A Wormy Feeling

Much talk has been on the Anthropocene. In my opinion, we're already in the midst of this geological epoch. This sixth mass extinction is gaining ground, and unraveling before our very own eyes. Species are going extinct about 1000 times faster than they would be without humans' presence (Pimm et al., 2014).

Which species do we most need to save? While pandas and polar bears are adorable, less appealing are the worms that are so fundamentally integral as a contributory to ecosystem services, that protecting these species can directly or indirectly influence the perpetuation of many other species as well.

BEFORE YOU START SQUIRMING, THINK OF HOW IMPORTANT WORMS ARE. PHOTO: ALAMY

 Why are worms so important? 
As a start, worms eat organic matter and break them up into smaller pieces, allowing fungi and bacteria to further decompose these organic materials and return nutrients back into the soil for plants to utilise. (And I'm sure you know how important plants are as habitats, sources of food, medicine and shelter). 

When worms tunnel through soil, it  facilitates water absorption and allows oxygen to enter the soil during heavy storms, and retains the water during dry periods. This underground tunneling process opens up passageways called soil pores that create space for air and water. Adequate water spaces allow for good infiltration and percolation of water through soil. Hence, drainage is improved, and waterlogging is minimised. This will reduce the chances of fungal diseases and root rot plaguing farmers' crops. Hence, worms are also farmer's good friends, increasing soil fertility and maximising crop yields in the process.

On a separate note, scientists are also studying the feasibility of mealworm as a source of protein for human consumption! With world population set to increase to 9.6 billion in 2050, food production must increase by 60% (FAO, 2014), and global agricultural systems would have to do so using less land, water and fertiliser. This is arguably impossible to achieve unless alternative food sources are scouted.

A MEALWORM FEAST. PHOTO: IAN CHANT

Perhaps now is the time to get used to worms before it ends up on our plates! 

Literature Citied

Food and Agriculture Organization, International Fund for Agricultural Development, & World Food Programme. (2014). The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2014. Strengthening the enabling environment for food security and nutrition. Rome, FAO.

Pimm, S. L., Jenkins, C. N., Abell, R., Brooks, T. M., Gittleman, J. L., Joppa, L. N., ... & Sexton, J.    O. (2014). The biodiversity of species and their rates of extinction, distribution, and protection. Science, 344(6187), 1246752.

Don't Judge A Plastic By Its Size.

Microplastics are small but dangerous.

According to US' National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, microplastics are defined as plastics that are less than 5mm in diameter. These microplastics are the raw materials for almost every form of plastics produced, and derive from various sources as seen in the picture below:

SOURCES OF MICROPLASTICS. PHOTO: L.DEWRINE, 2012.

Worryingly, annual global demand for plastics has consistently increased over the years and presently stands at about 245 million tonnes (Andrady, 2011). Thus, it is rather unsurprising that general plastic waste is the main source of microplastics in oceans and lakes. Larger plastics in the ocean don't just magically disappear, they are broken down into minute pieces, and eventually form microplastics.

MICROPLASTICS IN OUR BEAUTY PRODUCTS. PHOTO: MARINE CONSERVATION SOCIETY

Recognise any of the products shown above? These facial or cosmetic products contain microbeads, which are usually found in facial scrubs and exfoliating products.Some polyester clothing are also a source of microplastic fibres. Experiments conducted showed that wastewater from washing machines can contain more than 1900 microplastic fibres per garment (Browne, 2011).

When we wash clothing or use facial products containing microplastics, the tiny pellets enter our wastewater systems. But because they are so small, some wastewater treatment plants fail to filter them out (Fendall & Sewell, 2009), and so the microplastics are released into water bodies.Moreover, their minute size make it difficult to distinguish them from other tiny marine organisms, and so efforts to remove them may inadvertently harm the tiny organisms as well. More dangerous are the microplastics that absorb toxic chemicals such as detergents, and when ingested by marine organisms, cause detrimental effects to their health.

ANIMALS CAN EAT MICROPLASTICS VIA FOOD. PHOTO: DECODEDSCIENCE.COM

When planktons and other tiny marine organisms mistake the microplastics for fish eggs, they eat them. Because they are ingested but not digested, the marine organisms may eventually die of malnutrition or starvation. Observations from scientists noted that accumulation of microplastics in marine worms can cause inflammation and reduce feeding, reproductive potential and chances of survival (Wright, et al., 2013). Some microplastics can even be absorbed into organisms (Wright et al., 2013). This may potentially upset their population size, and reduce the availability of food for their predators. Hence, a domino effect up the food chain occurs, destabilising and disrupting the ecosystem.

Additionally, bio-accumulation occurs, and the microplastics move up the food chain. Eventually, humans end up consuming seafood with trace levels of microplastics as well. Presently, there is still uncertainty about the potential implications that microplastics may have on human health. However, general plastic waste could potentially increase the risks of cancers and cause reproductive or endocrine-related problems (Science For Environment Policy, 2011), and the effects of accumulative microplastics in humans may pose similar problems as well.

More recently, a study by Andrew et al. (2014) reported that microplastics are not only orally ingested by marine organisms, but can also enter via their gills. They studied the uptake of microplastics in common shoe crab (Carcinus maenas), and found microplastics retained in their bodies that could have entered via ventillation of the gills. This poses a potential problem as uptake of microplastics via this method takes over 6 times longer to leave the body then oral ingestion (Andrew et al., 2014), and could possibly exacerbate the process of bioaccumulation. Additionally, this method of uptake may also apply to other creatures apart from crabs, such as mollusks and fishes. This further reinforces how marine life are seemingly defenseless against microplastics, and so humans should step up to rectify this issue before it worsens.

THIS FISH HAD 17 MICROPLASTIC BITS FOUND IN ITS STOMACH. PHOTO: MARCUS ERIKSEN, 5 GYRES INSTITUTE

The next time you buy a facial scrub or cosmetic products, check for the presence of polyethylene, or more commonly described as microbeads. Also, you may have heard the phrase "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle" countless times, but let me re-emphasise that this action is important as it not only reduce landfill space and carbon dioxide emissions, but also the level of plastics and microplastics in water bodies. Finally, avoid purchasing or washing clothing with thick fibres or polyesters. These are what we can do on an individual level.

As for the corporate level, manufacturing companies for cosmetics and facial products should stop using microbeads and switch to natural organic materials instead. Regulations should also be put in place to minimise or ban the use of microbeads altogether. This will serve as an incentive for manufacturers to use more environmentally-friendly alternatives. Finally, more research should be done to discuss ways the microplastics can be removed, innovate and design new filtration systems that could filter these particles out, create new devices that can regularly monitor microplastic levels in water bodies and further investigate in detail the toxicity of microplastics on marine organisms and humans.

These plastics may be minute, but they cause mega impacts to wildlife, us included.

Literature Citied 

Andrady, A. L. (2011). Microplastics in the marine environment. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 62(8), p.1596-1605.

Andrew J. R. Watts, Ceri Lewis, Rhys M. Goodhead, Stephen J. Beckett, Julian Moger, Charles R. Tyler, and Tamara S. Galloway. (2014). Uptake and retention of microplastics by the shore crab Carcinus maenas. Environmental Science & Technology, 48 (15), p.8823-8830

Browne, M. A., Crump, P., Niven, S. J., Teuten, E., Tonkin, A., Galloway, T. & Thompson, R. (2011) Accumulation of microplastic on shorelines woldwide: sources and sinks. Environmental Science &Technology, 45, p.9175-9193.
Fendall, L. S. & Sewell, M. A. (2009) Contributing to marine pollution by washing your face: microplastics in facial cleansers. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 58, p.1225-1228.
Science For Environment Policy (2011) Plastic Waste : Ecological and Human Health Impacts. [ONLINE] Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/pdf/IR1_en.pdf.
[Accessed 26 September 2014].
Wright, S. L., Rowe, D., Thompson, R. C. & Galloway, T. S. (2013) Microplastic ingestion decreases energy reserves in marine worms. Current Biology, 23, p.1031-1033.
Wright, S. L., Thompson, R. C. & Galloway, T. S. (2013) The physical impacts of microplastics on marine organisms: a review. Environment Pollution,178, p.483-492.

Environmental Generational Amnesia

Yes, the title is pretty complicated. No I didn't make that up.
 This term was popularised by psychologist Peter H. Kahn Jr in one of his scholarly articles. You may read the online version of it (best I could find) here.

Basically, he worries that future generations may be unaware of the situations before they were born, and gauge the extent of current environmental impacts base on what they have experienced or witness from childhood. As each generation pass, we inherit a standard set by the previous generation, and gauge the severity of changes against the norms. Here's a fictional example:

LIONS. PHOTO: CRAGDORIASAFARIS.COM

 In 1970, There were originally 30 lions living in a jungle. Due to loss of habitat, number of lions fell to 10 after 20 years (1990). Their population continues to fall till none is left in 2014.

Lets say that you were a teenager in 1990, when the lion population was 10. If someone asks you how many lions were wiped out to the point that there's none in 2014, your answer would be a "10", simply because you used the 1990's statistic(10) as a baseline. You were unaware that back in 1970 (when you were'nt even born yet), number of lions was originally at 30. And so, number of lions wiped out should be 30, not 10.

Notice how from that example, you can tell that there is a tendency to understate the extent of changes depending on where the baseline is fixed at. This problem stems from the term "Shifting baseline syndrome", which I wouldn't be talking about in detail lest there's an information overload. Basically, every scientist accepts the data as they inherit them. These scientists are unaware of how much has changed, and instead, use the already declining situation as the baseline, and then during their careers, record even further declines (Mooallem, 2013). This continues and declining rates gets even worse.

Now here's a real example extracted from the book "Wild Ones" by Jon Mooallem.

BALD EAGLE. PHOTO: RAYMOND LEE, ALLABOUTBIRDS.ORG

In 1973, number of bald eagles in America numbered around 417 nesting pairs.
In 2007, the effort to increase their population size was considered a success and it was removed from the Endangered Species Act, as numbers rose to 10, 000 nesting pairs.
But...
Much further back in 1782, there were an estimated of 50, 000 nesting pairs.
So here's the question.
Do we count the 10, 000 nesting pairs as a mega achievement or just a slight improvement to the declining figures? Unfortunately, if you base it against the statistics of 1782, it is still a population decline, and there isn't really anything much to celebrate.

Are we underestimating the rate of decline? Where should we set the baseline in order to agree on a reliable and accurate statistical value?

 As mentioned by Milner-Gullanddid (2009), one of the authors for a research paper on shifting baseline syndrome, there are ways to circumvent this problem, such as getting the older generation to narrate personal recounts to the younger generations about how the environment was years ago and how much it has changed, or providing hard evidence such as photos or old samples to prove the extent of impact.

Ultimately, this problem may have implications on our efforts in environmental conservation. People forget what the past look like, and the current state becomes the new baseline. With "Shifting Baseline Syndrome" and "Environmental Generational Amnesia", it may be hard to convince members of the public-especially the younger generations, the severity and extent of the decline in animal populations over time. There may be misconceptions, as people fix their baselines during their time period and perceive the extent of changes to be minimal, becoming cynical when environmentalist stressed the vast decline in numbers. This problem is exacerbated when there are no or insufficient data about the conditions of the ecosystem in the past ( Hance, 2009) to validate the severity of the problem.

This term is still in its infancy, and more research is currently on-going to analyse how "Environmental Generational Amnesia" could affect conservation efforts. What I worry is that if we start out with an already depressingly low baseline, we would barely react with shock and just be ambivalent if it shifts further.

Literature Citied

Hance, J. (2009) Proving the ‘shifting baselines’ theory: how humans consistently misperceive nature. [ONLINE] Available at: http://news.mongabay.com/2009/0623-hance_shiftingbaselines.html. [Accessed 15 September 2014].
Kahn, P. H. Jr. (2002) “Children’s Affiliations with Nature: Structure, Development, and the Problem of Environmental Generational Amnesia.” - Children and Nature. Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Mooallem, J. (2013) Wild Ones: A Sometimes Dismaying, Weirdly Reassuring Story about Looking at People Looking at Animals in America. New York: Penguin, Print.
 S.K. Papworth, J. Rist, L. Coad, & E.J. Milner-Gulland. (2009) Evidence for shifting baseline syndrome in conservation. Conservation Letters 2, pg. 93–100.

The Dam Problem - Killing One To Let The Other Live.

Two weeks ago, I brought up the issue of "Conservation Reliance". This post is a small extension of the same topic. You may read the main post on Conservation Reliance first before going on to read this one.

As I was reading The New York Times International Weekly newspaper 3 days ago, an article caught my attention. Here's a summary of what the article reported:
When hydroelectric dams were built along the Columbia River, salmon populations plunged. Their movements along the river was hindered and restricted by the dams, and many were killed by the dam's turbines (Barringer, 2014). To revive the salmon population, habitat restoration projects were carried out, and salmon population numbers grew. However, this resulted in an increase in cormorants feeding on the salmon in the Columbia River. Many techniques were used to discourage these birds from feeding juvenile salmon, but efforts were futile. Now, the Army Corp has decided to shoot these birds dead in order to protect the salmon, and this method has stirred up a cloud of controversy.

BONNEVILLE DAM. PHOTO:  HTTP://WWW.OREGONLIVE.COM/ENVIRONMENT/INDEX.SSF/2008/07/COLUMBIA_BASIN_RIVER_MANAGERS.HTML

 These salmon are like well-pampered children. It seems like their predators more or less end up losing their lives. Since 2008, around 60 salmon-eating sea lions have been killed near the Bonneville Dam in the Columbia River (Barringer, 2014). Now, it's the cormorants' turn.

Scientists came to a consensus that current cormorant populations should be slashed by almost two-thirds in order to protect the salmon population (Barringer, 2014), and if shooting starts in 2015, up to 4000 birds will be killed each year till 2018. Already, the Army Corps has acquired permits to conduct killing of up to 150 double-crested cormorants each year at five dams along the Columbia River (Flatt, 2014),

Here's the catch. 13 of 19 salmon populations in the Columbia River have been listed either as threatened or endangered (Barringer, 2014). Thus, they can be considered as being conservation reliant, needing humans' intervention to ensure its perpetuation. On the other hand, the cormorants are not listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Does that mean this act of killing the salmon-eating birds is justified? Is it fair that the building of dams by humans have upset the salmon population, and yet the birds are paying the price for it? Ironically, these birds can be considered as under human intervention, albeit to reduce their population, not conserve them.

LUNCH TIME FOR THE CORMORANTS. PHOTO: HTTP://WWW.GRAHAMOWENGALLERY.COM/PHOTOGRAPHY/CORMORANTS.HTML

 My personal opinion is that killing the cormorants is too drastic a measure to be taken. While I acknowledge that ensuring the perpetuation of salmon is important, that itself is insufficient to justify the shooting of cormorants. Non-lethal methods such as avian wires,water spray cannons, pyrotechnics and noisemakers will first be used to protect the salmon and if these methods do not work, killings will start (Flatt, 2014). What I worry is that humans' attempt to intervene and protect the salmon population might backfire, and intentionally manipulating the cormorant population may end up doing more harm than good. If the killings are not carefully monitored, cormorants may even become endangered.

Certain species are conservation reliant, and warrants human intervention and protection to survive. In the case of salmon, the building of hydroelectric dams reduced salmon populations, and so it is right for us to take responsibility to protect them from extinction. I understand that the cormorants are in a way, interfering with humans' attempt to conserve the salmon population. However, it should be noted that both cormorants and salmon live in the wild, and this predator-prey relationship (birds eating the fishes) was established way back in the past. To kill the birds feels like we're interfering with nature.

Perhaps instead of focusing on how to prevent salmon from being eaten up, we can turn our attention to how we can protect salmon from death due to human activities. Engineers should take into account salmon populations when constructing dams, and design them in such a way that salmon do not get anywhere close to the turbines, or avoid the dam altogether (Thompson, 2014). Regulating the strength of water flowing, eliminating gaps between turbines that could trap fishes, having smooth surfaces in areas that may be exposed to fish contacts are just some of the ideas mooted and implemented in newly constructed dams. The authorities can consider modifying the dams along Columbia River, and hopefully, circumvent the need to kill the cormorants.

Literature Citied
Barringer, F. (2014) Taking Up Arms Where Birds Feast on Buffet of Salmon. The New York Times. [ONLINE] 15 August. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/16/us/taking-up-arms-where-birds-feast-on-buffet-of-salmon.html?_r=0. [Accessed 13 September 14].

Flatt, C. (2014) Fish-Eating Birds To Be Killed At 5 Dams. OPB. [ONLINE] 27 March. Available at: http://earthfix.opb.org/flora-and-fauna/article/5-dams-to-kill-nuisance-birds-to-protect/. [Accessed 13 September 14].
Thompson, E. (2014) Engineering a More Fish-Friendly Dam. Illumin. [ONLINE] Available at:
 http://illumin.usc.edu/printer/29/engineering-a-more-fish-friendly-dam/. [Accessed 13 September 14].

Sustainable Seafood

The past few posts have been pretty pessimistic, but here is one that will probably cheer you up a little: There has been greater emphasis on sustainable seafood in this year! (Score one for the marine creatures!) In this post, I'll be focusing on the progress of the local scene here in Singapore.

 Ask a Singaporean what sort of seafood he or she loves, chances are delicacies such as "Chilli Crab" and "Lobster Rolls" top the list. Unfortunately, "Shark's Fins" is also one of the more commonly eaten delicacies not just in Singapore, but over most parts of Asia. More often than not, the way these sharks are caught for their fins are not only inhumane (most sharks are still alive as their fins are sliced off), but greatly threatens the propagation of many shark species. The poster below illustrates that 90% of the world's shark population has been killed in just 10 years. This is worrying indeed.

STATISTICS OF SHARK-FINNING PRACTICES. PHOTO: TRAVEL.TRUELIFE.COM

Again, another diagram illustrating the vast markets and trading involved for shark's fins in 2008. You may have also noticed that Singapore exported the second-highest amount of shark's fins (1,201,236 kg worth of dried and frozen fins) to Hong Kong.

COUNTRIES EXPORTING SHARK'S FINS TO HONG KONG. PHOTO: SPEAKUPFORBLUE.COM

However, this is changing. 8 June 2014 to 15 June 2014 was an important period for Singapore in the sustainable seafood scene, as it kick-started Singapore's first WWF Sustainable Seafood Festival 2014. It was a good step forward in raising awareness to highlight the plight of marine organisms, educating fisheries, seafood restaurants and consumers.   Here's the video by WWF on the reasons why they decided to carry out such a Festival:

Progress didn't stop there. Singapore Airlines (SIA) cargo also announced that they would stop carrying shark's fins from August 2014, joining the likes of other airlines such as Cathay Pacific, Qantas and Air New Zealand (Tan, 2014). This is a big step and victory for wildlife protection groups, amid raised concerns about the unethical and inhumane practice of shark-finning. The arrival of integrated resorts like Resorts World Sentosa and Marina Bay Sands have also boosted local demand for sustainable seafood, resulting in many companies including Small Medium Enterprises (SMEs) venturing into this area. These companies are making profits and generating revenue (Mok, 2014), a testimony to increased demand for sustainable seafood in Singapore.

 As a start, consumers may look out for these eco-labels certified on sustainably-sourced seafood (as seen below), which are awarded by the Marine Stewardship Council, the world's leading certification and eco-labelling programme for sustainable seafood.

MARINE STEWARDSHIP COUNCIL ECOLABEL PHOTO: MSC.ORG

The choice lies in our hands. To safeguard the future of marine wildlife and protect the seafood resources of future generations, the onus is on us to practice sustainable seafood methods for fisheries, and for consumers, choose the seafood we eat wisely, and only from sustainable sources

Literature Citied

Mok F. F. (2014) Sustainable seafood is no fishy business. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.stjobs.sg/career-resources/workplace-success/sustainable-seafood-is-no-fishy-business/a/171681. [Accessed 07 September 2014].
Tan S. W. (2014) SIA Cargo to stop carrying shark’s fins from August. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/sia-cargo-to-stop/1225450.html. [Accessed 07 September 2014].

Conservation Reliance

Q: Should Human Beings feed threatened or endangered animals?

What is your response?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I was reading about the Endangered Species Act (ESA) signed in 1973 and commissioned by The United States of America (USA). Let me condense the gist of it in layman terms:
1. Species at risk of extinction are listed under the act.
2. Risks and causes are identified.
3. Measures and response plans are implemented.
4. Species benefits and increase in numbers.
5. The species is then removed from the list.

To me, it sounds really simplistic and naive. Is saving a species really as easy as dishing out response plans and then expect a certain improvement? It was time to do a little research on Conservation Reliance, and I read an interesting Journal Article. You can read it here.

J. Michael Scott, a government biologist, lamented that "a fundamental belief behind so much conservation - that we can "save" a species by solving a particular problem it faces, then walk away and watch it thrive - is largely delusional." Indeed, I agree with this statement, but hold views and ideas slightly different from him about efficiency of conservation reliance.

A POLAR BEAR AND HER CUBS IN ALASKA. PHOTO: AP

Generally, a species is conservation reliant when the threat if faces cannot be eliminated but only managed.(Goble et al., 2012, p.869). In his Journal Article, it was stated that 84% of the species listed under the Act are conservation reliant (Scott et al., 2010, p.91). In my opinion, all species listed should be considered as conservation reliant. After all, not intervening, whether active or passive, seemingly defeats the purpose of including the species on the list.

However, what I liked about the Journal Article was that Scott published a comprehensive and detailed study about methods of conservation reliance programmes such as "Control of other species, Active habitat management, Control of direct human impacts etc." Indeed, the ecosystem is interlinked, and ensuring the perpetuation of one species would mean dealing with environmentally-detrimental human actions, monitoring and regulating the population of other species, and adopting good management systems for the environment.

CALIFORNIAN CONDOR. PHOTO: FWS.GOV

Examples of high human intervention includes the Guam kingfisher, (Todiramphus cinnamominus) which is now found only in captivity (Goble et al., 2012, p.870) under a breeding program. It is thus, considered extinct from the wild, primarily because of the brown tree snake, a non-native, invasive species introduced by Human Beings, either deliberately or by accident, that nearly wiped out the Guam kingfisher. Another species, the California Condor (Gymnogyps californinus) (photo above) is reared in captivity and repeatedly released into the wild. (Goble et al., 2012, p.870)

This concept of conservation reliance may seem like a good idea in protecting species from possible extinction, but then this means that the majority of endangered species are only surviving if Human Beings intervene and are actively engaged and involved in shaping the world and the environment to suit their needs.This strain resources, is expensive, and even pose a danger to these animals if we ever stop intervening. An analogy would be releasing a domesticated animal into the wild after years of captivity. What are the chances the animal would know how to protect and defend itself, or even built up a strong survival instinct? By then, the animal would have probably been eaten up by its predator.  It is like "Playing God", cultivating the species we desire, deciding where to place them, what to feed them, and how to safekeep them. It is also indirectly and discreetly admitting that their ecosystem is irreparable (Mooallem, 2013), that we are responsible for the damage (which is kind of true), and obliged to save them continuously to ensure their survival.

 The list of species on the ESA is ever increasing. Will we be able to handle them all? Is this a sustainable way of protecting the species from extinction? How much human intervention should be involved? What happens if we stop providing for them?

Ultimately, while I question the pragmatism of such approach, I admit that this practice is crucial to ensure sustainability of biodiversity and wildlife. The best method would be tackling poaching, global warming, climate change, deforestation - and the list of environmental problems goes on...This is a tall order and so unfortunately or fortunately, (depending on how you view conservation reliance) looking at the current situation, this method may be the best for now.

Remember the question I posed at the very beginning of this post? Have you change your mind, or is your response still the same?

 Literature Citied

Dale D. Goble, John A. Wiens, J. Michael Scott, Timothy D. Male, and John A. hall. (2012) Conservation-Reliant Species. Oxford Journals. [Online]. Vol. 62 (10). p.869 - 873. Available at: http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org/content/62/10/869.full.pdf [Accessed 01 September 2014].
J. Michael Scott, Dale D.Goble, Aaron M. Haines, John A. Wiens, and Maile C. Neel (2010) Policy Perspective - Conservation-reliant species and the future of conservation. Wiley Periodicals, Inc. [Online]. Conservation letters 3 (1). p.91 - 97. Available at: http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/css235/Scott_et_al2010.pdf [Accessed 01 September 2014].
Mooallem, J. (2013) Wild Ones: A Sometimes Dismaying, Weirdly Reassuring Story about Looking at People Looking at Animals in America. New York: Penguin, Print.