Comments on University of
Pennsylvania Research in the Fossil Forest of Axel Heiberg Island
Arthur Johnson, Principal Investigator
Benoit LePage, Co-Principal
Investigator
Since mid-July, reports have been
circulating in the popular press about our fieldwork on the Eocene age remains of
the floodplain forests that occupied the land surface of Axel Heiberg Island 45
million years ago. Those reports have
come from a Canadian scientist, Dr. James Basinger
(University of Saskatchewan) and two journalists who visited the site. Our research effort has been severely
criticized by those individuals as being destructive and inappropriate. In achieving this spin in the popular press,
a substantial amount of information about the protocols, history and
development of our project, and about our relationship to the past work done at
this site has not been reported. It is
the purpose of this section of the website to provide all of the relevant
information we are aware of regarding the claims that have been made in the
popular press. We have assembled all of the press reports we have been able to
find in Appendix A
so the reader can see the nature of the criticisms. The text and appendices we have assembled should be sufficient to
allow readers to form their own opinions of the reasons why this issue has
surfaced in the popular press.
Background
Claims that
the permitting system was lax…
The fossil forests
of Axel Heiberg Island represent a unique resource. There are more than 25 relatively level forest layers interbedded
with the alluvial sand, silt and clay that buried them in the rapidly subsiding
basin which they occupied. One of the remarkable aspects of these layers is
that there is exquisite preservation of tree trunks, stumps, leaves, some
roots, and other forest components.
Much of the material is mummified, that is, not mineralized (petrified)
or coalified. In some areas, the
spatial relationship among individuals is preserved by in place stumps.
The forest beds
have great lateral extent, outcropping in more than 100 km2 of
eastern Axel Heiberg. The region has
tens of kilometers of exposed edges of the forest layers which contain this
impressive record of a forest ecosystem from deep time. To date, most of the results from scientific
studies of these forests have been disseminated in the
paleobotany/paleobiology/paleoecology literature. The existence of these fossil forests is not widely known in the
scientific communities, which do not share that geologically oriented
literature. There are many questions of
interest to other scientific communities that can be answered by studying the
forest's remains. Careful study of the
fossil forests can provide answers to questions relevant to ecologists,
atmospheric chemists, geochemists, and to students of the nature of past
climates and other aspects of global change.
It is in this spirit that we conceived the project which is detailed in
the proposal which appears in Appendix B.
This proposal
offers a number of specific hypotheses that can be tested to better understand
the structure, biomass, productivity and dynamics that characterized the Eocene
forests, the climate to which the forests were subjected, and the physiological
hurdles that large-sized trees face when they grow in 3 months of continuous
sunlight and 3 months of continuous darkness.
We joined with colleagues and
graduate students from the University of Pennsylvania and 3 other
Universities whose research is primarily involved with forest ecology, wood
anatomy, tree anatomy, tree algometry, isotope geochemistry, tree physiology
and stratigraphy.
Our research effort
fits the model of interdisciplinary research which dominates ecosystem studies
in North America. Apparently this is very different from the way Arctic
research projects are structured in the Canadian scientific community.
As described in the
proposal, the theme that ties our different research projects together is a
test of the often-used axiom that the ecological and climatic conditions of
paleoecosystems can be accurately inferred from knowing the climatic
tolerances, physiological characteristics and ecological characteristics of the
"nearest living relatives" of the ancient flora. For example, the
Eocene climate of Axel Heiberg Island has been inferred by Basinger et al.
(1994) to be warm temperate with mild winter temperatures based on the
occurrence of species whose nearest living relatives now live in south China.
As paleoclimate is
one of the major foci of our study, we note here that two other methods of
inferring climate from leaf shape suggest markedly colder conditions during the
Eocene (see Basinger et al. 1994). We
are attempting to infer climate by two other methods-- (1) the isotopic composition of the ancient Metasequoia
wood which can be constrained by measuring the same components in Metasequoia
which now live in arboreta spanning a wide range of temperature and moisture
conditions across western Europe, North America and Asia; (2) By determining
the annual net primary productivity of the Eocene forest which is related to
growing season temperatures.
Because we have
access to the nearest living relatives (especially Metasequoia), we can
determine a number of their physiological and ecological characteristics. A detailed, spatially explicit study of the
fossil forest will reveal the niches occupied by the Eocene relatives. We can then assess whether or not the modern
nearest living relatives have characteristics that would allow them to be
successful in the ancient environment.
The fossil forest has been host to a number scientists
over the past 15 years. Long term
efforts have been sustained by Dr. Basinger and his students, including Dr. Ben
LePage, the co-principal investigator on the project. Ben was Dr. Basinger's
Ph.D. student from 1987 to 1993.
Missing from the reports in the popular press is the fact that Dr. Ben
LePage carried out his doctoral research at this site and has worked at the
site nearly every summer from 1987 through 1999. LePage's efforts have resulted in a number of peer-reviewed
scientific papers which are listed in Appendix C. He has
been the most prolific author among scientists who have worked at the fossil
forest site. These facts have not been
noted in the popular press.
In order to obtain
funding for this project, the proposal in Appendix B was
submitted to NSF (the National Science Foundation) and to the Andrew W. Mellon
Foundation. Upon the award from the
Mellon Foundation, we withdrew the proposal from NSF as is consistent with
their rules. The anonymous reviews we
received via NSF from peer scientists were gratifying as all reviewer's
responding to NSF checked the "excellent" box. We interpret this to mean that our ideas and
approach were judged to be scientifically sound.
There has been some
discussion in the popular press that some of the work we proposed and
ultimately carried out was unnecessary because it had already been done by
others. The controversy has arisen
because we sought the information present in the diameter, taper, internal
structure, growth rings etc. of the tree trunks. To obtain this information, we needed to uncover a number of the
buried tree trunks. Those contain a
substantial amount of information about stand composition, structure, dynamics,
biomass and productivity, and they were never used by previous investigators
as a source of data. Previous
investigators used measurements and samples of the stumps and conjecture
about the shape of the tree trunks to determine the size of the trees, the
biomass of the forest and its productivity (e.g. Basinger et al. 1994; NATO ASI Series 127:175-198). As a result of the work we did this field season, we know now
that because those investigators ignored the information contained in the tree
trunks, they made substantial errors in their assessment of the size and
productivity of the Eocene forests represented by the mummified remains.
In order to carry
out this research in Canada, our proposal was reviewed at three levels to
obtain the necessary permits. Contrary
to the popular press reports, the proposal was reviewed by a panel of Canadian
Arctic scientists convened by the Polar
Continental Shelf Project, the Canadian organization that coordinates
scientific research in the Arctic. The
letter we received after this review is in Appendix D.
We note that the
scientific merit was judged to be strong, and that there were concerns
expressed by that scientific panel regarding the amount of excavating we
proposed. In response, we modified our
objectives and sampling protocols.
These revisions are reflected in the abstracts sent to the other
permitting agencies, the Nunavut
Research Institute and the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, Land
Use Division, as reproduced in Appendix E.
Our initial plans called for excavating 3000 m2
to expose logs and stumps in 4 locations (Appendix B). Under the revised protocols, we excavated 37
logs and disturbed about 150 m2 of the site. This is a tiny fraction of the existing
resource. Furthermore, we excavated 32
of the 37 logs from the non-fossiliferous sands and mudstones, rather than
digging through the forest layers. We
note that others who preceded us dug extensively in the forest layers (Greenwood
and Basinger 1993; Can. J. Earth Sci. 30:1914-1923).
In the proposals,
we made it clear that we intended to protect the integrity of the site and to
restore the excavated areas to their original configuration. We did so as shown in Appendix F which
is a catalog of photographs that document the post excavation condition of the
areas where we exposed the buried sections of tree trunks.
Our procedures were
as follows:
1. Following 10 days of intensive work with ground-penetrating
radar, we concluded that there were many false echoes, and that only under rare
circumstances could we locate objects that were definitely logs or stumps. A report on the GPR studies is in Appendix G.
2. As a result we elected to
excavate only logs that had one end sticking out at the surface. Nearly all of the logs were located in the
non-fossiliferous sands and fractured mudstone that covers the buried forests. At only a few locations (5) did we disturb a
forest layer to uncover logs. This
stands in marked contrast to the prior efforts of other researchers who dug
trenches in and removed large stumps from the forest layers.
3. We uncovered the logs by digging along their length until the
permafrost interfered too severely. The
logs were covered with a light layer of dirt to prevent their drying and
"exploding". At intervals of
1-3 days, a group of logs was measured.
The length of each log was measured along with the diameters at several
intervals along its length. Normally this could be done with the log in place.
4. Some of the logs (6 total)
were split in two (lengthwise) to count rings and to record the presence of, and
measure the distance between buried knots.
The split portion was replaced in its original position, and the logs
recovered with a light layer of soil to limit drying until we took samples
during the 4th and 5 weeks of our trip.
5. In order to count and measure rings, we used a chain saw to cut 2
cross sections from each log. We left
the sampling of the logs until the last week to limit the drying and warping
that can happen during transit to our laboratories. These cross sections were approximately 5 cm thick and obtained
using a chain saw. We have retained
these samples for tree ring counts and measurements and for isotope
analyses. We have removed about 65 wood
samples in all, averaging about 65 cc each.
This is such a small fraction of the millions of tons of wood contained
in the fossil forest layers, that we find it hard to believe that this is
objectionable. In contrast, previous
investigators removed large stumps and far greater quantities of the mummified
materials.
6. The remaining 98% each log was buried in its original
configuration to its original depth, and the surface returned as nearly as we
could, to its original configuration.
Each sampled log has an aluminum tag identifying it, and the sample
locations located via GPS to within a few centimeters. Thus the scientific integrity of the site is
protected for future investigators who will know exactly which logs were
disturbed. All of the data (raw data)
from this study will be posted on the website in due time.
We note that
Basinger and the reporters had left about 10 days before the field crew began
the process of sampling wood and restoring the sites. Their claims of
"damage" must therefore be based on incomplete knowledge of our
procedures. As far as we know, the only
measurement of a log observed by a reporter was the first one, which we used to
test the methodology and utility of measurement procedures we intended to
use. We note that his photographs of
this pilot venture appeared in several newspapers.
We are eager to
respond to the allegations of damage for the benefit of the review boards that
gave us their permission to carry out this study. However, careful reading of the popular press articles provides
us with little information on the nature of the "damage"
alleged. The only specific claim we are
aware of is attributable to James Basinger: "Once excavated, they [the logs]
dry and become more vulnerable to erosion" (article by Richard Gleeson,
July 26,1999, Appendix
A). Careful consideration of this
claim suggests that it is without merit.
The wood was not allowed to dry during the period of excavation because
we maintained a cover of soil over the logs, and the logs were buried to their
original depth. The wood only erodes
when it is exposed at the surface by the removal of the sand and mudstone by
wind and water. When exposed at the
surface, the wood dries and breaks up into more easily erodable pieces. As we reburied the logs to the original
depth, it is hard to see how we have enhanced the potential for their
erosion. It is important to note that
virtually every log we excavated was already broken into 1/2 to 2 meter long
segments by natural processes--presumably the result of freezing and/or
desiccation. Removal of sections for
further study was easily accomplished without substantially changing the
configuration of the buried sections of logs.
We note that our
research site was visited in week 3 by representatives of PCSP, DIAND and
Canada's Minister of the Environment, Hon. Christine Stewart. The popular
press accounts acknowledge that those visitors were not concerned by what
they saw and found that our procedures were reasonable and clearly within the
limits specified by the permits we were granted.
Considerable
attention in the popular press has been given to the "surprise"
factor and to the notion that Dr. Basinger has been displaced from his research
site. As he acknowledges, we asked him
to join with us in a collaborative venture.
We did this as early as 1997 and on two occasions in the summer of
1998. He received copies of the
preliminary and final proposals in June and August of 1998, and in July 1998,
an extended phone call was made to Dr. Beth McIver, his colleague (and wife) detailing
the opportunity for funding for the University of Saskatchewan that we had
reason to believe would be granted quickly if upon submittal of a short
proposal to the A.W. Mellon Foundation.
We received no response from anyone at the U. of S. about the
proposal or about the funding opportunity that existed for them.
Regarding the
appropriateness of our using the site, we think that was adequately addressed
by the panel of Arctic scientists who reviewed the proposal for PCSP. We have no indication that anyone objected
to Ben LePage extending the research he has been nurturing at this site for the
past 12 years. The claims that Dr.
Basinger is being displaced from the site are groundless, as his project
received all necessary approvals for 1999, and we are unaware of anything that
would prevent his pursuit of his interests at the fossil forest site. All indications from the reviews this
proposal has been given by peer scientists suggest that the work ranks high in
scientific merit. We contend that it is
very different in approach from the work done to date, and the scientists
involved in our project have expertise that differs markedly from the expertise
of previous investigators. It does,
however, address some of the same questions addressed by Basinger and
others. For those readers unfamiliar
with the conduct of scientific research, it is a normal and important part of
science to see if the claims made by one group of researchers are corroborated
by new data generated by other groups of researchers.
Claims That the Permitting System was Lax, and that the
Canadian Government is Selling Access to its Research Sites
As have others, we take exception to the remarks made about
the failure of the review system to "protect" this site. We note the comments of the scientific
review panel in Appendix
D were taken seriously by us, and we modified the protocols to use remote
methods to search for buried logs, and we limited the actual area excavated to
about 5% of the amount we originally proposed.
Our intent to do that is clearly documented in the abstracts which were
sent to DIAND and NRI in the spring of 1999 for their approval.
We note that Dr.
David Grattan of the Canadian Conservation
Institute (CCI) has been a vocal opponent of our project, and has claimed
that "Last fall, the institute warned almost everyone associated with the
scientific approval process of the fragility of the site and its international
significance". We note that the
correspondence in Appendix H
makes it clear that CCI's comments were sought by NRI before we were granted a
permit. Apparently CCI declined to
comment at that seemingly critical juncture, even though they had copies of the
original proposal, the modifications of the sampling protocols, and a mandate
from NRI to give advice.
We intend to update
this website from time to time so that interested readers can follow the
scientific findings and, regretfully, all of the facts we are able to collect regarding
the controversial aspect of the study.
