The Expanded Law of Ecological Tolerance

Abstract 
Justus von Liebig's Law of the Ecological Minimum states that the growth of a plant will be limited by whichever requisite factor is the most deficient in the local environment. V. E. Shelford expanded Liebig’s Law, applying it also to animals and taking into account that too much may be as bad as too little. 
Shelford’s Law of Tolerance states that the survival and distribution of a species is limited by its ability to adapt to the biotic and abiotic parameters of its immediate environment. I.e. it’s tolerance of the habitat. (See Figure 1A). 
Shelford’s Law has been a cornerstone, however, it is possible to expand on the law by including a parameter that previously was excluded, namely the internal state of the organism in question.

Detailed Explanation 
The proposed expansion on the law is to include internal biotic parameters, which are essentially factors that are not native to the immediate environment, but rather to the organism itself. These factors have a decisive role to play in species survival, yet are not evidently encompassed in the Law of Ecological Tolerance. 
External biotic parameters include predation, Shelford’s Law describes that if a species cannot adapt to combat predation, (by, for example, breeding more abundantly) it will die out. The expanded law can be applied to state that if a species mutation or variant is unable to detect predators, it will become extinct. In other words the fault doesn’t lie in the organism’s inability to adapt, but rather in its predetermined internal attributes such as eyesight. The primary difference between Shelford’s law and the proposed expansion is that Shelford’s Law focuses on external parameters, while the expanded law focuses on both external and internal parameters. 
Figure 1A shown above has the label of “Environmental Variable” to describe the changing parameter which governs the bird population. The expanded law could replace this changing parameter with “Environmental/Internal Variable”.


A difference must be drawn in the origin of the parameter that leads to a species’ success of failure. Essentially stipulating “who’s to blame” for a species’ extinction or survival – the environment or the species’ itself? To hammer the point one could make a metaphorical analogy - is the extinction of a species due to murder or suicide? Although the end result, being death, is the same, murder has an external cause, whilst suicide has an internal cause. A well-known model of natural selection (Figure 2A & 2B) can be incorporated to illustrate that Shelford’s Law doesn’t include the origin of the changing parameter. Figure 2A shows the model according to Shelford’s Law, where the factor causing natural selection is external and removed from the species itself. Figure 2B illustrates that the factor causing natural selection can be effectively replaced by an internal change.

Examples 
The Trinidad Guppy has been thoroughly researched in both the fields of evolution and ethology as excellent examples of habituation and intra-species development. The males from ‘high risk’ areas have dark, camouflaged colouration due to their environment being of such a nature that concealment is a higher priority than mate attraction. In ‘low risk’ areas, where predation is of no notable danger to the population, the males develop striking colours and patterns to attract mates. The females of both areas prefer the males from their respective habitats. This species can be brought into the equation to better understand the expanded law of ecological tolerance. If, for example, a male guppy hatched with bright colouration in a high risk area, it would be in severe danger of predation. When it is eaten, the “colourful gene” is removed from the population. 
The death of that male has nothing to do with the environment, but everything to do with its own internal state. The environment didn’t change, the species did. To place this in terms of the analogy I mentioned earlier, the male Guppy was killed by the suicide effect, not the murder effect. 
If the temperature of the aquatic habitat were to dramatically increase, the mortality rate of the Guppy would also increase due to that factor – an external environmental parameter, so in such a situation Shelford’s Law is 100% applicable. 


An effective, albeit unrealistic, example would be to say that if a genetic disorder were to arise in a Springbok lamb that causes it to be born with no legs, the individual antelope would die, regardless of how excellent its immediate environment is. In this example, the genetic disorder is a mutation, a completely internal parameter. If the mutation favours the animal, it will succeed better than its predecessors, and therefore the genetic morph would be bred into the species again and again until a dominant gene is established. The “improved” organism would therefore have survived and succeeded not because of a change in the environmental parameters, but purely due to its own internal state. 


Conclusion 
It is important to note that I do not in any way mean that Shelford’s Law of Ecological Tolerance is incorrect or incoherent; I only propose an expansion on the law to include the internal state as a deciding parameter for species survival. To better understand ecology as a whole, a distinction must be made between the internal and external parameters of survival. This distinction will be valuable to several areas of conservation, including how to strategize plans to protect endangered species, ethology, evolutionary studies, as well as benefitting ecological understanding as a whole. 


The Expanded Law of Ecological Tolerance can state that ‘the survival and distribution of a species is limited to its ability to adapt to the biotic and abiotic parameters of its immediate environment as well as its own internal state.’ 

Hydraulic Fracturing in the Karoo - Not Cool.

It's been well covered in the media since its first public appearance towards the end of January 2011. The controversial project that the Shell Exploration Company announced - the proposed South Western Karoo Basin Gas Exploration Project. This, in a nutshell, is a proposal to test for underground natural gas deposits in the Karoo. Several organizations, companies and individuals have raised concerns about the testing methods. These concerns have been shrugged off by Shell representatives, the question now is... Who's right?

Hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking" is a method that uses the natural tendencies of a mineral and the way it responds to fluid strain. The process is complicated, but the bare basic principle behind it is they use a water based mixture to carve into a mineral deposit and extract the gas. Shale is a rock with a low permeability, so it requires fracturing to provide the level of permeability needed for commercially viable gas mining. In areas where the shale deposits are naturally fractured, mining is relatively simple and the global community has been doing it for years. Hydraulic fracturing has, according to the 1970 report by the Society of Petroleum Engineers, been used in industry since 1949. Hydraulic fracturing is a very new piece on the playing board. Even 'new-age' energy solutions are older. The first commercial, large scale hydro-electric power station that wasn't a prototype was built in 1895, a full 116 years ago. This puts hydraulic fracturing into the baby department of resource and energy management. The inherent long term flaws of hydraulic fracturing heven't been studied thouroughly yet because, as the above dates show, there hasn't been a long term yet.

Mr. Graham Tiley, General Manager for new ventures & international exploration at Shell, told media in Johannesburg on the 3rd of March that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) "could find no evidence of a link between fracking and water contamination," which is true, but here's what he didn't say.

1) The relevant EPA study in 2004 was never intended as a general study. It was a study for use in coal bed gas deposits only, and only covered the deep underground water contamination issues. (A study which was restricted to one geographical area - the Karoo is a sensitive and very different area, relating it to American research is comparing apples with pears).

2) The EPA declared that the outcome of their studies on the effects of fracking showed "no unequivocal evidence" of health risks, but states clearly that further research is needed. (Coming from one of the most powerful countries in the world, if the EPA says further research is needed, it makes sense to listen).

3) The EPA recently declared a $1.9 million forthcoming study to review all previous assessments and collect new data for a conclusive report on the environmental and human safety of fracking. (That would be the equivalent to Golder Associates, the company doing the environmental impact assessments (EIA) for Shell, to have a R13 million EIA to be on a publicly acceptable standard).

4) One of the most controversial loopholes in the American constitution is the Halliburton loophole, which, according to the NY Times, effectively denies authority to the EPA to monitor and regulate hydraulic fracturing.

As the NY Times so splendidly puts it, "(The industry) also argues that the process is basically safe and that regulating it would deter domestic production. But if hydraulic fracturing is as safe as the industry says it is, why should it fear regulation?"

Shell chairperson, Bonong Mohale, said that this project would "reduce South Africa's dependence on coal generation and imported energy, while reducing the carbon footprint." Apart from the wording error (nobody can generate coal, we can only extract it.) there are a few questions raised by this statement. One fracking well costs roughly $15 million and Shell plans to drill 24 wells. The initial phase of the project will cost $360 million. Not to mention the costs involved if they find sufficient shale gas deposits and start considering the development of the area to process it. $360 million. According to moneyweb.co.za predictions, the dollar will trade at "just above R8/$ in the final quarter of 2012," - which is when Shell plans to start drilling. Let us say R8.00 to the dollar. That gives us R2 880 000 000.00. Nearly R3 Billion. Imagine a 3 billion Rand project for a renewable energy solution. South Africa is listed as the country with the 14th highest carbon footprint in the world, which is certainly not something to be proud of. It's great if Mohale has the country's environmental interests at heart, but the focus should be on finding a renewable energy source. Of our 30 operational power stations, 1 uses nuclear power and only 6 are using renewable energy solutions. Another factor is size. The proposed project will cover 90 000km², imagine what potential 90 000 square kilometres has as a solar panel array to provide power, lowering our electricity needs and therefore allowing more financial play to facilitate fuel needs.

In April 2010 Pennsylvania banned Cabot Oil & Gas Corp. from drilling. This ban will continue across the whole state until the company agrees to shut down wells that are believed to be linked to several health and safety concerns including drinking water contamination. An investigation was implemented following the explosion of a water well on a site. The investigation concluded that Cabot Oil & Gas Corp had unwittingly leaked combustible methane gas into the region's supply of groundwater. This highlights that when things do go wrong, the damage is severe and extensive. Another example happened on the 3rd of June 2010 in the same state, this time the well blew nearly 16 000L of hydraulic fracturing fluids into the air. The fluids settled on inhabited areas as well as forested land. The blow out lasted for 16 hours.

Other events believed to be linked to hydraulic fracturing are examples of earthquakes in Cleburne, Texas. According to an article on the 9th of June 2010, the first recorded tremors in the town's 140 year history happened only after hydraulic fracturing operations started in the area. This makes sense because shale will naturally fracture over a very long time. Hydraulic fracturing speeds up a process which could take several centuries in nature. France has placed a national ban stating that "no authorizations for shale gas exploration will be given, or even considered, before the commission reports". The final reports are expected to be released in June 2011. Buffalo City, New York, has also declared a ban on fracking until further notice.

According to the acclaimed documentary, Gasland, other health concerns that have been identified are the presence of toxins, carcinogenics and heavy metals in the fracturing fluids. The fracturing fluid is, according to a 2008 report by ALL Consulting, made up of 90.6% water, 8.95% proppant (usually sanitized, de-dusted sand) and 0.44% other chemical additives. 0.44% may not sound like much, but put into context the figures become alarming. Hydraulicfracturing.com states that the hydraulic fracturing process uses on average 4.5 million gallons per well. This is, as stated, an average, because there are several factors that prevent one such as myself from making an accurate estimate. 4.5 million gallons means roughly 20 million litres per well, 24 wells, that's 490 million litres. Three things jump to mind.

Firstly, 0.44% seems a petty figure when compared to those ranging into the 90% bracket. Put into perspective, however, it becomes a lot more startling - hydraulic fracturing will pump more than 2.1 million litres of chemical cocktail into the ground.

Secondly, how will Shell get this water? Their background document states "...sea water, surface water, and deep saline aquifers." I cannot see that any of these options are environmentally suitable, economically viable, or indeed, realistic at all.

Thirdly, fuel is a far less essential commodity than water. That is 490 million litres of water that could rather be extracted and prepared for drinking water. The Eastern Cape coastal region is experiencing a terrible drought at the present time, and they're not alone. I'm sure most, if not all areas in South Africa (or Africa) can find more constructive uses for that water.

Another worrying factor is that the project area will overlap that of the acclaimed astronomical project - the SKA, or Square Kilometre Array, a phenomenal piece of science and technology which, when rigged, will change astronomy forever. The individuals, companies and organizations involved in setting up the SKA have been investigating and researching whether South Africa or Australia will be better suited for the state-of-the-art radio telescope. Although Shell chairperson, Bonong Mohale, maintains that Shell's activities "will have no impact on the Square Array Project," planting a mining exploration project using questionable and controversial methods on the place the SKA team are considering is nothing short of an insult. The SKA telescope project will put South Africa on the astronomical map again. Apart from that, hydraulic fracturing has been linked to explosions and blow-outs which, if they were to happen around the SKA, would cause significant damage to it. The governing bodies behind the SKA are sure to take this into account and it would be a shame to lose our place in scientific and technological history due to the Shell project and hydraulic fracturing.

Any project that raises as much controversy and in some instances, outrage, is missing the plot somewhere, either in their methods, or in their manner of address to the public. The environment includes us as people, and as people we should raise our concerns. The companies involved with this project should be able justify their plans and explain them in a manner that is understandable and accessible to everyone, because it affects everyone.

While sourcing from online media releases, the question was repeated by several members of the general public about why Shell is doing this and not Sasol, which is a fair question. However, in my opinion, nobody should be doing this... At least not soon.

As a 21 year old citizen of this country I have the responsibility to question these issues and the right to expect honest, upfront and pertinent answers.

Greenpeace & Similar Organizations - The Fundamental Flaw

Greenpeace - Rant.
What is it with individuals of the American youth who are happy to dance to drumbeats, wear lurid clothing and costumes, shout, chant and sit in trees when they (or at least the great majority of them) have no idea why they are there?

These young people, although passionate and ambitious, have very little exposure to what conservation, preservation and sustainable development really is. They are quick to throw figures around, yet they cannot substantiate the figures with references or concrete data at all. They have several favourite topics to fuel their purely emotive campaigns. Logging, industrial progress and globalization are first on their list of things to blame.

How do these representatives of an environmental movement group battle against logging when their catchy phrases of doom are written on paper or some derivative of wood palp? How can you write anti-logging slogans on cardboard? Does cardboard not come from trees? In December of 1997, Julia Hill, a Greenpeace activist, spent two years living in a treehouse in a Redwood to save the tree from a local Californian logging company. The tree was old, large, and magnificent. It still stands today and has been protected - which is fantastic. However, Julia was quoted in 2003 saying that she loves trees and will never damage one for gain. Does nailing planks into a tree not count as damage? Will someone tell this joiner that planks are made from trees!! The boards and endless flyers these activists throw around could well have been used for far more constructive purposes, medical textbooks to allow for more doctors, or sheets of paper upon which proper, scientific environmental research could be printed. Far from helping to stop logging, the Greenpeace fools are promoting it.

Industrial progress is something we've all heard about, and at this stage, our high-energy carbon fuels, the so-called fossil fuels, are indeed causing more problems than they solve. Coal, oil and natural gas are contributing to the heating of the planet, and will continue degrading the environmental standards
of our home until action is taken. Greenpeace sees it differently. Whilst the learned, rational scientific community agrees that there should be a movement towards a sustainable industrial progress, Greenpeace activists are screaming blue murder and want to stop ALL industrial progress. This is as pointless as telling the sun not to shine. Industrial progress will happen; it's synonymous to human existence. Their focus should be to shift from current resource utilization to a new way of harnessing renewable power, not stopping all industry related growth and expansion.

According to many of the activists, globalization is the greatest catalyst to environmental destruction. I have several points of question here. Firstly, the global economy is governed by a select few corporate entities, we all agree on that. These units have the money, capacity and influence to ignore a group of hopping hooligans in tie-dyed t-shirts. These units and the people governing them didn’t reach their position in the global economic food-chain by being stupid and ill-informed, no, quite the contrary, They are rational, intelligent, thinking people who can be convinced to support a sustainable future, but they must be convinced with fact, logic, science and competence. The environmental community should work alongside the corporate giants, strength of knowledge adding to the strength of money. What Greenpeace and similar organizations do is make the corporate world see conservation in a bad light - the impression of ignorance and incompetence that's portrayed by youthful American activists. Stop trying to overthrow corporate giants and governments by waving banners in front of their buildings, get ecologists and people who know what they're talking about to approach the corporate entities and thereby let the environmental community work WITH the economic drivers instead of against them in a constructive way that's based on substantial foundations.

Globalization is the process by which international relations and interdependence of the world's markets bring about what's known as the global village. Two of the greatest factors contributing to globalization are undeniably the advances and progression of the telecommunications network and the evolution of the internet and the significant rise of these factors over the past two to three decades. Technological advances allow people to do business, travel and communicate with greater efficacy and ease across the globe. The
Greenpeace activists seem to think that they don't contribute to this. Now, if that's so, every individual who joins Greenpeace or organizations with similar views should be banned from having a cell phone, driving a car, getting on a plane, owning a computer or having access to the internet. How Greenpeace proclaims the damages of globalization while they have a website and a network of offices across the world will remain a mystery to anyone with more brains than bad hairstyles, something apparently absent in Greenpeace activists.
The more you look into it, Greenpeace and several organizations with a similar mission started out right - governed and brought to life by individuals who saw the need to have a global representing entity, one that was not affiliated to any company or government. The origins of Greenpeace are well intended, but as Canadian ecologist Dr. Patrick Moore says, "Greenpeace and the environmental movement was basically hijacked by political and social activists who came in and very cleverly learned how to use green rhetoric or green language to cloak agendas which had more to do with anti-corporatism, anti-globalisation, anti-business and in fact had very little to do with science and ecology." Incidentally, Dr. Moore was a founding member and former president of Greenpeace in the early 1970's, but left the organization when it became a platform for rebellious young Americans with nothing better to do with their time and are essentially against anything to do with economic and social structures.

In a nutshell, far from doing any good for the environment, organizations like Greenpeace actually do significantly more damage than good. Leave it to the scientists.