Thriving Oceans

I’ll be perfectly honest…I’ve been sitting on this essay from Conservation Biology for the last week or so as I mulled over my approach on breaching this topic.  At one point I envisioned the title as Torn Between Ocean Science and Ocean Conservation; clearly a manifestation of the dilemma with which I was trying to come to terms.  The direction we go just seems so obvious, right?  Well I guess that depends on which side of the fence you fall on as the authors, Heupel and Simpendorfer,  do a fairly good job at covering all aspects of the issue, from allowing scientific collection of only healthy species to limited collections of endangered species to the use of non-lethal methods to use of collections only in an attempt to perfect non-lethal sampling methods.  So what SHOULD we choose? 

Whether good or bad scientifically speaking, the fact is that continued media coverage of declining shark populations and our fisheries in general is sparking a change in the attitudes of our future scientists as conservationist ideals seep into the public.

“One noticeable result of the increase in concern about sharks is that more students enquiring about graduate school who are interested in working on sharks are indicating they are not willing to participate in projects that may harm sharks. This occurs before they know which species are involved, the status of that species, or what benefits could be gained from lethal sampling. This suggests their perspective is not rooted in science, but is ethical, political, or emotive.”

So are ethics, politics, and emotions incompatible with science?  Perhaps.  But before any skewering takes place let me qualify that remark.  Science strives or should strive to remain unbiased  in its approach to answering questions or interpreting results.  Science should not let politics drive a conclusion, science should not let profits mask facts, science should be done responsibly, and science should not be performed when devoid of morality.  And if this is the case, then I think it is obvious why we find ourselves with up and coming scientists displaying perspectives rooted in wildlife and ocean preservation.  Our ethics and emotions are driving those interested in marine conservation to take the lead for the protection of ecosystems as next generation scientists.  And when we combine this with garbage filled oceans, oil spills and pollution, and overfishing ,for instance, it should not be surprising that those tired of ocean degradation are interested in making a positive difference.   

And let’s not forget that we apply such a social standard when it comes to research on whales.  Non-lethal sampling is a worthy endeavor and out of scientific necessity ingenuity will drive new and innovative data gathering methods.

This definitely goes beyond sharks and speaks to greater societal attitudes. There’s a problem and our oceans need fixing.  And I am hoping that this change in attitude is not limited to those aspiring to be ichthyologists and marine biologists, but highlights growing awareness amongst consumers.  Getting back to the issue on the table, sharks are declining worldwide because of finning, commercial and recreational overharvesting , and loss of functional habitat to name a few.  But what does this all mean for science?  Well the authors ask the following questions:

“Should research sampling be slowed, stopped, or questioned because of their status?”

“Is the preservationist’s point of view misguided because information on depleted species is being applied to all shark populations?”

“Thus, if shark species are not assessed accurately and scientifically and suffer from biases, how can effective management and conservation be applied?”

I think one thing that is clear is that the answers or reasons will be just as varied as the life amongst a coral reef. But in regards to Heupel and Simpendorfer, the answer is rather middle of the road in that they believe we should not forego compiling data nor completely condemn killing sharks in the name of responsible science.  Additionally, they recommend always taking appropriate precautions to use nonlethal approaches whenever possible. However, this is just conjecture as I guess the actual solution will be determined in the near future by those now entering the scientific field.

HEUPEL, M., & SIMPFENDORFER, C. (2010). Science or Slaughter: Need for Lethal Sampling of Sharks Conservation Biology DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01491.x

Conservation, like expression, comes in many forms and a topic such as declining bluefin tuna is no different.  I recently received a digital copy of the following piece of art from Susan S., which was created in response to the latest failures to protect bluefin tuna.  The original is pastel and collage so enjoy yet heed its warning. 

An organization that delegates [tries to] policy without any foreseeable recourse at their disposal is simply a Think Factory.  They ‘THINK’ they can get offenders to comply merely on the basis of suggestion.  Perhaps this tactic works in the world of science fiction when the wave of a Jedi’s hand is all that is needed to persuade the weak minded to act in accordance, but on this blue planet it’s the greenery that ‘s the driving force.

As per PhilBee’s recent comment  on the posted video “A Ban on Bluefin Tuna?”,

Therein lies the major problem with the whole system: if a country wants to catch a particular species, it knows it can do so without fear.  Japan’s done it for years with whales, and intends doing it with Atlantic bluefin tuna until stocks are gone.

When you combine short term philosophies with big profits now, we find ourselves constantly hovering on the brink of a catastrophe.  Yet we dismiss the blatant warning signs in an inane refusal to admit a problem is brewing because wallets continue to grow.  And this global trend of denial spans Wall Street, the housing market, whales, salmon, bluefin tuna, sharks, and the list goes on and on.  Are we so short sighted that we cannot make the historical connections?  The age old saying describing those who do not  learn from history are condemned to repeat it is not just a cleaver witticism is it?

Well, we again find ourselves nodding in shame that organizations designed to protect global resources have managed to fall short of garnering enough protections to ensure sustainability.  But, it is not the sole fault of the United Nations or the International Whaling Commission to eradicate the problem.  It is the consumer behind the iron mask that is completing the profitable circle, continuing to order fish species plagued by depleted stocks, and are thus responsible for contributing to the overharvesting problem .  Making responsible choices is of the utmost importance and is quite necessary for conservation.  And of course that does not let negligent industries, businesses, and nations off the hook who continue to practice and promote unsustainable fishing and poaching practices.

So what we end up with is a lack-of-action scenario that is aptly manifested by an AP quote in “UN rejects export ban on Atlantic bluefin tuna”:

“Let’s take science and throw it out the door,” said Susan Lieberman, director of international policy with the Pew Environment Group in Washington. “It’s pretty irresponsible of the governments to hear the science and ignore the science. Clearly, there was pressure from the fishing interests. The fish is too valuable for its own good.”

Those concerned for ocean conservation must continue to educate friends and family, spread the word, make responsible consumer choices, and continue advocating sustainability.   While we fight for better legislation and protections, it doesn’t hurt to hit them where it hurts…their pocket books.

Photo: Captive bluefin tuna inside a transport cage. Credit: Gavin Newman / European Pressphoto Agency

While rummaging through the latest research in Conservation Biology, I came across a publication that caught my attention.   It’s not that the title conveyed a trinket of enlightenment nor promised to do so as I wound my way from introduction to methods to discussion.  In fact, the title evoked an emotional response that was the exact opposite of astonishment.  And by that I merely mean I could (or assumed I could) foresee the results, which is practically a staple in the ocean conservation world when discussing the effects of a burgeoning coastal human population on neighboring marine ecosystems.  In that context, is there anything else that should pop to mind other than overfishing and declining fisheries? 

With the pages rolling it becomes quite apparent that there are a few conservation gems sprinkled throughout the paper and worthy of rehashing, or what a waste of my time in writing and yours in reading this post.   Success of marine protected areas, declining species, and the interconnectedness of species in an ecosystem are the themes/take home messages while the family Scaridae is the star, or victims, of the show. 

Scarids, or parrotfish, included 83 species at the time of my university courses (~90 species as of 2002) and are so named because their fused teeth resemble a parrot-like beak.  And it is this beak that is quite useful for biting off pieces of coral and algal fronds.  The bits are ground down in their massive pharyngeal mills and the algal cells are extracted.  As discussed by the authors, parrotfish fill a critical role in maintaining coral reef systems by controlling filamentous algae and Scleractinian corals, removing detritus, and digging through the surface of the reef thusly redistributing the ground calcareous pieces as sediment.

As Pacific Island populations grow, the demand for coral reef resources including the parrotfishes themselves increases dramatically.  Thus, it is not surprising that the fishing pressures have caused a total parrotfish population decline of 45% from 2004 to 2005 in the Pacific Island study area. But remember I said there were a few conservation gems…well it turns out communities in the Western Solomon Islands have begun to see the frightening trends and instituted management practices and community-based marine protected areas to curb the overfishing (and habitat degradation) problem.  Not only are their livelihoods on the line but the whole coral reef system.

The take home lesson is that community-based marine protected areas do in fact work, and is evident with the following results:

 -Parrotfish numbers/abundance in outside sites were significantly lower than inside community-based marine protected areas (CBMPA) for each size category.

-Large effects between inside and outside CBMPAs were evident in each size category.

-Combined, these findings reinforce the stark difference in abundance across fish size categories between inside and outside the CBMPAs of villages with customary management and an urbanized center.

We now have yet another piece of evidence highlighting the need for marine protected areas to ensure healthy fish populations and coral reefs, as well as a need to conserve for the future health of a growing human population.  However, instilling good ocean management practices is not and an idea we can afford to treat with procrastination.  According to the authors, “There is a negative correlation between effective conservation and human population size (beyond a threshold of more than 1000 people) and between market integration and wealth, which suggests that as rural communities urbanize and monetize in Melanesia, their capacity to conserve resources weakens.”

And this negative correlation is perhaps the most interesting finding and something that sounds quite familiar.  As populations grow and become more economically viable they effectively lose their ecological self-control and ocean husbandry suffers. 

So is this humankind’s innate progression as we become less reliant on the natural course of the environment and aim to control it?  I have definitely seen this trend before…Have you?

ASWANI, S., & SABETIAN, A. (2009). Implications of Urbanization for Artisanal Parrotfish Fisheries in the Western Solomon Islands Conservation Biology DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01377.x
Photo credits: Richard Ling

I’ve been a bit distracted in the last couple of weeks and hence a lackluster post performance.  So time to get back to the ocean nitty gritty…

And what better way to start anew than with something to ease our appetites.  As I glance over the virtual menu I decide what the hell, “Waiter, I’ll take the tuna.”  I know I railed against overfishing, reported on the decreasing numbers of tuna, and have heard conservation organizations ask me to stay away from bluefin but no worries as the menu indicates nothing about item #13 being southern bluefin.  Oops, I guess he didn’t hear me, “WAITER, I’LL TAKE #13, THE CRITICALLY ENDANGERED TUNA…PLEASE.”

Yep, you heard it right that time.  A new study published Wednesday (Nov. 18) in PLoS has found that piece of tuna you just ordered and most likely eaten was potentially an endangered species.  And if I actually ate tuna sushi, that would be enough to make me sicker than ingesting a helping of week old sashimi leftovers.

Now that we know I’m safe from feelings of guilt and a potential bout of food poisoning, I’ll move on with the findings.  With a background in molecular biology, I love it when genetics rears its head in the world of conservation.  In this particular case, the researchers collected tuna samples from restaurants over a 7 month period in 2008 and, for the sake of brevity, used the obtained DNA to identify the species.  Here is a summary of their results:

-A piece of tuna sushi has the potential to be an endangered species, a fraud, or a health hazard. All three of these cases were uncovered in this study. Nineteen (out of 31) restaurant establishments were unable to clarify or misrepresented what species they sold.

-Twenty-two of 68 samples were sold as species that were contradicted by molecular identification, while six samples were sold as ‘‘tuna’’ or ‘‘red tuna.’’ 

-Five out of nine samples sold as a variant of ‘‘white tuna’’ were not albacore (T. alalunga), but escolar (Lepidocybium flavorunneum), a gempylid species banned for sale in Italy and Japan due to health concerns.

-Nineteen samples were northern bluefin tuna (T. thynnus) or the critically endangered southern bluefin tuna (T. maccoyii), though nine restaurants that sold these species did not state these species on their menus.

The high stakes, money making tuna market has effectively become a game of chance for the consumer. And when you can’t trust the restaurant, the menu, or the staff, perhaps it is better to err on the side of caution.  Just something to think about the next time you pick up your chop sticks.

Lowenstein, J., Amato, G., & Kolokotronis, S. (2009). The Real maccoyii: Identifying Tuna Sushi with DNA Barcodes – Contrasting Characteristic Attributes and Genetic Distances PLoS ONE, 4 (11) DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0007866

Let’s send out some positive ocean vibes and get a jump on the weekend with a photo session of one of my favorite sea creatures…Seahorses!

Seahorses belong to the genus Hippocampus which includes more than 47 species.  Showcasing a multitude of colors and sizes, they  are adept at camouflaging themselves amongst seagrasses, coral reefs and mangroves in the shallow tropical and temperate waters throughout the world.  And for those keeping track the Leafy Sea Dragon rounding up the session belongs to the genus Phycodurus, but but nonetheless is still a seahorse relative…