Select Page
Our Environment: Part 21 Biofuels

Our Environment: Part 21 Biofuels

This option for providing power has not been discussed as much recently as it was a decade ago.  At that time many were looking at using corn waste, used cooking oil, and animal manure as a source of energy.  Some universities devoted a lot of their research dollars towards the topic.  But not as much today.

You might remember that our first source of energy for heating and cooking was wood.  A decade ago, some communities were considering returning to this source.  However, the problems that existed hundreds of years ago still exist today – mainly, is there enough wood.  It is a renewable resource, but it does not grow as fast as we use it.

One of the biofuels that did get a lot of attention a decade ago, and is still popular in some countries, is ethanol and biodiesel.  This has really caught on in Brazil and, to some extent, in the United States.  There are several advantages to this form of energy.  (1) Countries can supply their own source of fuel and are not dependent on importing from nations who have fossil fuels.  (2) If managed correctly – not removing plants faster than they can replenish themselves – there would be no increase in carbon dioxide emissions.  (3) They are available now, are easy to store and transport, can be distributed through existing fuel networks, and used in existing vehicles.

However, there are some problems…

Converting farmland to biofuel farms would decrease food production and overall biodiversity.  Here are some advantages and disadvantages of solid biomass.

Advantages Disadvantages
Large potential supply in some areas Nonrenewable if harvested unsustainably
Moderate costs Moderate to high environmental impact
No net CO2 increase if harvested, and replanted sustainably Soil erosion, water pollution, and loss of wildlife habitat
Can make use of agricultural, timber, and urban waste Farms could compete with food crops

Biodiesel

Advantages Disadvantages
Reduce CO2 emissions Increased NO2 emissions and smog
Reduced CO emissions Higher cost than regular diesel
High net energy for oil palm crops Low net energy for soybean crops
Better gas mileage May compete with food crops and raise food prices
Potentially renewable Can make engines hard to start in cold weather

Ethanol

Advantages Disadvantages
High octane Lower driving range
Some reduction in CO2 emissions Lower net energy
Potentially renewable Higher cost
Competing with food crops
Higher NO2 emissions and more smog
Corrosive
Can make engines hard to start in cold weather

The potential of using biofuels is still here.  There are definitely some pros and cons to this form of energy for us to think about.  In our next article we will look at another that has been discussed a lot – geothermal.

References

Miller, G.T., Spoolman, S.E. 2011. Living in the Environment. Brooks/Cole Cengage Learning. Belmont CA. pp. 674.

Panhandle Terrapin Project 2025 Report

Panhandle Terrapin Project 2025 Report

Introduction

The diamondback terrapin (Malaclemys terrapin) is the only resident turtle within brackish water and estuarine systems in the United States (Fig. 1).  They prefer coastal estuarine wetlands – living in salt marshes, mangroves, and seagrass communities.  The literature suggests they have strong site fidelity – meaning they do not move far from where they live.  Within their habitat they feed on shellfish, mollusk and crustaceans mostly. In early spring they will breed.  Gravid females will venture along the shores of the bay seeking a high-dry sandy beach where they will lay a clutch of about 10 eggs.  She will typically return to lay more than one clutch each season.  Nesting will continue through the summer.  Hatching begins mid-summer and will extend into the fall.  Hatchings that occur in late fall may overwinter within the nest and emerge the following spring.  They live 20-25 years.

Fig. 1. The diamondback terrapin.
Photo: Molly O’Connor

Terrapins range from Massachusetts to Texas and within this range there are currently seven subspecies recognized – five of these live in Florida, and three are only found in Florida (Fig. 2).  However, prior to 2005 their existence in the Florida panhandle was undocumented.  The Panhandle Terrapin Project (PTP) was initially created to determine if terrapins did exist here.

Fig. 2. Terrapins of Florida.
Image provided by FWC

The Scope of the Project

Phase 1

The project began in 2005 using trained volunteers to survey suitable habitat for presence/absence.  Presence is determined by locating potential nesting beaches and searching for evidence of nesting.  Nesting begins in April and ends in September – with peak nesting occurring in this area during May and June.  The volunteers are trained in March and survey potential beaches from April through July.  They search for tracks of nesting females, eggshells of nests that were depredated by predators, and live terrapins – either on the beach or the heads in the water.  Often volunteers will conduct 30-minute head counts to determine relative abundance.  Between 2005 and 2010 the team was able to verify at least one record in each of the panhandle counties.

Phase 2

The next phase is to determine their status – how many nesting beaches does each county have, and how many terrapins are using them?  A suitability map was developed by Dr. Barry Bitters as a Florida Master Naturalist project to locate suitable nesting beaches.  Volunteers would visit these during the spring to determine whether nesting was occurring, and the relative abundance was determined using what we called the “Mann Method” – developed by Tom Mann of the Mississippi Department of Wildlife, along with the 30-minute head counts.  The Mann Method involved counting the number of tracks and depredated nests within a 16-day window.  The assumption to this method was that nesting females would lay multiple clutches each season – but they did not lay more than one every 16 days.  Going on another assumption, that the sex ratio within the population was 1:1, each track and depredated nest within a 16-day window was a different female and doubling this number would give the relative abundance of adults in this population.  Between 2007 and 2023 we were able to determine the number of nesting beaches in each county and relative abundance in three of those counties (see results below).

Phase 3

Partnering with the U.S. Geological Survey, we were able to move to Phase 3 – which involves trapping and tagging terrapins.  Doing this gives the team a better idea of where the terrapins are going and how they are using the habitat.  To trap the terrapins, we use modified crab traps (modified so that the terrapins had access to air to breath), seine nets, fyke nets, dip nets, and by hand – the most effective has been modified crab traps (Fig. 3).  These traps are placed in terrapin habitat over a 3-day period, being checked daily.  Any captured terrapins are measured, weighed, sexed, marked using the notch method, and given a Passive Intergraded Transponder (PIT) tag.  Some of the terrapins are given a satellite tag where movement could be tracked by GPS (Fig. 4).  We are now bringing on acoustic tagging for some counties.  This involves placing acoustic receivers on the bottom of the bay which will detect any terrapin (with an acoustic tag) that swims nearby.  Results are below.

Fig. 3. Modified crab traps is one method used to capture adults.
Photo: Molly O’Connor

 

Fig. 4. This tag with an antenna can be detected by a satellite and tracked real time.
Photo: USGS

Phase 4

This phase involves collecting tissue samples for genetic analysis.  Currently it is believed that the Ornate terrapin (Malaclemys terrapin macrospilota) ranges from Key West to Choctawhatchee Bay, and the Mississippi terrapin (M.t. pileata) ranges from Choctawhatchee Bay to the Louisiana/Texas border.  The two subspecies look morphologically different (Fig. 5) and the team believes terrapins resembling the ornate terrapin have been found in Pensacola Bay.  Researchers in Alabama have also reported terrapins they believe to be ornate terrapins in their waters as well.  The project is now working with a graduate student from the University of West Florida who is genetically analyzing tissue samples from trapped terrapins to determine which subspecies they are and what the correct range of these subspecies.  This phase began in 2025, and we do not have any results at this time.

Fig. 5. The Mississippi terrapin found in Pensacola Bay is darker in color than the Ornate terrapin found in other bays of the panhandle.
Photo: Rick O’Connor

Ornate Diamondback Terrapins Depend on Coastal Marshes and Sea Grass Habitats
Photo: Erik Lovestrand.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2025 UPDATE AND RESULTS

 

In 2025 we trained 188 volunteers across each county – including state park rangers and members of the Florida Oyster Corps.  47 (25%) participated in at least one survey.

We logged 345 nesting surveys and 17 trap days.

No seining or fyke nets were conducted in 2025.

 

Phase 1 – Presence/Absence Update

County Presence Notes
Baldwin Yes A single deceased terrapin was found in western Baldwin County
Escambia Yes Team encountered nesting again this year
Santa Rosa Yes Two new locations were identified this year
Okaloosa Yes Encounters were lower this year
Walton Yes FIRST EVIDENCE OF NESTING IN WALTON COUNTY VERIFIED THIS YEAR
Bay Yes FIRST EVIDENCE OF NESTING IN BAY COUNTY VERIFIED THIS YEAR
Gulf Yes Team encountered nesting again this year
Franklin ND ND

 

 

Phase 2 Nesting Survey – Update

County # of primary beaches1 # of secondary beaches2 # of surveys # of encounters FOE3
Baldwin 0 TBD 14 04 .00
Escambia 2 35 99 7 .07
Santa Rosa 3 45 137 25 .18
Okaloosa 4 3 20 1 .05
Walton 1 4 28 2 .07
Bay 3 3 47 14 .30
TOTAL 13 17 345 49 .14

 

1 primary beaches are defined as those where nesting is known to occur.

2 secondary beaches are defined as those where potential nesting is high but has not been confirmed.

3 FOE (Frequency of Encounters) is the number of terrapin encounters / the number of surveys conducted.

4 There was one deceased terrapin found by a tour guide in Baldwin County but was not part of the project.

5 There are potential nesting sites on Pensacola Beach that are technically in Escambia County but covered by the Santa Rosa team.  The Escambia team focused on the Perdido Key area.

 

 

Phase 3 Trapping/Tagging Update

We currently have 8 years of data.

Terrapins have been tagged in 7 of the 8 panhandle counties.

1483 captures, 1061 individuals.

 

2025 Capture Effort

Method County Number Description Condition
Hand capture Escambia 1 1 adult male Deceased
Hand capture Santa Rosa 5 4 adult females

1 unknown

Released, deceased
Hand capture Okaloosa 1 1 adult female Released
Dip Net Santa Rosa 1 1 adult male Released
Crab Traps Santa Rosa 34 4 juvenile females

5 adult females

25 adult males

Released
Okaloosa 4 1 juvenile female

3 adult males

Released
TOTAL   46 5 juvenile females

10 adult females

30 adult males

1 unknown

Preliminary information subject to revision. Not for citation or distribution.

 

Satellite Tagging Information

Due to the size of the tags – only large females are satellite tagged at this time.

Big Momma – tracked for 188 days – averaged 0.16 miles.

Big Bertha – tracked for 137 days – averaged 35.83 miles.

 

2025 Tracking Effort

County Tagging Effort
Santa Rosa 2 satellite tagged

6 acoustically tagged

Okaloosa 1 satellite tagged
TOTAL 8 tagged for tracking

 

 

Phase 4 Update

This phase began in 2025 and there are no results at this time.

 

 

Summary

 

2025

17 trainings were given in 7 of the 8 counties of the Florida panhandle (including Baldwin County AL).

188 were trained; 47 (25%) conducted at least one survey.

345 surveys were logged; terrapins (or terrapin sign) were encountered 49 (14%) of those surveys.

Every county had at least one encounter during a nesting survey.

17 trapping days were conducted; 46 terrapins were captured; 37 (83%) were captured in modified crab traps; 7 were captured by hand; 1 was captured in a dip net.

8 terrapins were tagged for tracking; 6 acoustically; 2 with satellite tags.

 

Since 2007

511 have been trained.

1449 surveys have been logged; 347 encounters have occurred; Frequency of Encounters is 24% of the surveys.

 

Discussion

 

Phase 1

We have shown that diamondback terrapins do exist in the Florida panhandle and in Baldwin County AL.

 

Phase 2

We currently have 13 primary nesting beaches we are surveying weekly during nesting season across the panhandle.  There were 17 secondary nesting beaches surveyed and most likely there are many more to visit.  Nesting seems to be more common in late spring, but the Frequency of Encounters has been declining since 2023.  This could be due to less terrapin activity but could also be due to evidence being difficult to find.  We will continue to monitor to see how this trend continues.

 

Phase 3

The team has captured 1483 terrapins, the majority of which were from the eastern panhandle.  Satellite tagged females suggest more than one has traveled over 30 miles from where they were tagged.  This goes against the idea that terrapins have strong site fidelity.  However, all the terrapins tagged were large females (due to size of the tags) so we are looking at the movements of only the larger females – not the population as a whole.  The movements of these females also suggest they may use seagrass beds as much as the salt marshes.

 

 

Training for volunteers occurs in March of each year.  If you are interested in participating, contact Rick O’Connor – roc1@ufl.edu.

Our Environment: Part 20 – Wind Power

Our Environment: Part 20 – Wind Power

Wind power has become more popular across the planet.  Though some regions of the Earth get more wind than others – it blows basically everywhere.  The concept behind wind energy is the same as hydroelectric power.  In hydroelectric moving water turns the turbines to generate electricity – with wind power it is moving air.

photo: Sam Ho 2022

One study conducted at Stanford by C.I. Archer and M.Z. Jacobsen in 2004 mapped the global potential for wind energy.  Their data suggested that capturing only 20% of this potential energy from the world’s best sites could generate seven times more energy than was being developed in 2011 and thus could help phase out coal and nuclear power sources.  Offshore wind production looks promising as well.  Out there – the wind can be stronger and steadier than winds over land.  Many countries have already developed offshore wind farms.  Over land within the U.S., areas near the Rocky Mountains show the best promise – and many of these areas have already developed wind farms.  In 2011 scientists estimated that wind farms in North Dakota, South Dakota, Kansas, and Texas alone could generate three times more energy than all of the power plants operating at that time.  This looks like a promising option for fossil fuels, but there are challenges.

  1. Areas where wind energy is most promising have few people – the energy would have to transported to more urban sites.
  2. Winds do die down and a backup source will be needed in many locations.
  3. Studies have found that rotating wind turbines kill as many as 40,000 birds and bats each year in the U.S. alone.
  4. Many urban and coastal communities resist them because they are unsightly and noisy.

Others

Advantages Disadvantages
Moderate to high energy yield Steady winds needed
High energy efficiency Backup systems needed during low wind events
Moderate capital costs High land use required
Low electricity costs “Visual” pollution
Very low environmental impact Noise when located near populated areas
No carbon dioxide emissions Can kill birds and bats
Can be located at sea
Land below turbines can be used for agriculture

In the next article we will look at using biomass as an energy source.

Reference

Miller, G.T., Spoolman, S.E. 2011. Living in the Environment. Brooks/Cole Cengage Learning. Belmont CA. pp. 674.

2025 Pensacola Scallop Search Report

2025 Pensacola Scallop Search Report

Introduction

The bay scallop (Argopecten irradians) was once common in the lower portions of the Pensacola Bay system.  However, by 1970 they were all but gone.  Closely associated with seagrass, especially turtle grass (Thalassia testudinum), some suggested the decline was connected to the decline of seagrass beds in this part of the bay.  Decline in water quality and overharvesting by humans may have also been a contributor.  It was most likely a combination of these factors.

Scalloping is a popular activity in our state.  It can be done with a simple mask and snorkel, in relatively shallow water, and is very family friendly.  The decline witnessed in the lower Pensacola Bay system was witnessed in other estuaries along Florida’s Gulf coast.  Today commercial harvest is banned, and recreational harvest is restricted to specific months and to the Big Bend region of the state.  With the improvements in water quality and natural seagrass restoration, it is hoped that the bay scallop may return to lower Pensacola Bay.

Scallop harvest area.
Image: Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Since 2015 Florida Sea Grant has held the annual Pensacola Bay Scallop Search.  Trained volunteers survey pre-determined grids within Big Lagoon and Santa Rosa Sound.  Below is the report for both the 2025 survey and the overall results since 2015.

Methods

Scallop searchers are volunteers trained by Florida Sea Grant.  Teams are made up of at least three members.  Two snorkel while one is the data recorder.  More than three can be on a team.  Some pre-determined grids require a boat to access, others can be reached by paddle craft or on foot.

Once on site the volunteers extend a 50-meter transect line that is weighted on each end.  Also attached is a white buoy to mark the end of the line.  The two snorkelers survey the length of the transect, one on each side, using a 1-meter PVC pipe to determine where the area of the transect ends.  This transect thus covers 100m2.  The surveyors record the number of live scallops they find within this area, measure the height of the first five found in millimeters using a small caliper, which species of seagrass are within the transect, the percent coverage of the seagrass, whether macroalgae are present or not, and any other notes of interest – such as the presence of scallop shells or scallop predators (such as conchs and blue crabs).  Three more transects are conducted within the grid before returning.

The Pensacola Scallop Search occurs during the month of July.

Snorkel transect method.
Image: University of Florida.

2025 Results

138 volunteers on 32 teams surveyed 22 of the 66 1-nautical mile grids (36%) between Big Lagoon State Park and Navarre Beach.  162 transects (16,200m2) were surveyed logging 8 scallops.  All live scallops were reported from Santa Rosa Sound this year.

2025 Big Lagoon Results

13 teams surveyed 9 of the 11 grids (81%) within Big Lagoon.  76 transects were conducted covering 7,600m2.

No scallops were logged in 2025 though scallop shells were found.  No sea urchins were reported but scallop predators – such as conchs, blue crabs, and rays were.  This equates to 0.00 scallops/200m2 and moves Big Lagoon from a vulnerable system last year to a collapsed one this year.  All three species of seagrass were found (Thalassia, Halodule, and Syringodium).  Seagrass densities ranged from 50-100%.  Macroalgae was present in 5 of the 9 grids (56%) and was reported abundant in grid 2.

2025 Santa Rosa Sound Results

19 teams surveyed 13 of the 55 grids (23%) in Santa Rosa Sound.  86 transects were conducted, covering 8,600m2.

8 scallops were logged which equates to 0.19 scallops/200m2.  Scallop searchers reported blue crabs, conchs, and rays.  All three species of seagrass were found.  Seagrass densities ranged from 5-100%.  Macroalgae was present in 7 of the 13 grids (54%) and was reported as abundant in 4 of those.

2015 – 2025 Big Lagoon Results

Year No. of Transects No. of Scallops Scallops/200m2
2015 33 0 0.00
2016 47 0 0.00
2017 16 0 0.00
2018 28 0 0.00
2019 17 0 0.00
2020 16 1 0.12
2021 18 0 0.00
2022 38 0 0.00
2023 43 2 0.09
2024 67 101 3.02
2025 76 0 0.00
Big Lagoon Overall 399 104 0.52

 

2015 – 2025 Santa Rosa Sound Results

 

Year No. of Transects No. of Scallops Scallops/200m2
2015 01 0 0.00
2016 01 0 0.00
2017 01 0 0.00
2018 01 0 0.00
2019 01 0 0.00
2020 01 0 0.00
2021 20 0 0.00
2022 40 2 0.11
2023 28 2 0.14
2024 85 32 0.76
2025 86 8 0.19
Santa Rosa Sound Overall 2591 44 0.34

 

1 Transects were conducted during these years but data for Santa Rosa Sound was logged by an intern with the Santa Rosa County Extension Office and is currently unavailable.

 

Discussion

Based on a Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute publication in 2018, the final criteria are used to classify scallop populations in Florida.

Scallop Population / 200m2 Classification
0-2 Collapsed
2-20 Vulnerable
20-200 Stable

Based on this, over the last nine years we have surveyed, the populations in lower Pensacola Bay are still collapsed.  Big Lagoon reached the vulnerable level in 2024, but no scallops were found there in 2025, returning to a collapsed state.

There are some possible explanations for low numbers in 2025.

  • It has been reported by some shellfish biologists that bay scallops have a “boom-bust” cycle. Meaning that one year their populations “boom” before returning to normal numbers.  We could have witnessed this between 2024 and 2025.
  • Though we did not monitor water temperatures, July 2025 was extremely hot, and many volunteers reported their sites felt like “bath water”. Collecting efforts on other projects during July reported not capturing anything – no pinfish, hermit crabs – their nets were empty.  It is possible that these warm conditions could have caused many organisms to move to deeper/cooler depths.  Note here; as the project moved into August temperatures did begin to cool and searchers began reporting fish, conchs, blue crabs, and rays.

The Pensacola Bay area continues to have a collapsed system.  The larger populations found in 2024 suggest that there are scallops in the area but may not be enough to increase their population status from collapsed to vulnerable.  We will continue to monitor each July.

It is important for locals NOT to harvest scallops from either body of water.  First, it is illegal.  Second, any chance of recovering this lost population will be lost if the adult population densities are not high enough for reproductive success.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank ALL 138 volunteers who surveyed this year.  We obviously could not have done this without you.

Below are the “team captains”.

Ethan Sadowski                                          John Imhof                       Kaden Luttermoser

John Wooten                                               Susan Pinard                  Matt MacGregor

Christian Wagley                                        Sean Hickey                    Jason Buck

Brian Mitchell                                              Angela Guttman            Caitlen Murrell

Samantha Brady (USM)                            Michelle Noa                  Kira Benton

Monica Hines                                              Wesley Allen                   Kelly Krueger

Mikala Drees                                               Jonathan Borowski        Michael Currey

Gina Hertz                                                    Melinda Thoms              Beau Vignes

Bill Garner                                                    Robert Moreland            Stephanie Kissoon

Nick Roest                                                   Leah Yelverton

A team of scallop searchers celebrates after finding a few scallops in Pensacola Bay.

Volunteer measures a scallop he found.
Photo: Abby Nonnenmacher

 

Our Environment: Part 19 – Hydroelectric Power

Our Environment: Part 19 – Hydroelectric Power

This form of renewable energy has been used for decades.  Water at higher elevations flows towards the sea.  Placing a hydroelectric dam on such a waterway the flowing water can turn the turbines and generate electricity.  It is the number one source of renewable energy around the world, and – when including environmental costs – one of the least expensive way to generate electricity.

In 2011 much of the world was looking towards increasing hydroelectric power.  Today it is the number one form of renewable energy around the world and growth is predicted to remain stable through 2030.  One issue of hydropower is droughts generated by climate change.  The are other concerns as well – such as the production of methane from anaerobic decomposition from submerged plants on the bottom of the reservoirs, and the build up of silt within the turbines coming from the rivers flowing through them.

Advantages Disadvantages
Moderate to high net energy High construction costs
High efficiency (80%) High environmental impact from flooding due to the reservoir
Low-cost electricity High CO2 emissions from rapid biomass decay in shallow tropical reservoirs
Long life span Danger of collapse
No CO2 emissions during operation in temperate areas Uproots people
Provides irrigation water Decreases fish harvest below dam
Reservoir useful for recreation Decreases need silt below dam

Hydroelectric power has its pros and cons.
Photo: Energytheory.

 

References

Projected Costs of Generating Electricity by 2020. International Energy Agency. https://www.iea.org/reports/projected-costs-of-generating-electricity-2020.

Hydroelectricity. International Energy Agency. https://www.iea.org/energy-system/renewables/hydroelectricity.

Miller, G.T., Spoolman, S.E. 2011. Living in the Environment. Brooks/Cole Cengage Learning. Belmont CA. pp. 674.