# data[].attributes.body
Why do possums eat birds?

# data[].attributes.body
how do we stop possums?

# data[].attributes.body
is it just cows?

# data[].attributes.body
When did the rivers start changing?

# data[].attributes.body
Do they poo more often with certain food

# data[].attributes.body
Why don't the farmers pick up the poo?

# data[].attributes.body
How near to the river can they poo?

# data[].attributes.body
Can we use poo for anything else?

# data[].attributes.body
H
ow often do cows poo?

# data[].attributes.body
The gun is a predator, can we get rid of them

# data[].attributes.body
Can we get the possums back to Australia?

# data[].attributes.body
Why were possums brought here from Austraila?

# data[].attributes.body
How?

# data[].attributes.body
If we stop dredging will it change the sea?

# data[].attributes.body
Does it effect the sea creatures that are moved?

# data[].attributes.body
What would happen if we stopped dredging?

Why do we dredge anyway?

Should we start dredging more?

If we stop dredging will it change the environment and if so, why?

# data[].attributes.body
Are sharks killed on purpose?

# data[].attributes.body
How do we know how many sharks are being killed?

# data[].attributes.body
Is it only certain sharks? is it smaller or bigger ones?

# data[].attributes.body
How much does it change the rivers, and is it good or bad?

# data[].attributes.body
How many animals are we talking about?

# data[].attributes.body
Is the change a good or a bad thing?

# data[].attributes.body
What are we doing to stop the change?

# data[].attributes.body
Can this change make bad things happen in the future?

# data[].attributes.body
Are native animals changing the environment?

# data[].attributes.body
what animals are changing the environment?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As apex predators, sharks play a vital role in the ocean ecosystems. Every year 100 million sharks are killed by humans and that number is only increasing. As human activity continues to put sharks in critical danger, it makes scientists wonder: What would happen if every shark on the Earth disappeared today? The answer is very scary.

VIDEO: What If There Were No Sharks?

Coral Reefs Would Disappear

A study published in PLOS ONE in 2013, showed that sharks were crucial for the health of coral reefs. Coral reefs have an delicate ecosystem balance. Algae grows on coral, which is eaten by herbivorous fish. Herbivorous fish are then eaten by larger predatory fish which are eaten by sharks. When sharks are in decline, less of the large predatory fish are eaten, which means that more of the herbivorous fish are eaten, and in turn, less of the algae is eaten. The algae competes directly with the coral, and too much algae kills coral reefs. After studying 185 miles of coral reef, the information on sharks the scientists found showed that declining shark populations as result of overfishing have had disastrous impact on coral reefs. So if all sharks disappeared, coral reefs would also vanish.

VIDEO: If We Lose Our Sharks, We Lose Our Ocean

The Ocean Would Suffocate

Another problem as a result of this imbalanced food chain noted in coral reefs, is that the excess growth of algae blooms would suffocate the ocean. Algae blooms suck the oxygen out of the water creating low oxygen levels. Without oxygen, marine life will suffocate to death. This is a phenomenon that has been observed worldwide in both oceans and freshwater. Also, some algae blooms can also produce toxins that get into the water. These toxins are incredibly harmful to marine life and can lead to mass die-offs. Algae can also be very toxic for people. Without sharks to keep the herbivorous fish populations in balance, the oceans would suffocate from algae blooms.

Marine Species Would Face Extinction

Another major consequence if sharks disappear, is that many marine species would face extinction. This happens for two reasons. One, sharks often prey on the weak or ill members of marine life. These weak and ill members are easier to catch than strong, healthy members of a population. If the weak and ill members continue to thrive, it will weaken the larger population. First because they could potentially spread illness to the other members of the population, which could lead to massive die-offs. Secondly, because when these weaker members of the species are allowed to reproduce, it weakens the genetic makeup of the species as a whole, putting them at risk of extinction.

The second reason marine species would face extinction is because when sharks are not around to consume other predators, those predator populations grow exponentially. Meaning, their prey is at risk of being over-consumed. This was observed in 2007 in the Northern Atlantic where sharks had been overfished. Sharks preyed on bullnose rays, that preyed on scallops. Once the shark populations declined, the population of bullnose rays grew and ate all the scallops. This lead to a collapse of the species. So if sharks disappear, then so do other marine life.

The Speed Of Global Warming Would Increase

The oceans help regulate the carbon cycle of the planet. Coastal ecosystems store about 50% of the world's carbon. Sharks are a crucial factor in keeping that carbon stored. The carbon is stored in marine plant life, and without sharks many of the animals that eat these plants would no longer face a predator threat. So their populations would grow and end up consuming too many of these plants, releasing a flood of carbon into the atmosphere. Further, as physically large predators, sharks hold a lot of carbon in their bodies. When they die, they sink to the bottom of the ocean where they move the carbon from the surface to the seafloor. Their bodies are then eaten by scavengers, keeping the carbon out of the atmosphere. Without sharks, carbon levels would jump, speeding up the rate of global warming and climate change.

VIDEO: Climate Change Forces Whale Sharks To Relocate

The World's Economy Would Collapse

The global commercial fishing industry employees 200 million people and generates upwards of $90 billion dollars annually. If sharks were to disappear, there would be a massive collapse in the ocean's food chain. A collapse that would dramatically impact the commercial fishing industry. Between reduced animal rich habitats like coral reefs, declining and extinct populations, and algae blooms creating toxic fish, commercial fishing would be destroyed-not to mention all the negative economic impacts of dramatically increased climate change. That means millions of people who make their livelihood from commercial fishing would lose their incomes. This would be a disaster for the world's economy. So if sharks disappeared today, so would the $90 billion commercial fishing industry.

Diseases Could Go Uncured

Reducing biodiversity has a huge impact on medicinal science. Scientists use information on sharks to help diagnose, understand, and treat many illnesses and disease that impact humans. For example, in 2011 scientists found an antibiotic in shark liver that could treat a broad range of viruses from dengue and yellow fever to hepatitis. Scientists are also studying anticlotting compounds in shark blood to treat heart disease. There is also ongoing optometric research investigating the possibility of cornea transplants from sharks to humans. Furthermore, sharks are being studied to help understand and treat everything from alzheimer's disease to cancer to HIV. Sharks may hold the key to treating and curing many illnesses that impact humans. If sharks disappeared today, these illnesses could go uncured.

Sharks are an incredibly important part of our ecosystem. If shark populations were disappear today, there would be disastrous consequences for the oceans, our environment, and human life. It is essential that we work to protect these crucial apex predators, so that we can keep the planet in balance.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As apex predators, sharks play a vital role in the ocean ecosystems. Every year 100 million sharks are killed by humans and that number is only increasing. As human activity continues to put sharks in critical danger, it makes scientists wonder: What would happen if every shark on the Earth disappeared today?

# data[].attributes.body
How do pests effect the life cycle of animals in whakaraupo

# data[].attributes.body
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/

# data[].attributes.body
How much do possums affect the environment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Brushtail possums are marsupials from Australia. A mother possum carries her baby in a pouch. Kangaroos and koalas are also marsupials. They carry their baby in a pouch too.

A mother possum is only pregnant for 16-18 days before her tiny baby is born.

The baby climbs through her fur and into her pouch where it sucks on to her teat. It stays in the pouch drinking the mother's milk for 4-5 months. When it is too big for her pouch it rides on its mother's back until it is 7-9 months old.

A newborn brushtail possum is only 1.5cm long and it weighs about 2 grams. That's the size of a jellybean!

How did possums get to New Zealand?

Possums have thick, soft fur. In 1837 some of New Zealand's early settlers decided it would be good to start a fur industry, so they brought Australian possums to New Zealand. These first possums did not survive, but people kept trying. Twenty years later they succeeded. The first possum population to survive was in Southland in 1858.

In 1921 the Government made it illegal to bring any more possums to New Zealand. But by then, possums were already living in 450 different parts of New Zealand. In 1946, possums were officially declared a pest in the New Zealand environment.

By 1950 possums were found in over half of New Zealand, and they kept spreading.

In NZ possums are either black or grey. That's because most of the possums brought to NZ in the 1800s and 1900s came from Tasmania where they are mostly black. The copper coloured possums that live in Queensland weren't introduced to NZ because their colour wasn't as popular in the fur trade.

Fiordland and Northland were the last areas of New Zealand to be free of possums. In the 1960s there were hardly any possums in Northland but in the 1990s - only 30 years later - there were 10-15 million possums living in Northland.

Possums numbers reached their highest point in the 1980s when there were 50-70 million possums in New Zealand. Once possum populations got very high, trappers began to make a good living from hunting them. Throughout the 1970s prices for possum skins were good. In 1981, the best year for trappers, 3.2 million skins were exported.

Trapping, poisoning and shooting has now reduced the possum population. But there are still about 30 million possums in New Zealand today.

What's wrong with possums?

Possums are a serious pest animal in New Zealand and a threat to our forests and native wildlife. They eat leaves, flowers, leaf buds, fruit, eggs, birds, insects and snails.

People used to think that possums only ate plants. But in 1993 possums were filmed eating the eggs and chicks of endangered kōkako. They have since been filmed eating the eggs, chicks and even adults of many other native birds including kererū, kiwi, harrier hawk, fantail, muttonbird, and tūī. They also eat the nectar and berries that native birds like to eat so that there is less food for the birds.

Possums eat about 21,000 tonnes of leaves and flowers in just one night. That's a lot of forest disappearing while you sleep.

Possums also eat native weta and giant land snails. One possum can eat 60 giant Powelliphanta snails in a single night.

Possums carry a disease called bovine Tb (tuberculosis) which they spread to cattle. They also eat pasture so there is less food for farm animals. The damage done by possums costs NZ farmers about $35 million every year. The New Zealand Government spends over $110 million per year on possum control.

What's useful about possums?

Possum fur is soft and warm. Possum skins can be used to make clothing and possum wool is mixed with merino sheep wool to make knitting yarn. Possum meat has been found to have a high quality protein which is rich in healthy omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids. Some New Zealand companies use possum meat to make healthy pet food for cats and dogs. In the 1980s, possum meat was also exported to Taiwan, Hong Kong and Malaysia for people to eat. In these countries it was considered a special food delicacy and was called 'kiwi bear'.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Brushtail possums are marsupials from Australia. A mother possum carries her baby in a pouch. Kangaroos and koalas are also marsupials. They carry their baby in a pouch too. A mother possum is only pregnant for 16-18 days before her tiny baby is born.

# data[].attributes.body
Do cats eat possums?🤔

# data[].attributes.body
How do pests affect the life cycle of animals around whakaraupo

# data[].attributes.body
Bigger animals
Sometimes eat
Smaller animals🤓

# data[].attributes.body
Does the poo go into the sea and infect the sea creatures?

# data[].attributes.body
does fishing effect sharks

# data[].attributes.body
How does fishing kill sharks.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Dredging is an activity that is required to be carried out to remove the unwanted deposits from water pathways. But even though the activity aids regularity in marine traffic, it is not without its disadvantages. Dredging possess a huge threat to the marine environment and is required to be carried out quite carefully aided only with the help of the right dredgers and dredges.

Since the main focus of dredging is to remove the deposits submerged under, the environmental effects of the process also revolve around this focal point. Some of the effects of dredging can be enumerated as follows:

The soil deposits in any water-body have a certain pre-disposed composition. Through dredging this composition is altered

Because of the said alteration, the existing habitat of creatures and organisms that depends on the original composition of the soil dies out due to the unfavourableness of the changes caused

The turbidness of the soil under the water also changes because of this alteration in the underwater soil composition. This poses problems by way of creation of newer and harmful organisms, transferring of unwanted organisms to other parts in the water-body leading to a wider spread of contamination and organic processes by way of release of extra and unwanted nutrients. The turbidness also causes the already existing contaminations to spread further into the water-body which also affects the marine environment adversely

However, all the points mentioned above pertain to dredging of water-bodies with clean soil deposits. But sometimes, dredging is also carried out to weed out the contaminations present in the soil. The effects and the biodiversity impacts of contaminated deposit-dredging are:

The dredging of contaminated materials will cause the harmful particles to regroup and spread to a larger area in the water body

Since dredging loosens up the soil, those substances which were previously held fast to the contaminated deposit will find their way into the water and the un-dredged soil. If these substances are harmful organisms then they will cause a substantial degradation to the environment even after dredging the area

The water could get polluted because of the soil particles mixing with the water. And while this does not have huge biodiversity impacts, it is indeed an unwanted side-effect of dredging

In order to ensure that the process of dredging is carried out without any debilitating effects, it is important to use the right dredgers. For example, the hopper dredgers that suction out the deposits are considered to be a major cause for turbidness in the dredged water-part. It has been recommended that those dredgers which present a chance for pollution and extensive contamination be avoided and replaced with other safer methodologies.

The marine world is facing a precarious scenario. This is why it becomes necessary for us to take all possible measures to ensure its safety for the generations in the days to come. By employing proper methods to the process of dredging, we can make quite a substantial contribution to put an end to the negative environmental effects of dredging.

You might also like to read- Effects of Rising Sea Levels

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Effects of Dredging on the Marine Environment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Dredging though commercially a very important activity in the shipping industry has several negative impacts on the marine environment. Find out about the various effects of dredging in this article.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
national oceanic and atmospheric administration

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Dredging is the removal of material from the bottom of lakes, rivers, harbors and other water bodies.

# data[].attributes.body
How are owls a predator too possum?

# data[].attributes.body
Is it a hawk

# data[].attributes.body
Dose dredging kill sea animals

# data[].attributes.body
Why do they do dredging?

# data[].attributes.body
what animals  are changing the environment?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Sharks have swum in every ocean on Earth for more than 400 million years. After nature took so much time to perfect the most complex marine predator, humans are wiping them out at a record pace. While efforts to end killing sharks for their fins or for trophies are ongoing, there's one industry that continually kills sharks with little public awareness.

The commercial fishing industry is known to cause major-scale deaths of whales, dolphins, and turtles, but shark deaths are often overlooked. In the 1990s, more than 12 million sharks and rays were caught annually as "bycatch," or untargeted species, in international waters alone. That number has increased to an estimated 50 million sharks caught unintentionally each year, about half as many sharks as the estimated 100 million sharks killed by the commercial fishing industry per year for meat and fins.

Fishing vessels in the North Atlantic primarily fishing for tuna and swordfish can use 100-kilometer-long baiting lines, holding up to 1,200 hooks. Sharks and commercial fishing boats cross paths an estimated 80 percent of the time. With populations of tuna and other fish declining, sharks are caught in these long lines an estimated 20 percent of the time. That's right: One in every five fish caught on these long lines is a shark.

In July 2016, dozens of juvenile bull sharks were killed unintentionally in gill nets in Alabama, an incredibly painful death for the pups in Mobile Bay, an important shark nursery. According to Oceana, dusky shark populations have declined a staggering 85 percent due to bycatch and overfishing. Great white sharks, a particularly vulnerable species, are often killed in long lines and gill nets off the coast of California.

If we truly want to save the ocean's most fascinating creatures, we must stop supporting the industries that are destroying them. This means we must stop eating fish.

Luckily, it's never been easier to keep fish and all other animal products off our plates. For amazing, sea-inspired vegan recipes, click here.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Fishing Industry Is Literally Killing Millions of Sharks. This Is How...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Sharks have swum in every ocean on Earth for more than 400 million years. After nature took so much time to perfect the most complex marine predator, humans are wiping them out at a record pace. While efforts to end killing sharks for their fins or for trophies are ongoing, there's one industry that continually kills sharks with little public awareness.

# data[].attributes.body
Are dogs predators too possums?

# data[].attributes.body
Jamie and charlie how are animals changing the environment

# data[].attributes.body
Does killing certain animals change the environment

# data[].attributes.body
If fishing kills sharks won't it kill other sea creatures?

# data[].attributes.body
What kind of animal is doing is doing it and way?

# data[].attributes.body
how are sharks an important part in the fishing industry 🦈🦈🦈🦈🦈🦈🦈

# data[].attributes.body
does dredging affect
Sea animals

# data[].attributes.body
How are animals changing the environment ?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Environmental impact of animal production

# data[].attributes.body
How are animals changing the environment

# data[].attributes.body
What is dredging?

# data[].attributes.body
How does poo get into the river?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
NICK SMITH may be the first politician to be immortalised in horse manure. Before the recent general election, a super-sized sculpture depicting the environment minister, trousers down, squatting over a glass, was paraded through central Christchurch. It was carved from dung in protest at an alarming increase in water pollution. Data published in 2013 suggested that it was not safe for people to submerge themselves in 60% of New Zealand's waterways. "We used to swim in these rivers," says Sam Mahon, the artist. "Now they've turned to crap."

Mr Smith's National Party is now out of government. But the real villains behind New Zealand's deteriorating water quality are still at large: cows. Scrub where sheep once grazed is being given over to intensive dairy farms-some of them irrigated to help the pasture grow. Some 6.6m cattle are now squeezed into the country of 4.7m people, transforming even an iconic arid grassland, the Mackenzie Basin (made famous by the "Lord of the Rings" films), into a tapestry of emerald fields.
Get our daily newsletter
The first concern is bovine urine, which is rich in nitrogen. Nitrogen can cause toxic algae to grow when it leaches into water. Nitrogen fertiliser, used to increase fodder yields so that more cows can be raised on less land, exacerbates the problem.

At many of the sites where the government tests the groundwater it contains too much nitrate to be safe to drink-a particular problem in New Zealand, since water in much of the country has long been considered clean enough that it is used as drinking water with only minimal treatment. In Canterbury, one of the most polluted areas, expectant mothers are told to test tap water to avoid "blue baby syndrome", a potentially fatal ailment thought to be caused by nitrates. The poisonous blooms have killed dogs.

An even greater concern for human health comes from cow dung, which contains nasty bacteria such as E.coli. Three people died last year after a well was contaminated with another bug called campylobacter. Sheep were to blame in that case, yet cows have a proclivity for wading in rivers and their faeces often find their way into water. New Zealanders are twice as likely to fall ill from campylobacter as Britons, and three times more than Australians or Canadians.

And then there is the damage to native flora and fauna. The algal blooms suck the oxygen from rivers. Sediment washed from farmland can also choke the life out of streams. Almost three-quarters of native species of freshwater fish are under threat.

New Zealand is a rainy place, but farmers are also criticised for causing rivers to shrivel and groundwater to fall in certain overburdened spots. One recent tally suggested that just 2,000 of the thirstiest dairies suck up as much water as 60m people would-equivalent to the population of London, New York, Tokyo, Los Angeles and Rio de Janeiro combined. Most is hosed on the stony Canterbury region, including the Mackenzie Basin. Earlier this year locals were forced to rescue fish and eels from puddles which formerly constituted the Selwyn river, after drought and over-exploitation caused long stretches to dry up.

Dairies are trying to clean up their act. Farmers have fenced off thousands of kilometres of rivers to prevent livestock from wading in. Some have planted trees along waterways to curb erosion; others remove animals from muddy fields during winter. Some parts of the country are using more sophisticated techniques: around Lake Taupo, the country's biggest lake, farmers can buy and sell nitrogen allowances in a cap-and-trade scheme. A technique called "precision irrigation" may curb both water consumption and the leaching of nitrogen.

Earlier this year the National Party launched a plan to make 90% of rivers "swimmable" by 2040. Yet it ignored several recommendations of a forum of scientists and agrarians established to thrash out water policy, and removed elected officials from an environmental council in Canterbury after they attempted to curb the spread of irrigation. One of its big initiatives to improve water quality involved lowering pollution standards, making rivers look much cleaner at a stroke.

The Labour Party, now in government, had promised during the election campaign to tax irrigators and use the cash to clean up rivers. But Labour's populist coalition partner disliked the idea, so it has been dropped. Jacinda Ardern, the new prime minister, says that she will charge companies that bottle and export local water-little more than a gesture, as they account for only a tiny share of water use.

Environmentalists argue that the national dairy herd should be cut to prevent further damage. That may not be as hard on farmers as it sounds, argues Jan Wright, a former parliamentary commissioner for the environment. She says recent growth in the industry has been relatively inefficient, denting margins. Yet the chances of change are slim. The regulations governing Fonterra, a big dairy co-operative, encourage volume more than value, says Kevin Hackwell of Forest & Bird, a pressure group. And pollutants moving through groundwater can take decades to emerge in lakes. The worst may still be to come.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Dairy farming is polluting New Zealand's water

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
NICK SMITH may be the first politician to be immortalised in horse manure. Before the recent general election, a super-sized sculpture depicting the environment minister, trousers down, squatting over a glass, was paraded through central Christchurch. It was carved from dung in protest at an alarming increase in water pollution.