The bottlenose dolphin, a common-type of aquatic mammal, is a highly intelligent creature. Fascinatingly these intelligent animals have learned to adapt into living alongside our ever increasingly industrialized world. In particular the bottlenose dolphins of the Port River estuary near Adelaide, Australia can be seen swimming and frolicing alongside power stations, factories, and other signs of human habitation. Although a fascinating observation, this has not always been the case. Even since European settlement in 1857 bottlenose dolphins have become increasingly rare. According to the article, “For much of the 20th century, there were no dolphin sightings in the inner estuary” and as industry increased dolphin populations have decreased. However, there is new hope as conservation efforts have allowed the previously uninhabitable estuary to turn back into a habitable one. “The future of these dolphins would appear to be as secure as any population of any species can be in this era of climate change,” says the study’s lead author, Mike Bossley of Whale and Dolphin Conservation Australasia in Port Adelaide, who has studied the area’s dolphins for 25 years. As the city of Adelaide grew, Port River grew to become an unfriendly place for marine wildlife. As people cleared away the marshes and mangroves and replaced them with factories and pruned sewage into the estuary, the ecosystem was severely disrupted. As a matter of fact from 1940 to 1980 there was not even one single dolphin sighting indicating that the mammals took quite a hit. In addition to population, the dolphins faced many threats when entering the Port River including boat strikes, infections, entanglement with nets and other marine trash and even deliberate attacks. In an effort to help end these problems or at least lessen them the Adelaide Dolphin Sanctuary established by law in 2005. This law set aside a small patch of river for the resident dolphin population and established resources for public education about the dolphins. And over the last few decades, this law has been working and water quality has improved as some of the least environmentally friendly activities (sulfuric acid production, salt evaporation and coal-fired power production) have ended or at least decreased in prevalence.
This article, although seemingly about just one small group of dolphins all the way in Australia, has an environmental significance that stretches all the way to here in America. The actions taken by Adelaide Dolphin Sanctuary and the emphasis on teaching the public about the environment are all broad discoveries that impact the scientific community. We can all now realize, from this article, that “knowledge is power”, especially in regard to the conservation of dolphins, and even more broadly, our planet. As people learn more, the more they care. Even here in Bronxville this is evident For example, the Bronx River project I am investigating is not just experiments, but instead has become a teaching opportunity and learning opportunity to the community. Already we have traveled to the fifth grade classrooms and taught them about what and why they should care about the water quality of the river. It is paramount that we inform the public so they can take proper action, in whatever the cause, and truly make a difference. This seemingly random article is in reality a lesson about how we should treat global warming as well. Even now many doubt its reality. However, if one knows the facts and figures there is no way to dispute it. Thus, if we can educated those disbelievers we may have a planet that is finally moving toward a better solution for the warming climate.
The author of this article, Sarah Zielinski, overall wrote a wonderful piece. In particular, Zielinski did an excellent job presenting her information in a clear and comprehensible way. She provided a great deal of background and even the history of the city of Adelaide that all helped enhance her article and intrigue even the not so science-minded individual. In addition, her citation of statistics and studies was very impressive. Her citation of the aforementioned gave her credibility and demonstrated her knowledge as well as intrigue in the topic. However, there were a few things on which Zielinski could improve. For example, I felt as if I was reading a scientific paper while reading this article. And, well this style is preferable for an article being published in the journal Nature, I feel this sort of style fell short in the journalistic area of appealing to everyone, even those not experienced in the specific situation. Additionally, I think Zielinski could have elaborated more on why this discovery of the beneficial sanctuary's public education efforts is so important to the world. Essentially Zielinski seemed to simply state the facts, and although she did this well she failed to write a proper article that was more interesting than just the simply findings, to read.
Zielinski, Sarah. "City Dolphins Get a Boost from Better Protection and Cleaner Waters." Science News. N.p., 03 Nov. 2016. Web. 04 Nov. 2016.
ReplyDeleteI chose to critique Isabela’s review on the article “City Dolphins Get a Boost from Better Protection and Cleaner Waters,” written by Sarah Zielinski. After reading it, there were many aspects that I really liked. The most prominent one being her clear interest and understanding of the topic. This was evident not only in her summary of the article, but also her connection paragraph to the world and herself. She provided a really interesting analysis to this topic, showing she put a lot of thought into it, and then gave a strong connection to her personal life, showing that she chose a topic she could definitely relate to. This always makes a review stronger. Additionally, her summary was a good mix of quotes and statistics, making it more interesting to read than just a report. Lastly, in her critique paragraph, she did a really good job of elaborating on not just what the author didn’t do well, but what the author could add to make it better. Those factors strengthen a good critique.
Although Isabela did a really good job, there are some aspects she could work on to improve her report even more, For example, if possible, some more expert opinions in the summary are always good. She did have one good quote from the study’s lead author, however there weren’t any opposing viewpoints or other expert opinions, and those can increase the credibility of the writer of the review. Also, while minor, it’s important to be aware of grammar mistakes in a review, and she had some places that could be fixed so the reader isn’t distracted by any written errors.
Overall, her review was really interesting to read and introduced me to a topic I had very little prior knowledge on. Additionally, since I am also part of the Bronx river study that she talked about in her review, I can understand the connection she is talking about, comparing teaching the public about the river to teaching society about protecting our ecosystems. I found her analysis to be both understandable and inspiring.