If arsenic were introduced into your drinking water, the chances are high that you’d never know. Arsenic is difficult to detect since it’s tasteless and odorless. Even in very small concentrations, when frequently consumed over long periods of time its effects can be damaging, including skin and circulatory impacts and even cancer. It’s possible that arsenic might already be in your aquifer (a permeable geologic unit that contains and transmits groundwater), just not in a state that’s harmful—at least not right now.
Arsenic can often be found in aquifers associated with an immobile solid phase, safely kept from creeping into groundwater. But when an oil spill occurs, that arsenic may dissolve into the groundwater.
Brady Ziegler, a Department of Geosciences Ph.D. student in the College of Science who is advised by Professor Madeline Schreiber, has focused his research on how oil spills induce changes in chemistry that can cause naturally occurring arsenic found in sediment to become a dissolved contaminant in groundwater. Until recently, though, nobody was aware of this potential long-term consequence of subsurface oil spills.
“There are these things that we’re exposed to all the time that we have no idea that we’re exposed to,” Ziegler said. “The common phrase is ‘Oh, what’s in the water?’ Sometimes it actually has some very serious implications.”
So how does oil cause arsenic to be dissolved into groundwater? Arsenic can occur naturally in sediment, but it is often associated with a solid iron mineral phase and not in the groundwater. The arsenic is associated with the iron mineral through a process called adsorption. In the solid phase, the arsenic isn’t a threat to drinking water. However, if an oil spill occurs, the oil can induce significant chemical changes.
“If conditions are oxygenated, meaning there’s a little bit of dissolved oxygen in the groundwater, then life is good and [arsenic] is going to stay on the solid phase,” Ziegler explained. “But if you introduce oil, bacteria can eat oil and breathe oxygen in the groundwater.”
Once the bacteria use up all the oxygen, however, they can move on to breathing (respiring) other things, called electron acceptors.
“One [electron acceptor] is iron, which acts as a host for arsenic,” Ziegler said, “but when they [bacteria] do that, the iron gets dissolved into groundwater, and since that’s the host, arsenic, too, goes into groundwater.”
Part of what makes monitoring arsenic in groundwater so challenging is that it can go virtually unnoticed for so long, largely because arsenic is difficult to detect. Another contributing factor is that oil spills understandably attract attention to the oil itself and the long-term secondary effects, such as arsenic release, are not considered. Couple that with the difficulty in noticing when arsenic has dissolved into groundwater, and it’s not hard to see how the public might assume that once an oil spill has been cleaned up, the crisis is over and everything can return to background conditions. As Ziegler and others have discovered through their research, it can take a long time after an oil spill has been cleaned up for things to truly return to normal.
Why hasn’t this effect been noticed until just recently? It’s partially due to the fact that studying the long-term effects of oil spills is generally difficult. Ziegler is currently studying the site of an oil spill that occurred in 1979 in northern Minnesota. The site is maintained by the U.S. Geological Survey.
“When there’s an oil spill, people try to clean it up as best they can, and try to prevent any further contamination,” Ziegler explained. “This oil spill was so remote that it wasn’t affecting anybody, so they took this environmental accident and turned it into a national research site.”
This research site, the National Crude Oil Spill Fate and Natural Attenuation Research Site, is a prime spot to discover long-term or secondary effects like the ones Ziegler and his research group have recently uncovered.
It’s important that the public be made aware of research like Ziegler’s, because without knowledge of such harmful potential secondary effects, it’s impossible to accurately evaluate the risk of development projects that impact our environment. This is especially true when considering spills that tend to cause tunnel vision.
“In the past, if there’s been an oil spill, people’s main concern is ‘oh my goodness, the oil,’ but now what we’re seeing is the secondary effects,” said Ziegler. “Since we’re always concerned about the oil, people never look for these other types of contaminants that could be equally as harmful.”
Raising public awareness of such effects and promoting research like Ziegler’s is crucial to ensuring that the public can make informed decisions about projects with high environmental impact.
“Especially with the renewed interest in the development of oil pipelines in the country,” said Ziegler, “we’re putting potential oil spills all throughout our aquifer systems throughout the United States, so the fact that this is just now documented—that this process that occurs in oil spills can put arsenic into groundwater—it’s got pretty big implications for development of these major pipelines throughout the country.”
Ziegler pointed out that research like his may impact public policy, especially policy that’s based on some specific risk assessment. An interesting example stems from the recent increase in earthquakes in Oklahoma. In 2008, Oklahoma experienced fewer than two earthquakes that measured above 3.0 in magnitude; in 2015, Oklahoma suffered over 1,000 3.0-or-higher-magnitude earthquakes. This increase is connected to the disposal of wastewater from hydraulic fracturing. The increase in earthquakes may be occurring at a rate too fast for infrastructure regulations to keep up. Oil pipelines that met infrastructure regulations in 2008, before the increase in earthquakes, may not be built to withstand the new earthquake frequency or magnitude.
What role does Ziegler’s research play in this? If infrastructure regulations are adapted to reflect the need to withstand more powerful and frequent earthquakes, certain risks will need to be reassessed—for example, are oil pipelines more likely to rupture due to the increased frequency and magnitude of earthquakes? If so, there’s more risk to consider than we previously realized; not only is it important to consider the immediate harm an oil spill could cause, it’s now critical to also consider long-term impacts such as the ones Ziegler is researching. Public awareness of the increased risk associated with oil spills may well shape public policy and regulations.
What should the public know?
What should the public consider as they become aware of this research and its implications? First, it’s important not to panic.
“I would say if you find that there’s arsenic in the groundwater in the oil spill site, you shouldn’t immediately freak out,” Ziegler said. “Aquifers tend to have a pretty good capacity to mitigate any sort of human-induced effects like oil in the aquifer. Give it enough space and enough time and generally they can clean themselves up.”
In addition to the hypothesis that an oil spill won’t render an aquifer unusable forever, it’s also worth noting that the dissolving of arsenic into groundwater is fairly localized; the arsenic likely won’t travel for long distances through groundwater and spread to other areas.
However, while aquifers may potentially “clean themselves up,” this process, called natural attenuation, can take a long time. Ziegler mentioned that the oil spill in Minnesota occurred in 1979, and his research team has recently recorded concentrations of arsenic in the groundwater there that are still 23 times the drinking water standard. Therefore, the public should focus on action they can take in the meantime. If people live near the site of an oil spill and they are on a private well, one simple and effective action they can take is to have their groundwater tested for arsenic. Carefully monitoring the groundwater and testing it every few months after an oil spill ensures that individuals have information about the quality of their drinking water, and will allow them to switch to a new water source if arsenic or other contaminants are detected in their water.
Secondly, it’s important to be more aware of the potential secondary or long-term effects of disasters like oil spills.
“We need to have a broader scope beyond just the petroleum contaminants themselves,” Ziegler said. “We need to look at other things that might not even have been in the actual oil when [the spill] occurred. Because as we now know, the changes in chemistry from the reactions induced by the oil can lead to other naturally occurring contaminants in groundwater.”
This is good advice for those tasked with cleaning up oil spills, but more broadly, this research should encourage the public to pay close attention to research projects that explore other secondary effects, as that enhanced knowledge ensures that we can react appropriately in future crises. In Ziegler’s case, the research has gained some traction. Minnesota newspaper editorials have inspired discussion about the research and its implications, and some press releases helped raise awareness about the issue.
This increased awareness has even aided public activism regarding environmental issues, such as that surrounding the addition of a new pipeline through Minnesota.
“There was one that was planned to go through northern Minnesota, very near where this oil spill site actually occurred,” Ziegler recounted, “and the local newspapers picked up the paper that we published and they said, ‘Look at these problems that are created from oil spills!’ so there was a public response from what we had published. Now whether or not that’s actually going to lead to them stopping the pipeline, who’s to say?”
While it may not yet be clear how ongoing projects will be affected by this research, it’s evident that public awareness is critical to reacting appropriately in a crisis such as an oil spill. Such research ensures that, in the event of a spill, the public knows what action they can take to help keep their drinking water safe. A public understanding of the risks posed by oil spills and thoughtful discussion on the topic also aid regulators in performing accurate risk assessment. Research like Ziegler’s, and the awareness it provides, enable all of us to make informed decisions.
Article written by Josiah Pierce while participating in ENGL 4824: Science Writing in Spring 2017 as part of a collaboration between Fralin and the Department of English at Virginia Tech. Learn more.
Have you ever heard someone say, “There’s so much carbon outside today,” or “I’ve been inhaling too much carbon lately”?
Of course not. We can’t see carbon, and we might not even know it’s in the air. Most of us likely also don’t know how it functions, though we might know it’s essential. You might be surprised to know that too much carbon in Earth’s atmosphere is linked to an increase in the planet’s temperature. Plants need a certain level of carbon to successfully absorb nutrients and photosynthesize. Because many plants rely on a steady climate function, the risk of too much carbon could potentially throw off the whole carbon cycle and be detrimental to the environment.
That’s where the research of Steven McBride comes into play.
McBride spent his master’s at James Madison University studying the occurrence and antibiotic resistance of enterococci in turkey litter. McBride is eager to discover how the structure of microbial communities—more specifically, the microorganisms that inhabit it—affect the carbon cycle in certain ecosystems. In simpler terms, McBride wants to know how the presence of bacteria and viruses within decomposed leaf litter affect soil, and why some microbials produce more carbon than others. In an attempt to explore this, McBride has now dedicated his research to uncovering which bacteria are likely to produce varying levels of carbon and why.
McBride’s research is primarily focused on soil. To begin his experiments, McBride uses four separate jars that will each receive their own individual soil sample: three with a unique volatile organic compound (VOC) and one controlled substance with no additives. In his most recent lab study, the compounds McBride used were ethanol, methanol, and acetone.
“The cool thing about these volatile compounds is that they are these small, easy to eat compounds that don’t need water to go from one part of the soil to the other,” said McBride.
“They can diffuse through the air because they are volatile or easily evaporated. Then the bacteria or fungi can pick it up and eat it, so it’s an interesting source of food for these soil microbes that hasn’t been paid much attention to in the past.”
These VOC’s stimulate activity in soil without the presence of water, which makes laboratory tests much simpler for McBride, as well as his peers who work with Michael Strickland, a soil biologist formerly at Virginia Tech but who is now at the University of Idaho. Their research is primarily focused on microbial communities and their effects on ecosystems.
So what does McBride’s daily laboratory process entail?
McBride uses regulated temperatures to identify how the addition of independent compounds (ethanol, methanol, and acetone) in soil samples will affect the soil’s ability to respirate and produce carbon. After letting them incubate overnight in coffee mug sized jars, McBride uses a gas-extracting machine that will tell him how much CO2 has been released from the soil over that 24-hour period.
“So that’s the first thing: we measure the CO2, and that will tell us whether the soil is respiring more under the different treatments,” said McBride. “But that doesn’t give us a mechanism, it just tells us that there is a difference in respiration. It doesn’t tell us the ‘how’ or the ‘why.’”
McBride has some ideas about where the future of his research is heading, and how he can attack the problem.
Since beginning his research in the fall of 2015, McBride has uncovered that the interface of microbial communities and litter substrate can lead to higher rates of decomposition. Additionally, the inclusion of VOC’s undeniably increases soil respiration and the release of carbon. The study now aims to detect why this occurs, and where exactly carbon goes.
On a bigger scale, the study attempts to look at why certain ecosystems produce more carbon than others, and what steps can be done to prevent this harm from occurring.
“There’s a possibility that we can manipulate either the microbial community or add amendments to our agriculture fields that would suppress these pathogens that are increasing carbon release in the atmosphere,” suggests McBride. “It’s far-fetched, but I think we may have an inkling about how this done in the next 5 years or so.”
Article written by Matthew Crisafi while participating in ENGL 4824: Science Writing in Spring 2017 as part of a collaboration between Fralin and the Department of English at Virginia Tech. Learn more.
Ph.D. student Carl Wepking and his team research the effects of added antibiotics in local farming soil ecosystems.
Wepking, a Ph.D student in biological sciences in the College of Science and an Interfaces of Global Change Fellow, currently studies the effect of antibiotic use in livestock production on soil microbes and the ecosystem functions that they regulate. This research mainly focuses on the effects of antibiotics on the environment. Specifically, Wepking works to determine the effects on soils and how antibiotics can influence microbes, which can therefore effect the greater cycling of important nutrients like carbon and nitrogen.
The project is a timely endeavor as the science for the research only started roughly 5 years ago because of regulations created by the FDA and CDC. A call for stricter legislation led to these regulations to protect the families and individuals living near antibiotic-fueled agricultural sites.
In order to bring greater attention to the issue of antibiotic resistance, Wepking has published a nationwide study on soil from areas with large cattle presence versus those with none. This study addresses one of the largest problems the team is facing in their research: understanding the effect of the manure itself separately from the effect of the antibiotics. High input sites, such as those observed in their local farm collections, versus low input sites used as the control in the study, helps to decipher the outcomes of the various elements of this microbial ecology research.
These communities, similar to those found in the greater Blacksburg community, can experience antibiotic resistance and additional major health concerns. Wepking and his team are working to learn more about the role the antibiotics play and trying to document the effects that agricultural antibiotics are having on soils in this region.
“This project is important from two angles,” Wepking explained. “It’s worrisome from a human health perspective but also the microbes in the soil have to work harder, which causes them to burn through soil organic matter inefficiently. This can have negative effects on the long term sustainability of soils.”
The team, comprised of Wepking along with a handful of undergraduate researchers and advisor Mike Strickland, a soil biologist now at the University of Idaho, performs field work locally at Kentland Farm.
Along with collecting soil samples, Wepking and his team must also evaluate the ecosystems in the spring during peak plant growth season. The project has been ongoing for two years and is projected to conclude within the next academic year.
“Ultimately, we need to ask ourselves what effect these antibiotics can have on the ecosystems as a whole,” Wepking said. “Antibiotics in general are a pretty modern tool but their role in soils and the idea of antibiotic resistance as a result isn’t always thought of right away. Through our research, I’m hoping to come to some concrete conclusions of how this cycle can have a longstanding impact on the natural and agricultural systems.”
Article written by Ali Marhefka while participating in ENGL 4824: Science Writing in Spring 2017 as part of a collaboration between Fralin and the Department of English at Virginia Tech. Learn more.
Arizona’s Petrified Forest National Park is known for its stunning views and beautifully preserved petrified wood. The trees here are Late Triassic in age (230-200 million years ago) and are preserved in agate, an often multicolored form of granular quartz. These fossil trees are what bring people from all over the world to the park each year but the petrified wood is not the only thing of significance to a paleontologist. The park is also an important source of vertebrate fossils from the Triassic.
The bones that are preserved here are weathering out of what’s left of local exposures of the Chinle formation. Most of the fossil-bearing rock here has long ago weathered away leaving the petrified trees scattered around the area. The bones tend to be less resilient than the wood so paleontologists rely primarily on the remaining outcrops of Triassic mudstone to find vertebrate fossils still in place in the mudstone.
As part of a month-long expedition across the Midwest, Virginia Tech’s paleobiology group visited PEFO (Petrified Forest) over the last week in order to collect fossils and/or help out as needed with work in the preparation labs on site. The weather has not been cooperating however (it is monsoon season after all) and this has limited our time in the field. We were only able to spend a few days out on the bone beds but we didn’t come out empty handed!
A day of prospecting in the canyons around our target site yielded lots of phytosaur (large extinct croc-like reptiles) bone fragments too damaged to keep and some teeth and osteoderms (bony armor plates) worth retrieving. Because of the weather during the days leading up to our arrival, we were cut off from the target locality but by the next day, the road out to the site had dried up enough for us to drive all the way in and actually start excavating there. The site, called “the green layer,” is a thin layer of greenish-grey mudstone that contains abundant vertebrate fossils including those of phytosaurs, aetosaurs (large armor plated reptiles), and dinosaurs.
We recovered several bone fragments and osteoderms that had to be jacketed as well as several hundred pounds of sediment from the layer. The extra sediment we collected can be screen washed for microfossils back at Tech. Altogether, it was a productive few days of collecting (despite the weather) and an incredible experience working in the park! Some of the specimens we collected could potentially help with reconstructing the fauna and ecosystems of the Triassic of what is now the American Midwest!
Written by Alex Bradley.
Aetosaur cast in the on-site museum.
We managed to catch a lizard (Holbrookia maculata). The local wildlife is beautiful and quick!
Some of the crew looking at calcified root casts in the mudstone. These formed as a result of calcium carbonate precipitating inside the voids left by plant roots that, at one point in the distant past, infiltrated the sediment.
Over the past week, the VT Paleobiology group, led by Drs. Michelle Stocker and Sterling Nesbitt, headed out to Wyoming to find fossil bones from the Triassic (~199 to 252 million years ago) as a part of a month-long expedition to do field work across the Midwest. The area around Lander Wyoming is home to several exposures of Triassic sedimentary rocks, exactly the kind of place you want to look to find vertebrate fossils from that time. We spent the week prospecting several localities and weren’t disappointed!
The main focus of the trip has been to uncover a large (~8 foot long) fossil phytosaur that was found in 2015 on a previous expedition. These creatures looked superficially like crocodiles but are distantly related. They had armor plating all over their bodies and long snouts filled to the brim with sharp, serrated teeth. The fossil in question lies on a ridge of exposed sedimentary rock that happens to be incredibly difficult to reach. The hike is roughly a mile from start to finish and the elevation change is over 1000 feet. We had to haul tools, personal supplies, and eventually fossils up and down this path twice a day for 6 days!
The first day on site was mostly spent scoping out the area around the phytosaur fossil which had been capped (coated in plaster and burlap to protect it) and buried at the end of the 2015 expedition. The goal for this day was to prospect for new fossils and new sites in the Chugwater formation, the formation that contains the phytosaur skeleton. We found lots of phytosaur teeth and some small fragments of miscellaneous bone from the first site that was located in 2015 but nothing new.
On the way back from the quarry, we found the bones of a horse that had died shortly before the 2015 expedition. The 2015 team dubbed it DH (dead horse) and left it to skeletonize in the desert. Two years in the elements has certainly done the trick! We collected the skull and lower jaw, the sacrum (fused pelvic vertebrae), half of the pelvis, and some of the limb bones for use as a reference in the paleobiology lab at Tech.
The first hike was a challenge but by the next day we were getting the hang of it. We arrived on site a little earlier and were able to do some more thorough prospecting in a larger area around the phytosaur fossil. A few of us found several large fossil amphibian bones in a productive layer of purplish rock near the phytosaur! These amphibians, called metoposaurids, were enormous, reaching lengths up to 6 feet. In addition to prospecting, we were able to uncover the phytosaur and begin working on excavating it further.
We spent the whole rest of the week excavating the phytosaur but it just keeps getting bigger! There’s no sign of it ending so we couldn’t get it out this trip but hey, plans change. After capping what we uncovered, the whole fossil was then buried just like last time. It’s too big to move at this point and still well encased in rock. We’ll have to come back next year!
We finished off our stay in Wyoming with some prospecting at different sites down the road from the phytosaur locality. We ended up finding a crazy new locality that’s just overflowing with fossil bones! This could be another place to quarry in the future.
Written by Alex Bradley.
This is the view from our site! It’s beautiful but we’re constantly on the lookout for storm clouds over those mountains.
After much searching, we finally found DH (Dead Horse) from the 2015 expedition! Now that it’s good and skeletonized, we can use it as a reference in the lab.
The team at work building plaster jackets around different parts of the phytosaur skeleton.
The Great Barrier Reef is like a sick trauma patient. It is suffering from mass coral bleaching, excessive seaweed or macroalgae, poor water quality, runoff, and other ailments. In many places, it is degraded and dying. However, it is not dead yet.
So, what are people doing to breathe new life into this patient?
University students from Virginia Tech and The College at Brockport, State University of New York, in collaboration with Reef Ecologic and Bungalow Bay, experienced firsthand how to restore the Great Barrier Reef and learn why coral reef restoration is important.
The Great Barrier Reef is a living, diverse ecosystem that provides many significant services to humans, similar to other ecosystems across the globe. It is important to learn about and conserve these ecosystems, so that we can conserve them.
The Great Barrier Reef is the largest coral reef ecosystem on the planet. It is a living organism that provides a home for a diversity of plant and animal species. The Great Barrier Reef is a network of coral reefs located off of Australia’s east coast.
Coral is an animal that has a symbiotic relationship with algae called zooxanthellae. These tiny organisms live in coral structures and harvest sunlight, much like plants on land, to create energy for themselves and the coral. Coral and zooxanthellae work together to keep the reef healthy.
The following video details some of our efforts and experiences in our Hokies Abroad course, during which we worked with Reef Ecologic on a citizen science project focused on coral reef restoration.
So what does the Great Barrier Reef do for us? The reef protects the beautiful beaches of Australia by breaking waves and slowing them. The reef can also absorb excess carbon in the atmosphere, providing oxygen for the colorful life that inhabits it. There are roughly 6,000 species of marine life that call this reef home. It is the unique and diverse aquatic community that draws many people to Australia, contributing significantly to Australia’s economy. According to Nathan Cook, a scientist from Reef Ecologic, the Great Barrier Reef’s net worth is estimated at $900 billion.
What is happening now? Currently, there are several threats to the reef, which include climate change and nutrient runoff. Our project focused on removing excess macroalgae from the reef associated with runoff from coastal development. These macroalgae outcompete coral for space.
By removing small sections of macroalgae, we provided the coral with more room to colonize and grow. Even though we only removed a relatively small amount of macroalgae, the continuation of reef restoration projects like this can give the Great Barrier Reef a second chance at life.
Our experience with the Hokies Abroad Australia and New Zealand program gave us the opportunity to give back to our environment in a way we never thought possible. In the spirit of Ut Prosim, we participated in a citizen science project to help restore a degraded part of the Great Barrier Reef.
Though not everyone can visit the Great Barrier Reef, there are still ways that you can help. To learn more about Great Barrier Reef conservation efforts and ways to get involved, visit Reef Ecologic and Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.
Students from Virginia Tech and The College at Brockport, State University of New York, are working with Reef Ecologic and Bungalow Bay on a citizen science Great Barrier Reef restoration project.[/caption]
[Written by Virginia Tech students Rebecca Brassfield of Department of Biochemistry in the College of Science; Tyvanté Gillison of the Department of Fish and Wildlife Conservation in the College of Natural Resources and Environment; Norah Hopkins of the Department of Forest Resources and Environmental Conservation in the College of Natural Resources and Environment; Irene Jenkins of the Department of Biochemistry, College of Science; Jillian Kazmierczak of the Department of Animal and Poultry Sciences in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences; and Alex Mansueto of the Department of Department of Human Nutrition, Foods, and Exercise in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences.]
By Gifty Anane-Taabeah, a Ph.D. student in fish and wildlife conservation, College of Natural Resources and Environment, and an Interfaces of Global Change Fellow with the Global Change Center at Virginia Tech
[About the blogger: My Ph.D. research focuses on quantifying the genetic variability within and differentiation between natural populations of Nile tilapia Oreochromis niloticus in different river basins in Ghana. We have very little information on the genetic diversity of O. niloticus outside the Volta system. Furthermore, O. niloticus populations in major river basins in Ghana including the Pra, Ankobra, and Tano currently face diverse threats including habitat destruction from illegal small-scale gold mining activities, overfishing, and pollution. Using a population genetics approach, my research seeks to generate baseline data that will aid in conserving the species’ genetic diversity and local adaptation.]
Today is Wednesday June 7, 2017. I am currently lodging in Half-Assini, a border town between Ghana and our western neighboring country, Ivory Coast. I spent most of my day at Elubo, another border town about 45 minutes-drive from Half-Assini, in search of O. niloticus samples. Wednesdays are market days in Elubo and an opportune time to scout for wild-caught O. niloticus. This is especially important because Ghana shares the Tano River with Ivory Coast and the data generated will be useful for conserving the species in both countries.
I have successfully collected samples from the Pra and Ankobra Rivers, and I am amazed about the morphological differences I have observed among individuals within each river. I am already excited about what I will discover after my genetic analysis. I am hopeful that my research will provide the much needed baseline information about O. niloticus genetic diversity in Ghana, and add to the body of knowledge on the population genetics of O. niloticus in West Africa.
My research also seeks to identify wild populations of O. niloticus with a natural local adaptation to future climate conditions in Ghana. The average water temperatures in rivers vary along the latitudinal gradient of Ghana. Our previous experimental studies using different populations from the Volta River basin have revealed that some northern populations of O. niloticus may already be adapted to high temperature conditions, similar to the future climate conditions expected for southern Ghana.
Given this background, I have spent the last four months setting up and running three separate experiments to quantify the adaptation of different wild populations to varying temperature conditions both under laboratory and outdoor conditions, as well as to quantify the heritability of the growth rate trait from parents to their young.
I have a great local team comprising local fishers, government scientists and graduate students who have helped me with the collection of adult fish, monitoring of their growth and reproduction, and selection of their young for the experiments. I am hopeful that the data obtained from this research will be useful in selecting suitable populations and developing them for aquaculture in Ghana and sub-Saharan Africa.
All photos courtesy of Gifty Anane-Taabeah.