Thriving Oceans

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

“I found a cure for the plague of the 20th century, and now I’ve lost it!”  Perhaps it was the connotation of the quote itself or a combination of the fervor in Dr. Robert Campbell’s voice that made it stick in my mind after all these years, but in any case that early 90s Sean Connery flick is ever so applicable.  If you haven’t seen Medicine Man, it follows the quest of a researcher on the verge of a discovery of a cure for cancer in the Amazonian rainforest.  The scientist’s desperate attempt to replicate a serum produced from compounds he originally derived from a flower continues to result in failure.  The climax (spoiler) reveals the cure’s source was not the flower but a species of a rare indigenous ant, whose only known location is lost to the bulldozers and fires of deforestation.

Perhaps not as sexy as the fauna of the Amazon nor as adventurous as Dr. Campbell’s pursuit, scientists studying sea cucumbers in the Egyptian Red Sea are making the same leap for a need of conservation.  In an all too common scenario not limited to rainforests, the marine environment is being overharvested for direct and immediate consumptive values while potentially losing important options values that could be discovered through bioprospecting.

As a result of overfishing of sea cucumbers in the Red Sea, a ban was initiated in 2001 and 2003.  However, the ban did not lift demand and as a result illegal harvesting exploded.  With lackluster recovery of commercially prized species, researchers found a need to tie potential future drug treatments and long-term economic development to survival of the sea cucumbers. 

“Given the importance of economic development in countries such as Egypt and the perceived low conservation value of invertebrates such as sea cucumbers, the linking of these factors to conservation is vital for the maintenance and sustainable exploitation of these animals.”

Researchers collected a total of 22 species and screened 11 of various commercial and non-commercial value for bioactive substances.  Although their results showed no activity against either gram-positive or gram-negative target bacteria, all extracts were active against eukaryotic cell types, were most active against a mammalian carcinoma cell line, had a level of variation suggesting that the extracts contained more than one active compound, and that these compounds act at more than one site.

“The conservation value of a species is often defined not only by its rarity and distinctiveness, but also by its utility. This utility is reflected in its economic value, which can be further refined into its direct,  indirect, and options values. Overexploitation of marine resources for their immediate, direct benefits may be at the expense of future options value of a particular resource.”

Just as a fictionalized cure for cancer was simultaneously found and lost in the Amazonian rainforest for some immediate short-term gains, so too could we easily witness the vanishing of a species like the sea cucumber along with the next great drug discovery.  When you connect the ecological and potential options value, in terms of unique bioactive substances, of a marine species there is no doubt that it overshadows any perceived direct value we assign to them.

And this message of conservation is one that is germane to all nations.

 
LAWRENCE, A., AFIFI, R., AHMED, M., KHALIFA, S., & PAGET, T. (2009). Bioactivity as an Options Value of Sea Cucumbers in the Egyptian Red Sea Conservation Biology DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01294.x
Photo credit: Daniel S.

Sometimes it takes a meal  to get some notice.  And the next time you try to order fish and chips and the basket comes back heavy on potatoes don’t blame the waiter or waitress.  Our ocean gluttony has decimated the popular batter-dipped fish over the last 40 years.  Gluttony is the key word as our fishing practices are less than sustainable to say the least and the result of consuming a species faster than they can reproduce should not surprise any of us. 

The fact is that cod are vanishing, which is why the European Union is calling for sharp cuts to fishing quotas.  But are “sharp” cuts up to 25% in some fishing areas enough to ensure the species fully recovers? I’m not convinced!

Here are a few points to consider:

• In the 1970s more than 250,000 tons of cod were estimated to fill fishing zones in the North Sea, eastern British Channel and Scandinavia’s Skagerrak Strait
• Stocks are now hovering around 50,000 tons, a mere 20% of historical estimates
• “…will seek to cut the catch in some fishing grounds around Britain, France, Spain and much of Scandinavia from 5,700 tons this to 4,250 tons in 2010″
• “The scientific prognosis for most stocks is not encouraging, with many in a worse state than last year,” Britain’s Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
• “Overfishing off Canada’s maritime provinces exhausted the world’s richest cod grounds and forced the government to impose a fishing moratorium. The collapse wiped out more than 42,000 jobs, and 18 years later the fish have still not returned. Some Canadian scientists believe the collapse of cod stocks off Newfoundland and Nova Scotia changed the marine ecosystem so dramatically that it may be impossible for cod to recover.”
• In the U.S., the two major New England cod fishing waters have witnessed steep declines with catches totaling only 3,868 metric tons in 2007. This is about 19% of historical catches in the 1980s (20,000 tons annually)

Reference: EU officials warn of disappearing cod