Sandbox.
Article draft:
Short Term Environmental Impacts on Salmon
Environmental change triggered by the slide at Hell's Gate has led to habitat destruction, and depletion of salmon species.[1] The slide altered the environment of the river by increasing turbulence and density, adversely affecting migrating salmon, [2] and daily alterations of water levels hindered passage of some fish species.[3] Evenden in his book even equalizes the slide to “an enormous dam.”[4] Salmon’s ability to swim upstream was seriously disrupted as many fish, exhausted by the journey through Hell’s Gate, were carried downstream. [5] These impacts became visible by the decreasing amount of salmon upriver and the constant fish supply below Hell’s Gate. [6] Seasonal changes in water flow led to alternating cycles of salmon’s expansion and decline, [7] with runs coming at the beginning of the seasons faring better in the changed environment than the later runs, which experienced a more significant decline. [8] In his research, Ricker linked decline of the salmon upriver to the slide. [9] Unable to swim upriver, salmon relocated into rivers and tributary streams that were not previously used by them, [10] and increased fish concentration spanned up to several kilometers below the Hell's Gate passage.[11] Pink salmon have taken greater environmental toll than sockeye, as the pinks are of a smaller size and therefore, weaker swimmers than the sockeye. [12] Salmon were forced to spawn in new places and many died without spawning or did not produce many offspring as the habitat was “unsuitable”. [13] Changes in "racial units" upstream, accounted for the majority of salmon population, were traced back to Hell’s Gate obstruction. [14] And the majority of the salmon that did not get through the passage were females (in Spuzzum Creek male to female ration 1:20). [15] Ultimately, in the short term, salmon population declined. [16]
Long Term Environmental Impacts on Salmon
Slide-triggered environmental changes that threaten salmon in the short term can have been disastrous in the long run, as a “year’s run once eliminated does not return.” [17] Decline in salmon was noticeable for about 14 years after the slide occurred.[18]Pacific salmon have a unique four-year cycle, with some years being "big" and some "small"; 1913 was one of the “big” years. In the 1917, should have been another “big” year, salmon numbers were especially low, which signaled changes in the “original cycle.” [19] To back this up with numbers; 1913 was estimated to produce 2,401,488 salmon species, while 1917 numbers were substantially lower with 559,702 species.[20] By the mid-20th century the slide has destroyed a significant amount of salmon from the Upper Adams River, where restoration efforts had limited rate of success. [21] Salmon depletion was perceived by Babcock as possibly leading to “extermination” of the salmon in the region. [22] Studies in 1941 mentioned that Hell’s Gate inhibited salmon passage, where salmon clustering below the passage matured into spawning sockeye. [23] After the fishway was installed it helped to bring the sockeye numbers up again. [24] And pink salmon numbers upriver rebounded. [25] Ultimately salmon’s “homing tendency is remarkably strong”, therefore many sockeyes have fallen victim to human triggered changes of the environment. [26]
- Indented line
Hi team! Here is my entry about the salmon. I would be happy to hear if you have any suggestions how I should improve it!
Hey, bit concerned about the amount of quotes used? not sure we are supposed to use them/we are supposed to keep them to a minimum. --Alexwarren89 (talk)
- Good work on these Anastasia :). I've made a number of changes to this section in my sandbox, many of them just moving periods in front of references instead of behind. I also made a number of changes to grammar and sentence structure, but hopefully I succeeded in keeping the meaning the same. Take or leave my suggestions, obviously! :). I removed a sentence or two that seemed redundant to me. I also moved a couple sentences from the long term section down to the government response section, as I think they will be more appropriate there. What do you think? Again, of course these are just suggestions, so let me know what you think of them or if you have any questions about what I mean/did.--Eye101 (talk) 20:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for all the helpful comments you guys! Alex: I was thinking about the quote thing, for now I'll leave that on and once we decide what to do with these I can change them! Isaac: Thank you for all the edits they are all very helpful! I think we can leave the pink salmon info in the long term impact for now? And see what the government section draft would look like and move it there later. --AnastasiaU. (talk) 03:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
References
edit- ^ Matthew D. Evenden, "Remaking Hells Gate: Salmon, Science, and the Fraser River, 1938-1948." BC Studies 127 (2000), p. 69-70.
- ^ Derek V. Ellis, “Chapter 2” Environments at Risk: Case Histories of Impact Assessment. (Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1989) p. 25.
- ^ Matthew D. Evenden, p. 70.
- ^ Evenden (2004), p. 26.
- ^ John Pease Babcock, Fraser River Salmon Situation a Reclamation Project. Victoria, B.C.: W. H. Cullin, 1920), p. 5.
- ^ Evenden, Matthew, p. 71.
- ^ Evenden, Matthew, p. 70.
- ^ Evenden, Matthew, p. 70.
- ^ William E. Ricker, “Hell’s Gate and the Sockeye.” The Journal of Wildlife Management 11 (Jan. 1947), p. 11. (Accessed February 21, 2012: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3796036. (accessed 12 February 2012).
- ^ William E. Ricker, p 10.
- ^ Derek V. Ellis, p. 20.
- ^ Derek V. Ellis, p. 25.
- ^ Thomas P. Quinn, The Behavior and Ecology of Pacific Salmon and Trout, (Vancouver: UBC Press, 2004), p. 81.
- ^ Evenden, Matthew p. 70.
- ^ Derek V. Ellis, p 16.
- ^ Evenden, Matthew p. 71.
- ^ Derek V. Ellis, p. 25.
- ^ Derek V. Ellis, p. 23.
- ^ Derek V. Ellis, p. 23.
- ^ Babcock (1920), p. 5.
- ^ Thomas P. Quinn, p. 310
- ^ John Pease Babcock, p. 8.
- ^ Matthew D. Evenden, p. 63.
- ^ Matthew D. Evenden, p. 66.
- ^ Thomas P. Quinn, p. 92.
- ^ Thomas P. Quinn, p. 93.