Fossil Discovery of Utah Ceratopsians

Fossils of new species of horned dinos found in Utah (BBC)

Scientists digging in south-central Utah found two new species of ceratopsians in the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, in the Kaiparowits Formation.  They found a specimen with a particularly large horn over the nose and a massive head which they dubbed Utahceratops gettyi.  They also found a very ornately-ornamented specimen with a total of 15 horns on its head which they called Kosmoceratops richardsoni.

Top: Utahceratops gettyi
Bottom: Kosmoceratops richardsoni


Both dinosaurs lived on the ancient landmass of Laramidia, which was formed when a late Cretaceous inland seaway split the North American continent in half into the western landmass of Laramidia and the eastern landmass of Appalachia.  Many fossils have been found in the northern part of the ancient Laramidia landmass, but until recently fossils from the southern portion have been lacking.  The National Monument in southern Utah has produced an abundance of fossil specimens and may begin to make up the disparity between northern and southern fossils.

Utahceratops

Further analysis could provide answers to many questions, such as why there was not a lot of exchange between dinosaurs in the northern and southern parts of Laramidia (a physical barrier?) or why there was such a high diversity of large animals living in a relatively small area (there were about two dozen different species of large dinosaurs living on a landmass a quarter of the size of the African continent).

For the scientific paper: New Horned Dinosaurs from Utah Provide Evidence for Intracontinental Dinosaur Endemism

California Water Crisis

http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1643127/california_farmers_to_lose_primary_water_supply/

Methane Seeping from Arctic Sea-beds

From the BBC: Methane seeps from Arctic sea-bed

Scientists have found that methane, usually trapped within the Arctic sea-bed as a "methane hydrate," an ice-like substance compose of water and methane, which is stable under high pressure and low temperature conditions, is being released from the seafloor sediment. This hydrate breaks down as temperatures rise, and "bubbles" of methane rising from the seabed indicate unstable conditions for this hydrate.

Thirty years ago, the methane hydrate was stable at depths as shallow as 360m, but recent data suggests it is now stable in depths over 400m. Temperature records indicate that the temperature in the sea off of Norway, where more than 250 plumes of methane bubbles are being released from the seafloor, has increased by 1 C during the past 30 years.

Scientists have noticed that the area of interest has been experiencing climate change at a rate faster than many other places in the world. It has been thought for a long time that if the oceans warm, hydrates within the sea floor may be released and contribute a positive greenhouse effect. The current research is attempting to determine whether this is something that's occuring in the region off of Norway in a relatively short timescale. Methane is released from the ocean floor elsewhere at higher temperatures and lower pressures, so it's possible that this has been occuring near Norway since the end of the last ice age.

The significant implications of this research are that the warming climate is causing methane to be released from more and deeper areas of the Arctic Ocean. The team wants to research further to observe the methane plumes and to determine their effect on the ocean and ultimately the atmosphere.

Pharmaceuticals and Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals

Pharmaceutically active compounds (PhACs) and personal care products (PPCPs), come from a variety of sources, such as human, agricultural, or veterinary usage of medications, fragrances, cosmetics, vitamins, and many other products. Many PhACs or PPCPs are also endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs), which are natural compounds and synthetic chemicals that mimic natural hormones.

Pharmaceuticals have become a source of increasing concern because they are released into the environment with little regulation, and they persist at low ppb to ppt concentrations, which may have an adverse effect on the ecosystem as well as groundwater and surface water systems. Studies have linked EDCs to adverse biological effects in animals, which suggests the potential for similar effects in humans. EDCs enter the groundwater table from point source discharges from industry, as well as from runoff in urban and agricultural areas.

Some adverse effects from the increased presence of pharmaceuticals and EDCs in the aquatic ecosystem include cancer, fertility problems, and organ-specific health effects. Concentrations of these compounds well below their accepted regulatory levels are associated with negative effects on human and wildlife health. More research needs to be completed to assess the results of low level exposure to these compounds, but it is already known that adverse affects exist, and measures must be taken in order to reduce the influx of these compounds into the environment.

Happy Earth Day!

Happy Earth Day! Since I am a water nerd, here are some Earth Day water conservation tips! These tips can be used year-round to help reduce the amount of water we use everyday.

• Don't let the water run while shaving or brushing teeth.
• Take short showers instead of tub baths.
• Keep drinking water in the refrigerator instead of letting the faucet run until the water is cool.
• Scrape, rather than rinse, dishes before loading into the dishwasher; wash only full loads.
• Wash only full loads of laundry or use the appropriate water level or load size selection on the washing machine.
• Buy high-efficiency plumbing fixtures & appliances.
• Repair all leaks (a leaky toilet can waste 200 gallons a day).
• Water the lawn or garden during the coolest part of the day (early morning is best).
• Water plants differently according to what they need. Check with your local nursery for advice.
• Set sprinklers to water the lawn or garden only – not the street or sidewalk.
• Use soaker hoses or trickle irrigation systems for trees and shrubs.
• Sweep outside instead of using a hose.

One Word vs. Two

Perhaps you've heard, the USGS is now officially using "groundwater" as one word, instead of two. The change is in response to the widespread use of the term as one word, and is an attempt to create a single convention for the word. This move has been met with approval from some, and resistance from others.

In my introduction to groundwater at the USGS as a green hydrologic technician (two years ago), I learned that the debate between ground water and groundwater was an intense one. As an earth science student with mediocre training in hydrology, I was baffled by the debate. Whenever I was writing about ground water, I often had to ask my boss whether it should be two words or one (or hyphenated) so that the wrath of senior hydrologists would not be visited upon me later for making such a serious mistake.

I'm not sure that I understand the reason that some people find this to be such a heady issue, other than the fact that they have used ground water for most of their hydrological career. I am an unbiased party, having no particular attachment to one word or two, and as a person who prefers to have one common, standard way of reporting things, I am pleased that the USGS has come to the decision to standardize this word in a way that coincides with much of the rest of the hydrological world.

To Purge, or not to Purge

I was discussing a recent study in Bozeman with a student of groundwater hydrology where the local water quality district tested values of nitrates from wells that are purged before sampling versus nitrate levels from wells that were not purged. The results indicated that the difference in values between purged wells and water that had been sitting stagnant in the casing was subtle, but apparent.

I have not been able to find the study, as I don't think the results have been published, but this is an interesting topic since most of the groundwater in privately-owned wells is tested by untrained well owners who do not purge their wells. Thus, while the difference is not enough to be significant for owners who are just finding a baseline value for their drinking water, it is significant in terms of the data collected from owners throughout the state which is used to examine trends in groundwater by, say, the university.

When I worked for the USGS in California, we always sampled from purged wells to ensure that we sampled a representative portion of the groundwater, and not just stagnant water that hung around in the casing and did not represent the composition of the groundwater. We thus ensured an unbiased sample and that the results of our lab tests accurately reflected the actual groundwater below the well.