Monitoring the Galapagos

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Image: NASA/SEAWiFS

Nearly a month after the fuel spill in the Galapagos Islands, only nine animals are known to have died, thanks to intensive clean-up efforts and favorable ocean currents. But scientists may not know the real impact on the area¿s plants and animals, many of which are unique to these islands, for years to come. "The birds and mammals are the most visible, but they only constitute a small fraction of the ecological system," Wayne Landis of Western Washington University observes. "The [chemicals] that are toxic to birds and mammals are also toxic to the invertebrates and algae and other things that are in aquatic systems. So a lot of the damage isn¿t readily observed in these kinds of spills." Invertebrates, and photosynthetic organisms like phytoplankton, although not nearly so noticeable as other Galapagos inhabitants, are eaten by the larger creatures. Thus, if they are affected, down the road the more conspicuous creatures will be too.

To monitor long-term effects of the spill on the Galapagos ecosystem, researchers are turning to ground- and satellite-based tools. NASA¿s Sea-viewing Wide Field-of-view Sensor (SEAWiFS) satellite, for example, will supply data on how the phytoplankton in particular fares in the aftermath of the event. With a resolution of one square kilometer, SEAWiFS assesses phytoplankton levels by measuring the color of the water: the greener the water, the more phytoplankton it contains. (The image pictured above, taken by the SEAWiFS satellite, shows the spill as it appeared five days after fuel began leaking from the shipwreck.)


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Researchers at the Charles Darwin Foundation expect that a systematic evaluation of the fuel spill¿s short-term impact will take up to three months. Evaluation of its long-term ecological repercussions, however, is likely to continue for two to three years.

Kate Wong is an award-winning science writer and senior editor for features at Scientific American, where she has focused on evolution, ecology, anthropology, archaeology, paleontology and animal behavior. She is fascinated by human origins, which she has covered for nearly 30 years. Recently she has become obsessed with birds. Her reporting has taken her to caves in France and Croatia that Neandertals once called home to the shores of Kenya’s Lake Turkana in search of the oldest stone tools in the world, as well as to Madagascar on an expedition to unearth ancient mammals and dinosaurs, the icy waters of Antarctica, where humpback whales feast on krill, and a “Big Day” race around the state of Connecticut to find as many bird species as possible in 24 hours. Wong is co-author, with Donald Johanson, of Lucy’s Legacy: The Quest for Human Origins. She holds a bachelor of science degree in biological anthropology and zoology from the University of Michigan. Follow her on Bluesky @katewong.bsky.social

More by Kate Wong

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe