Ocean species on the brink |
By Callum Roberts, Newsweek, May 14, 2012
Like children the world over, my daughters love turtles.
At once incongruous and graceful, they connect us to the world of 15 million
years ago, when very similar turtles swam alongside megatooth sharks, or 75
million years ago, when they rubbed shoulders with dinosaurs. Only eight
species of marine turtle remain from a lineage that stretches back little
changed deep into the age of dinosaurs. The largest living reptile is the
leatherback turtle, a barnacle-encrusted eminence that can reach 10 feet long and
weigh two tons. Today we confront the stark possibility that people will drive
the leatherback turtle to extinction within the next human generation. Already
there is just one leatherback left in the Pacific for every 20 in 1962, the
year I was born.
Human dominion over nature has finally reached the sea.
With an ever-accelerating tide of human impact, the
oceans have changed more in the last 30 years than in all of human history
before. In most places, the seas have lost upwards of 75 percent of their megafauna—large
animals such as whales, dolphins, sharks, rays, and turtles—as fishing and
hunting spread in waves across the face of the planet. For some species, like
whitetip sharks, American sawfish, or the once “common” skate, numbers are down
as much as 99 percent. By the end of the 20th century, almost nowhere shallower
than 3,000 feet remained untouched by commercial fishing. Some places are now
fished down to 10,000 feet.
Why, in the face of widespread evidence of human impact,
do so many people persist in thinking that the oceans remain wild and beyond
our influence? The answer lies in part in the creeping rate of change. Younger
generations are often dismissive of the tales of old-timers, rejecting their
stories in favor of things they’ve experienced themselves. The result is a
phenomenon known as “shifting baseline syndrome,” as we take for granted things
that would have seemed inconceivable two generations ago.
Loren McClenachan, a
graduate at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, unearthed a telling example of
shifting baselines in the archives of the Monroe County Library in Florida. She
found a series of photographs of fish landed into Key West by one recreational
fishing charter company between the 1950s and 1980s, and extended it by taking
her own pictures at the same dock. In the 1950s, huge Goliath groupers and
sharks dominated catches, many of them bigger and fatter than the anglers. Over
the years, the fish shrink and groupers and sharks give way to smaller snappers
and grunts, but the grins on the anglers’ faces are just as broad today as they
were in the 1950s. Modern-day tourists have no idea
With the sole exception of Alaskan salmon, which have
been well managed, and rockfish or striped bass, which have experienced a
resurgence thanks to the careful shepherding of their fisheries, most of the
species we like to eat have plummeted since their historic highs. Puget Sound’s
salmon runs have dwindled to a trickle. Red snapper, bluefish, and menhaden are
all overfished in U.S. waters today, while grouper and capelin are far below
their 19th-century numbers. In 2010, a quarter of commercial fish stocks
assessed in the U.S. were considered overfished, meaning that they lie below
target levels, themselves far below historic highs. But this misses the real
scale of the problem. Overfishing is only one small piece in a much larger
puzzle of interacting impacts.
We pump chemical and industrial pollutants into our
rivers and oceans, heedless of consequences, and our unplanned experiment with
greenhouse gases is gradually infiltrating the deep sea, changing ocean
chemistry, impacting temperatures and oxygen levels, and shifting patterns of
underwater currents with dramatic consequences. The path we are on today is
pushing ocean ecosystems to the edge of their viability. Few people yet grasp
the gravity of the predicament.
I began my career studying coral-reef fish. Thirty years on,
fish are still at the heart of my research, but my outlook has expanded to a
much wider interest in the relationship between people and the sea. Scientists
are specialists and devote their lives to research within narrow fields that
become further constricted as time passes. Management of pollution is
segregated from that of fisheries, which in turn are rarely considered in the same
place as shipping, or climate change. This means that impacts are discussed in
isolation and by different people. But a view of the whole is far more alarming
than the sum of its parts.
What will the future look like? It is hard to grasp the
prospect of seas so compromised that they no longer sustain the ecological
processes which we take for granted, and upon which our comfort, pleasure, and
perhaps even our very existence depends. In the early days of European
seafaring, unexplored areas of ocean were marked on charts as “Mare Incognitum,”
or “Unknown Seas,” and the
The oceans have absorbed around 30 percent of the carbon
dioxide released by human activity since pre-industrial times, mainly from
fossil-fuel burning, conversion of forests and swamp to cities and agriculture,
and cement production. If carbon-dioxide emissions are not curtailed, ocean
acidity is expected to rise 150 percent by 2050, the fastest rate of increase
at any time in at least the last 20 million years and probably as long as 65 million
years, which takes us back to the age of dinosaurs. As Carol Turley, an expert
on ocean acidification from Plymouth Marine Laboratory put it, “the present
increase in ocean acidity is not just unprecedented in our lifetimes, it is a
rare event in the history of the planet.”
The effects of acidification are hard to predict. At the
very least life is likely to get much more difficult for species with carbonate
shells, which includes some of the most important primary producers in the sea,
the phytoplankton that sustain food webs and release life-giving oxygen. Any
fall in the rate of plankton production would reduce the snow of organic debris
that sinks from sunlit surface layers to the deep sea. Deep-sea communities
survive on meager handouts from above, and failure in supply would shrink their
numbers.
Acidification is only one part of the problem. The
runoff of nutrients from land, in the form of fertilizers and sewage, coupled
with rising temperatures, have triggered in recent years an explosion of dead
zones, low-oxygen areas where few species can survive. Dead zones are often
found at the mouth of mighty rivers like the Mississippi or in populated
coastal areas and inland seas. And yet despite their proliferation, future seas
will not be lifeless. We are creating winners as well as losers.
Jellyfish, for example, are great opportunists, and some
scientists fear that large parts of our most productive seas will transform
into jellyfish empires. Jellyfish positively thrive in pollution-enriched seas.
Given unlimited food, they can reach adult size fast. With their stinging
tentacles, they are formidable predators. Here one of the quirks of ocean food
webs comes into play to seal their dominance. Most animals that might eat
jellyfish go through tiny egg, larval, or juvenile stages when the tables turn
and they are themselves jellyfish prey. Such role reversals of predator and
prey are rare on land. In the sea, however, they are prevalent, with surprising
effects. The American oceanographer Andrew Bakun invites us to imagine a world
in which zebras and antelopes are voracious predators of young of lions or
cheetahs. What would the Serengeti look like if this were so?
The jellyfish joyride begins when high nutrients combine
with a fall in abundance of their predators. When plentiful, jellyfish suppress
their predators further by eating more of their young and so pave the way for a
full-blown population explosion. Mediterranean resorts have been plagued by
jellyfish outbreaks in the last 20 years. The main problem species there is the
mauve stinger, whose tentacles inflict slashing welts on the tender bodies of
bathers. In the summer of 2004, an estimated 45,000 swimmers were treated for
stings in Monaco alone. In 2007, Irish salmon farms were overwhelmed by hordes
of mauve stingers which slaughtered tens of thousands of salmon in their
deathly embrace. Similar mass killings have been reported in Japan, India, and
Maryland.
If food runs short, jellyfish don’t just die; instead
they shrink and wait until conditions improve (although if nutrient levels fall
far enough and for long enough, jellyfish blooms can snuff out). In a future
with more acidified seas, jellies won’t have troublesome carbonate skeletons to
handicap their chances. The altered oceans that haunt our possible future could
offer jellyfish worlds of opportunity. They have been here before. Enigmatic
traces in rocks from the earliest Cambrian Period, some 550 million years ago,
tell of an age of jellyfish that preceded the great radiation of life that
established most of the animal groups alive today. Collectively, the modern
reappearance of seas dominated by gelatinous animals, microbes, and algae has
been dubbed “the rise of slime.” It signals a reversion toward conditions that
prevailed in the earliest days of multicellular life.
We are living on borrowed time. We can’t cheat nature by
taking more than is produced indefinitely, no matter how fervently politicians
or captains of industry might wish it. In essence, what we have done in the
last few decades is to mine fish, bringing them in at rates faster than they
can replace themselves. Sharks, bluefin tuna, cod, Chilean sea bass, all have
declined steeply as a result of excessive fishing. The price that must be paid
for today’s rapaciousness will be tomorrow’s scarcity, or in some places, seas
without fish. If we follow our current trajectory, that point may be only 40 or
50 years away.
Most people are unaware that some of the species that
show up on the fishmonger’s slab simply cannot sustain productive fisheries in
the long run. They grow and reproduce too slowly. Most sharks and the bigger
skates and rays fall into this category. So does almost everything caught more
than 1,600 feet down—deep sea beasts like Chilean sea bass, orange roughy, or
roundnose grenadier. They are caught because they are there, and when they are
gone, they disappear from markets. There are good reasons why we farm animals
that are highly productive and feed low in the food web, like chickens and
cows, rather than bears or cougars. But it is the bears and cougars of the sea
that we have grown used to eating.
I often come across people who think that we can’t
afford to cut back fishing when every day there are more mouths to feed. But
simple math tells you that restocking our seas makes economic sense. Think of
it this way: if you have a million fish in the sea and can catch 20 percent of
them every year without depleting the stock, that stock would give you 200,000
fish a year. Now imagine that you nurtured your fish and gave them a chance to
grow so that you had 5 million. Your 20 percent would come to 1 million a year.
The interest rate on your capital is the same, but the yield is much bigger.
And with fish more abundant, they would be easier to catch, so you would need
fewer boats and each would cost less to run.
Wishful thinking? Not really. A World Bank report aptly
titled “The Sunken Billions” highlighted the madness of overfishing when it
calculated that major fish stocks of the world would produce 40 percent more if
we fished them less. It sounds paradoxical—fish less to catch more—but that is
the simple message.
People often ask me, “What can I do to help?” One place
to start is to avoid eating fish that are overexploited in the wild or taken
using methods that harm other wildlife. Try to avoid prawns or scallops and
other bottom feeders fished up by dredgers and trawlers, such as plaice, cod,
and hake. Eat low in the food web, so favor smaller fish like anchovies,
herring, and sardines over big predators like Chilean sea bass, swordfish, and
large tunas (you will be doing yourself a favor, as these predators also
concentrate more toxins). If you can’t give up tuna, choose pole- and
line-caught animals, which have virtually zero bycatch. (“Dolphin friendly”
versions alone may not be very dolphin friendly, since tuna are often caught
with purse seines, walls of net that surround and stress dolphins and snare
sharks, turtles, and other wildlife.) Farm-raised fish and prawns often come at
a high environmental cost in destroyed habitat and wild fish turned into feed.
Vegetarian fish like tilapia and carp are better than predators like salmon and
sea bass. Organic is better too, since your fish will have been dosed with
fewer chemicals.
If we carry on with business as usual, humanity has a
bleak and uncertain future. More fertilizer and sewage input into the oceans
would increase the frequency of harmful algal blooms, intensify oxygen
depletion, create more dead zones, and set the stage for the jellyfish
ascendancy. The spread of aquaculture will eat away at natural habitats and
aggravate problems of nutrient enrichment. More intense agriculture on
degrading soils will flush extra mud into coastal waters, which would destroy
sensitive habitats constructed by invertebrates like corals. Sea-level rises
will lead to more sea walls and other defenses in a process of coastal
hardening that will squeeze out productive habitats like mud flat and marsh.
With the disappearance of these vital nurseries, wild fisheries will suffer,
and there will be fewer feeding grounds for migratory birds. And if we remain
wedded to all the comforts that modern technology can give us, and remain as
wasteful as we are today, the oceans will continue to accumulate toxic
contaminants.
There is an old adage, much loved of self-help books,
that says “today is the first day of the rest of your life.” If we change
course by a few degrees now, it will take us to a very different place in 50
years’ time from where we are headed now.
Callum Roberts is a marine biologist and conservationist at the University of York, England He won the Rachel Carson Environmental Book Award for 2007's The Unnatural History of the Sea. His new book is The Ocean of Life.
1 comment:
As a life-long snorkeler & scuba diver, it grieves me to see the rapidly declining condition of the oceans I love...especially the collapse and bleaching of reefs and the loss of mangrove swamps. These are the nurseries of the ocean that protect juvenile fishes until they are ready for the open ocean.
If you ever wondered why you never see baby barracuda, its because they grow up in calm shadows of the protected network of roots created by the mangrove swamp. These ecosystems are going fast...ripped up to make shrimp farms and luxury hotels all over the tropics. Say good-bye to the great blue mother...she's dying faster than anyone expected.
Post a Comment