamp, et al., Economic Considerations

of a Continental Sediment-Monitoring Program , 13

International Journal of Sediment Research

No. 4: 12-24 (1998)……………………………… 10

M.N. Paller, Relationships Between Fish Assemblage

Structure and Stream Order in South Carolina

Coastal Plain Streams , 123 Transactions of the

American Fisheries Society 150-161 (1994)... 10

Peterson, et al., Control of Nitrogen Export

From Watersheds by Headwater Streams,

292 Science 86-90 (2001)………………………. 9

N.N. Rabalais, et al., Characterization of Hypoxia,

Topic 1 Report for the Integrated Assessment of

Hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico (U.S. Dep’t. of

Commerce, Nat’l Oceanic and Atmospheric

Admin. (1999)),h ttp://oceanservice.noaa.gov/

products/pubs_hypox_t1final.pdf……………….. 13

I.J. Schlosser, Critical Landscape Attributes That

Influence Fish Population Dynamics in

Headwater Streams, 303

Hydrobiologia 71-81 (1995)………………… 10

U.S. Envt’l Protection Agency,

National Water Inventory Report

( 2000) (Report to Congress) ……………... 10

Table of Authorities----Continued

M iscellaneous: Page

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Status and

Trends of Wetlands in the Conterminous

United States 1986-1997, (2000)…………….. 5

Van Breemen, et al., Where Did All the Nitrogen Go? 

Fate of Nitrogen Inputs to Large Watersheds in

the Northeastern USA , 57&58 

Biogeochemistry 267-293 (2002)…………….. 7

D.F. Whigham, et al., Impacts of Freshwater

Wetlands on Water Quality: A Landscape

Perspective, Environmental Management,

663-671 (1988)…………………………..… 9

S.L. Whitmire & S.K. Hamilton, Rapid Removal of

Nitrate and Sulfate in Freshwater Wetland

Sediments, 34 J. Environ. Quality 2062,

(2005)……………………………………….. 8

T.C. Winter, U.S. Geological Survey Circular

1139, Groundwater and Surface Water:

A Single Resource , (1999)………………….. 7

The Ecological Society of America, Society of Wetland Scientists, American Society of Limnology and Oceanography, and Estuarine Research Federation, as amici curiae, respectfully submit this brief in support of Respondents United States Army Corps of Engineers and the United States Environmental Protection Agency.¹

INTERESTS OF THE AMICI CURIAE

Amici are the leading professional associations of wetland and aquatic scientists in the United States. The Ecological Society of America (ESA) is an organization of scientists founded in 1915 to promote ecological science by improving communication among ecologists, raise the public’s level of awareness of the importance of ecological science, and ensure the appropriate use of ecological science in environmental decision making by enhancing communication between the ecological community and policy-makers. Ecology is the scientific discipline that is concerned with the relationships between organisms and their past, present, and future environments. ESA has published the scientific journal Ecology since 1920. The Society’s Aquatic Ecology Section is its largest section.

The Society of Wetland Scientists (SWS) is an international organization formed in 1980 to further scientific and educational objectives related to wetland science and to encourage and strengthen professional standards in all activities related to wetlands science. SWS has 4200 members and publishes a quarterly journal Wetlands concerned with all aspects of wetlands biology, ecology, hydrology, water chemistry, soil and sediment characteristics, and management. SWS established a Professional Certification Program to serve the public’s need to identify qualified individuals in the practice of wetland science.

The American Society of Limnology and Oceanography (ASLO) is a professional organization formed in 1948 for researchers and educators in the field of aquatic science. Limnology is the scientific study of the physical, chemical, hydrological, and biological aspects of inland water bodies. ASLO promotes integration and communication of knowledge across the full spectrum of aquatic science and the scientific stewardship of aquatic resources for the public interest. ASLO publishes the scientific journal Limnology and Oceanography.

The Estuarine Research Federation(ERF) is a professional organization founded in 1971 to promote research on estuaries and coastal waters and to provide information and advice on matters concerning estuaries and the coastal zone. ERF publishes the scientific journal Estuaries and Coasts.

Amici support the use of the best available scientific information in making decisions on the use and management of wetlands and aquatic resources.

INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

In United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc., this Court upheld Clean Water Act regulation of wetlands adjacent to open waters and other waters of the United States because such wetlands are “inseparably bound up” with those waters and Congress intended to enact a comprehensive program to control water pollution at its source. 474 U.S. 121, 134 (1985) (“Riverside Bayview”).

The Rapanos petitioners challenge the essential holding of Riverside Bayview and contend Clean Water Act regulation is limited to wetlands that directly abut large navigable water bodies, excluding from regulation tributaries and associated wetlands. The Carabell petitioners contend that wetlands separated from a tributary by a narrow earthern berm are not regulated. Each of the petitioners effectively challenges the validity of federal regulations defining “adjacent” wetlands as “waters of the United States.”

As developed below, the definition in question has a firm scientific foundation. Wetlands adjacent to tributaries are inseparably bound up with those and other downstream waters, and because of that connection serve functions essential to maintenance of water quality in the nation’s navigable waters. Because adjacent wetlands form the primary interface between terrestrial systems and downstream waters, they exert a powerful influence on downstream water quantity and quality. For example, adjacent wetlands in the upper Mississippi River watershed remove nutrients such as nitrogen – which plays a large role in the hypoxic “dead zone” in the Gulf of Mexico – from water and prevents the pollutants from flowing downstream. It follows that the failure to protect wetlands adjacent to tributaries will have significant adverse effects on water quality and the aquatic ecosystem and will undermine achievement of the legislated goal of the Clean Water Act “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the nation’s waters.” 33 U.S.C.1251.

ARGUMENT

I. BECAUSE WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TRIBUTARIES PERFORM FUNCTIONS ESSENTIAL TO MAINTENANCE OF WATER QUALITY AND THE AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM, THEY ARE “INSEPARABLY BOUND UP” WITH THE INTEGRITY OF ADJACENT AND DOWNSTREAM WATERS.

In upholding regulation of wetlands in Riverside Bayview, the Court relied upon Congressional findings that pollution must be controlled at the source in order to achieve the Act’s goals “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.” 33 U.S.C. § 1251. Congress recognized that water “moves in hydrologic cycles” such that “it is essential that discharge of pollutants be controlled at the source.” S. Rep. No. 92-414, p. 77 (1972). The “integrity” sought to be restored and maintained, 33 U.S.C. § 1251, “refers to a condition in which the natural structure and function of ecosystems [are] maintained.” H. Rep. No. 92-911, p. 76 (1972).

Science validates the understanding of Congress, the Corps, and this Court. It demonstrates that the failure to protect and maintain wetlands adjacent to “non navigable tributaries” will result in degradation of not only millions of miles of these important waters but also degradation of traditional navigable waters to which these tributaries contribute their flow. To date, fortunately, regulation of wetlands under the Act has done much to minimize their destruction and the attendant degradation of water quality and diminishment of aquatic integrity. The rate of loss of the nation’s wetlands has declined from 458,000 acres per year during the two decades preceding enactment of the Clean Water Act to 58,500 acres per year during the most recent assessment period.² Most of the substantial reduction in wetland loss can only be attributed to enactment and implementation of the wetland protection provisions of the Clean Water Act.

Below, we document four related scientific points. First, adjacent wetlands are a well-defined component of the aquatic environment with highly distinctive hydrologic features. Second, these distinctive features give rise to a unique suite of functions that directly contribute to the quality of other waters. Third, and most critically, science demonstrates that these wetlands help maintain water quality not just in nearby tributaries, but in navigable waters downstream. Fourth, it is reasonable to conclude adjacent wetlands separated from other waters by a man-made berm perform functions important to maintenance of water quality in the adjacent and downstream waters.

A. Adjacent Wetlands Are Distinct Features on the Landscape With Water Quality Functions Broadly Recognized in Science.

Adjacent wetlands lie at the interface between other surface waters, such as rivers and lakes, and terrestrial or upland systems. Wetland hydrology, or patterns of inundation or saturation by water, is the driving force that defines a wetland and controls its distinctive soil characteristics and plants. Hydrology is the key factor in the federal regulatory definition of a wetland:

The term wetlands means those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.

33 C.F.R. § 328.3(b).³ The recurrent inundation or saturation at or near the surface creates the unique environmental conditions that result in the important functions wetlands provide in the aquatic ecosystem – functions that scientific literature has linked to maintaining water quality in adjacent and downstream waters. These are not, in other words, occasional wet spots.

As concluded by the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, “[w]etlands have strong connections to adjacent uplands and deepwater environments. The interdependence between wetlands and associated aquatic ecosystems provides strong scientific justification for policies that make a connection between clean water and the protection of wetlands.”⁴

B. Adjacent Wetlands Have Critical Water Quality

and Ecological Functions.

Adjacent wetlands perform several functions essential to maintenance of water quality and the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the aquatic ecosystem, including water storage, nutrient transformation and removal, sediment trapping, and provision of habitat for aquatic organisms.

1.Water Storage and Flow Moderation.

Wetlands store surface water following precipitation events and moderate the flow of adjacent and downstream waters. Short-term surface water storage in wetlands reduces downstream flood peaks following precipitation events. Excessive flood peaks result in destructive scouring of stream beds and channels which can harm aquatic life. In the northeastern United States, watersheds with 4% or greater wetlands had peak flows that were 50% lower than watersheds with no remaining wetlands.⁵ Long-term surface water storage in wetlands maintains the base flow and seasonal flow distribution in adjacent streams. Wetlands in the adjacent landscape slowly release stored water through surface and sub-surface connections and “recharge” the streams maintaining flow during periods of low precipitation.⁶

2. Nutrient Transformation and Removal.

Wetlands play a critical role in limiting excessive nutrients in water because they intercept, transform, and accumulate nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) that would otherwise be delivered directly to streams or other waters by precipitation and runoff. All scientific studies conclude that wetlands are a major sink of pollutant nitrogen in the landscape, and some recent studies suggest that wetlands may be the most important sink.⁷

A recent study of five wetlands (size 0.4-3.1 hectares) in southwestern Michigan found even these relatively small wetlands removed nitrate and sulfate from introduced water containing those pollutants at a rapid rate: “The rapid rates of [nitrate and sulfate] removal demonstrate how very small areas of wetland sediment are capable of improving water quality, and such areas often occur at critical points of water flow between surface and groundwater reservoirs.”⁸

Wetlands reduce nitrogen pollution in surface waters by converting polluting forms of nitrogen into harmless gaseous form in a process called denitrification. It is the hydrology, or recurrent saturation or inundation, of a wetland that creates the conditions that make wetlands ideal for denitrification. Denitrification occurs under anoxic (without oxygen) soil conditions, but oxic (with oxygen) soils may be important in processing nitrogen first! Inundation or saturation of the soil with water limits oxygen except in the upper level of the soil and along some plant roots, creating an interface of oxic and anoxic soil conditions ideal for denitrification. Since some forms of nitrogen are highly mobile in groundwater, wetlands that do not have a surface hydrologic connectivity but have a subsurface groundwater connection can be important to reducing nitrogen pollution to nearby surface waters.⁹ While other ecosystems provide some denitrification, only wetlands have this tremendous capacity to intercept and remove nitrogen, thus maintaining the water quality of adjacent and downstream waters.

In fact, scientists believe that wetlands adjacent to smaller tributaries in the upper reaches of watersheds “may be the most important regulating water chemistry in large drainages because their large surface-to-volume ratios favor rapid nitrogen uptake and processing.”¹⁰ Once water reaches larger rivers, the nitrogen in the water is less likely to come into contact with soils and vegetation, so it is critical to water quality that excessive nitrogen be filtered in wetlands adjacent to smaller tributaries.¹¹ In a given watershed, smaller tributaries and associated wetlands may process more nitrogen and retain more large sediment particles while wetland floodplains associated with larger downstream rivers retain phosphorous and trap fine particles. Wetlands thus may be needed both upstream and downstream to fully address problems of nitrogen and phosphorus in surface waters.

3. Sediment Trapping.

Wetlands adjacent to streams and other waters are generally depositional areas on the landscape. Soil erodes from the adjacent upland areas “downhill” into the wetland. Adjacent wetlands intercept and trap eroding soil and sediment from uplands preventing delivery to the stream or other water body. Sediment adversely affects water quality by smothering streambeds and destroying or degrading aquatic habitat.¹² In addition, toxic materials including pesticides, industrial wastes, and metals can be bound to sediment and carried into water bodies.¹³ States report that sedimentation is one of the most widespread pollutants of streams and rivers and impairs 12% of assessed stream miles and 31% of the impaired stream miles.¹⁴

4. Habitat for Aquatic Organisms.

Wetlands provide the only habitat for numerous organisms and are important to the overall maintenance of biodiversity and the aquatic ecosystem. Similarly, tributaries provide different physical habitat for different kinds of aquatic species and different lifestages of certain fish species. Most fish require different physical habitats for each life stage, so that connectivity of diverse habitats including perennial, intermittent, ephemeral, and headwater streams is important to the fish finding suitable habitats during reproduction and each critical life stage.15 ,¹⁶ ,¹⁷

Headwaters are essential breeding habitat for some species of fish.¹⁸

C. Wetlands Adjacent to Tributaries Have Functions

Important to Maintaining Water Quality in

Traditionally Navigable Water Bodies.

Numerous scientific studies have documented and described the functions of wetlands in relation to adjacent waters and downstream waters. Functions of a wetland are associated with its landscape position.¹⁹ Most of a surface water drainage network’s interface with the land occurs in streams and associated wetlands at the most upper or “headwater” extent of the watershed. In most landscapes, approximately 75% percent of the stream length of a surface water drainage network consists of first order streams (no tributaries) and second order streams (where two first order streams join). These headwater tributaries and adjacent wetlands are “first responders” to the discharge of pollutants generated by activities in uplands. The most obvious reason even small tributaries and adjacent wetlands play a critical water quality function is that the great majority of water passes through them on the way downstream.

While first and second order tributaries constitute most of a surface drainage system, no generalizations can be made about proximity of first or second order tributaries to navigable waters. In some cases, first order tributaries may be many miles from the nearest navigable water. In other cases, first order tributaries may empty directly into navigable waters. Consequently, no generalizations can be made about the relative function of first or second order tributaries and associated wetlands with respect to downstream water quality based on their proximity to the downstream waters.

The Carabell wetlands are adjacent to a ditch excavated in wetlands. Ditches are typically excavated to modify the natural drainage characteristics of a site to increase the rate of flow from the site by decreasing surface and subsurface water retention. A large percentage of the nation’s streams and wetlands have been channelized or ditched. Ditches connected to other waters function as tributaries by conveying water, and any pollutants contained in that water, to downstream water bodies.

The water quality maintenance functions of wetlands adjacent to tributaries extend hundreds of miles downstream to the larger waters to which the tributaries contribute flow. Nutrient control provides a paradigmatic example. Pollution from excessive nutrients is a significant problem in coastal waters including Chesapeake Bay, Albemarle and Pamlico Sounds in North Carolina, and the Gulf of Mexico.²⁰ Large additions of nutrients, including nitrogen, into such waters causes an overgrowth of algae and subsequent depletion of oxygen in the water, a process called eutrophication. “Eutrophication accounts for about half of the impaired lake area and 60% of the impaired river reaches in the U.S. and is also the most widespread pollution problem of U.S. estuaries.”²¹ Much of the excessive nutrient loading of coastal waters and estuaries is delivered by upstream tributaries from sources in watersheds that can be long distances from the coastal zone.²²

The notorious “dead zone” in the Gulf of Mexico illustrates just how serious the problem can become, and how wetlands are integral to solving it. Nutrient laden waters from the Mississippi River seasonally create a large area of oxygen-depleted water, referred to as hypoxia, in the Gulf of Mexico on the Louisiana continental shelf. Excessive nutrients contribute to algal production which in turn leads to increased availability of organic carbon and depletion of oxygen in the water column. Most aquatic species cannot survive in oxygen depleted water – yet this hypoxia occurs in the middle of the most important commercial and recreational fisheries in the conterminous United States.²³ Significantly for present purposes, some eighty-six percent of nitrogen arriving at the hypoxic zone originates in the upper Mississippi River basin above the confluence with the Ohio

River.²⁴ The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has identified restoration of wetlands in the Mississippi River watershed as a strategy to address hypoxia in the Gulf based on the nutrient removal functions wetlands provide in the upper Mississippi River tributaries.²⁵ Although its watershed is located hundreds of miles from the Gulf, “the Illinois River basin, with 7% of its watershed converted to wetland, could reduce about 50% of the 144,000 metric tons/yr of nutrients it generates, or about 5% of the entire nitrogen load to the gulf of Mexico.”²⁶

D. Wetlands Neighboring, Bordering, or Contiguous to Other Waters Usually Have Significant Functional Relationships to the Adjacent Waters Notwithstanding Natural or Man-Made Berms or Similar Barriers.

The water quality and other functions of adjacent wetlands for downstream water bodies are only partially removed, if removed at all, by construction of levees or berms. Natural river levees are formed on most large meandering rivers and consist of linear elevated lands along the river bank often separating the river from wetland areas or “backswamps.” These levees are formed by the deposition of sediment during flood stage as sediment laden water leaves the river channel, slows and spreads out, and drops its sediment load along the immediate river shoreline. The levee does not isolate the backswamp from the river as the levee is periodically overtopped by the river during flood stage such that backswamp wetland absorbs floodwaters, attenuates flows and receives pollutants such as sediment that would otherwise travel immediately downstream.²⁷ Similar man-made dikes or barriers usually do not isolate a wetland from all surface connection with adjacent waters. If water levels rise and overtop the dike or barrier, it results in a direct surface connection with the adjacent wetland.

Subsurface connections also can exist between wetlands and adjacent waters even where “separated” by surface features such as berms, dikes, or dunes. For example, studies show that beach dunes do not completely isolate a wetland from adjacent waters. Wetland dune swales along the immediate shoreline of the Great Lakes have direct subsurface hydrological connectivity to the adjacent lake and water tables in the wetland are controlled by lake levels.²⁸ E xchange of water between adjacent wetlands and a river is often through shallow groundwater, in both directions.²⁹ Indeed, even where man-made levees are in place, hydrologic connectivity between wetlands and adjacent waterways persists.³⁰

The direct subsurface connections between wetlands and adjacent waters can affect water quality despite surface features. As discussed above in I.B.2., excessive nitrogen is a major pollutant of surface waters. Because nitrogen is mobile in groundwater, wetlands separated from waters by dikes or berms may still perform important functions by reducing nitrogen conveyed to the adjacent water by subsurface connections.³¹

Failure to include wetlands as “adjacent” where immediate at-grade abutment is interrupted by natural or man-made landforms will eliminate federal protection over large expanses of wetland function. The U.S. Geological Survey has calculated that over ninety-percent (93%) of the lower Mississippi River floodplain has been modified by the presence of levees.³²  Many of the remaining wetlands are landward of those levees.

II. THE FEDERAL DEFINITION OF “ADJACENT” WETLANDS ACCURATELY REFLECTS THE CONNECTION TO ADJACENT AND DOWNSTREAM NAVIGABLE WATERS, AND THAT DEFINITION ENCOMPASSES THE RAPANOS AND CARABELL WETLANDS.

Given the demonstrated physical interconnections between wetlands, adjacent tributaries and navigable waters, Clean Water Act jurisdiction over wetlands adjacent to tributaries will serve to protect the biological, chemical and physical integrity of traditional navigable waters. The federal “adjacent” wetlands definition accurately reflects the known interrelation of such wetlands with navigable waters and thus further the aim of the Clean Water Act. Further, information in the record of these cases supports the conclusion that the Rapanos and Carabell wetlands qualify as regulated adjacent wetlands.

The federal regulation applied in these cases defines waters of the United States to include wetlands that are “adjacent” to traditional navigable waters or their tributaries. 33 C.F.R. § 328.3(a)(7); 40 C.F.R. § 230.3(s)(7). The term “adjacent” is defined to mean “bordering, contiguous, or neighboring,” id., with the further provision that “[w]etlands separated from other waters of the United States by man-made dikes or barriers, natural river berms, beach dunes and the like are ‘adjacent wetlands.’” 33 C.F.R. § 328.3(c); 40 C.F.R. § 230.3(b). As discussed in Section I, supra at 14-17, numerous studies demonstrate that wetlands bordering, contiguous, or neighboring tributaries have hydrological interconnections with those water bodies and with waters downstream, such that the water quality functions of those wetlands are effectively transmitted to navigable waters. The regulatory definition of adjacent wetlands accurately encompasses wetlands that are important to maintaining and protecting the integrity of waters of the United States.

Scientific understanding also supports the regulation’s effective presumption that “man-made dikes or barriers, natural river berms, beach dunes and the like” do not operate to defeat the rationale for extending jurisdiction to wetlands that are “bordering, contiguous, or neighboring” to other waters, including tributaries. Wetlands and neighboring surface waters can interact through a variety of means, including surface flows caused by local wet weather events (e.g., rainwater causing overflow from a wetland into a tributary); surface flows caused by remote wet weather (e.g., upstream precipitation causing a tributary to flood into a wetland); and by flows that travel at least temporarily through the ground before discharging into the tributary.³³ Thus, even though adjacent wetlands may lack constant, obvious, or contiguous surface water connection to a nearby tributary, they can still possess significant hydrologic connectivity and functional linkage.³⁴

Turning to application of the regulation, the Rapanos property includes three wetland areas, all with surface water connections through tributaries to traditionally navigable waters. United States v. Rapanos, 376 F.3d 629, 642-643 (6 th Cir. 2004). As the Rapanos do not dispute that their wetlands have direct connections to tributaries, those wetlands fall within the definition of adjacent wetlands. 33 C.F.R. § 328.3(a)(7); 40 C.F.R. § 230.3(s)(7).

The 19.6 acre Carabell property includes approximately 16 acres of forested wetlands that are a remnant of the once more expansive Lake St. Clair, which lies about one mile southeast of the tract. Carabell v. United States, 391 F.3d 704, 705 (6 th Cir. 2004). At some time in the past, a ditch was excavated from the wetland and the spoil material cast along both sides of the ditch, creating a berm. 391 F.3d at 705. The ditch connects with the Sutherland-Oemig Drain which flows into Auvase Creek, which in turn flows into Lake St. Clair, a traditionally navigable water that connects to Lake Erie. JA Vol. 4 at 847 (Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation).

The administrative record supports the conclusion that the Carabell wetlands are “adjacent” under federal regulation. The ditch was excavated out of wetlands contiguous to the delineated wetlands on the site, with removed wetland materials “sidecast” along the ditch to form the berm. JA Vol. 3 at 532. The record contains little clarifying information about this sidecast berm’s manner or mode of construction, its size, or its actual demonstrated performance as a hydrological barrier between the wetlands, ditch, and drain, particularly during wet-weather events. Based on what was before it, however, the Corps concluded that the ditch remained adjacent to the wetlands from which it was dug for the purposes of its regulatory jurisdiction. JA Vol. 3 at 516, 523, 531-534. While the frequency and extent of surface water connection between the wetland and the neighboring tributaries is not clear from this record, what does appear clear is the fact that a periodic surface water connection exists.³⁵ The record also presents evidence of subsurface connection between the wetlands and ditch.³⁶ The hydrologic connectivity between the Carabell wetlands and nearby tributaries supports the Corps’ conclusion that water quality functions could be lost if these wetlands were destroyed. Compare JA Vol. 3 at 519 (Corps determination stating wetlands on site provide “valuable seasonal habitat for aquatic organisms” and “water storage functions that, if destroyed, could result in an increased risk of erosion and degradation of water quality in the Sutherland-Oemig Drain, Auvase Creek, and Lake St. Clair.”) with Section I, supra at 6-11 (discussing water storage, pollution reduction and biological habitat values of wetlands for navigable waters).

CONCLUSION

Peer-reviewed scientific studies demonstrate that wetlands adjacent to tributaries are functionally interrelated with, and physically interconnected to traditionally navigable waters, and play an important role in restoring and maintaining “ the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters.” 33 U.S.C. § 1251. Federal regulations defining waters of the United States to include those wetlands accordingly have a sound foundation in science. Those regulations, applied to the wetlands in this case, support federal jurisdiction in both Carabell and Rapanos. The decisions below should be affirmed.

Respectfully submitted.

James Blanding Holman, IV*

Derb S. Carter, Jr.
Southern Environmental Law Center
200 W. Franklin Street, St. 330
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
(919) 967-1450

*Counsel of Record

¹All parties have consented to the filing of this brief. Pursuant to this Court’s Rule 37.6, Amici state that no counsel for any party in this case authored this brief in whole or in part, and no person or entity other than the Amici and their counsel have made a monetary contribution to the preparation and submission of this brief.

² U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Status and Trends of Wetlands in the Conterminous United States 1986-1997 , 9 (2000).

³Hydrology is also the primary factor in the definition of “wetland” proposed by the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences in 1995. Nat’l Research Council, Nat’l Academy of Sciences, Comm. on Characterization of Wetlands, Wetlands: Characteristics and Boundaries 3 (1995).

⁴Id. at 34.

⁵ Nat’l Research Council, Nat’l Academy of sciences, Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act 48 (2001).

⁶ T.C. Winter, U.S. Geological Survey Circular, Groundwater and Surface Water: A Single Resource , 1139 (1999).

⁷ Nat’l Research Council, Nat’l Academy Of Sciences, Clean Coastal Waters:  Understanding and Reducing the Effects of Nutrient Pollution (2000); R.W. Howarth, et al.,  Sources of Nitrogen Pollution to Coastal Waters of the United States, 25 Estuaries  656-676 (2002); Van Breemen, et al., Where Did All the Nitrogen Go?  Fate of Nitrogen Inputs to Large Watersheds in the Northeastern USA, 57&58  Biogeochemistry 267-293 (2002).

⁸ S.L. Whitmire & S.K. Hamilton, Rapid Removal of Nitrate and Sulfate in Freshwater Wetland Sediments, 34 J. Environ. Quality 2062, 2070 (2005).

⁹ Nat’l Research Council, supra note 7.

¹⁰ Peterson, et al., Control of Nitrogen Export From Watersheds by Headwater Streams, 292 Science 86-90 (2001).

¹¹ D.F. Whigham, et al., Impacts of Freshwater Wetlands on Water Quality: A Landscape Perspective, Environmental Management, 663-671 (1988).

¹² U.S. Envt’l Protection Agency, National Water Inventory Report 13 ( 2000) (Report to Congress).

¹³ W.R. Osterkamp, et al., Economic Considerations of a Continental Sediment-Monitoring Program, 13 International Journal of Sediment Research No. 4: 12-24 (1998).

¹⁴ U.S. Envt’l Protection Agency, supra note 12, at 12.

¹⁵ T.R. Labbe & K.D. Fausch, Dynamics of Intermittent Stream Habitat Regulate Persistence of a Threatened Fish at Multiple Scales, 10(6) Ecological Applications 1774-1791 (2000).

¹⁶ M.N. Paller, Relationships Between Fish Assemblage Structure and Stream Order in South Carolina Coastal Plain Streams, 123 Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 150-161 (1994).

¹⁷ I.J. Schlosser, Critical Landscape Attributes That Influence Fish Population Dynamics in Headwater Streams, 303 Hydrobiologia 71-81 (1995).

¹⁸ J.L. Meyer & J.B. Wallace, Lost Linkages and Lotic Ecology: Rediscovering Small Streams, Ecology: Achievement and Challenge 302 (M.C. Press et al. eds., 2001).

¹⁹ See M.M. Brinson, A hydrogeomorphic classification for wetlands, Technical Report WRP-DE-4, (U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, 1993).

²⁰ The degradation of coastal estuaries prompted Congress to amend the Clean Water Act to establish a national estuary program to develop comprehensive conservation and management plans to implement corrective actions to address pollution of estuaries. See 33 U.S.C. 1330.

²¹ Carpenter, et al., Nonpoint Pollution of Surface Water with Phosphorus and Nitrogen, 3 Issues in Ecology 1-12 (1998).

²² N at’l Research Council, supra note 7; R. Howarth, et al., Nutrient Pollution of Coastal Rivers, Bays, and Seas, 7 Issues in Ecology 1-15 (2000).

²³ See N.N. Rabalais, et al., Characterization of Hypoxia, Topic 1 Report for the Integrated Assessment of Hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico (U.S. Dep’t. of Commerce, Nat’l Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin. (1999)), http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/products/pubs_hypox_t1final.pdf

²⁴ D.A. Goolsby, et al., Flux and Sources of Nutrients in the Mississippi – Atchafalaga River Basin: Topic 3 Report for the Integrated Assessment on Hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico, (U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, Nat’l Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin.(1999)), http://www.nos.noaa.gov/Products/hypox_t3final.pdf.

²⁵ W.J. Mitsch, et al., Reducing Nutrient Loads, Especially Nitrate-Nitrogen, to Surface Water, Ground Water, and the Gulf of Mexico, Topic 5 Report for the Integrated Assessment on Hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico 84 (U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, Nat’l Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin. (1999), http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/products/pubs_hypox.t5final.pdf

²⁶Id.

²⁷ W.J. Mitsch & J.G. Gosselink, 317-351 Wetlands (1986).

²⁸ D. Albert, Borne of the Wind: An Introduction to the Ecology of Michigan’s Sand Dunes (Michigan Natural Features Inventory 2000).

²⁹ See Nat’l Research Council, Nat’l Academy of Sciences, Riparian Areas, Functions and Strategies for Management 33 (2002)  (“Because floodplains are porous and contain aquifers that are closely linked to and controlled by the channel system, waterbodies and their riparian areas are linked longitudinally, vertically and horizontally); id. at 34 (Figure 1-4 and legend describing how in most “alluvial river corridors” river water moves rapidly through surficial alluvia in a hyporheic zone immediately underlying the stream bed and adjacent areas).

http://www.nap.edu/books/0309082951/html/33.htm l; Gerald J. Gonthier, Ground-water-flow Conditions Within a Bottomland Hardwood Wetland, Eastern Arkansas, 16 Wetlands 334-46 (1996) (describing groundwater flow from wetland adjacent to Cache River in Arkansas to and from river).

³⁰ See, e.g., Kelley, Relations Among River Stage, Rainfall, Ground Water Levels, and Stage at Two Missouri River Flood-Plain Wetlands (U.S. Geological Survey 2001) (describing water levels in floodplain wetlands separated from Missouri River by levees rising and falling as river heights (stages) varied).

³¹ Nat’l Research Council, supra note 7.

³² R.L. Delany & M.R. Craig, Longitudinal Changes in Mississippi River Floodplain Structure (U.S. Geological Survey 1997). 

³³ See Gonthier, supra note 29 (describing flow of water from wetland into local aquifer and then into river).

³⁴ See id.; Albert, supra note 34; Mitsch, supra note 27.

³⁵ The Carabells’ attorney stated that “at least” three “lateral cuts, drainage cuts that run through the berm,” through which rainwater could “go over,” JA Vol. 3 at 639, while another Carabell consultant objected to the proposition that the existing wetlands were essentially “offline” with “no outflow,” stating that a three-and-a-half-inch rain would result in “some overflow.” JA Vol. 3 at 639.

³⁶ The Carabells’ consultant stated that that the Sutherland-Oemig “drain dropped the water table three, four feet, so it has been a long slow drying out process, and I’m not so sure that that process isn’t continuing today.” JA Vol. 3 at 629 (statement of Mr. Leighton). And the Corps’ site inspector, addressing the question of “Site Hydrology” and the nearest water receiving runoff from the site, answered “perhaps drain, perhaps groundwater discharge.” JA Vol. 3 at 487. See alsoUnited States v. Deaton, 332 F.3d 698, 702-703 (4 th Cir. 2003) (discussing drainage ditch dug in wetlands with sidecasting as increasing drainage with a purpose to “destroy wetland characteristics”).

In ESA Bulletin 78(2):142–143 (1997), the article in Ecology 101, “Tree measurement and carbon cycling: a laboratory exercise,” contains a numerical error. In the appendix of the article is a formula for the amount of carbon in each liter of gasoline. The correct value is 591 g C/L of gasoline. (The value originally printed was 49.3 g C/L.)

Paul Weihe
Associate Professor of Biology
Central College
Pella, IA 50219
E-mail: weihep@central.edu

Instructions for Contributors

DEADLINES: Contributions for publication in the Bulletin must reach the Editor’s office by the deadlines shown below to be published in a particular issue: