443

REVIEW
The effects of modern war and military activities on
biodiversity and the environment
Michael J. Lawrence, Holly L.J. Stemberger, Aaron J. Zolderdo, Daniel P. Struthers, and Steven J. Cooke

Abstract: War is an ever-present force that has the potential to alter the biosphere. Here we review the potential consequences
of modern war and military activities on ecosystem structure and function. We focus on the effects of direct conflict, nuclear
weapons, military training, and military produced contaminants. Overall, the aforementioned activities were found to have
Environ. Rev. Downloaded from cdnsciencepub.com by 182.253.87.196 on 01/08/24

overwhelmingly negative effects on ecosystem structure and function. Dramatic habitat alteration, environmental pollution,
and disturbance contributed to population declines and biodiversity losses arising from both acute and chronic effects in both
terrestrial and aquatic systems. In some instances, even in the face of massive alterations to ecosystem structure, recovery was
possible. Interestingly, military activity was beneficial under specific conditions, such as when an exclusion zone was generated
that generally resulted in population increases and (or) population recovery; an observation noted in both terrestrial and aquatic
systems. Additionally, military technological advances (e.g., GPS technology, drone technology, biotelemetry) have provided
conservation scientists with novel tools for research. Because of the challenges associated with conducting research in areas with
military activities (e.g., restricted access, hazardous conditions), information pertaining to military impacts on the environment
are relatively scarce and are often studied years after military activities have ceased and with no knowledge of baseline
conditions. Additional research would help to elucidate the environmental consequences (positive and negative) and thus reveal
opportunities for mitigating negative effects while informing the development of optimal strategies for rehabilitation and
recovery.
For personal use only.

Key words: war, biodiversity, ecosystem structure, conflict, military activities, environment, conservation biology.

Résumé : La guerre est une force omniprésente ayant le potentiel d'altérer l'atmosphère. Les auteurs passent en revue les
conséquences potentielles des activités guerrières et militaires modernes sur la structure et le fonctionnement des écosystèmes.
On met l'accent sur les effets directs et indirects des conflits, des armes nucléaires, des entrainements militaires et des contam-
inants des produits militaires. Dans l'ensemble, on constate que les activités préalablement mentionnées ont des effets négatifs
écrasants sur la structure et le fonctionnement des écosystèmes. Avec des altérations dramatiques des habitats, la pollution et les
perturbations environnementales contribuent au déclin des populations et aux pertes de biodiversité provenant des effets aigus
et chroniques sur les systèmes terrestres aussi bien qu'aquatiques. Tout de même dans certains cas, en présence d'altérations
massives de la structure des écosystèmes, la récupération s'est avérée possible. Il est intéressant de noter qu'une activité militaire
fut bénéfique sous des conditions spécifiques telles que la création d'une zone d'exclusion, en générant des augmentations
générales des populations/ou une reprise des populations; ceci fut observé en milieux terrestres aussi bien qu'aquatiques. De
plus, les avances des technologies militaires (p. ex. la technologie GPS, les drones, la biotélémétrie) ont fourni aux scientifiques
de la conservation de nouveaux outils pour la recherche. Compte tenu des défis associés avec la conduite de recherches dans les
sites d'activités militaires (p. ex. accès restreint, conditions dangereuses) les informations concernant les impacts militaires sur
l'environnement sont relativement rares et ne sont étudiées qu'après nombreuses années après la fin les activités militaires sans
connaissance des conditions des lignes de base au départ. En plus, la recherche aiderait à élucider les conséquences environne-
mentales (positives et négatives), révélant ainsi des opportunités pour mitiger les effets négatifs, tout en fournissant des
informations pour le développement de stratégies optimales pour la récupération et la réhabilitation. [Traduit par la Rédaction]

Mots-clés : guerre, biodiversité, structure des écosystèmes, conflit, activités militaires, environnement, biologie de la conserva-
tion.

Introduction also been documented as having a significant influence on the

Conflict has been an ever-present aspect of human civilization. biosphere across a range of ecological scales (Dudley et al. 2002;
Indeed, the manifestation of conflict in direct combat and mili- Machlis and Hanson 2008). The degree to which warfare can exert
tary engagements has continuously plagued the world through- an impact upon an ecosystem and its constituent populations
out the 20th century leading to more than 100 million human rests entirely on the nature of the disturbance, the sensitivity of
deaths across a number of major and minor wars (Westing 1980; the biological system (including resilience), and the timescale of
Pendersen 2002; Sarkees et al. 2003; Leitenberg 2006). Beyond the impacts (Westing 1971; Demarais et al. 1999; Dudley et al. 2002;
war’s rather obvious negative impacts on human populations Warren and Büttner 2006; Warren et al. 2007). Consequently, hu-
(Pendersen 2002; Machlis and Hanson 2008), human warfare has man conflict has the potential to impart a wide range of impacts

Received 20 June 2015. Accepted 14 September 2015.

M.J. Lawrence, A.J. Zolderdo, D.P. Struthers, and S.J. Cooke. Fish Ecology and Conservation Physiology Laboratory, Department of Biology and
Institute of Environmental Science, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Dr., Ottawa, ON K1S 5B6, Canada.
H.L.J. Stemberger. Department of Biology, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON K1S 5B6, Canada.
Corresponding author: Michael J. Lawrence (e-mail: [email protected]).

Environ. Rev. 23: 443–460 (2015) dx.doi.org/10.1139/er-2015-0039 Published at www.nrcresearchpress.com/er on 17 September 2015.
 444 Environ. Rev. Vol. 23, 2015

on biodiversity and ecosystem structure and function. Interest- representing both sub-lethal and lethal impacts that have the
ingly, although one may presume that all conflict is overwhelm- potential to cause permanent damage; a factor that is influenced
ingly “negative” in an ecological context, in reality the consequences by acoustic duration, intensity, and the biology of the specific
of warfare generate a continuum of outcomes ranging from species. Primary effects can include eardrum rupture, shifts in
highly positive to highly detrimental. hearing abilities (either temporary or permanent), and (or) audi-
While a large body of knowledge of the consequences of war tory signal masking (e.g., unable to identify noises from prey,
on the ecological dynamics of a variety of biological systems is predators, or mates). Secondary effects are related to physiologi-
known, a comprehensive assessment of these impacts has yet to cal impacts (Manci et al. 1988), which can lead to impediments in
be conducted. Current reviews on the subject often frame ecolog- reproduction, foraging behaviour, and natural habitat use of
ical changes in the greater context of socioeconomic factors and wildlife residing in areas where aircraft noise is prevalent
human interactions, which are often restricted to terrestrial (Francis 2011). Tertiary impacts consist of a combination of pri-
mammalian megafauna (e.g., Dudley et al. 2002; Machlis and mary and secondary effects that can lead to population declines,
Hanson 2008). Thus, the purpose of this review will be to address species extinction, and habitat degradation (Klein 1973; Bender
the specific impacts of modern warfare (i.e., turn of the 20th cen- 1977; Manci et al. 1988).
tury) on ecosystem structure (especially biodiversity and the sta- Ecosystem structure has been affected by means beyond noise
tus of populations and communities) and ecosystem function in a pollution from military aircraft. For example, during World
Environ. Rev. Downloaded from cdnsciencepub.com by 182.253.87.196 on 01/08/24

variety of systems (e.g., aquatic, terrestrial). For the sake of sim- War II (WWII), aircraft acted as a vector for the transportation of
plicity, our analysis will be restricted to the following impacts of exotics whereby weeds and cultivated species were brought to
military activities: direct armed conflict (between two or more oceanic island ecosystems by way of aircraft landing strips used
factions), nuclear warfare, military training, and military-produced for refueling and staging stations during operations in the Pacific
chemical and metals contamination. For the entirety of this re- theatre (Stoddart 1968). Prior to the war, these isolated islands
view, the term warfare will encompass the preparation (e.g., train- were home to a number of sensitive and endemic species that had
ing, material development, and testing), mobilization, conflict, naturally dispersed to their current positions. However, in the
and related activities of nations or factions involved in a military aftermath of aerial warfare events, large numbers of invasive spe-
operation against one another. This review will also limit its scope cies had become established on these small islands, which altered
to include assessments of the impacts of military activities on the evolutionary pathways of native species causing competitive
ecosystem structure and function during the “preparations for exclusion, predation, and extinction of endemic species (Mooney
war”, “violent conflict”, and “post-war activities” phases, as out- and Cleland 2001). Aerial warfare also has had a great influence on
lined in Machlis and Hanson (2008). As such, any activity that altering population dynamics directly. Air-to-ground assaults are
For personal use only.

directly relates to preparation and (or) is a product of war, outside known to cause elevations in wildlife mortality (Zahler and
of civilian operations, will be considered an aspect of warfare. Graham 2001; Gangwar 2003) and destroy natural habitat (Levy
Our assessment will encompass a continuum-based approach et al. 1997) both of which may contribute to a localized population
whereby both the negative and positive impacts of the preceding decline. Conventional aerial assault weapons are generally cate-
factors are highlighted appropriately. gorized into four groups, which include: high explosive frag-
mentation, incendiary weapons, enhanced blast munitions, and
Active armed conflict defoliants; all of which have potential to destroy wildlife and
Armed conflict is the act of war generated by two or more natural habitat in different ways and with varying degrees of
governmental groups, non-governmental groups, or interna- severity (reviewed in Majeed 2004). These impacts have been illus-
tional states that generally involves a combination of active mili- trated in a number of species including Asian elephants (Elephas
tary actions, including aerial assaults, naval craft operations, or maximus; Chadwick 1992; Dudley et al. 2002) and snow leopards
ground forces (ICRC 2008; Machlis and Hanson 2008; Pearson (Panthera uncia; Zahler and Graham 2001) where aerial combat
2012). Often, natural ecosystems are termed “terrain” in military maneuvers were observed to decimate entire forest ecosystems
battlespace terminology (O’May et al. 2005; Visone 2005; Hieb leaving behind stumps and craters, alongside contaminated and
et al. 2007), taking on an anthropogenic rather than an eco-centric destabilized soils (Levy et al. 1997).
view of natural landscapes during periods of armed conflict. As a
result, ecosystem health and integrity are often neglected casuali- Naval operations
ties of warfare with little responsibility from involved factions in Naval conflict between foreign nations has a diverse range of
contributing to conservation efforts (Gangwar 2003; Clark and effects on the marine environment. Like aircraft, ships have been
Jorgenson 2012). The consequences of active armed conflict range implicated in introducing foreign species to otherwise uncoloni-
across a spectrum of ecological scales and lead to unexpected and sable regions under normal circumstances. This has been achieved
complex outcomes — either beneficial, negative, or a combina- through the dumping of ballast waters (Apte et al. 2000) and the
tion of these two. This component of the paper highlights a introduction of naval structures or materials into the region
number of types of active warfare engagement forms including (Tavares and De Melo 2004). As an example of the latter, the brown
airborne, naval, and ground warfare activities, which have de- tree snake (Boiga irregularis) was introduced into Guam in 1949 just
monstrable impacts on ecosystem structure and function. after WWII, most likely as a stowaway on boats salvaging materi-
als from a port in New Guinea (Rodda and Savidge 2007). This
Aerial assault species has subsequently invaded all terrestrial ecosystems in
Aircraft (both rotary and fixed-wing) are commonly used in Guam leading to the extirpation of many bird and lizard species,
military operations and can produce bursts of noise (e.g., sonic as well as a number of other native invertebrates thus having a
booms, jet afterburners, rotary pulses, etc). The auditory system is measurable effect on the local biodiversity (Rodda and Savidge
more sensitive in many animals compared to that of humans 2007).
(Manci et al. 1988; Larkin et al. 1996) and thus aerial activities Naval blasts and sonar operations during active periods of war-
possess a significant source of noise pollution that is of global fare have the potential to interfere with the daily lives of many
concern for the wellbeing of wildlife (Dunnet 1977; Dufour 1980; aquatic species. The acoustic frequency used by dolphins and
Gladwin et al. 1988). The production of noise from military aircraft whales coincides with that used by naval sonar devices, which can
has variable impacts on wildlife, which encompass primary, sec- cause ear hemorrhaging and beach stranding (Science Wire 2001;
ondary, and tertiary effects ( Janssen 1980; reviewed in Manci et al. NRDC 2003). In addition to this, conventional naval ordinance
1988). These effects can occur over an acute or chronic timescale (e.g., depth charges, torpedoes) create substantial underwater

Published by NRC Research Press

 Lawrence et al. 445

blasts that can inflict overpressure and fragmentation injury to Fig. 1. The Korean Demilitarized Zone. The Demilitarized Zone
invertebrates, fish, reptiles, birds, and marine mammals in prox- (DMZ) on the Korean peninsula serves as a protected area for many
imity of the blast radius (Gaspin 1975; Westing 1980; Ketten 1995; endemic and endangered species (Kim 1997; Healy 2007). The Korean
reviewed in Keevin and Hempen 1997; see the section entitled DMZ is a 4 km wide by 250 km long strip of natural land that has
“Nuclear warfare” for more on blast injury). separated North and South Korea since 1953 with the Armistice
While there are a number of negative impacts associated with Agreement (Kim 1997). This area is home to 3514 species, which
naval operations, marine environments have profited from this equates to 67% of the species diversity of the Korean Peninsula, most
activity in a number of ways. Fish populations greatly benefited of which are endemic to this small plot of land (Healy 2007). One of
from the activities occurring in the North Atlantic during WWII the world’s most endangered bird species, the White-Naped Crane
whereby sensitive and overexploited populations were given time (Grus vipio) relies on the Korean DMZ for critical overwintering
to recover from anthropogenic disturbances and fisheries exploi- habitat for 50% of the remaining population. As well, areas within
tation (Beare et al. 2010) as fishing fleets were drastically reduced the DMZ are also reported as important resting locations during the
in size resulting from their participation in naval operations in- north–south migration for a large proportion of the crane
cluding mine sweeping and shipping supplies (Gulland 1968; population in addition to numerous other bird species (Higuchi
Engelhard 2008). If not called to assist in military services, then et al. 1996; Healy 2007). Photo credit: Adrian Pingstone, Wikimedia
fishing vessels were often harboured and, therefore, excluded Commons, 2006.
Environ. Rev. Downloaded from cdnsciencepub.com by 182.253.87.196 on 01/08/24

from fishing activity because of threats at sea from naval or aerial

strikes and subsurface mining (Beare et al. 2010). During this pe-
riod of war, large areas in the Atlantic Ocean functioned as marine
protected areas for several years, which allowed commercial fish
populations to proliferate with a reduction in fishing effort (Beare
et al. 2010). During this time, it was observed that the reduction in
fishing mortality altered the age-structure dynamics of gadoid
fisheries resulting in a larger proportion of mature and larger
fish, which allowed populations to proliferate to a greater extent
(Beare et al. 2010). Additionally, opportunistic species (e.g., oce-
anic whitetip sharks, Carcharhinus longimanus) have been reported
as benefiting from the casualties associated with naval ship
wrecks provided a rich food source during periods of warfare
For personal use only.

representing an acute “ecological bonanza” (Bass et al. 1973). In-

directly, the occurrence of naval warfare allowed fisheries and
other untargeted species to rebound and proliferate, which may
not have otherwise occurred in its absence.
Naval conflicts, particularly during WWII, also led to the cre-
ation of heterogeneous habitats that would not exist otherwise.
During WWII, there was a global expansion with ocean-going
vessels that navigated the coastal and pelagic waters of the Atlan-
tic and South-Pacific oceans to engage hostile countries. Although
this led to devastating consequences for human life, the resulting
ship wrecks created a large number of artificial reefs where uated to gunfire noise on the battlefields of WWII; they were often
aquatic life could colonize, utilize, and flourish (Hynes et al. 2004). sighted foraging on casualities in the aftermath of battles (Orians
While there are concerns regarding long-term contamination and Pfeiffer 1970; Westing 1980; McNeely 2003), which may
with sunken naval craft (Westing 1980; Martore et al. 1998; acutely benefit the species as in the case of marine predators
Ampleman et al. 2004; Monfils 2005; Barrett 2011; see the section illustrated earlier.
entitled “Military contamination”), these vessels have proven to The weapons employed by militaries probably pose the greatest
be a source of new habitat for aquatic life in areas of the ocean hazard by terrestrial conflicts to ecosystem structure. The numer-
that were largely devoid of structure for animals to colonize ous explosive techniques and tools at the disposal of army forces
(Hynes et al. 2004). during ground warfare have left a legacy on landscapes across the
globe by leaving large craters, shrapnel, and contamination, thus
Terrestrial conflict devastating many ecosystems across the biosphere (Westing 1980;
Ground warfare often takes place in sensitive and remote loca- Hupy 2008; Certini et al. 2013). Landmines applied during active
tions around the globe. Indeed, a large number of biological hot- ground warfare have left a lasting legacy on the environment and
spots have set the stage for major ground conflict events (Hart still remain a major threat to biodiversity, even decades after
et al. 1997; Kim 1997; Hanson et al. 2009). Furthermore, modern being deployed (Westing 1985; Roberts and Williams 1995; re-
ground warfare has often altered natural landscapes and im- viewed in Berhe 2007). However, landmines may help ecosystems
pacted wildlife in a number of different ways. Often, soldiers were recuperate after heavy impact from armed conflict by creating a
positioned for on-ground battle within critical habitats of en- “no-mans-land” in an analogous manner to a game reserve or park
demic and endangered species (Shambaugh et al. 2001; Zahler and as seen in the case of the cranes in the demilitarized zone of the
Graham 2001; Hanson et al. 2009; Lindsell et al. 2011) representing Korean Peninsula (Fig. 1; Higuchi et al. 1996; Kim 1997; Dudley
a potential threat to these organisms. As one may expect, armed et al. 2002). Landmines do not differentiate between soldiers and
conflict found within terrestrial ecosystems often facilitates wildlife (especially large mammals) and therefore, many organ-
poaching by military forces (Shambaugh et al. 2001; Draulans and isms have been damaged or killed directly from landmine explo-
Van Krunkelsven 2002; Dudley et al. 2002) and can promote fur- sions (Westing 1996; Shambaugh et al. 2001; Zahler and Graham
ther destruction of the landscape and wildlife populations by dis- 2001; Berhe 2007). Indeed, landmines have been responsible for
placed refugees of war (Shambaugh et al. 2001; Dudley et al. 2002; pushing at risk species closer to extinction (e.g., elephants in
McNeely 2003; Dubey and Shreni 2008). In contrast, there are Africa, leopards in Afghanistan; Troll 2000) and deteriorating
reports of large adaptable predators, including Bengal tigers ecosystem integrity by destroying vegetation and degrading soil
(Panthera tigris tigris) and grey wolves (Canis lupus) becoming habit- structure (Miller 1972; Berhe 2007).

Published by NRC Research Press

 446 Environ. Rev. Vol. 23, 2015

Artillery fire also poses a risk to the environment. During World et al. 1990; Moreira and Russo 2007; Lindenmayer et al. 2008). In
War I and WWII, artillery weapons were positioned behind sol- contrast to plant life, there is comparatively little research on the
diers and were fired towards the opposing factions with the capa- effects of thermal impacts from nuclear blasts on animals, hu-
bility of firing hundreds of shells per hour (Hupy 2008). Troops mans notwithstanding. Thermal wave exposure has been re-
often found shelter or fought battles in forested areas resulting in ported to cause severe whole body burns on unprotected skin in
heavy artillery fire on these regions, devastating the local ecosys- humans (Oughterson et al. 1951; Kajitani and Hatano 1953;
tem and associated biodiversity (Hupy 2008). Decades after WWII, Oughterson and Warren 1956; Nishiwaki 1995). In the bombings
craters in Verdun, France, produced by heavy artillery fire still of Japan, fatal burns and mild non-lethal burns were observed
remain devoid of vegetative growth; deep craters extending to the within 1.2–2.5 km and 3–4 km from the epicentre, respectively,
water table cause hydric conditions, making them unsuitable for (Oughterson et al. 1951; Oughterson and Warren 1956; Glasstone
colonization by terrestrial plant species (Hupy 2006). Thus, shell- 1964; Nishiwaki 1995) with the former resulting in a large propor-
ing can result in chronic legacy impacts in addition to acute influ- tion of the total deaths (⬃30%) during this event (Oughterson and
ences (e.g., instant mortality). Warren 1956; Glasstone 1964; Nishiwaki 1995). Additionally, ther-
Terrestrial conflicts have been known to target military and mal radiation, along with high intensity visible radiation, can also
civilian infrastructure to stifle opposing factions. Ground forces, result in severe retinal burning in humans (Oyama and Sasaki
in the past, have used explosives to destroy hydropower dams 1946; Rose et al. 1956; Glasstone 1964). There is no reason to as-
Environ. Rev. Downloaded from cdnsciencepub.com by 182.253.87.196 on 01/08/24

(Sweetman 1982; Gleick 1993; Clodfelter 2006) and dikes (Lacoste sume that similar consequences would not be observed among
1973) as a means to impede the mobility of countering factions terrestrial wildlife, especially mammals.
(Francis 2011). The abrupt removal of long-established dams can Experimental tests of simulated and (or) actual nuclear weap-
cause a number of ecological consequences, such as siltation, ons produced thermal energy exposure in rats (Alpen and Sheline
mortality of fish and wildlife populations situated above and be- 1954), dogs (Brooks et al. 1952; Richmond et al. 1959a), rabbits
low the dam (e.g., abrasion, suffocation, habitat loss), and produce (Byrnes et al. 1955; DuPont Guerry et al. 1956; Ham et al. 1957), and
lasting physical, chemical, and biological legacies (Bednarek 2001;
swine (Baxter et al. 1953; McDonnel et al. 1961; Hinshaw 1968) have
Stanley and Doyle 2003).
generated analogous effects as seen in humans suggesting that
Nuclear warfare wild mammals may have a similar burn response during a nuclear
detonation. Severe burns were also reported in teleost fish that
The development and use of nuclear warheads, in both times of were in close proximity to the detonation of the warhead in Bikini
peace and conflict, has undoubtedly left a significant scar on the Atoll (Donaldson et al. 1997). Not surprisingly, in simulated exper-
Earth’s surface. As of the late 1990s, more than 2000 nuclear weap- iments, severe burns increased the rates of mammalian mortality,
For personal use only.

ons tests have been conducted around the world (Yang et al. 2003). resulting from general physiological disturbances and secondary
The detonation of a nuclear warhead represents a significant infection occurring 0–2 weeks “post-blast” (Brooks et al. 1952;
threat to local biodiversity as, unlike conventional ordinance, the Alpen and Sheline 1954; McDonnel et al. 1961). This effect was also
energy released is partitioned into three distinct categories in-
amplified under a combined thermal and radiation exposure re-
cluding thermal (35%), kinetic (50%), and radioactive (15%) ener-
sulting in a severely immunocompromised, physiologically dis-
gies (Glasstone 1964; Brode 1968; Nishiwaki 1995; Eisenbud and
turbed individual (Brooks et al. 1952; Baxter et al. 1953; Alpen and
Gesell 1997). Here we will review the documented and potential
Sheline 1954; Valeriote and Baker 1964; Ledney et al. 1992) similar
effects of each of these detonation impacts on ecosystem struc-
to what is believed to occur in humans (Nishiwaki et al. 2000).
ture and function.
Scaling these effects up, it would be highly likely that thermal
Thermal impacts emission exposure would result in a large die-off event in the
Thermal emissions from nuclear blasts can have a number of local animal life thereby reducing local populations and, poten-
impacts on local ecosystems. The immense release of thermal tially, reducing local species richness over an acute timeframe
energy at the detonation’s epicentre results in temperatures far in (0–2 weeks). It should be noted that the intensity of the burns is likely
excess of 3000 °C (Brode 1968; Pinaev and Shcherbakov 1996). As to be a product of the distance from the epicentre as the thermal
such, thermal emissions pose a lethal force to any life in the wave will gradually reduce in magnitude (Brooks et al. 1952;
vicinity of the epicentre resulting from incineration (Glasstone McDonnel et al. 1961; Glasstone 1964), a factor that must be ac-
1964; Lifton 1967) as seen in the bombings of Japan (Summary knowledged when predicting the expected impacts on animal
Report of Research in the Effects of the Atomic Bomb 1951; populations. However, this effect would not be equal for all crea-
Silberner 1981; Ruhm et al. 2006; Ochiai 2014). Beyond the epicen- tures as rats on Bikini Atoll were able to avoid both thermal and
tre, an outward thermal wave (100–1000 °C) moves radially (a dis- kinetic emissions from warhead testing even in close proximity to
tance dependent on the bomb strength) (Brode 1968) and is a the blast as a product of their subterranean existence (Donaldson
serious risk to most life over its expansion. Here, local vegetation et al. 1997). As such, we would expect that species occupying “shel-
is burnt and defoliated, often perishing through the extreme heat tered” habitats may not experience a large die-off as described
(Palumbo 1962; Shields and Wells 1962; Shields et al. 1963; Craft earlier.
1964) representing severe reductions in plant species richness and
abundances (Palumbo 1962; Shields and Wells 1962; Shields et al. Blast effects
1963), not unlike an intense forest fire (Noble and Slatyer 1980; As mentioned earlier, in a nuclear warhead detonation, blast
Rowell and Moore 2000; Grace and Keeley 2006). The spatial ex- energy accounts for approximately 50% of the total emitted en-
tent to which vegetation burning occurs is highly dependent on ergy that moves away from the epicentre in a radial pattern
the status (e.g., moisture content) and composition of the vegeta- (Randall 1961; Glasstone 1962; Glasstone 1964; Eisenbud and Gesell
tive assemblages present in the blast area (Chandler et al. 1963; 1997). The large amount of kinetic energy emanating from the
Craft 1964; Small and Bush 1985). Some have speculated that ther- blast (1–3500+ kPa) is especially damaging to plants whereby the
mal emissions may indirectly impact adjacent forests and vegeta- blast force is capable of denuding foliage as well as damaging
tive regions, through the generation and spread of wildfires branch structure and uprooting vegetation from the soil (Shields
(Chandler et al. 1963; Craft 1964) that may extend the immediate and Wells 1962; Palumbo 1962; Shields et al. 1963; Beatley 1966;
population and (or) diversity reduction outside of the blast area Glasstone and Dolan 1977; Hunter 1991) effectively destroying a
for both plants (Noble and Slatyer 1980; Rowell and Moore 2000; large proportion of the surrounding plant life and primary pro-
Grace and Keeley 2006) and animals (Singer et al. 1989; Kaufman duction.

Published by NRC Research Press

 Lawrence et al. 447

Animals caught within the blast wave can be impacted in a Fig. 2. The Marshall Islands Reef Recovery. During the decades
number of ways. Terrestrial species are likely to experience dam- following WWII, the testing of nuclear weapons by the United States
age resulting from overpressure injury. Using blast pressures sim- military was well underway. The Marshall Islands were home to a
ilar to what has been reported during nuclear explosions, rats great number of nuclear detonations comprising a total of 66 test
experienced severe lung damage as well as large degrees of hem- blasts that left the surrounding environment devastated. However,
orrhaging in various regions of the body (Jaffin et al. 1987). Similar because of the area having large degrees of residual radioactivity,
effects have been noted in a number of other vertebrate species human exclusion from many of the test site islands has generated a
(Richmond et al. 1959a, 1959b; Goldizen et al. 1961; Richmond and marine protected area of sorts alleviating anthropogenic stress from
White 1962; Candole 1967; Jaffin et al. 1987; Mayorga 1997) with the region (Donaldson et al. 1997; Berger et al. 2008). As such, the
the extent of physiological damage dependent upon the mass system has been allowed to recover in isolation for the greater part
of the animal (larger animals are less susceptible to injury; of the last half century and has produced some interesting results.
Richmond and White 1962; Jaffin et al. 1987) as well as the magni- With the exception of a few specialized species, scleractinian coral
tude and duration of the over-pressure exposure (Candole 1967). diversity has rebounded on a number of reefs affected by nuclear
Unsurprisingly, mortality in these trials was elevated (Richmond testing (Richards et al. 2008). As well, the size-frequency
et al. 1959a, 1959b; Richmond and White 1962; Jaffin et al. 1987) distribution, an indicator of biomass, of many fish taxonomic
which, under an actual nuclear detonation, would be expected to groups within former blast sites have been observed to be much
Environ. Rev. Downloaded from cdnsciencepub.com by 182.253.87.196 on 01/08/24

increase mortality rates in exposed populations. Further exacer- greater than that of the surrounding waters unaffected by nuclear
bating these effects would be the large amount of debris and testing (Houk and Musburger 2013). While nuclear testing is
shrapnel carried through the air by the blast causing injury and devastating on an acute timescale, it may prove to be beneficial to
death to animals in the surrounding area (Candole 1967; Mayorga the local ecosystem over a more chronic duration through human
1997). This effect has been directly observed during a nuclear det- exclusion. Photo Credit: United States Department of Defense, 1946.
onation on both humans (Shaeffer 1957; Liebow 1983; Kishi 2000)
and other mammalian species (Goldizen et al. 1961; McDonnel
et al. 1961; Masco 2004).
Aquatic organisms are particularly sensitive to the effects of a
blast. While direct evidence is rather limited in the literature,
nuclear detonations in proximity to aquatic environments have
been shown to result in large fish population die-offs (Kirkwood
1970; Merritt 1970, 1973; Kirkwood and Fuller 1972; Planes et al.
For personal use only.

2005) demonstrating similar impacts to conventional ordinance

explosion on fish mortality on a much larger scale (Govoni et al.
2008; Popper and Hastings 2009). This is primarily a result of the
anatomical design of teleost fish having a gas-filled swim bladder
that is easily ruptured upon exposure to large pressure differen-
tials (Simenstad 1974; Yelvertton et al. 1975; Baxter et al. 1982;
Planes et al. 2005; Popper and Hastings 2009). Marine mammals,
given the presence of large gas-filled lungs, would also be ex-
pected to suffer high rates of mortality under a nuclear blast
resulting from severe lung damage in a manner similar to that of
fish swim bladders (Baxter et al. 1982; Goertner 1982). Marine
mammals in proximity to a warhead detonation experienced se-
vere lung damage and elevated mortality (Kirkwood and Fuller
1972; Rausch 1973). This effect also extended to diving birds and prosperity of organisms found in these areas, as in the case of
(Kirkwood and Fuller 1972; Rausch 1973). Interestingly, inverte- the atolls of the Marshall Islands (see Fig. 2; Davis 2007; Richards
brates are not seemingly affected by pressure waves in aquatic et al. 2008; Houk and Musburger 2013).
systems (Isakason 1974; Baxter et al. 1982) and are unlikely to be
impacted, in this manner, under a nuclear blast. However, not all Radiation impacts
invertebrates are equal, in respect to kinetic energy disturbances, Nuclear weapons emit a portion of their energy as ionizing,
in that warhead detonation over coral reefs leads to widespread radioactive emissions either as electromagnetic radiation (e.g.,
coral death presumably through mechanical disruption from the gamma and X-rays) or through radionuclides of various elements
blast (Richards et al. 2008). While most of the coral community (Aarkrog 1988; Robison and Noshkin 1999; Whicker and Pinder
appears able to recover, highly turbid conditions generated dur- 2002), which are accumulated primarily through direct exposure
ing blasts have led to the extinction of calm water specialist coral or through consumption of producers, respectively (Donaldson
species on some reefs (Richards et al. 2008). et al. 1997; Entry and Watrud 1998; Whicker and Pinder 2002).
Both thermal and kinetic impacts of a nuclear detonation occur However, the effects of radioactivity on life are variable. Over an
over an acute timeframe and would likely result in a great reduc- acute timescale, provided sufficient activity (<2 Gy), radiation ex-
tion in the abundances and diversity of local flora and fauna. posure in humans can result in the development of radiation
However, over a more chronic duration, these impacts are likely poisoning that can manifest itself as (depending on the dose) hem-
to be minimal as populations and diversity could recover through orrhaging, blood cell and tissue destruction, and mortality in
dispersal to the area as well as contributions from surviving or- doses in excess of 6 Gy (Prosser et al. 1947; Ohkita 1975; Guskova
ganisms. Indeed, this has been observed in a number of plant et al. 2001; Mettler 2001) thus accounting for the elevated mortal-
(Palumbo 1962; Shields and Wells 1962; Shields et al. 1963; Beatley ity rate in the bombings of Japan (Ohkita 1975). Similar effects
1966; Fosberg 1985; Hunter 1991, 1992) and animal (Jorgensen and have been observed to occur in terrestrial mammals in both lab-
Hayward 1965; O’Farrell 1984; Hunter 1992; Wills 2001; Kolesnikova oratory experiments (Eldred and Trowbridge 1954; Brown et al.
et al. 2005; Pinca et al. 2005; Planes et al. 2005; Richards et al. 2008; 1961; Zallinger and Tempel 1998) and bomb-exposed animals
Houk and Musburger 2013) communities from a diversity of test- (Tullis et al. 1955; McDonnel et al. 1961; Zallinger and Tempel 1998)
ing site environments. In some instances, the exclusion of human resulting in considerable mortality. As previously mentioned, ra-
activity from test sites has been quite beneficial to the recovery diation and thermal energy exposure can work synergistically to

Published by NRC Research Press

 448 Environ. Rev. Vol. 23, 2015

induce higher mortality rates (Brooks et al. 1952; Baxter et al. 1953; both in type and severity, on the local ecosystem (Owens 1990;
Alpen and Sheline 1954; Valeriote and Baker 1964; Ledney et al. Rideout and Walsh 1990; Goldsmith 2010). These impacts can be
1992). In plants, acute radiation exposure results in tissue degra- broken down into two broad categories: (i) the development of
dation and death under sufficiently high radioactivity levels military training bases, which includes the establishment and
(Sparrow and Woodwell 1962; Shields et al. 1963; Rhoads and Platt construction of the facility and site; and (ii) operations of the
1971; Rhoads et al. 1972). However, the extent of tissue damage in military training base, which include the functional operation of
plants varies with development state (Sparrow and Woodwell the infrastructure itself and the corresponding military activities
1962; Shields et al. 1963; Rhoads and Platt 1971; Rhoads and designated for the specific site. In this section, we will focus our
Ragsdale 1971). Together, these effects could represent a substan- discussion on the effects of development and operations of mili-
tial source of mortality following a weapon detonation on ecosys- tary training bases (including air, naval, and terrestrial) on ecosys-
tems on an acute time scale. tem structure and function.
Radioactive exposure may also lend itself to more chronic im-
Environmental impacts of military base development
pacts on animal populations. In humans exposed to nuclear
The environmental impacts associated with the construction of
weapon emissions, there has been an observed elevation in the
infrastructure projects are site specific (Augenbroe and Pearce
rates (Bizzozero et al. 1966; Wanebo et al. 1968; Prentice et al. 1982;
1998; Tang et al. 2005; Gontier 2007; Mortberg et al. 2007). For
Darby et al. 1988) and risk level (Pierce and Preston 2000) of devel-
example, the development of naval ports and shipyards are more
Environ. Rev. Downloaded from cdnsciencepub.com by 182.253.87.196 on 01/08/24

oping a chronic disease, such as neoplasia. Assuming this effect

likely to have a greater contamination risk of adjacent water bod-
occurred in a similar manner as in humans (Mole 1958), it would
ies than the development of a terrestrial airstrip, which can be
be expected to significantly reduce life expectancies and survival
situated miles from water sources and surrounded by a natural
in wild animals. Chronic radiation effects may also result in the vegetation buffer zone (Tull 2006; Mortberg et al. 2007). Even the
development of chromosomal and (or) genetic aberrations (Hatch construction of similar base infrastructure, situated in different
et al. 1968; Bickham et al. 1988; Lamb et al. 1991; Sugg et al. 1995) in locales, are subject to different environmental impacts based on
addition to altered genetic structure of populations (Theodorakis the landscape and ecosystem they are built within and thus im-
and Shugart 1997, 1998; Theodorakis et al. 1998) in wild animals pacts are highly site specific (Kazmarek et al. 2005; Gontier 2007;
under radiation exposure from weapons test and development Mortberg et al. 2007). Although construction projects are associ-
sites. While extremely limited data exist, reduced reproductive ated with site-specific environmental impacts, the focus of this
capacities in wild animals have been noted at detonation sites section is not to dissect these site-specific characteristics, but to
(Turner et al. 1971; Medica et al. 1973; Turner 1975; Turner and address some overarching impacts on ecosystems that are ger-
For personal use only.

Medica 1977) consistent with the expected effects of radiation’s mane to most military base development projects.
impacts on the reproductive system (reviewed in Real et al. 2004). There are several generic impacts associated with the construc-
However, this effect seems to be variable as a few species at weap- tion of most complex infrastructure projects. Some of these im-
ons test sites seem to have no genetic or macroscopic level im- pacts include habitat degradation, soil erosion, and chemical
pacts (Hatch et al. 1970; Campbell et al. 1975; Theodorakis et al. contamination (Westing 1980; Tang et al. 2005; Xun et al. 2013).
2001) with the sensitivity of reproductive systems to radiation Initial site development requires the clearing of vegetation and
being non-ubiquitous among species (Barnthouse 1995; Mudie trees, followed by intensive soil excavation and compaction. This
et al. 2007). It is believed that in some cases the “null” effect of process alters the natural landscape by the removal of existing
radiation may be the product of immigration of non-affected in- vegetation and the prevention of future vegetation growth (Kopel
dividuals into the irradiated area (Theodorakis et al. 2001). The et al. 2015). The removal of vegetation coupled with soil excava-
overall effects of these long-term impacts are relatively uncertain tion increases the potential for soil erosion, and reduces water
and could have variable consequences on a given population de- infiltration rates, altering the landscape ecology by changing soil
pending on the strength and type of the effect. However, it should structure and chemistry, and increasing water runoff rates (Tang
be noted that because of the high degree of hazard (i.e., radiation) et al. 2005). Chemical contamination of local water sources can
and security precautions associated with nuclear weapons test and also occur from increased water runoff carrying sediments and
production sites of these areas are devoid of human activity and thus chemicals associated with waste dumping (e.g., hazardous build-
serve as important refuge sites for a variety of plant and animal ing materials, paints, solvents, etc.), and accidental chemical
species. Indeed, these areas have been demonstrated to have quite spills (e.g., fuel and oil) during the development stage (Brady 1992;
diverse and thriving ecosystems that are often in a better ecological Kazmarek et al. 2005; Villoria Saez et al. 2014; Kopel et al. 2015).
state when compared to similar areas where routine human activity These pollutants can alter community structure within the vicin-
is present (see Fig. 2; Gray and Rickard 1989; Whicker et al. 2004; ity of the infrastructure (Meyer-Reil and Köster 2000; Beasley and
Davis 2007; Richards et al. 2008; Houk and Musburger 2013). Thus, Kneale 2002; Edwards 2002; Osuji and Nwoye 2007).
sites devoted to nuclear arms production and testing can still be However, the establishment of military training bases can also
considered a positive feature in maintaining biodiversity despite the have beneficial impacts on biodiversity at the local, regional, and
potential for chronic health impacts in resident organisms. global scale. For effective combat training in real-world scenarios,
military training bases need to be large and encompass a wide
Military infrastructure and bases variety of environments and climates (Stephenson et al. 1996;
Doxford and Judd 2002; Smith et al. 2002). Depending on the
Military bases specific nature and use of military training areas, public and com-
The impacts of war on ecosystems are not limited to armed mercial access are usually restricted because of safety and security
conflict events, but can be connected to, and influenced by, the issues. This creates great tracts of land largely devoid of human
development and operational use of military training bases. A contact and commercial development, preserving these wilder-
military training base is a general designation applied to military ness areas, which have been lost to human development else-
facilities that house military equipment and personnel, and facil- where (Rideout and Walsh 1990; Doxford and Judd 2002; Zentelis
itate training exercises and tactical operations (Kazmarek et al. and Lindenmayer 2014). Military training areas have been increas-
2005; Zentelis and Lindenmayer 2014). Military training bases can ingly recognized as areas of high biodiversity, and in particular,
range from small outpost sites to large military “cities” (Brady for harbouring endangered and at-risk species (Fig. 3). It has been
1992). The variation in size and operational use of military train- estimated that, in the United States alone, over 200 federally listed
ing bases leads to a broad spectrum of anthropogenic impacts, endangered species inhabit military training areas; which is more

Published by NRC Research Press

 Lawrence et al. 449

Fig. 3. Military training bases. Military training bases have long tems. This extended global coverage makes military training
been known as areas of high biodiversity and, as of late, these vast lands important areas for biodiversity conservation and preserva-
military training landscapes are becoming increasingly recognized tion (Zentelis and Lindenmayer 2014), notwithstanding the fact
as important refuge areas for IUCN red-listed species (Zentelis and that the type of activities that occur on these sites could rapidly
Lindenmayer 2014). A case study examination conducted by Stein alter biodiversity. Recognizing the importance of military facili-
et al. (2008) evaluated the status of US federally listed endangered ties in conserving biodiversity, the US has begun rehabilitating
species across the 264 million ha of government owned and former training sites to serve as nature preserves (Coates 2014;
managed lands in the United States. This case study identified a Havlick 2014). As of 2014, 15 of these areas have been developed in
significantly greater density and diversity of endangered and an effort to promote and conserve the biodiversity of these re-
imperiled species inhabiting military training lands, compared to all gions (Havlick 2014). In this way, military facilities are of great
other federally managed lands across the country. In addition to this benefit to sustaining and conserving biodiversity.
finding, the greatest diversity of endangered and imperiled species
were found inhabiting four training bases in the Hawaiian Islands, Operations of a military training base
led by Oahu’s Schofield Barracks Military Reservation supporting The environmental impacts associated with the upkeep of mil-
approximately 47 federally endangered species and 53 imperiled itary infrastructure and equipment have been a growing concern.
species (Stein et al. 2008). Overall, more than 34% of the US federally Many military bases have been targeted for environmental assess-
Environ. Rev. Downloaded from cdnsciencepub.com by 182.253.87.196 on 01/08/24

listed endangered species are found within Hawaiian military ment and site remediation (Kazmarek et al. 2005; Goldsmith
training bases, which makes these areas particularly vulnerable to 2010). Military infrastructure and equipment is subject to rigorous
military training exercises; stressing the importance for use, often under extreme conditions, creating the need for con-
conservative land-use practices and management techniques to stant maintenance and upkeep. This maintenance leads to the
protect these ecologically valuable landscapes (Zentelis and generation of large quantities of hazardous wastes including
Lindenmayer, 2014; Stein et al. 2008). Photo Credit: Polihale heavy metals, solvents, corrosives, paints, fuel, and oils (Brady
Wikimedia Commons, 2004. 1992; Kazmarek et al. 2005). When these hazardous wastes are
improperly stored or disposed of, it can cause serious water con-
tamination and habitat degradation issues, which can directly
affect biodiversity (Edwards 2002; Osuji and Nwoye 2007). There
have even been documented reports of military sites that dump
hazardous wastes into open holding ponds, evaporation ponds,
mines, and wells (Brady 1992; see the section entitled “Military
For personal use only.

contamination” for more detail). The Otis Air Base in the United
States has received significant attention over the past few decades
because of the extensive contamination of groundwater caused
from fuel spills and aircraft maintenance (Kazmarek et al. 2005;
Goldsmith 2010). Similarly, the Norton Air Force Base in the US is
under scrutiny for its poor approach of storing hazardous wastes
in above- and below-ground storage drums, which have begun to
leak, causing environmental contamination issues (Brady 1992).
However, poor environmental planning at military bases appears
to be a common theme. The US Environmental Protection Agency
has listed over 53 military bases on the National Priorities List of
sites that pose direct hazards to human health and the environ-
ment (Brady 1992; Kazmarek et al. 2005; Goldsmith 2010). Unfor-
tunately, the majority of the literature on the environmental
endangered species per area within military installations com- impacts associated with the upkeep of military infrastructure and
pared to other federally managed lands in the United States equipment is focused mainly on the USA with, comparatively,
(Doxford and Judd 2002; Pekins 2006; Zentelis and Lindenmayer little known about such issues in other jurisdictions.
2014). Aside from these training lands supporting IUCN red-listed
species, they also support highly diverse landscapes. The U.S. Training activities
Army holds two of their largest European training bases in Live-fire training has similar impacts on the environment as
Bavaria, Grafenwohr and Hohenfels, which are situated on 22 855 those discussed in the active armed conflict section, with respect
and 16 175 ha of land, comprising 0.34% and 0.24% of the land area to local landscape alteration and vegetation destruction, chemical
in Bavaria, respectively (Warren et al. 2007). Despite the relatively and heavy metal contamination, and the incidental killing or
small size of these training areas and their exposure to intensive maiming of wildlife. However, there are also differences in envi-
military training exercises, they contain approximately 27% of the ronmental impacts of live-fire training that occur in training fa-
total plant species richness found in Bavaria (Schonfelder et al. cilities as opposed to actual armed conflict events (Owens 1990;
1990). Similarly, the military training areas in the Netherlands Goldsmith 2010). Training facilities are faced with the challenge of
comprise approximately 1% of the total available land area, but repeated use of live-fire training shooting ranges, which leads to
have been reported to support approximately 53% of all vascular consistent site-specific degradation and contamination. The most
plant species, and 61% of all bird species found within this nation common and extensive life-fire training occurs on small arms
(Gazenbeek 2005; Warren et al. 2007). It is also important to rec- ranges (Goldsmith 2010), which are associated with extensive
ognize the significance of military training areas to provide key heavy metal contamination, with lead being the most notable
habitat for wide-ranging megafauna species such as bears, ungu- contaminant (Cao et al. 2003a, 2003b; Goldsmith 2010). The weath-
lates, coyotes, and wolves that require large tracts of land for ering and oxidation of lead bullets leads to the contamination of
foraging and hunting (Gese et al. 1989; Stephenson et al. 1996; soils, groundwater, and surface water sources. It has been noted
Telesco and Van Manen 2006). Globally, military training areas that high lead concentration in soils can reduce vegetation
have been estimated to encompass approximately 6% of the growth and species richness (Cao et al. 2003a, 2003b; Hardison
Earth’s surface spanning a multitude of environments and ecosys- et al. 2004; Goldsmith 2010).

Published by NRC Research Press

 450 Environ. Rev. Vol. 23, 2015

Other forms of live-fire training involve the use of advanced 305 m of altitude, which makes birds especially vulnerable to
high-power weaponry including, but not limited to, artillery low-flight training exercises (Lovell and Dolbeer 1999; Civil
and mortars, multiple-launch rocket systems, hand grenades, and Aviation Authority 2001; Zakrajsek and Bissonette 2005; Dukiya
anti-tank weapons (Rideout and Walsh 1990; Doxford and Judd and Gahlot 2013). Because of the high risk of bird–aircraft colli-
2002; Pekins 2006). These high-powered weapons require special sions, special measures have been taken at airstrips to reduce bird
training areas to safely contain the blast radius and noise from strike hazards. These precautionary measures include reducing
civilian areas. This type of weapon training can create significant attractive installations near airfields (e.g., landfills or new water
habitat damage by cratering the terrain and altering the species environments), altering flight training routes, and using falconry
composition within the area. Specifically, these highly disturbed to deter birds from the airfield vicinity (Cleary and Dolbeer 1999;
landscapes can suffer from degraded soil structure and quality, Lovell and Dolbeer 1999; Civil Aviation Authority 2001).
and are reduced to disturbance-tolerant flora and fauna species Naval military training exercises can have negative impacts on
(Fehmi et al. 2001; Smith et al. 2002; Pekins 2006; Warren et al. marine life. Unlike the issues associated with over-pressure inju-
2007). Chemical contamination is also prevalent in these training ries from explosive detonations and live-fire operations (see the
areas in the form of heavy metals, radiation (see the section enti- sections entitled “Nuclear warfare”, and “Active armed conflict”
tled “Nuclear warfare”), and unused propellants, all of which can for further explanation), the main impacts of naval training exer-
directly impact community composition (Doxford and Judd 2002; cises are caused from the generation of excessive noise pollution
Environ. Rev. Downloaded from cdnsciencepub.com by 182.253.87.196 on 01/08/24

Edwards 2002; Garten et al. 2003). However, for most of these (Dolman et al. 2009). Noise pollution can be generated from a
high-powered weapons, “dummy” rounds (rounds containing less variety of sources including, but not limited to, mechanical and
explosives and (or) propellants) have been developed to lessen the propeller noise, gun discharges, explosives detonations, and the
environmental impacts (Doxford and Judd 2002; Goldsmith 2010). use of sonar technologies (Parsons et al. 2000; Scott 2007; Dolman
Armoured vehicles denote all tracked and wheeled military ve- et al. 2009). The latter source has received a lot of research atten-
hicles used for combat and transport (Johnson 1982) and are es- tion and has been noted to negatively impact large marine mam-
sential in most conflict situations because of their long-range mals in various ways (reviewed in Parsons et al. 2008). Active sonar
firing capacity, protective armour, and all-terrain maneuverabil- systems range from low-frequency levels, 1 Hz – 1 kHz, to mid-
ity (Doxford and Judd 2002). These vehicles are generally outfitted frequency levels, 1–10 kHz (Dolman et al. 2009). When opera-
with heavy armour and weaponry, making them extremely tional, both low- and mid-frequency systems emit high-intensity
heavy, with some vehicles weighing upwards of 60 metric tons. sound into the ocean and listen for echoes that provide a sonic
Because of the heavy weight of these vehicles, terrain compaction image of the ocean environment (Dolman et al. 2009). This type of
is a significant issue that can have detrimental impacts on the soil
imaging technology is highly useful for military operations, but it
For personal use only.

and vegetation communities (Lathrop 1983; Foster et al. 2006;

can impact the behaviour and survival of large marine mammals
Dickson et al. 2008). Armoured manoeuvre training is seen as
(Balcomb and Claridge 2001; Madsen 2005). Marine mammals rely
being particularly damaging and persistent (Doxford and Judd
on echolocation for most biological aspects of their lives, and the
2002), especially in fragile environments, such as the Mojave
use of sonar technologies has been linked to disrupting their sig-
Desert (Johnson 1982). The conditions for when armoured manoeuvre
naling abilities. This can interfere with foraging, reproduction,
training occurs can also influence the severity of the impact on
communication, and their predator detection abilities (Rendell
the landscape; operations during wet spring conditions can cause
and Gordon 1999; Miller et al. 2000; Dolman et al. 2009). The use of
enlarged track ruts and higher rates of vegetation removal
sonar technology has also been linked to mass stranding mortal-
(Johnson 1982; Watts 1998; Dickson et al. 2008). In frequently used
ity events in cetacean species, most notably in beaked whales
landscapes, tracked vehicles have been noted to reduce total plant
(reviewed in Parsons et al. 2008) however, the causal mechanism
and woody vegetation cover, and increase soil erosion rates
of mortality from sonar is still unknown (Dolman et al. 2009).
(Johnson 1982; Wilson 1988). Armoured manoeuvre training can
Dry troop training refers to dismounted infantry exercises and
also lead to changes in soil structure and chemistry with fre-
is widely practiced by militaries around the world. This type of
quently used sites having lower carbon to nitrogen ratios, as well
training can have a wide range of environmental impacts deter-
as reduced soil carbon content (Garten et al. 2003). Certain train-
ing exercises in wooded areas can be particularly degrading on mined by the size of the infantry and the nature of the exercise
vegetation communities, as tracked vehicles can often be used as itself (Fehmi et al. 2001; Garten et al. 2003). Dismounted infantry
bulldozers to clear paths and sight lines (Rideout and Walsh 1990). can cause vegetation destruction, alter soil structuring, and in-
Armoured vehicle operations have also been linked to inci- crease soil erosion from repetitive use of designated training areas
dentally hitting and killing wildlife during training exercises (Whitecotton et al. 2000; Warren et al. 2007). Realistic training
(Zakrajsek and Bissonette 2005; Telesco and Van Manen 2006). requires infantry to dig defensive positions for combat, and tent
Aside from terrestrial armoured vehicle training, military ditches for sleep and rest, further increasing soil erosion rates
training areas are intensively used for fighter jet and helicopter (Trumbull et al. 1994; Fehmi et al. 2001). Dismounted infantry
training exercises (Black et al. 1984; Harrington and Veitch 1991; exercises can also negatively affect wildlife distribution in active
Conomy et al. 1998). The largest environmental impact associated training areas where infantry presence can act to deter large
with aviation exercises is hitting and killing birds during flight mammal species including black bears (Ursus americanus), mule
manoeuvres (Richardson and West 2000; Civil Aviation Authority deer (Odocoileus hemionus), and coyotes (Canis latrans) (Stephenson
2001; Zakrajsek and Bissonette 2005). Bird–aircraft collisions are et al. 1996; Telesco and Van Manen 2006). Although wildlife avoid-
particularly serious as they can often cause a loss of human life ance of such activities reduces likelihood of direct mortality, the
and damage to or destruction of aircraft. From 1985–1998, the United disturbance and displacement can have sublethal consequences.
States Air Force (USAF) recorded an average of 2700 aviation-
related bird strikes each year, accumulating in excess of Military contamination
35 000 bird–aircraft collisions over the 13 year period; an average Military conflict is associated with the testing, production,
cost of $35 million US dollars annually in aircraft repair and re- transportation, and deployment of weapons. At each of these
placement to the USAF (Zakrajsek and Bissonette 2005). The most stages, there exists the potential for environmental contamina-
vulnerable bird species to aircraft collisions noted by the USAF tion (Dudley et al 2002; Machlis and Hanson 2008). In a warfare
included raptors, waterfowl, and passerines (Lovell and Dolbeer context, chemicals can be manufactured for use in weapons to
1999; Zakrajsek and Bissonette 2005). For all bird–aircraft colli- cause direct human mortality and (or) to alter landscapes to gain
sions, it has been estimated that roughly 69% take place below strategic tactical advantages that can expose the surrounding eco-

Published by NRC Research Press

 Lawrence et al. 451

systems to potentially toxic compounds (Stellman et al. 2003; and can cause localized soil and sediment contamination
Ganesan et al. 2010; Westing 2013a). Military activities also have (Haavisto et al. 2001; Papastefanou 2002; Briner 2010). Uranium
the potential to indirectly contaminate the environment through toxicity is of concern to exposed terrestrial and freshwater
various by-products and spills associated with warfare, as in the plants, freshwater invertebrates and vertebrates, and mammals
case of fuels and compounds used in maintaining vehicle opera- (Sheppard et al. 2005). In mammals, uranium toxicity can be
tion (Brady 1992; Dudley et al 2002; Machlis and Hanson 2008). highly detrimental to development, brain chemistry, behaviour,
Chemicals (in the broader sense), such as hydrocarbons and met- and kidney function (Briner 2010).
als, can have immediate destructive and toxic effects that may Not all chemical warfare agents used are directly targeted at
also persist for long periods of time in soil, water, and the tissues humans. Herbicides have also been used, during combat opera-
of animals, all posing legacy issues. This section will aim to review tions, to alter landscapes and reduce foliage to enhance visibility
how military actions contribute to harmful chemical contamina- (Westing 1980; Stellman et al. 2003). Agent Orange, used during
tion at the different stages of warfare and their subsequent effect the Vietnam War (1961–1971), was one of several types of dioxin-
on ecosystems with a particular focus on wildlife. based herbicides sprayed by United States forces to destroy crops
and obstructing vegetation (Orians and Pfeiffer 1970; Westing
Pre-war contamination 1980, 1984; Stellman et al. 2003). During this war, the landscapes
Military chemical production and testing facilities require mas- in Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos were exposed to over 77 million L
sive attention due to hazardous waste accidents, spills, and dump-
Environ. Rev. Downloaded from cdnsciencepub.com by 182.253.87.196 on 01/08/24

of herbicides covering some 2600 million hectares of land

ing as the production of chemicals can be highly volatile. These (Nguyen 2009). Over the past three to four decades, various studies
chemicals are required for the day-to-day operation of the mili- have attempted to evaluate environmental damage caused by
tary, as well as in weapons development. In the United States, these events and to assess their long term effects. In doing so, it
military training facilities and bases are responsible for localized was apparent that the defoliation of the landscape resulted in
contamination from the dumping of chemicals directly into the immediate tree and shrub mortality in addition to the local extir-
environment causing regional waterbodies, including drinking pation of many large mammals such as ungulates, carnivores, and
water sources, in the area to become toxic (Brady 1992; Miller et al. elephants (Westing 1980, 1985; Orians and Pfeiffer 1970).
1998). Contaminated reservoirs on US army bases have caused the The application of large quantities of concentrated herbicides
deaths of thousands of waterfowl from drinking water on site can alter the local community structure as well. In Vietnam, for-
(Lanier-Graham 1993). Similar pollution conditions are present in ested and mangrove-dominated habitats have become scrubby
Russia where dioxin pesticides have been disposed of improperly grasslands, greatly changing the community assemblages (Dinh
resulting in soil and water contamination, thereby affecting 1984; Westing 1989; Nguyen 2009). Surveys comparing un-
For personal use only.

the surrounding vegetation negatively (Sidel 2000). Additionally, impacted habitat with that inflicted with herbicide found notably
weapons testing, such as those done in Puerto Rico, Bikini Atoll, less species diversity (Westing 1989). However, one of the major
and the United States, can result in significant soil, groundwater, limiting factors in assessing and quantifying ecosystem changes is
and marine contamination of chemicals and metals, which may the lack of data in the region’s baseline ecological conditions (e.g.,
include mercury, iron, and plutonium. This could have deleteri- before war). In attempting to evaluate how biodiversity was af-
ous consequences to local vegetation and marine organisms in fected, researchers have made broad assumptions based off of
these regions resulting in food chain disturbances (Donaldson limited observations and local indigenous knowledge. Orians and
et al. 1997; Ortiz-Roque and Lopez-Riviera 2004; Porter 2005; Pfeiffer (1970) used these methods and suggested that regions of
Machlis and Hanson 2008). All of these pre-war activities can lead Vietnam experienced a decline in bird species richness post con-
to soil, water, and vegetation contamination and have negative flict, specifically in those consuming insects and fruit.
impacts on the wildlife that interacts with these contaminated An additional long-term problem associated with herbicide ex-
areas. posure is bioaccumulation and the persistence of these chemicals
in the environment. After the Vietnam War, high concentrations
Active combat contamination of dioxins were found in the ovaries and livers of turtles (Schecter
Chemical warfare agents are weapons employed by the military et al. 1989). This effect was also demonstrated in tissues isolated
to cause direct human mortality (Ganesan et al. 2010). Many of the from local pigs and chickens, likely resulting from a combination
products developed as chemical warfare agents have highly toxic of residual Agent Orange and other herbicidal exposure over the
and damaging properties intended for human targets, but may past few decades (Schecter et al. 2006). More recently, the dioxin
have negative impacts on other species as well. These chemicals contamination still present in the soils near the Bien Hoa Airbase
can fall under five main categories of weapon effects: blistering (a “hotspot”) was discovered to fall within a high risk category in
agents that cause burning and blistering, nerve agents that target terms of Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines (Mai et al.
neuron impulses, choking agents that affect the respiratory tract, 2007). The probable effect level was 46 times higher than the
blood agents that interrupt oxygen absorption, and riot agents standard value for soil, even 30 years after the initial chemical
that cause immediate, short-term incapacitation (Ganesan et al deployment illustrating a capacity of these chemicals to have
2010). Most chemical agents that can harm humans are toxic to chronic impacts on the ecosystem.
other vertebrates and can injure or kill some aquatic organisms at Military activity is a highly mobile system occurring at multiple
high concentrations. Often, these chemicals persist in plant tissue spatial scales (e.g., nationally and internationally) that requires
resulting in developmental issues and can be potentially toxic to vast fuel and hydrocarbon resources that may increase the possi-
herbivores upon consumption (Coppock 2009; Ganesan et al. bility of oil and gas contamination. The Gulf War oil spill of 1991
2010). Bullets and related debris (e.g., shell casings) are often com- resulted in over 10 million m3 of oil and heavy metals intention-
posed of materials that can be harmful to the ecosystem they are ally dumped into the ocean (Fig. 4; Westing 2003) resulting in
fired in. Lead, one of the more commonly used metals in bullets elevated bird mortalities and damage to important avian, mam-
and casings, has toxic properties that are highly detrimental to a malian, and reptilian migratory feeding habitats (Evans et al.
number of organ systems in vertebrates including the nervous 1993; Westing 2013b). Studies on benthic invertebrates, such as
system (Burger and Gochfeld 2000; Papanikolaou et al. 2005). Left- snails and clams immediately after the spill were found to have
over shells or fragments after combat can result in accidental significantly higher levels of Zn, Cu, and Ni in their tissues
ingestion by many bird species, who consume small particles in- (Bu-Olayan and Subrahmanyam 1997). A decade after the spill,
advertently, or as grit to aid in their digestion (Fisher et al. 2006). studies on the tissues of crabs showed high levels of Zn and Cu,
Depleted uranium shells or casings are also used by some factions along with detectable levels of other heavy metals, demonstrat-

Published by NRC Research Press

 452 Environ. Rev. Vol. 23, 2015

Fig. 4. Oil contamination in Arabian Gulf. After the Gulf War oil wrecks alone is estimated at over 15 million tonnes (Monfils 2005).
spill in 1991, coral reef species demonstrated substantial resilience Much of the oil still resides within these wrecks and will pose
to seawater temperature decreases and toxic hydrocarbon fallout future problems as the vessels begin to degrade (Westing 1980;
(Downing and Roberts 1993; Vogt 1995). The Arabian Gulf is home to Monfils 2005). In much the same manner, during the conflict in
several diverse coral reef communities both inshore and offshore. Kosovo, shelling of civilian infrastructure, namely, manufactur-
From 1984 until 1994, coral species cover was estimated at six ing plants, resulted in a significant but unintentional emission of
different locations off the coasts of Kuwait and Saudia Arabia using industrial contaminants into the environment (Haavisto et al.
video recordings and diving teams. The combined results of two 1999). Attention and care needs to be present during all stages of
independent studies found that (Downing and Roberts 1993; Vogt warfare, as contamination events are common throughout train-
1995), after an estimated 6–8 million barrels of oil were added to the ing and active war with their effects persisting well after the
Arabian Gulf, there was no observable declines in coral reef health. conflict has been resolved. Stringent policies are recognized as
Instead, from 1992 to 1994, Vogt (1995) observed significantly necessary to hold militaries accountable for cleanup before train-
increasing trends in coral cover. Today, coral reef health is subject ing facilities can be returned to the public. Indeed, many Western
to climate change and increasing marine ecosystem pollution, nations have adopted policies that require strict environmental
which makes modern coral surveys unable to tease out any direct management and concern on home soil (Durant 2007; Ramos et al.
evidence of long-term effects of the Gulf War on coral communities 2007). However, it should be noted that during war outside of
Environ. Rev. Downloaded from cdnsciencepub.com by 182.253.87.196 on 01/08/24

(Downing and Roberts 1993; Al-Cibahy et al. 2012). Photo Credit: their respective countries, these policies are not necessarily fol-
Michael J. Lawrence, 2012. lowed.

The up-shot: technology

One undeniable benefit that environmental and conservation
science has reaped from military research and development is the
ability to utilize and refine resulting technological advances.
Military research and development teams share a common interest
with ecological and environmental researchers in needing to col-
lect meaningful information more efficiently. An exhaustive list
of military developments used in everyday applications would
include everything from computing systems and the internet to
For personal use only.

nylon material that makes field equipment durable and light-

weight (Alic et al. 1992). However, there are a few notable tech-
nologies that have been crucial to shaping modern ecological
research. Satellites emerged over the course of the Cold-War ten-
sions between the United States and the Soviet Union (Alic et al.
1992; Slotten 2002) and were followed closely by the creation of
global positioning systems (GPS), which allows for high precision
and accurate navigation (Parkinson 1996). Today, satellite imagery
has paved the way for the development of GIS spatial analyses, the
backbone of evaluating large-scale spatial patterns and trends
(Goodchild 2000). GIS permits investigators to relate spatially
ing the persistence of these compounds in the ecosystem
organized data to other variables, such as weather, animal
(Al-Mohanna and Subrahmanyam 2001).
abundance, or natural resource quantities. Remote sensing tech-
Post-war environmental impacts associated with disposal nologies have military roots as well, and involve either passive
The long-term effects of chemicals results from both their po- or active gathering of energy to help locate and identify objects
tential persistence and the poor disposal programs of nations (Turner et al. 2003). Electromagnetic energy, detected by satel-
with stockpiled weapons. After WWII, chemical warfare agents, lites, is commonly used to accomplish tasks, such as assessing
such as mustard gases and arsenic poisons, were packaged in wildlife spatial distribution and calculating species diversity
barrels and directly disposed of in the ocean (Chepesuik 1997; (Turner et al. 2003). Similarly, RADAR technology actively uses
Smith 2011); a common practice across the globe at the time. radio waves to locate objects and obstructions with system ad-
Disposal of these vessels in the ocean runs the risk of the metal- vances being developed between the British and American forces
based containers corroding and leaching the chemical contents of during the 1940s (Science News Letter 1945). Currently, RADAR is
the vessel into the ocean; an effect that could lead to a localized one of the best methods for monitoring migratory bird species
exposure to the chemical as well as more widespread impacts via (Gauthreaux and Belsier 2003). Remote operated vehicles (ROVs)
trophic movements (Long 2009). Sanderson et al. (2010) modelled including aerial drones, marine vehicles, and terrestrial vehicles
propagation of chemical warfare agents in the Baltic Sea through were originally developed by military organizations for training
the food chain in cod (Gadus morhua), herring (Clupea harengus), and operations, bomb recovery, and hostile terrain observations
sprat (Sprattus sprattus). Adamsite, a component found in chemical (Springer 2013). Now, aerial ROVs are used in conservation to film
weapons, was found to be consistently present in the tissues of and survey overhead parks, to monitor wildlife, and to look for
Atlantic cod demonstrating bioamplification and accumulation of illegal activity, such as poaching and unauthorized logging
these substances in higher trophic levels. However, that study did (Sutherland et al. 2013; Schiffman 2014). Marine ROVs have been
not take into account the number of buried munitions and con- employed to monitor marine life as well as being used as a poten-
tainers on the seafloor that could reintroduce high levels of chem- tial tool in gaining valuable insight into the system in question
icals to the surrounding area as the containers holding them (Cohen 1995; Jones 2009; Moura et al. 2013; Van Dover et al. 2014).
degrade and corrode. Regardless, this represents a pathway by Integration of autonomous technology has huge advantages in
which contaminants may be spread throughout the various com- ecological studies that are often limited by man-power and over-
ponents of the ecosystem. Similarly, wreckages from naval ships whelmed by spatial scales; ROVs can efficiently extend work
pose certain risks for the marine ecosystem in which they are periods and area covered without human intervention. Lastly,
found. Oil contamination in the Atlantic Ocean due to WWII ship- advances in telemetry technology by the military have greatly

Published by NRC Research Press

 Lawrence et al. 453

Table 1. Research gaps related to the effects of warfare on ecosystem structure and function.
Warfare aspect Research gaps
Active armed conflict Areas of conflict are often too hazardous for researchers to enter and gather data.
BACI experimental (before–after control–impact) approach is usually not possible because conflicts occur without
consultation with researchers. Armed conflicts often occur randomly, kept confidential, or in areas that are
difficult to access by researchers from abroad (e.g., drone or aerial assaults).
Conservation priorities can be overlooked during war activities resulting in lack of pre- and post-war efforts to
maintain and monitor ecological integrity and animal populations.
Lack of international capacity to monitor threats from armed conflict on ecosystems, particularly when armed
conflicts occur between several nations and across large spatial scales.
Nuclear warfare Effects of nuclear weapons had high anthropogenic focus (e.g., effects on human health, buildings, etc.), information
on greater impacts on ecological functioning at the population and biodiversity level is relatively scarce;
taxonomic representation relatively low.
Ecosystem diversity is under-represented as testing was generally restricted to a few select habitat types, mostly
desert regions, that are typically low in biodiversity to begin with.
The long-term impacts from radiation exposure from nuclear-weapon-produced fallout and (or) radiation has been
Environ. Rev. Downloaded from cdnsciencepub.com by 182.253.87.196 on 01/08/24

minimally documented in wildlife with little regard for potential fitness impacts; timescale is an issue and
impacts may be mitigated by immigration.
As nuclear weapons use is currently banned under international treaties, new research avenues into ecosystem
structural impacts are potentially limited.
Military training Research focused on military training facilities operated by the US Department of Defense, within North America.
Data extrapolated to address the impacts of military training facilities located abroad; minimal investigation
into whether these assessments address impacts in different geographic environments, under different
training regimes, etc.
Many military training lands and facilities are situated within biodiversity hotspots, which are home to numerous
rare and endemic species; these operational training bases may be located in hostile developing nations where
research access is restricted creating knowledge gaps in these unmanaged and unprotected areas.
Research and environmental assessments pertaining to military training activities is relatively new, gaining
importance within the past 50 years, which has created knowledge gaps in how certain training landscapes
For personal use only.

existed and functioned prior to military management.

Military contamination Many surplus marine munitions and barrels after WWII were dumped at undisclosed locations, making it both
difficult to estimate potential contamination and to initiate recovery.
The broad spatial scales at which environment may be exposed to contamination can cross geographic and political
borders, complicating accountability procedures.
Chemicals, hydrocarbons, and metals can have legacy effects in soil, water, and plant and animal tissue. Immediate
effects may not always be obvious.

improved conservation research through the miniaturization of sumably as a result of some perceived importance and (or) ease of
tag components (e.g., batteries, transmitters, etc.) for use in a wide access. Given that war is unlikely to be eliminated from society,
number of biotelemetry projects, which are useful in animal track- the literature should further expand to include other taxonomic
ing and monitoring (Cooke 2008; Benson 2010). Not only has this representations and (or) focus on species that are vital to ecologi-
greatly improved the performance, operation, and capabilities of cal functioning (e.g., keystone species, ecosystem engineers, etc.)
many of these devices (Cooke 2008), but it has permitted them to in warfare impact assessment. This could allow for the potential
be deployed on a greater number of species and weight classes as to expand our knowledge base significantly while providing a
the mass of the tag has often been a limiting factor in determining potentially more streamlined approach that may be able to infer
the lower size limit of their use (Olival and Higuchi 2006; Bridge how overall ecosystem functioning may be impaired or impacted
et al. 2011; Cooke et al. 2013). under “conflict stress”. It may be of relevance and use to develop
a mesocosm model system whereby the various impacts of war-
Research gaps fare could be modelled in a controlled environment to aid in
War is a perilous activity that makes for a poor research envi- developing an impact model at the whole ecosystem level under a
ronment. Conflict zones, restricted access military bases, and variety of climatic and environmental scenarios.
warfare-induced hazardous material zones are often out of reach
of researchers attempting to assess war’s impact on ecological Conclusion
functioning resulting in a significant knowledge gap for current Given the information presented here, it is evident that war-
and post-conflict field sites (see Table 1). Additionally, because of fare’s impacts on ecosystem functioning are indeed overwhelm-
the stochastic nature of war (e.g., unknown when and where con- ingly deleterious. The impacts of conflict, nuclear weapons,
flict and battles will occur), the battlefield sites may not have training operations, and chemical contaminations all contribute
pre-conflict information available, thereby complicating before– to both reductions in the populations of local flora and fauna as
after impact analysis. To the extent possible, conducting research well as reducing species diversity in the affected ecosystems. Im-
of military activities in a before–after-control-impact framework pacts were demonstrated in a number of environments with a
would help to elucidate the environmental consequences and diversity of taxonomic groups represented with war resulting in
thus reveal opportunities for mitigating negative effects while both acute and chronic impacts on the ecosystem. A general over-
informing the development of optimal strategies for rehabilita- view of the impacts induced by the various aspects of war can be
tion and recovery. There also exists an apparent taxonomic bias in found in Fig. 5. In some instances, warfare is a positive force in
the literature presented here whereby mammals, fish, and plants ecosystem functioning whereby unintentional human exclusion
are often the studied components of the impacted system, pre- provides refugia for a variety of species and, in some cases, pro-

Published by NRC Research Press

 454 Environ. Rev. Vol. 23, 2015

Fig. 5. Overview of the potential deleterious impacts of warfare on the environment including terrestrial, aerial, and naval theatres of war.
Environ. Rev. Downloaded from cdnsciencepub.com by 182.253.87.196 on 01/08/24

vides suitable habitat for endangered or threatened species. Some not quantified, it is not unreasonable to think that modern war-
of these beneficial impacts are illustrated in Figs. 1–4. Addition- fare is one of the major forces associated with environmental
ally, research into developing military technology has benefitted issues and biodiversity declines in some regions.
ecosystem functioning, indirectly, through providing a wide di-
versity of technological tools and devices that are employed by Acknowledgements
many researchers involved with conservation and ecological sci- The authors would like to thank J. Chapman and V. Nguyen for
ences. However, because of the inherent dangers of warfare and their insight into military environmental policies and procedures
For personal use only.

its seemingly stochastic nature, research and assessments of mil- that helped shape this paper. S.J. Cooke is supported by the Natu-
itary activities’ impacts on the environment are difficult to con- ral Sciences and Engineering Research Council and the Canada
duct and as such, the literature is limited in its scope (Table 1). Research Chairs program. We thank S.M.R. Jain-Schlaepfer,
Moreover, new technologies and militarily unique substances J. Monaghan, T. Prystay, A.H. Westing, and an anonymous re-
continue to be developed and deployed such that the threats are viewer for kindly commenting on drafts of this manuscript.
dynamic. With humanity continually engaging in war, the bio-
Contributions: All authors contributed equally to the design, re-
sphere is likely to continue to suffer. As such, this area of research
search, writing, and editing of this work.
should be continually pursued in an attempt to better understand
war’s impact on ecosystem structure and assist with developing References
potential mitigation strategies to minimize negative conse-
Aarkrog, A. 1988. The radiological impact of the Chernobyl debris compared
quences and implementing effective rehabilitation and restora- with that from nuclear weapons fallout. J. Environ. Radioact. 6: 151–162.
tion approaches. doi:10.1016/0265-931X(88)90058-6.
There seems to be little evidence that military strategists con- Alic, J.A., Branscomb, L.M., Brooks, H., Carter, A.B., and Epstein, G.L. 1992. Be-
sider environmental consequences of military activities when yond spinoff: military and commercial technologies in a changing world.
planning or executing military actions related to conflict. We sub- Harvard Business Press, Waterdown, MA, USA.
Al-Cibahy, A.S., Al-Khalifa, K., Böer, B., and Samimi-Namin, K. 2012. Conserva-
mit that there is much scope for proactive efforts to consider the tion of marine ecosystems with a special view to coral reefs in the gulf. In
environment and biodiversity in formulating military plans. Yet, Coral Reefs of the Gulf. Springer, the Netherlands. pp. 337–348.
we also recognize that at the end of the day, battlefield supremacy Al-Mohanna, S.Y., and Subrahmanyam, M.N.V. 2001. Flux of heavy metal accu-
and achieving military objectives will likely continue to trump mulation in various organs of the intertidal marine blue crab, Portunus pelagi-
any and all concerns related to the environment during active cus (L.) from the Kuwait coast after the Gulf War. Environ. Int. 27(4): 321–326.
doi:10.1016/S0160-4120(01)00063-0. PMID:11686643.
conflict (Westing 1986). The situation is somewhat different for Alpen, E.L., and Sheline, G.E. 1954. The combined effects of thermal burns and
training facilities or other military installations during the pre- whole body X-irradiation ion survival time and mortality. Ann. Surg. 140(1):
paratory and readiness phases, at least in developed countries, 113–118. doi:10.1097/00000658-195407000-00013. PMID:13159151.
where there is legal obligation to address environmental concerns Ampleman, G., Baucher, D., Thiboutot, S., Hawari, J., and Monteil-Rivera, F.
(e.g., contamination, endangered species; see Durant 2007). Unfor- 2004. Evaluation of underwater contamination by explosives and metals at
Point Amour Labrador and in the Halifax Harbour area. Available from De-
tunately, most warfare occurs in developing countries that tend to
fence Research and Development Canada, Valcartier, QC, Canada. No. DRDC-
have unstable governance structures where there is limited capac- V-TR-2004-125.
ity for developing environmental policy or addressing environ- Apte, S., Holland, B.S., Godwin, L.S., and Gardner, J.P. 2000. Jumping ship: a
mental issues that arise following conflict (Westing 1986). The stepping stone event mediating transfer of a non-indigenous species via a
policy implications of warfare are beyond the scope of this arti- potentially unsuitable environment. Biol. Invasions, 2: 75–79. doi:10.1023/A:
1010024818644.
cle, but nonetheless, we wish to emphasize greater need for global
Augenbroe, G.L.M., and Pearce, A.R. 1998. Sustainable construction in the U.S.A.;
consideration of the environmental consequences of warfare with a perspective to the year 2010. Available from the Sustainable Development
efforts to develop policy instruments and agreements that con- and the Future of Construction. Vol. report 225.
sider the environment (sensu Gasser 1995; Mrema et al. 2009) in Balcomb, K.C., and Claridge, D.E. 2001. A mass stranding of cetaceans caused by
the same way that attempts are made to consider aspects of hu- naval sonar in the Bahamas. Bahamas J. Sci. 8: 1–12.
man welfare (e.g., war crimes tribunals, Geneva convention; see Barnthouse, L.W. 1995. Effects of ionizing radiation on terrestrial plants and
animals: a workshop report. Available from Oak Ridge National Lab, TN, USA.
Drumbl 1998). The findings of the synthesis presented here are ORNL/TM-13141.
clear — the consequences of modern warfare are overwhelmingly Barrett, M.J. 2011. Potentially polluting shipwrecks. Doctoral dissertation,
negative for the environment and biodiversity. Indeed, although School of the Environment, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.

Published by NRC Research Press

 Lawrence et al. 455

Bass, A.J., D’Aubrey, J.D., and Kistnasamy, N. 1973. Sharks of the east coast of USA. Sci. Total Environ. 307(1–3): 179–189. doi:10.1016/S0048-9697(02)00543-0.
southern Africa. The genus Carcharhinus (Carcharhinidae). Available from In- PMID:12711433.
vest. Rep. Oceanogr. Res. Inst., Durban, SA. pp. 1–168. Certini, G., Scalenghe, R., and Woods, W.I. 2013. The impact of warfare on the
Baxter, H., Drummond, J.A., Stephens-Newsham, L.G., and Randall, R.G. 1953. soil environment. Earth Sci. Rev. 127: 1–15. doi:10.1016/j.earscirev.2013.08.
Reduction of mortality in swine from combined total body radiation and 009.
thermal burns by streptomycin. Ann. Surg. 137(4): 450–455. doi:10.1097/ Chadwick, D. 1992. The fate of the elephant. Available from the Sierra Club,
00000658-195304000-00004. PMID:13031480. Washington, DC, USA.
Baxter, L., Hays, E.E., Hampson, G.R., and Backus, R.H. 1982. Mortality of fish Chandler, C.C., Storey, T.G., and Tangren, C.D. 1963. Prediction of forest fire
subjected to explosive shock as applied to oil well severance on Georges spread following a nuclear explosion. Available from U.S. Forest Service Pa-
Bank. Available from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, MA, USA. cific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Albany, CA, USA. Re-
Technical Report WHOI-82-54. search Paper PSW-5.
Beare, D., Hölker, F., Engelhard, G.H., McKenzie, E., and Reid, D.G. 2010. An Chepesuik, R. 1997. A Sea of Trouble? Bull. At. Sci. 53(5): 40–44.
unintended experiment in fisheries science: a marine area protected by war Civil Aviation Authority. 2001. Large flocking birds: an international conflict
results in Mexican waves in fish numbers-at-age. Naturwissenschaften, 97: between conservation and air safety [Online]. Available from http://
797–808. doi:10.1007/s00114-010-0696-5. PMID:20625698. www.caa.co.uk/docs/224/srg_dps_flockingbirds.pdf [Accessed April 15 2015].
Beasley, G., and Kneale, P. 2002. Reviewing the impacts of metals and PAHs on Clark, B., and Jorgenson, A.K. 2012. The treadmill of destruction and the envi-
macroinvertebrates in urban watercourses. Prog. Phys. Geogr. 26(2): 236–270. ronmental impacts of militaries. Sociol. Compass, 6: 557–569. doi:10.1111/j.
doi:10.1191/0309133302pp334ra. 1751-9020.2012.00474.x.
Beatley, J.C. 1966. Winter annual vegetation following a nuclear detonation in Cleary, E.C., and Dolbeer, R.A. 1999. Wildlife hazard management at airports.
the Northern Mojave Desert (Nevada Test Site). Radiat. Bot. 6: 69–82. doi:10. Available from the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Airport Safety
Environ. Rev. Downloaded from cdnsciencepub.com by 182.253.87.196 on 01/08/24

1016/S0033-7560(66)80093-5. and Standards, Washington DC, USA.

Bednarek, A.T. 2001. Undamming rivers: a review of the ecological impacts of Clodfelter, M. 2006. The limits of air power: the American bombing of North
dam removal. Environ. Manage. 27: 803–814. doi:10.1007/s002670010189. Vietnam. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, NE, USA.
PMID:11393315. Coates, P. 2014. From hazard to habitat (or hazardous habitat): the lively and
Bender, A. 1977. Noise impact on wildlife: an environmental impact assessment. lethal afterlife of Rocky Flats, Colorado. Prog. Phys. Geogr. 38(3): 286–300.
In Proceedings of the 9th Conference of Space Simulation, NASA (P-2000,7), doi:10.1177/0309133313513296.
Los Angeles, CA, USA, 26–28 April 1977. pp. 155–165. Cohen, A.S. 1995. Paleoecological approaches to the conservation biology of
Benson, E. 2010. Wired wilderness: technologies of tracking and the making of benthos in ancient lakes: a case study from Lake Tanganyika. J. N. Am. Ben-
modern wildlife. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD, USA. thol. Soc. 14(4): 654–668. doi:10.2307/1467547.
Berger, M., Jacobson, D., Pinca, S., Richards, Z., Hess, D., Harriss, F., Page, C., Conomy, J.T., Collazo, J.A., Dubovsky, J.A., and Fleming, W.J. 1998. Dabbling
Peterson, E., and Baker, N. 2008. The state of coral reef ecosystems of the duck behavior and aircraft activity in coastal North Carolina. J. Wildlife
Republic of the Marshall Islands. Edited by Waddell, J.E. and Clarke, A.M. pp.
Manage. 62(3): 1127–1134. doi:10.2307/3802567.
387–417.
Cooke, S.J. 2008. Biotelemetry and biologging in endangered species research
Berhe, A.A. 2007. The contribution of landmines to land degradation. Land
and animal conservation: relevance to regional, national, and IUCN Red List
Degrad. Dev. 18: 1–15. doi:10.1002/ldr.754.
threat assessments. Endanger. Species Res. 4: 165–185. doi:10.3354/esr00063.
For personal use only.

Bickham, J.W., Hanks, B.G., Smolen, M.J., Lamb, T., and Gibbons, J.W. 1988. Flow
Cooke, S.J., Midwood, J.D., Thiem, J.D., Klimley, P., Lucas, M.C., Thorstad, E.B.,
cytometric analysis of the effects of low-level radiation exposure on natural
Eiler, J., Holbrook, C., and Ebner, B.C. 2013. Tracking animals in freshwater
populations of slider turtles (Pseudemys scripta). Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxi-
col. 17(6): 837–841. doi:10.1007/BF01061989. PMID:3228299. with electronic tags: past, present and future. Anim. Biotelem. 1(5): 1–19.
doi:10.1186/2050-3385-1-1.
Bizzozero, O.J., Jr., Johnson, K.G., Ciocco, C., Hoshino, T., Itoga, T., Toyoda, S.,
and Kawasaki, S. 1966. Radiation-related leukemia in Hiroshima and Naga- Coppock, R.W. 2009. Threats to wildlife by chemical warfare agents. In Hand-
saki, 1946–1964: distribution, incidence and appearance time. New Engl. J. book of Toxicology of Chemical Warfare Agents. Edited by R. C. Gupta. Aca-
Med. 274(20): 1095–1101. doi:10.1056/NEJM196605192742001. PMID:5932020. demic Press, Waltham, ME, USA. pp. 747–751.
Black, B.B., Collopy, M.W., Percival, H.F., Tiller, A.A., and Bohall, P.G. 1984. Craft, T.F. 1964. Effects of nuclear explosions on watersheds. J. Am. Water Works
Effects of low level military training flights on wading bird colonies in Flor- Assoc. 56(7): 846–852.
ida. Available from the Florida Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Darby, S.C., Kendall, G.M., Fell, T.P., O’Hagan, J.A., Muirhead, C.R., Ennis, J.R.,
University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA. Technical Report No. 7. Ball, A.M., Dennis, J.A., and Doll, R. 1988. A summary of mortality and inci-
Brady, M.T. 1992. Environmental review of military base closures: implications dence of cancer in men from the United Kingdom who participated in the
for affected governments. Duke Environ. Policy Forum, 2(1): 1–15. United Kingdom’s atmospheric nuclear weapon tests and experimental pro-
Bridge, E.S., Thorup, K., Bowlin, M.S., Chilson, P.B., Diehl, R.H., Fléron, R.W., grammes. Br. Med. J. 296(6618): 332–338. doi:10.1136/bmj.296.6618.332. PMID:
Hartl, P., Kelly, J.F., Robinson, D., and Wikelski, M. 2011. Technology on the 3125884.
move: recent and forthcoming innovations for tracking migratory birds. Davis, J.S. 2007. Scales of Eden: conservation and pristine devastation on Bikini
BioScience, 61(9): 689–698. doi:10.1525/bio.2011.61.9.7. Atoll. Environ. Plan. D, 25(2): 213–235. doi:10.1068/d1405.
Briner, W. 2010. The toxicity of depleted uranium. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Demarais, S., Tazik, D.J., Guertin, P.J., and Jorgensen, E.E. 1999. Disturbance
Health, 7(1): 303–313. doi:10.3390/ijerph7010303. PMID:20195447. associated with military exercises. In Ecosystems of Disturbed Ground. Edited
Brode, H.L. 1968. Review of nuclear weapons effects. Annu. Rev. Nucl. Sci. 18(1): by L.R. Walker. Elsevier Science B. V., Amsterdam, NL. pp. 385–396.
153–202. doi:10.1146/annurev.ns.18.120168.001101. Dickson, T.L., Wilsey, B.J., Busby, R.R., and Gebhart, D.L. 2008. Grassland plant
Brooks, J.W., Evans, E.I., Ham, W.T., and Reid, J.D. 1952. The influence of external composition alters vehicular disturbance effects in Kansas, U.S.A. Environ.
body radiation on mortality from thermal burns. Ann. Surg. 136: 533–545. Manage. 41: 676–684. doi:10.1007/s00267-007-9064-4. PMID:18204985.
doi:10.1097/00000658-195209000-00018. PMID:14953182. Dinh, H. 1984. Long-term changes in dense inland forest following herbicidal
Brown, D.G., Thomas, R.E., Jones, L.P., Cross, F.H., and Sasmore, D.P. 1961. Lethal attack. In Herbicides in war: the long term ecological and human conse-
dose studies with cattle exposed to whole-body Co-60 gamma radiation. quences. Edited by A.H. Westing. Taylor & Francis, London, UK. pp. 31–32.
Radiat. Res. 15(5): 675–683. doi:10.2307/3571149. PMID:13873602. Dolman, S.J., Weir, C.R., and Jasny, M. 2009. Comparative review of marine
Bu-Olayan, A.H., and Subrahmanyam, M.N.V. 1997. Accumulation of copper, mammal guidance implemented during naval exercises. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 58:
nickel, lead and zinc by snail, Lunella coronatus and pearl oyster, Pinctada 465–477. doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2008.11.013. PMID:19070874.
radiata from the Kuwait coast before and after the gulf war oil spill. Sci. Total Donaldson, L.R., Seymour, A.H., and Nevissi, A.E. 1997. University of Washing-
Environ. 197(1): 161–165. doi:10.1016/S0048-9697(97)05428-4. PMID:9151438. ton’s radioecological studies in the Marshall Islands, 1946–1977. Health Phys.
Burger, J., and Gochfeld, M. 2000. Effects of lead on birds (Laridae): a review of 73(1): 214–222. doi:10.1097/00004032-199707000-00018. PMID:9199231.
laboratory and field studies. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health B Crit. Rev. 3(2): Downing, N., and Roberts, C. 1993. Has the Gulf War affected coral reefs of the
59–78. doi:10.1080/109374000281096. PMID:10834076. Northwestern Gulf? Mar. Pollut. Bull. 27: 149–156. doi:10.1016/0025-326X(93)
Byrnes, V.A., Brwon, D., Rose, H.W., and Cibis, P.A. 1955. Chorio-retinal burns 90019-G.
produced by atomic flashes. AMA Arch. Ophthalmol. 53(3): 351–364. doi:10. Doxford, D., and Judd, A. 2002. Army training: the environmental gains result-
1001/archopht.1955.00930010353005. PMID:14349443. ing from the adoption of alternatives to traditional training methods.
Campbell, C.A., Valentine, J.W., and Ayala, F.J. 1975. High genetic variability in a J. Environ. Plann. Man. 45(2): 245–265. doi:10.1080/09640560220116323.
population of Tridacna maxima from the Great Barrier Reef. Mar. Biol. 33(4): Draulans, D., and Van, Krunkelsven, E. 2002. The impact of wars on the Demo-
341–345. doi:10.1007/BF00390572. cratic Republic of Congo. Oryx, 36: 35–40.
Candole, C.A. 1967. Blast injury. Can. Med. Assoc. J. 96: 207–214. PMID:6015742. Drumbl, M.A. 1998. Waging war against the world: the need to move from war
Cao, X., Ma, L.Q., Chen, M., Hardison, D.W., Jr., and Harris, W.G. 2003a. Weath- crimes to environmental crimes. Fordham Int’l L. J. 22: 122–153.
ering of lead bullets and their environmental effects at outdoor shooting Dubey, A., and Shreni, P.D. 2008. War and environment: an overview. J. Environ.
ranges. J. Environ. Qual. 32(2): 526–534. doi:10.2134/jeq2003.5260. PMID: Res. Dev. 4: 968–976.
12708676. Dudley, J.P., Ginsberg, J.R., Plumptre, A.J., Hart, J.A., and Campos, L.C. 2002.
Cao, X., Ma, L.Q., Chen, M., Hardison, D.W., Jr., and Harris, W.Q. 2003b. Lead Effects of war and civil strife on wildlife and habitats. Conserv. Biol. 16(2):
transformation and distribution in the soils of shooting ranges in Florida, 319–329. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.00306.x.

Published by NRC Research Press

 456 Environ. Rev. Vol. 23, 2015

Dufour, P.A. 1980. Effects of noise on wildlife and other animals: review of Gleick, P.H. 1993. Water and conflict: fresh water resources and international
research since 1971. Available from the U. S. Environmental Protection security. Int. Secur. 18: 79–112. doi:10.2307/2539033.
Agency. EPA 550/9-80-100: 1–97. Goertner, J.F. 1982. Prediction of underwater explosion safe ranges for sea mam-
Dukiya, J.J., and Gahlot, V. 2013. An evaluation of the effect of bird strikes on mals. Available from the Naval Surface Weapons Center, Silver Spring, MD,
flight safety operations at international airports. Int. J. Traffic Transport Eng. USA, Report No. NSWC/TR-82-188.
3(1): 16–33. doi:10.7708/ijtte.2013.3(1).02. Goldizen, V.C., Richmond, D.R., Chiffelle, T.L., Bowen, I.G., and White, C.S. 1961.
Dunnet, G.M. 1977. Observations on the effects of low-flying aircraft at seabird Missile studies with a biological target. Available from the Office of Technical
colonies on the coast of Aberdeenshire, Scotland. Biol. Conserv. 12: 55–63. Services, Department of Commerce, Washington, DC, USA. USAEC Civil Ef-
doi:10.1016/0006-3207(77)90057-X. fects Test Group Report WT-1470.
DuPont, Guerry, W.T., III, Ham, W.T., Wiesinger, H., Schmidt, F.H., Goldsmith, G.S. 2010. Environmental impacts and military range use: an inves-
Williams, R.C., Ruffin, R.S., and Shaffer, M.C. 1956. Experimental production tigation and summary of what we have learned after 12 years at Massachu-
of flash burns in the rabbit retina. Trans. Am. Opthalmol. Soc. 54: 259–273. setts Military Reservation (MMR) and implications for the continued use of
PMID:13433777. military ranges in the United States. Available from the Army Environmental
Durant, R.F. 2007. The greening of the US military: environmental policy, na- Policy Institute. pp. 1–36.
tional security, and organizational change. Edited by B.A. Radin. Georgetown Gontier, M. 2007. Scale issues in the assessment of ecological impacts using a
University Press, Washington, DC, USA. GIS-based habitat model - A case study for the Stockholm region. Environ.
Edwards, C.A. 2002. Assessing the effects of environmental pollutants on soil Impact Assess. Rev. 27: 440–459. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2007.02.003.
organisms, communities, processes and ecosystems. Eur. J. Soil Biol. 38(3–4): Goodchild, M.F. 2000. The current status of GIS and spatial analysis. J. Geogr.
225–231. doi:10.1016/S1164-5563(02)01150-0. Syst. 2: 5–10. doi:10.1007/s101090050022.
Eisenbud, M., and Gesell, T.F. 1997. Nuclear weapons. In Environmental Radio- Govoni, J.J., West, M.A., Settle, L.R., Lynch, R.T., and Greene, M.D. 2008. Effects of
Environ. Rev. Downloaded from cdnsciencepub.com by 182.253.87.196 on 01/08/24

activity from Natural, Industrial & Military Sources. Academic Press, San underwater explosions on larval fish: implications for a coastal engineering
Diego, CA, USA, pp. 271–314. project. J. Coastal Res. 24(2A): 228–233. doi:10.2112/05-0518.1.
Eldred, E., and Trowbridge, W.V. 1954. Radiation Sickness in the monkey 1. Grace, J.B., and Keeley, J.E. 2006. A structural equation model analysis of postfire
Radiology, 62(1): 65–73. doi:10.1148/62.1.65. PMID:13134493. plant diversity in California shrublands. Ecol. Appl. 16(2): 503–514. doi:10.
Engelhard, G.H. 2008. One hundred and twenty years of change in fishing power 1890/1051-0761(2006)016[0503:ASEMAO]2.0.CO;2. PMID:16711040.
of English North Sea trawlers. In Advances in fisheries science 50 years on Gray, R.H., and Rickard, W.H. 1989. The protected area of Hanford as a refugium
from Beverton and Holt. Edited by A. Payne, J. Cotter, and T. Potter. Blackwell for native plants and animals. Environ. Conserv. 16(03): 251–260. doi:10.1017/
Publishing, Oxford, UK. pp. 1–15. S0376892900009346.
Entry, J.A., and Watrud, L.S. 1998. Potential remediation of 137Cs and 90Sr con- Gulland, J.A. 1968. Recent changes in the North Sea plaice fishery. J. Cons. Int.
taminated soil by accumulation in alamo switchgrass. Water Air Soil Pollut. Explor. Mer. 31: 305–322. doi:10.1093/icesjms/31.3.305.
104(3–4): 339–352. doi:10.1023/A:1004994123880. Guskova, A.K., Baranov, A.E., and Gusev, I.A. 2001. Acute radiation sickness:
Evans, M.I., Symens, P., and Pilcher, C.W.T. 1993. Short-term damage to coastal underlying principles and assessments. In Medical Management of Radiation
bird populations in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait following the 1991 Gulf Accidents, 2nd ed. Edited by I. Gusev, A.K. Guskova, and F.A. Mettler. CRC
War marine pollution. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 27: 157–161. doi:10.1016/0025- Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA. pp. 33–52.
326X(93)90020-K. Haavisto, P., Slotte, H., Rinne, P., Rizzolio, D., Jones, T., Gosovic, L., Rouche, J.,
For personal use only.

Fehmi, J.S., Farmer, T., and Zimmerman, A. 2001. Impacts of military vehicle Gagliano, C., Attar, G., Ludvigsen, V., Salem, M., Simonett, O., Witt, R., Bisset, R.,
training activities on vegetation: bibliography with abstracts. Available from De Jong, R., Dunn, D., Kante, B., Nakamura, T., Yeater, M., Gavidia, J.,
the US Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MI, Hogan, J., and Lacroux, S. 1999. The Kosovo conflict: consequences for the
USA. pp. 1–50. environment & human settlements. Available from UN Environment Pro-
Fisher, I.J., Pain, D.J., and Thomas, V.G. 2006. A review of lead poisoning from gramme, Nairobi, KE.
ammunition sources in terrestrial birds. Biol. Conserv. 131: 421–432. doi:10. Haavisto, P., Bleise, A., Burger, M., Cabianca, T., Heasman, D., Melanson, M.A.,
1016/j.biocon.2006.02.018. Ragnarsdottir, K.V., Rendlund, A., Sansone, U., Schmid, E., Snihs, J.O.,
Fosberg, F.R. 1985. Vegetation of Bikini Atoll. Atoll Res. Bull. 315: 1–28. Toivonen, A., Valtonen, M., Åkerblom, G., and Leal, J. 2001. Depleted Uranium
Foster, J.R., Ayers, P.D., Lombardi-Przbylowicz, A.M., and Simmons, K. 2006. in Kosovo: Post-conflict Environmental Assessment. Available from UN Envi-
Initial effects of light armored vehicle use on grassland vegetation at Fort ronment Programme, Nairobi, KE.
Lewis, Washington. J. Environ. Manage. 81(4): 315–322. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman. Ham, W.T., Wiesinger, H., Guerry, D., Schmidt, F.H., Williams, R.C., Ruffin, R.S.,
2005.10.012. PMID:16549228. and Shaffer, M.C. 1957. Experimental production of flash burns in the rabbit
Francis, R.A. 2011. The impacts of modern warfare on freshwater ecosystems. retina. Am. J. Opthalmol. 43(5): 711–718. doi:10.1016/0002-9394(57)91510-6.
Environ. Manage. 48: 985–999. doi:10.1007/s00267-011-9746-9. PMID:21904931. PMID:13411154.
Ganesan, K., Raza, S.K., and Vijayaraghavan, R. 2010. Chemical warfare agents. Hanson, T., Brooks, T.M., Da Fonseca, G.A., Hoffmann, M., Lamoreux, J.F.,
J. Pharm. Bioallied Sci. 2(3): 166–178. doi:10.4103/0975-7406.68498. PMID: Machlis, G., and Pilgrim, J.D. 2009. Warfare in biodiversity hotspots. Conserv.
21829312. Biol. 23: 578–587. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01166.x. PMID:19236450.
Gangwar, A. 2003. Impact of war and landmines on environment. In Forum Hardison, D.W., Jr., Ma, L.Q., Luongo, T., and Harris, W.G. 2004. Lead contami-
Proceedings: Landmines-Challenges to Humanity and Environment. Srinigar, nation in shooting range soils from abrasion of lead bullets and subsequent
IN, 20 April 2003. weathering. Sci. Total Environ. 328(1–3): 175–183. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2003.
Garten, C.T., Ashwood, T.L., and Dale, V.H. 2003. Effect of military training on 12.013. PMID:15207582.
indicators of soil quality at Fort Benning, Georgia. Ecol. Indic. 3: 171–179. Harrington, F.H., and Veitch, A.M. 1991. Short-term impacts of low-level jet
doi:10.1016/S1470-160X(03)00041-4. fighter training on caribou in Labrador. Arctic, 44(4): 318–327. doi:10.14430/
Gaspin, J.B. 1975. Experimental investigations of the effects of underwater ex- arctic1554.
plosions on swimbladder fish. I. 1973 Chesapeake Bay tests. Available from Hart, T., Hart, J., Fimbel, C., Fimbel, R., Laurance, W.F., Oren, C., Struhsaker, T.T.,
the Naval Surface Weapons Center, White Oak Lab, Silver Spring, MD, USA. Rosenbaum, H.C., Walsh, P.D., Razafindrakoto, Y., Vely, M., and DeSalle, P.
No. NSWC/WOL/TR-75-58. 1997. Conservation and civil strife: two perspectives from Central Africa
Gasser, H.P. 1995. For better protection of the natural environment in armed Conservation and civil strife. Conserv. Biol. 11: 308–314. doi:10.1046/j.1523-
conflict: a proposal for action. Am. J. Int. Law, 89: 637–644. doi:10.2307/ 1739.1997.011002308.x.
2204184. Hatch, F.T., Mazarimas, J.A., Greenway, G.G., Koranda, J.J., and Moore, J.L. 1968.
Gauthreaux, S.A., Jr., and Belsier, C.G. 2003. Radar ornithology and biological Studies on liver DNA in tritiated kangaroo rats living at Sedan Crater. Avail-
conservation. Auk, 120(2): 266–277. doi:10.2307/4090179. able from California University, Lawrence Radiation Lab, Livermore, CA,
Gazenbeek, A. 2005. LIFE, Natura 2000 and the military. Available from the USA. Technical Report No. UCRL-50481.
European Commission, Environment Directorate General, Brussels, BE. Hatch, T., Mazrimas, J.A., Koranda, J.J., and Martin, J.R. 1970. Ecology and radia-
Gese, E.M., Rongstad, O.J., and Mytton, W.R. 1989. Changes in coyote movements tion exposure of kangaroo rats living in a tritiated environment. Radiat. Res.
due to military activity. J. Wildlife Manage. 53(2): 334–339. doi:10.2307/ 44(1): 97–107. doi:10.2307/3573175. PMID:5473402.
3801133. Havlick, D.G. 2014. Opportunistic conservation at former military sites in the
Gladwin, D.N., Asherin, D.A., and Manci, K.M. 1988. Effects of aircraft noise and United States. Prog. Phys. Geogr. 38(3): 271–285. doi:10.1177/0309133314522281.
sonic booms on fish and wildlife: results of a survey of U.S. fish and wildlife Healy, H. 2007. Korean demilitarized zone: Peace and nature park. Int. J. World
service endangered species and ecological services field offices, refuges, Peace, 24(4): 61–83.
hatcheries, and research centers. Available from the US Departments of the Hieb, M.R., Mackay, S., Powers, M.W., Yu, H., Kleiner, M., and Pullen, J.M. 2007.
Interior, Fish and Wildlife Services. NERC-88/30. Geospatial challenges in a net centric environment: actionable information
Glasstone, G. 1962. The effects of nuclear weapons, revised ed. U.S. Department technology, design, and implementation. In Defense and Security Sympo-
of Defense and Energy, Washington DC, USA. sium (657816), International Society for Optics and Photonics. pp. 1–12.
Glasstone, G., and Dolan, P.J. 1977. The effects of nuclear weapons, 3rd ed. U.S. Higuchi, H., Ozaki, K., Fujita, G., Minton, J., Ueta, M., Soma, M., and Mita, N. 1996.
Department of Defence and Energy, Washington DC, USA. Satellite tracking of white-naped crane migration and the importance of the
Glasstone, S. 1964. The effects of nuclear weapons. Available from the US De- Korean demilitarized zone. Conserv. Biol. 10: 806–812. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.
partment of Defense, Washington DC, USA. OTSI identification 972902. 1996.10030806.x.

Published by NRC Research Press

 Lawrence et al. 457

Hinshaw, J.R. 1968. Early changes in the depth of burns. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. Lamb, T., Bickham, J.W., Gibbons, J.W., Smolen, M.J., and McDowell, S. 1991.
150(3): 548–553. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.1968.tb14706.x. PMID:5248767. Genetic damage in a population of slider turtles (Trachemys scripta) inhabiting
Houk, P., and Musburger, C. 2013. Trophic interactions and ecological stability a radioactive reservoir. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 20(1): 138–142. doi:
across coral reefs in the Marshal Islands. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 488: 23–34. 10.1007/BF01065340. PMID:1996906.
doi:10.3354/meps10410. Lanier-Graham, S. 1993. The ecology of war: environmental impacts of weaponry
Hunter, R. 1991. Bromus invasions on the Nevada Test Site: present status of and warfare. Walker and Company, New York, NY, USA.
B. rubens and B. tectorum with notes on their relationship to disturbance and Larkin, R.P., Pater, L.L., and Tazik, D.J. 1996. Effects of military noise on wildlife.
altitude. Great Basin Nat. 51(2): 176–182. doi:10.2307/41712634. A literature review. Available from the Construction Engineering Research
Hunter, R.B. 1992. Status of flora and fauna on the Nevada test site, 1988. Avail- Lab (Army), Champaign, IL, USA. No. USACERL-TR-96/21.
able from the United States Department of Energy Nevada Field Office, NV, Lathrop, E.W. 1983. Recovery of perennial vegetation in military maneuver ar-
USA. Report No. DOE/NV/10630-29. eas. In Environmental Efects of Off-Road Vehicles: Impacts and Management
Hupy, J.P. 2006. The long-term effects of explosive munitions on the WWI bat- in Arid Regions. Edited by R.H. Webband and H.G. Wilshire. Springer, NL.
tlefield surface of Verdun, France. Scot. Geogr. Mag. 122: 167–184. doi:10.1080/ pp. 265–277.
00369220618737264. Ledney, G.D., Elliot, T.B., and Moore, M.M. 1992. Modulation of mortality by
Hupy, J.P. 2008. The environmental footprint of war. Environ. Hist. 14(3): 405– tissue trauma and sepsis in mice after radiation injury. In The Biological Basis
421. doi:10.3197/096734008X333581. of Radiation Protection Practice. Edited by K.L. Mossan and W.A. Mills.
Hynes, M.V., Peter, J.E., and Rushworth, D. 2004. Artificial Reefs: A disposal Williams and Wilkens, Baltimore, MD, USA, pp. 202–217.
option for Navy and MARAD Ships. Available from the Rand National Defense Leitenberg, M. 2006. Deaths in Wars and Conflicts in the 20th Century, 3rd ed.
Research Institute, Santa Monica, CA, USA. No. Rand/DB-391-Navy. Available from the Cornell University Peace Studies Program, Ithaca, NY,
ICRC. 2008. How is the term “armed conflict” defined in international humani- USA. ISSN 1075-4857.
Environ. Rev. Downloaded from cdnsciencepub.com by 182.253.87.196 on 01/08/24

tarian law? Available from the International Committee of the Red Cross. Levy, B.S., Lee, C., and Shahi, B.S. 1997. The environmental consequences of war.
Opinion paper, pp. 1–5. In War and Public Health. Edited by B.S. Levy and V.W. Sidel. Oxford University
Isakason, J.S. 1974. Biological effects of underground nuclear testing on marine Press New York, NY, USA. pp. 51–62.
organisms. II. Observed effects of Amchitka Island, Alaska, tests on marine Liebow, A.A. 1983. Encounter with disaster: a medical diary of Hiroshima, 1945.
fauna. In Proceedings of the 1st Conference on the Environmental Effects of Yale J. Biol. Med. 56: 23–38. PMID:6349144.
Explosives and Explosions. Technical Report 73-223. Naval Ordinance Labo- Lifton, R.J. 1967. Death in life: survivors of Hiroshima. Random House, New York,
ratory, White Oak, MD, USA. pp. 86–97. NY, USA.
Jaffin, J.H., McKinney, L., Kinney, R.C., Cunningham, J.A., Mortiz, D.M., Lindenmayer, D.B., Wood, J.T., Cunningham, R.B., MacGregor, C., Crane, M.,
Kraimer, J.M., Graeber, G.M., Moe, J.B., Salander, J.M., and Harmon, J.W. 1987. Michael, D., Montague-Drake, R., Brown, D., Muntz, R., and Gill, A.M. 2008.
A laboratory model for studying blast overpressure injury. J. Trauma, 27(4): Testing hypotheses associated with bird response to wildfire. Ecol. Appl.
349–356. doi:10.1097/00005373-198704000-00002. PMID:3494851. 18(8): 1967–1983. doi:10.1890/07-1943.1. PMID:19263891.
Janssen, R. 1980. Future scientific activities in effects of noise on animals. In Lindsell, J.A., Klop, E., and Siaka, A.M. 2011. The impact of civil war on forest
Proceedings of the 3rd International Congress on Noise as a Public Health wildlife in West Africa: mammals in Gola Forest, Sierra Leone. Oryx, 45(01):
Problem, American Speech-Language-Hearing Association Rockville, MD, 69–77. doi:10.1017/S0030605310000347.
USA. Edited by J.V. Tobias, G. Jansen, and W.D. Ward. pp. 632–637. Long, T.P. 2009. A global prospective on underwater munitions. Mar. Technol.
Johnson, F.L. 1982. Effects of tank training activities on botanical features at Fort Soc. J. 43(4): 5–10. doi:10.4031/MTSJ.43.4.14.
For personal use only.

Hood, Texas. Southwest. Nat. 27(3): 309–314. doi:10.2307/3670880. Lovell, C.D., and Dolbeer, R.A. 1999. Validation of the United States air force bird
Jones, D.O. 2009. Using existing industrial remotely operated vehicles for deep- avoidance model. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 27(1): 167–171.
sea science. Zool. Scr. 38(s1): 41–47. doi:10.1111/j.1463-6409.2007.00315.x. Machlis, G.E., and Hanson, T. 2008. Warfare ecology. BioScience, 58: 729–736.
Jorgensen, C.D., and Hayward, C.L. 1965. Mammals of the Nevada test site. doi:10.1641/B580809.
Brigham Young Univ. Sci. Bull. 6(3): 1–81. Madsen, P.T. 2005. Marine mammals and noise: problems with root mean square
Kajitani, N., and Hatano, S. 1953. A-bomb disaster investigation report (Hiro- sound pressure levels. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 117: 3952–3957. doi:10.1121/1.
shima) first and second investigations. In Research on the Effects of the 1921508. PMID:16018497.
Atomic Bomb, Part 1. Edited by the Japan Science Council. pp. 522–601. Mai, T.A., Doan, T.V., Tarradellas, J., de Alecastra, L.F., and Gradnjean, D. 2007.
Kaufman, D.W., Finck, E.J., and Kaufman, G.A. 1990. Small mammals and grass- Dioxin contamination in soils of Southern Vietnam. Chemosphere, 67: 1802–
land fires. In Fire in North American Tallgrass Prairies. Edited by S.L. Collins 1807. doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2006.05.086. PMID:17222446.
and L.L. Wallace. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma, USA, Majeed, A. 2004. The impact of militarism on the environment: an overview of
pp. 46–80. direct and indirect effects. Available from the Physicians for Global Survival,
Kazmarek, S.E.A., Gray, P., and Booher, A. 2005. Environmental issues at military Ottawa, ON, Canada. ISBN 0-9735916-0-9.
installations: what they are and how they’re handled. Available from the Manci, K.M., Gladwin, D.N., Villella, R., and Cavendish, M.G. 1988. Effects of
Environmental Advisory. pp. 1–9. aircraft noise and sonic booms on domestic animals and wildlife: a literature
Keevin, T.M., and Hempen, G.L. 1997. The environmental effects of underwater synthesis. Available from National Ecology Research Center, Fort Collins, CO,
explosions with methods to mitigate impacts. Available from the US. Depart- USA. No. NERC 88/29.
ment of the Army Corps of Engineers St. Louis, MO, USA. Martore, R.M., Mathews, T.D., and Bell, M. 1998. Levels of PCBs and heavy metals
Ketten, D.R. 1995. Estimates of blast injury and acoustic trauma zones for marine in biota found on ex-military ships used as artificial reefs. Available from the
mammals from underwater explosions. In Sensory Systems of Aquatic Mam- South Carolina Department of Natural Resources Charleston, SC, USA.
mals. Edited by R.A. Kastelein, J.A. Thomas, and P.E. Nachtigall. De Spil Pub- Masco, J. 2004. Mutant ecologies: radioactive life in post-cold war New Mexico.
lishers, Woerden, NE. pp. 391–407. Cult. Anthropol. 19(4): 517–550. doi:10.1525/can.2004.19.4.517.
Kim, K.C. 1997. Preserving biodiversity in Korea’s demilitarized zone. Science, Mayorga, M.A. 1997. The pathology of primary blast overpressure injury. Toxi-
278: 242–243. doi:10.1126/science.278.5336.242. cology, 121: 17–28. doi:10.1016/S0300-483X(97)03652-4. PMID:9217312.
Kirkwood, J.B. 1970. Bioenvironmental safety studies, Amchitka Island, Alaska. McDonnel, G.M., Crosby, W.H., Tessmer, C.F., Moncrief, W.H., Baker, H.J.,
Milrow D+2 Months Report. Amchitka Bioenvironmental Program. Available Goldstein, J.D., Woodward, K., Shively, J.N., Daniell, H.W., Horava, A., and
from the Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus Laboratories, Columbus, Claypool, H.A. 1961. Effects of nuclear detonations on a large biological speci-
OH, USA. Report No. BHI-171-126. men (swine). Available from the Defense Atomic Support Agency, Sandia Base,
Kirkwood, J.B., and Fuller, R.G. 1972. Amchitka Bioenvironmental Program: Bio- Albuquerque, NM, USA. Operation Plumbbob, Project 4.1 Report WT-1428.
environmental Safety Studies, Amchitka Island, Alaska: Cannikin D+2 McNeely, J.A. 2003. Conserving forest biodiversity in times of violent conflict.
Months Report. Available from the Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus Oryx, 37: 142–152. doi:10.1017/S0030605303000334.
Laboratories, Columbus, OH, USA. Report No. BMI-171-147. Medica, P.A., Turner, F.B., and Smith, D.D. 1973. Effects of radiation on a fenced
Kishi, H. 2000. Effects of the “special bomb”: recollections of a neurosurgeon in population of horned lizards (Phrynosoma platyrhinos) in southern Nevada.
Hiroshima, August 8-15, 1945. Neurosurgery, 47(2): 441–446. doi:10.1097/ J. Hepetol. 7: 79–85. doi:10.2307/1563204.
00006123-200008000-00034. PMID:10942018. Merritt, M. 1970. Physical and biological effects: Milrow Event. Available from
Klein, D.R. 1973. The reaction of some northern mammals to aircraft distur- the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, National Technical Information Ser-
bance. In Proceedings of the 11th International Congress of Game Biology, vice, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Springfield, VA, USA. Report No. NVO-79.
Stockholm, SE, 3–7 September 1973. pp. 377–383. Merritt, M. 1973. Physical and biological effects: Cannikin. Available from the
Kolesnikova, A.A., Taskaeva, A.A., Krivolutskii, D.A., and Taskaev, A.I. 2005. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, National Technical Information Service,
Condition of the soil fauna near the epicentre of an underground nuclear U.S. Dep. of Commerce, Springfield, VA, USA. Report No. NVO-123.
explosion in the Northern Urals. Russ. J. Ecol. 36(3): 150–157. doi:10.1007/ Mettler, F.A. 2001. Direct effects of radiation on specific tissues. In Medical Man-
s11184-005-0053-7. agement of Radiation Accidents, 2nd ed. Edited by I. Gusev, A.K. Guskova, and
Kopel, D., Malkinson, D., and Wittenberg, L. 2015. Characterization of vegetation F.A. Mettler. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA. pp. 69–132.
community dynamics in areas affected by construction waste along the ur- Meyer-Reil, L., Köster, M. 2000. Eutrophication of marine water: effects on ben-
ban fringe. Urban Ecosyst. 18: 133–150. doi:10.1007/s11252-014-0396-6. thic microbial communities. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 41(1–6): 255–263. doi:10.1016/
Lacoste, Y. 1973. An illustration of geographical warfare: bombing the dikes on S0025-326X(00)00114-4.
the Red River, North Vietnam. Antipode, 5: 1–13. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8330.1973. Miller, J.W. 1972. Forest fighting on the Eastern Front in World War II. Geogr.
tb00502.x. Rev. 62(2): 186–202. doi:10.2307/213212.

Published by NRC Research Press

 458 Environ. Rev. Vol. 23, 2015

Miller, P.J.O., Biassoni, N., Samuels, A., and Tyack, P.L. 2000. Whale songs Oyama, A., and Sasaki, T. 1946. A case of burn of the cornea and retina by atomic
lengthen in response to sonar. Nature, 405(6789): 903–903. doi:10.1038/ bomb. Ganka Rinsho Iho, 40: 177.
35016148. PMID:10879521. Palumbo, R.F. 1962. Recovery of the land plants at Eniwetok Atoll following
Miller, T.A., Yaghoobian, A., Stuckert, B.J., Goudey, J.S., and McAndless, J.M. a nuclear detonation. Radiat. Bot. 1: 182–189. doi:10.1016/S0033-7560(61)
1998. The use of mapping techniques in an ecological risk assessment of sites 80018-5.
contaminated with chemical warfare agents. J. Hazard. Mater. 61: 31–36. Papanikolaou, N.C., Hatzidaki, E.G., Belivanis, S., Tzanakakis, G.N., and
doi:10.1016/S0304-3894(98)00104-6. Tsatsakis, A.M. 2005. Lead toxicity update. A brief review. Med. Sci. Monit.
Mole, R.H. 1958. The development of leukaemia in irradiated animals. Br. Med. 11(10): RA329–RA336. PMID:16192916.
Bull. 14(2): 174–177. PMID:13536383. Papastefanou, C. 2002. Depleted uranium in military conflicts and the impact
Monfils, R. 2005. The global risk of marine pollution from WWII shipwrecks: on the environment. Health Phys. 83(2): 280–282. doi:10.1097/00004032-
examples from the seven seas. In International Oil Spill Conference, Miami 200208000-00013. PMID:12132716.
Beach, FL, USA, 15–19 May 2005. pp. 1049–1054. Parkinson, B.W. 1996. Progress in astronautics and aeronautics: global position-
Mooney, H.A., and Cleland, E.E. 2001. The evolutionary impact of invasive spe- ing system: theory and applications, Vol. 2. AIAA, Reston, VA, USA.
cies. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 98: 5446–5451. doi:10.1073/pnas.091093398. Parsons, E.C.M., Birks, I., Evans, P.G.H., Gordon, J.G., Shrimpton, J.H., and
PMID:11344292. Pooley, S. 2000. The possible impacts of military activity on cetaceans in West
Moreira, F., and Russo, D. 2007. Modelling the impact of agricultural abandon- Scotland. Eur. Res. Cetaceans, 14: 185–190.
ment and wildfires on vertebrate diversity in Mediterranean Europe. Landsc. Parsons, E.C.M., Dolman, S.J., Wright, A. J, Rose, N.A., and Burns, W.C.G. 2008.
Ecol. 22: 1461–1476. doi:10.1007/s10980-007-9125-3. Navy Sonar and cetaceans: just how much does the gun need to smoke before
Mortberg, U.M., Balfors, B., and Knol, W.C. 2007. Landscape ecological assess- we act? Mar. Pollut. Bull. 56: 1248–1257. doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2008.04.025.
ment: a tool for integrating biodiversity issues in strategic environmental PMID:18534632.
Environ. Rev. Downloaded from cdnsciencepub.com by 182.253.87.196 on 01/08/24

assessment and planning. J. Environ. Manage. 82(4): 457–470. doi:10.1016/j. Pearson, C. 2012. Researching militarized landscapes: a literature review on war
jenvman.2006.01.005. PMID:16574306. and the militarization of the environment. Landsc. Res. 37: 115–133. doi:10.
Moura, R.L., Secchin, N.A., Amado-Filho, G.M., Francini-Filho, R.B., Freitas, M.O., 1080/01426397.2011.570974.
Minte-Vera, C.V., Teixeira, J.B., Thompson, F.L., Dutr, G.F., Sumida, P.Y.G., Pekins, C.E. 2006. Armored military training and endangered species restric-
Guth, A.Z., Lopes, R.M., and Bastos, A.C. 2013. Spatial patterns of benthic tions at Fort Hood, Texas. Fed. Facil. Environ. J. 17(1): 37–50. doi:10.1002/ffej.
megahabitats and conservation planning in the Abrolhos Bank. Cont. Shelf 20079.
Res. 70: 109–117. doi:10.1016/j.csr.2013.04.036. Pendersen, D. 2002. Political violence, ethnic conflict, and contemporary wars:
Mrema, E., Bruch, C.E., and Diamond, J. 2009. Protecting the environment dur- broad implications for health and social well-being. Soc. Sci. Med. 55: 175–
ing armed conflict: an inventory and analysis of international law. UNEP/ 190. doi:10.1016/S0277-9536(01)00261-1. PMID:12144134.
Earthprint. Pierce, D.A., and Preston, D.L. 2000. Radiation-related cancer risks at low doses
Mudie, N.Y., Gusev, B.I., Pivina, L.M., Schoemaker, M.J., Rijinkova, O.N., among atomic bomb survivors. Radiat. Res. 154(2): 178–186. doi:10.1667/0033-
Apsalikov, K.N., and Swerdlow, A.J. 2007. Sex ratio in the offspring of parents 7587(2000)154[0178:RRCRAL]2.0.CO;2. PMID:10931690.
with chronic radiation exposure from nuclear testing in Kazakhstan. Radiat. Pinaev, V.S., and Shcherbakov, V.A. 1996. Fires caused by nuclear explosions and
Res. 168(5): 600–607. doi:10.1667/rr0980.1. PMID:17973557. their consequences. Combust. Explos. Shock Waves, 32(5): 572–576. doi:10.
Nguyen, T.T. 2009. Vietnam and the environment: problems and solutions. Int. 1007/BF01998579.
For personal use only.

J. Environ. Stud. 66(1): 1–8. doi:10.1080/00207230902757305. Pinca, S., Beger, M., Jacobson, D., and Keju, T. 2005. The state of coral reef
Nishiwaki, Y. 1995. Fifty years after Hiroshima and Nagasaki (Invited Lecture). ecosystems of the Marshall Islands. In The State of Coral Reef Ecosystems of
In Proceedings Radiation Protection in Neighbouring Countries in Central the United States and Pacific Freely Associated States. Edited by J. Waddell.
Europe, Portoroz, SI, 4–8 Sept 1995. Edited by D. Glavic-Cindro. Portoroz, SI. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS NCCOS 11, Silver Spring, MD, USA.
pp. 17–26. pp. 373–386.
Nishiwaki, Y., Kawai, H., Shono, N., Fujita, S., Matsuoka, H., Fujiwara, S., and Planes, S., Galzin, R., Bablet, J.P., and Sale, P.F. 2005. Stability of coral reef fish
Hosoda, T. 2000. Uncertainties under emergency conditions in Hiroshima assemblages impacted by nuclear tests. Ecology, 86(10): 2578–2585. doi:10.
and Nagasaki in 1945 and Bikini Accident in 1954. In Proceedings of the 10th 1890/04-0774.
International Congress of The International Radiation Protection Associa- Popper, A.N., and Hastings, M.C. 2009. The effects of human-generated sound
tion. Hiroshima, JP, May 14–18 2000. pp. 1–10. on fish. Integr. Zool. 4(1): 43–52. doi:10.1111/j.1749-4877.2008.00134.x. PMID:
Noble, I.R., and Slatyer, R.O. 1980. The use of vital attributes to predict succes- 21392276.
sional changes in plants communities subject to recurrent disturbances. Porter, W. 2005. Movement of toxic materials through the Vieques marine
Vegetatio, 4(3): 5–21. doi:10.1007/BF00121013. ecosystem: The effects of naval bombardment on a Puerto Rican coral reef.
NRDC. 2003. Navy Sonar System Threatens Whales [online]. Available from In Paper presented at Ecological Society of America Annual Meeting,
http://www.nrdc.org/wildlife/marine (Accessed 15 April 2015). Montreal, QC, Canada, 7–12 August 2005.
Ochiai, E. 2014. Hiroshima to Fukushima biohazards of radiation. Springer- Prentice, R.L., Kato, H., Yoshimoto, K., and Mason, M. 1982. Radiation exposure
Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, DE. and thyroid cancer incidence among Hiroshima and Nagasaki residents.
O’Farrell, T.P. 1984. Populations of small mammals inhabiting sites 22 to Natl. Cancer Inst. Monogr. 62: 207–212. PMID:7167191.
32 years after nuclear events. In Joint international Meeting of the Australian Prosser, C.L., Painter, E.E., Lisco, H., Brues, A.M., Jacobson, L.O., and Swift, M.N.
and the American Society of Mammalogists, Sydney, AU, 9–13 July 1984. 1947. The clinical sequence of physiological effects of ionizing radiation in
Report No. CONF-840770-1. animals 1. Radiology, 49(3): 299–313. doi:10.1148/49.3.299. PMID:20266005.
Ohkita, T. 1975. A. Acute Effects. J. Radiat. Res. 16(Suppl. 1): 49–66. doi:10.1269/ Ramos, T.B., Alves, I., Subtil, R., and de Melo, J.J. 2007. Environmental perfor-
jrr.16.Suppl_1.49. mance policy indicators for the public sector: The case of the defence sector.
Olival, K.J., and Higuchi, H. 2006. Monitoring the long-distance movement of J. Environ. Manage. 82(4): 410–432. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2005.12.020. PMID:
wildlife in Asia using satellite telemetry. In Conservation Biology in Asia. 16580128.
Edited by J. McNeely, T. McCarthy, A. Smith, L. Whittaker, and E. Wikramnayake. Randall, P.A. 1961. Damage to conventional and special types of residences ex-
Society for Conservation Biology Asia Section and Resources Himalaya posed to nuclear effects. Available from the US Atomic Energy Commission,
Foundation, Kathmandu, NP. pp. 319–339. Washington, DC, USA. Report WT-1194.
O’May, J.F., Hansen, C.E., Heilman, E.G., Kaste, R.C., and Neiderer, A.M. 2005. Rausch, R.L. 1973. Post mortem findings in some marine mammals and birds
Battlespace terrain ownership: a new situation awareness tool. Available following the Cannikin test on Amchitka Island. Available from U.S. AEC,
from the Army Research Lab Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, USA. Nevada Operations Office, Las Vegas, NV, USA. Report No. HVO-130.
Orians, G.H., and Pfeiffer, E.W. 1970. Ecological effects of the war in Vietnam. Real, A., Sundell-Bergman, S., Knowles, J.F., Woodhead, D.S., and Zinger, I. 2004.
Science, 168: 544–554. doi:10.1126/science.168.3931.544. PMID:5436588. Effects of ionising radiation exposure on plants, fish and mammals: relevant
Ortiz-Roque, C., and Lopez-Riviera, Y. 2004. Mercury contamination in reproduc- data for environmental radiation protection. J. Radiol. Prot. 24(4A): A123–
tive age women in a Caribbean island: Vieques. J. Epidemiol. Community A137. doi:10.1088/0952-4746/24/4A/008. PMID:15700702.
Health, 58: 756–757. doi:10.1136/jech.2003.019224. PMID:15310801. Rendell, L.E., and Gordon, J.C.D. 1999. Vocal response of long-finned pilot whales
Osuji, L.C., and Nwoye, I. 2007. An appraisal of the impact of petroleum hydro- (Globicephala melas) to military sonar in the Ligurian Sea. Mar. Mammal Sci. 15:
carbons on soil fertility: the Owaza experience. Afr. J. Agricult. Res. 2(7): 198–204. doi:10.1111/j.1748-7692.1999.tb00790.x.
318–324. Rhoads, W.A., and Platt, R.B. 1971. Beta radiation damage to vegetation from
Oughterson, A.W., and Warren, S. 1956. Medical effects of the atomic bomb in close-in fallout from two nuclear detonations. BioScience, 21(15): 1121–1125.
Japan, Vol. 8. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, USA. doi:10.2307/1296097.
Oughterson, A.W., LeRoy, G.V., Liebow, A.A., Hammond, E.C., Barnett, H.L., Rhoads, W.A., and Ragsdale, H.L. 1971. Artemisia shrub size and radiation damage
Rosenbaum, J.D., and Schneider, B.A. 1951. Statistical analysis of the medical to Artemisiu from local fallout from Project Schooner. In Proceedings of the
effects of the atomic bombs. Available from the Report of the Joint Commis- National Symposium in Radioecology, 3rd ed. Edited by D.J. Nelson. National
sion for the Investigation of the Effects of the Atomic Bomb in Japan, Army Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, Springfield,
Institute of Pathology. Report No. TID-5252. VA, USA, pp. 953–960.
Owens, S. 1990. Defense and the environment: the impacts of military live firing Rhoads, W.A., Asher, D.K., and Ragsdale, H.L. 1972. Ecological and environmen-
in national parks. Cambridge J. Econ. 14: 497–505. tal effects from local fallout from schooner. 2. The beta and gamma radiation

Published by NRC Research Press

 Lawrence et al. 459

effects from close in fallout. Available from the US Atomic Energy Commis- Shields, L.M., Wells, P.V., and Rickard, W.H. 1963. Vegetational recovery on
sion, Washington, DC, USA. Technical Report No. PNE-529. atomic target areas in Nevada. Ecology, 44(4): 697–705. doi:10.2307/1933015.
Richards, Z.T., Beger, M., Pinca, S., and Wallace, C.C. 2008. Bikini Atoll coral Sidel, V.W. 2000. The impact of military preparedness on health and the envi-
biodiversity resilience five decades after nuclear testing. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 56: ronment. In The Environmental Consequences of War: Legal, Economic, and
503–515. doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2007.11.018. PMID:18187160. Scientific Perspectives. Edited by J.E. Austin, and C.E. Bruch. Cambridge
Richardson, J.W., and West, T. 2000. Serious birdstrike accidents to military University Press, Cambridge, UK. pp. 426–443.
aircraft: updated list and summary. IBSC Proc. 25(1): 67–97. Silberner, J. 1981. Hiroshima & Nagasaki: thirty six years later, the struggle
Richmond, D.R., and White, C.S. 1962. A tentative estimation of mans tolerance continues. Sci. News, 120(18): 284–285, 287. doi:10.2307/3966124.
to overpressures from air blast. Available from the Defense Atomic Support Simenstad, C.A. 1974. Biological effects of underground nuclear testing on ma-
Agency, Department of Defense, Washington, DC, USA. Technical Progress rine organisms. I. Review of documented shock effects, discussion of mech-
Report No. DASA 1335. anisms of damage, and predictions of Amchitka test effects. In Proceedings of
Richmond, D.R., Taboreili, Bowen, I.G., Chiffelle, T.L., Hirsch, F.G., Longwell, B.B., the 1st Conference on the Environmental Effects of Explosives and Explo-
Riley, J.G., White, C.S., Sherping, F., Goldizen, V.C., Ward, J.D., Wetherbe, M.B., sions. Technical Report 73-223. Naval Ordinance Laboratory, White Oak, MD,
Clare, V.R., Kuhn, M.L., and Sanchez, R.T. 1959a. Blast biology a study of USA. pp. 86–97.
the primary and tertiary effects of blast in open underground protective Singer, F.J., Schreier, W., Oppenhiem, J., and Garton, E.O. 1989. Drought, fires
shelters. Available from the Office of Technical Services, Department of Com- and large mammals. BioScience, 39(10): 716–722. doi:10.2307/1311003.
merce, Washington DC. USAEC Civil Effects Test Group Report WT-1467. Slotten, H.R. 2002. Satellite communications, globalization, and the Cold War.
Richmond, D.R., Wetherbe, M.B., Taborelli, R.V., Sanchez, R.T., Sherping, F., Technol. Cult. 43(2): 315–350. doi:10.1353/tech.2002.0088.
Goldizen, V.C., and White, C.S. 1959b. Shock tube studies of the effects of Small, R.D., and Bush, B.W. 1985. Smoke production from multiple nuclear
sharp-rising, long-duration overpressures on biological systems. Available explosions in nonurban areas. Science, 229(4712): 465–469. doi:10.1126/
Environ. Rev. Downloaded from cdnsciencepub.com by 182.253.87.196 on 01/08/24

from the Office of Technical Services, Department of Commerce, Washing- science.229.4712.465. PMID:17738679.
ton, DC, USA. USAEC Technical Report TID-6056. Smith, M.A., Turner, M.G., and Rusch, D.H. 2002. Lupine and the karner blue
Rideout, G., and Walsh, B.W. 1990. War games and multiple use: is it mission butterfly at Fort McCoy Wisconsin, U.S.A. Environ. Manage. 29(1): 102–115.
impossible to train combat troops and manage natural resources on the same doi:10.1007/s00267-001-0044-9. PMID:11740627.
forested acres? Am. For. 96: 11–21. Smith, S.L. 2011. Toxic legacy: mustard gas in the sea around us. J. Law Med.
Roberts, S., and Williams, J. 1995. After the guns fall silent: the enduring legacy Ethics, 39(1): 34–40. doi:10.1111/j.1748-720X.2011.00546.x. PMID:21314791.
of landmines. Available from the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation, Sparrow, A.H., and Woodwell, G.M. 1962. Prediction of the sensitivity of plants
Washington, DC, USA. to chronic gamma irradiation. Radiat. Bot. 2(1): 9–26. doi:10.1016/S0033-7560
Robison, W.L., and Noshkin, V.E. 1999. Radionuclide characterization and asso- (62)80091-X.
ciated dose from long-lived radionuclides in close-in fallout delivered to the Springer, P.J. 2013. Military robots and drones: a reference handbook. ABC-CLIO,
marine environment at Bikini and Enewetak Atolls. Sci. Total Environ. 237: Santa Barbara, CA, USA.
311–327. doi:10.1016/S0048-9697(99)00145-X. PMID:10568285. Stanley, E.H., and Doyle, M.W. 2003. Trading off: the ecological effects of dam
Rodda, G.H., and Savidge, J.A. 2007. Biology and impacts of Pacific Island invasive removal. Front. Ecol. Environ. 1: 15–22. doi:10.1890/1540-9295(2003)001[0015:
species. Boiga irregularis, the brown tree snake (Reptilia: Colubridae). Pac. Sci. TOTEEO]2.0.CO;2.
61: 307–324. doi:10.2984/1534-6188(2007)61[307:BAIOPI]2.0.CO;2. Stein, B.A., Scott, C., and Benton, N. 2008. Federal lands and endangered spe-
For personal use only.

Rose, H.W., Brown, D.V.L., Byrnes, V.A., and Cibis, P.A. 1956. Human chorioreti- cies: the role of military and other federal lands in sustain biodiversity.
nal burns from atomic fireballs. AMA Arch. Ophthalmol. 55: 205–210. doi:10. BioScience, 58(4): 339–347. doi:10.1641/B580409.
1001/archopht.1956.00930030207006. PMID:13282545. Stellman, J.M., Stellman, S.D., Christian, R., Weber, T., and Tomasallo, C. 2003.
Rowell, A., and Moore, P.F. 2000. Global review of forest fires. Available from The extent and patterns of usage of Agent Orange and other herbicides in
Forests for Life Programme Unit, WWF International. Vietnam. Nature, 422: 681–687. doi:10.1038/nature01537. PMID:12700752.
Ruhm, W., Walsh, L., and Nekolla, E.A. 2006. The cohort of the atomic bomb Stephenson, T.R., Vaughan, M.R., and Anderson, D.E. 1996. Mule deer movement
survivors-major basis of radiation safety regulations. In CAS – CERN Acceler- in response to military activity in southeast Colorado. J. Wildl. Manage. 60(4):
ator School and KVI: Specialised CAS Course on Small Accelerators. CERN, 777–787. doi:10.2307/3802377.
Geneva, CH. pp. 319–329. Stoddart, D.R. 1968. Catastrophic human interference with coral atoll ecosys-
Sanderson, H., Fauser, P., Thomsen, M., Vanninen, P., Soderstrom, M., Savin, Y., tems. Geography, 53(1): 25–40.
Khalikov, I., Hirvonen, A., Niiranen, S., Missiaen, T., Gress, A., Borodin, P., Sugg, D.W., Chesser, R.K., Brooks, J.A., and Grasman, B.T. 1995. The association
Medvedeva, N., Polyak, Y., Paka, V., Zhurbas, V., and Feller, P. 2010. Environ- of DNA damage to concentrations of mercury and radiocesium in large-
mental hazards of sea-dumped chemical weapons. Environ. Sci. Technol. mouth bass. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 14(4): 661–668. doi:10.1002/etc.
44(12): 4389–4394. doi:10.1021/es903472a. PMID:20469894. 5620140414.
Sarkees, M.R., Wayman, F.W., and Singer, J.D. 2003. Inter-state, intra-state, and Summary Report of Research in the Effects of the Atomic Bomb. 1951. Edited by
extra-state wars: a comprehensive look at their distribution over time, 1816– the Japan Science Council. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science.
1997. Int. Stud. Q. 47(1): 49–70. doi:10.1111/1468-2478.4701003. Sutherland, W.J., Bardsley, S., Clout, M., Depledge, M.H., Dicks, L.V., Fellman, L.,
Schecter, A., Kooke, R., Serne, P., Olie, K., Huy, D.Q., Hue, N., and Constable, J. Fleishman, E., Gibbons, D.W., Keim, B., Lickorish, F., Margersion, C.,
1989. Chlorinated Dioxin and dibenzofuran levels in food samples collected Monk, K.A., Norris, K., Peck, L.S., Prior, S.V., Scharlemann, J.P.W.,
between 1985-87 in the north and south of Vietnam. Chemosphere, 18: 627– Spalding, M.D., and Watkinson, A.R. 2013. A horizon scan of global conser-
634. doi:10.1016/0045-6535(89)90175-6. vation issues for 2013. Trends Ecol. Evol. 28(1): 16–22. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2012.
10.022. PMID:23219597.
Schecter, A., Birnbaum, L., Ryan, J.J., and Constable, J.D. 2006. Dioxins: an over-
view. Environ. Res. 101(3): 419–428. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2005.12.003. PMID: Sweetman, J. 1982. Operation chastise: the dams raid: epic or myth. Jane’s Pub-
16445906. lishing Company, London, UK.
Tang, Z., Engel, B.A., Pijanowski, B.C., and Lim, K.J. 2005. Forecasting land use
Schiffman, R. 2014. Drones flying high as new tool for field biologists. Science,
change and its environmental impact at a watershed scale. J. Environ. Man-
344(6183): 459–459. doi:10.1126/science.344.6183.459. PMID:24786054.
age. 76: 35–45. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2005.01.006. PMID:15854735.
Schonfelder, P., Bresinsky, A., Garnweidner, E., Krach, E., Linhard, H.,
Tavares, M., and De Melo, G.A.S. 2004. Discovery of the first known benthic
Mergenthaler, O., Nezadal, W., and Wirth, V. 1990. Verbreitungatlas der Farn-
invasive species in the southern ocean: The north Atlantic spider crab Hyas
und Blutenpflanzen Bayerns. Eugen Ulmer, Stuttgart, DE. araneus found in the Antarctic Peninsula. Antarct. Sci. 16: 129–131. doi:10.1017/
Science News Letter. 1945. Magnetron tube. Sci. News, 48(26): 403. S0954102004001877.
Science Wire. 2001. How Does Sonar Work? (Online). Available from http:// Telesco, D.J., and Van Manen, F.T. 2006. Do black bears respond to military
www.exploratorium.edu/theworld/sonar/sonar.html (Accessed 16 April weapons training? J. Wildlife Manage. 70(1): 222–230. doi:10.2193/0022-
2015). 541X(2006)70[222:DBBRTM]2.0.CO;2.
Scott, K.N. 2007. Sound and cetaceans: a regional response to regulating Theodorakis, C.W., and Shugart, L.R. 1997. Genetic ecotoxicology II: population
acoustic marine pollution. J. Int. Wildl. Law Policy, 10: 175–199. doi:10.1080/ genetic structure in mosquito fish exposed in situ to radionuclides. Ecotoxi-
13880290701347457. cology, 6: 335–354. doi:10.1023/A:1018695231565.
Shaeffer, J.R. 1957. Radiation injuries, with notes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Theodorakis, C.W., and Shugart, L.R. 1998. Genetic ecotoxicology III: the rela-
Am. J. Surg. 93(4): 641–643. doi:10.1016/0002-9610(57)90522-6. PMID:13403100. tionship between DNA strand breaks and genotype in mosquito fish exposed
Shambaugh, J., Oglethorpe, J., and Ham, R. 2001. The trampled grass: mitigating to radiation. Ecotoxicology, 7(4): 227–235. doi:10.1023/A:1008990828651.
the impacts of armed conflict on the environment. Available from the Biodi- Theodorakis, C.W., Bickham, J.W., Elbl, T., Shugart, L.R., and Chesser, R.K. 1998.
versity Support Program, Washington, DC, USA. Report No. 333.72096 S528. Genetics of radionuclide-contaminated mosquitofish populations and ho-
Sheppard, S.C., Sheppard, M.I., Gallerand, M., and Sanipelli, B. 2005. Deviation of mology between Gambusia affinis and G. holbrooki. Environ. Toxicol. Chem.
ecotoxicity thresholds for uranium. J. Environ. Radioact. 79(1): 55–83. doi:10. 17(10): 1992–1998. doi:10.1897/1551-5028(1998)017%3C1992:GORCMP%3E2.3.
1016/j.jenvrad.2004.05.015. PMID:15571876. CO;2.
Shields, L.M., and Wells, P.V. 1962. Effects of nuclear testing on desert Theodorakis, C.W., Bickham, J.W., Lamb, T., Medica, P.A., and Lyne, T.B. 2001.
vegetation. Science, 135(3497): 38–40. doi:10.1126/science.135.3497.38. PMID: Integration of genotoxicity and population genetic analyses in kangaroo
17820186. rats (Dipodomys merriami) exposed to radionuclide contamination at the Ne-

Published by NRC Research Press

 460 Environ. Rev. Vol. 23, 2015

vada Test Site, USA. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 20(2): 317–326. doi:10.1002/etc. Westing, A.H. 1980. Warfare in a fragile world: military impact on the human
5620200212. PMID:11351431. environment. Taylor & Francis, London, UK.
Troll, K. 2000. The impact of anti-personnel landmines on the environment. Westing, A.H. 1984. Herbicides in war: past and present. Herbicides in war: the
Available from United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research, long term ecological and human consequence. Taylor & Francis, London, UK.
Geneva, CH. Westing, A.H. 1985. Explosive remnants of war: mitigating the environmental
Trumbull, V.L., Dubois, P.C., and Brozka, R.J. 1994. Military camping impacts on effects. Stockholm Peace Research Institute and United Nations. Environ-
vegetation and soils of the Ozark Plateau. J. Environ. Manage. 40: 329–339. ment Programme. Taylor and Francis, London, UK.
doi:10.1006/jema.1994.1026. Westing, A.H. 1986. Global resources and international conflict: environmental
Tull, M. 2006. The environmental impact of ports: an Australian case study. In factors in strategic policy and action. Oxford University Press, UK.
Paper presented at the XIV International Economics History Congress Westing, A.H. 1989. Herbicides in warfare: the case of Indochina. Ecotoxicology
(session No. 58). Helsinki, FI. and Climate. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Hoboken, NJ, USA.
Tullis, J.L., Lamson, B.G., and Madden, S.C. 1955. Pathology of swine exposed to Westing, A.H. 1996. Explosive remnants of war in the human environment.
total body gamma radiation from an atomic bomb source. Am. J. Pathol. 31(1): Environ. Conserv. 23(4): 283–285. doi:10.1017/S0376892900039102.
41–71. PMID:13218131. Westing, A.H. 2003. Environmental dimension of the Gulf War of 1991. In Secu-
Turner, F.B. 1975. Effects of continuous irradiation on animal populations. Adv. rity and Environment in the Mediterranean: Conceptualizing Security and
Radiat. Biol. 5: 83–144. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-035405-4.50009-8. Environmental Conflicts Edited by H.G., Brauch, P.H. Liotta, A. Marquina,
Turner, F.B., and Medica, P.A. 1977. Sterility among female lizards (Uta P.F. Rogers, and M.E. Selim. pp. 523–534.
stansburiana) exposed to continuous ␥ irradiation. Radiat. Res. 70(1): 154–163. Westing, A.H. 2013a. The second Indochina War of 1961-1975: its environmental
doi:10.2307/3574739. PMID:850729. impact. In Arthur H. Westing: pioneer on the environmental impact of war.
Turner, F.B., Licht, P., Thrasher, J.D., Medica, P.A., Lannom, J.R., Jr., and Nelson, Springer, New York, NY, USA. pp. 35–50.
Environ. Rev. Downloaded from cdnsciencepub.com by 182.253.87.196 on 01/08/24

D.J. 1971. Radiation- induced sterility in natural populations of lizards Westing, A.H. 2013b. The Gulf War of 1991: its environmental impact. In Arthur
(Crotaphytus wislizenii and Cnemidophorus tigris). In Radionuclides in Ecosys- H. Westing: pioneer on the environmental impact of war. Springer, New
tems. Edited by D.J. Nelson. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Report CONF- York, NY, USA. pp. 50–76.
710501-P2, pp 1131–1143. Whicker, F.W., and Pinder, J.E. 2002. Food chains and biogeochemical pathways:
Turner, W., Spector, S., Gardiner, N., Fladeland, M., Sterling, E., and contributions of fallout and other radiotracers. Health Phys. 82(5): 680–689.
Steininger, M. 2003. Remote sensing for biodiversity science and conserva- doi:10.1097/00004032-200205000-00014. PMID:12003018.
tion. Trends Ecol. Evol. 18(6): 306–314. doi:10.1016/S0169-5347(03)00070-3.
Whicker, F.W., Hinton, T.G., MacDonell, M.M., Pinder, J.E., III, and Habegger, L.J.
Valeriote, F.A., and Baker, D.G. 1964. The combined effects of thermal trauma
2004. Avoiding destructive remediation at DOE sites. Science, 303(5664):
and x-irradiation on early mortality. Radiat. Res. 22(4): 693–702. doi:10.2307/
1615–1616. doi:10.1126/science.1093187. PMID:15016982.
3571550. PMID:14201877.
Whitecotton, R.C.A., David, M.B., Darmody, R.G., and Price, D.L. 2000. Impact of
Van, Dover, C.L., Aronson, J., Pendleton, L., Smith, S., Arnaud-Haond, S.,
foot traffic from military training on soil and vegetation properties. Environ.
Moreno-Mateos, D., Barbier, E., Billett, D., Bowers, K., Danovaro, R.,
Edwards, A., Kellert, S., Morato, T., Pollard, E., Rogers, A., and Warner, R. Manage. 26(6): 697–706. doi:10.1007/s002670002224. PMID:11029119.
2014. Ecological restoration in the deep sea: Desiderata. Mar. Policy, 44: Wills, J. 2001. “Welcome to the atomic park”: American nuclear landscapes
98–106. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2013.07.006. and the ‘unnaturally unnatural’. Environ. Hist. 7(4): 449–472. doi:10.3197/
Villoria Saez, P., del Rio Merino, M., Porras-Amores, C., and Gonzalez, A.S.A. 096734001129342559.
For personal use only.

2014. Assessing the accumulation of construction waste generation during Wilson, S.D. 1988. The effects of military tank traffic on prairie: a management
residential building construction works. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 93: 67–74. model. Environ. Manage. 12(3): 397–403. doi:10.1007/BF01867529.
doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2014.10.004. Xun, Z., Cao, N., and Zhao, T. 2013. Evaluation of the risks of environment in the
Visone, D.L. 2005. Battlespace terrain reasoning and awareness. In Proceedings construction process on the basis of Grey System theory. ICCREM, 2013:
of the ESRI User Conference, 25–29 July 2005. 741–749. doi:10.1061/9780784413135.069.
Vogt, H.P. 1995. Coral reefs in Saudi Arabia: 3.5 years after the Gulf War oil spill. Yang, X., North, R., and Romney, C. 2003. Worldwide nuclear explosions. Int.
Coral Reefs, 14: 271–273. doi:10.1007/BF00334351. Geophys. 81(B): 1595–1600. doi:10.1016/S0074-6142(03)80279-6.
Wanebo, C.K., Johnson, K.G., Sato, K., and Thorslund, T.W. 1968. Breast cancer Yelvertton, J.T., Richmond, D.R., Hicks, W., Saunders, K., and Fletcher, E.R. 1975.
after exposure to the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. N. Engl. The relationship between fish size and their response to underwater blast.
J. Med. 279(13): 667–671. doi:10.1056/NEJM196809262791301. PMID:4299516. Available from the Defense Nuclear Agency, Fort Belvior, VA, USA. Topical
Warren, S.D., and Büttner, R. 2006. Documentation of disturbance-dependent Report DNA 3677T.
threatened and endangered species on US Army–Europe training areas in Zahler, P., and Graham, P. 2001. War and Wildlife. The Afghanistan conflict and
Bavaria. Available from the Center for Environmental Management of its effects on the environment. Available from International Snow Leopard
Military Lands, Fort Collins, CO, USA. CEMML TPS, 06-05. Trust Special Report. pp. 1–13.
Warren, S.D., Holbrook, S.W., Dale, D.A., Whelan, N.L., Elyn, M., Grimm, W., and Zakrajsek, E.J., and Bissonette, J.A. 2005. Ranking the risk of wildlife species
Jentsch, A. 2007. Biodiversity and the heterogeneous disturbance regime on hazardous to military aircraft. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 33(1): 258–264. doi:10.2193/
military training lands. Restor. Ecol. 15(4): 606–612. doi:10.1111/j.1526-100X. 0091-7648(2005)33[258:RTROWS]2.0.CO;2.
2007.00272.x. Zallinger, C., and Tempel, K. 1998. The physiologic response of domestic animals
Watts, S.E. 1998. Short-term influence of tank tracks on vegetation and micro- to ionizing radiation: a review. Vet. Radiol. Ultrasoun. 39(6): 495–503. doi:10.
phyticcrusts in shrubsteppe habitat. Environ. Manage. 22(4): 611–616. doi:10. 1111/j.1740-8261.1998.tb01639.x.
1007/s002679900132. PMID:9582396. Zentelis, R., and Lindenmayer, D. 2014. Bombing for biodiversity – enhancing
Westing, A.H. 1971. Ecological effects of military defoliation on the forests of conservation values of military training areas. Conserv. Lett. 8(4): 299–305.
South Vietnam. BioScience, 21(17): 893–898. doi:10.2307/1295667. doi:10.1111/conl.12155.

Published by NRC Research Press