Although there is a wealth of evidence on the impact of ionising radiation on humans, its effects on wildlife are poorly understood. In the past the International Commission on Radiological Protection, which recommends radiation safety limits, has set no limits to protect wildlife, assuming that as long as humans were protected, animals and plants would be too.
But in recent years the ICRP has abandoned this assumption and launched an investigation into how best to safeguard "non-human species". Many researchers are focusing on how wildlife has been affected by the radioactivity that spewed from the exploded reactor at Chernobyl in Ukraine, 17 years ago this month.
Gennady Polikarpov and Victoria Tsytsugina from the Institute of Biology of the Southern Seas in Sevastopol studied the reproduction of certain sedimentary worms that are vital to aquatic ecosystems (Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, vol 66, p 141). They compared the behaviour of three species in a lake near Chernobyl with the same species in a lake 20 kilometres away. The lakes had similar temperatures and chemical composition, but the worms in the Chernobyl lake had received 20 times as much radiation as those in the other lake. The researchers found some remarkable changes in the worms' sexual habits.
Two species had switched from asexual to sexual reproduction, as they are capable of doing. The proportion of Nais pardalis seeking partners for sex was 5 per cent in the normal lake but 22 per cent in the Chernobyl lake, while the proportions of Nais pseudobtusa doing the same were 10 per cent and 23 per cent respectively. However, the third species, Dero obtusa, showed double the rate of asexual reproduction in the polluted lake.
Polikarpov thinks the worms have switched to sexual reproduction in an attempt to protect themselves from the radiation. Sexual reproduction allows natural selection to promote genes that offer better protection from radiation damage, and "the resistance of populations as a whole will be increased", he suggests. Carmel Mothersill from the Dublin Institute of Technology, one of the experts helping the ICRP develop its new policy on protecting wildlife, agrees. "It is a plausible mechanism," she says.
Author: Rob Edwards
New Scientist issue: 12 April 2003
PLEASE MENTION NEW SCIENTIST AS THE SOURCE OF THIS STORY AND, IF PUBLISHING ONLINE, PLEASE CARRY A HYPERLINK TO: http://www.newscientist.com
"These articles are posted on this site to give advance access to other authorised media who may wish to quote extracts as part of fair dealing with this copyrighted material. Full attribution is required, and if publishing online a link to www.newscientist.com is also required. Advance permission is required before any and every reproduction of each article in full - please contact email@example.com. Please note that all material is copyright of Reed Business Information Limited and we reserve the right to take such action as we consider appropriate to protect such copyright."
UK CONTACT - Claire Bowles, New Scientist Press Office, London:
Tel: 44-207-331-2751 or email firstname.lastname@example.org
US CONTACT - Michelle Soucy, New Scientist Boston Office:
Tel: 617-558-4939 or email email@example.com
AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert! system.