Save Eco Destinations

A new Canadian study reveals the potential risks of genetically modified (GM) farmed Atlantic salmon escaping into the wild and cross-breeding with brown trout. According to the study, hybrid fish grow faster, out-compete native fish for food and stunt their growth — representing potential ecological risks for wild populations.

The research, published in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B, shows that the transgenic fish, which have been engineered with genes from another species to make them mature more quickly and grow larger, then pass on these genes to the hybrid offspring, BBC reports.

Meanwhile, AquaBounty, which engineered the transgenic salmon, has denied any risks, arguing that their GM fish were all female, sterile and would be sequestered in tanks on land.

Aquabounty’s transgenic salmon are currently being assessed by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and, if approved, could be the first GM animals to be sold for human consumption.

The researchers found that, while in the wild Atlantic salmon seldom mate with brown trout and successfully produce offspring, in the lab the GM salmon could do the same. Of the 363 fish analysed at the start of the experiment, about 40 per cent of the hybrids resulting from the salmon and trout breeding carried the modified genes and developed extremely quickly.

“[Under hatchery conditions] the transgenic hybrids grew faster than the wild salmon, wild trout and wild-type hybrids. The GM hybrids also outgrew the GM salmon,” Dr Darek Moreau, from the Memorial University of Newfoundland, Canada, said.

When placed in a mocked-up stream inside the laboratory, the hybrids out-competed both the GM salmon and wild salmon, significantly hampering their growth.

“This was likely a result of competition for limited food resources,” explained Moreau.

According to the researchers, this study underscores the ecological consequences of a scenario in which GM fish escape into the wild.

“Our results identify this new avenue for potential environmental impacts, and make it clear that extra vigilance might be required when producing GM species in areas where they could come into contact with closely related species,” said researcher Krista Oke, now a biology PhD student at McGill University, Montreal Gazette reports. “It shows that there needs to be really stringent safeguards to ensure that GM fish are sterile and that they don’t escape.”

Ron Stotish, CEO of AquaBounty Technologies Inc, said that his company has stipulated that it will market only sterile, all-female AquAdvantage salmon.

It is well-known that cruises cause colossal amounts of pollution by pouring untreated sewage into the ocean. While some cruise lines do dispose of their waste responsibly, most unfortunately do not.

Cruise ships can carry as many as 5,000 passengers and function in rivers, seas, and oceans all over the planet. According to Friends of the Earth, a large cruise ship will release the following outrageous amounts of pollutants in one single week:

• 210,000 gallons of human waste
• 1 million gallons of gray water (water from sinks, showers, laundry, and galleys)
• 25,000 gallons of oily bilge water
• Up to 11,550 gallons of sewage sludge
• More than 130 gallons of hazardous wastes

Some of this waste isn’t even treated prior to its release into the environment, and it excludes ballast water and air pollution.

Cruise ships contaminate marine and other ecosystems on various fronts: by releasing sewage, greywater, ballast water, bilge water, and solid waste; and through exhaust emissions, sound pollution, and oil spills, among others. Some of these problems are present in several types of vessels, such as large tankers, as well.

Case in point: Alaska

As Alaska is such a popular destination for cruise ships, it makes sense that Alaskans would notice the toxic discharges, be alarmed by them, and seek to limit the harm done to local fisheries such as pollock and salmon, which plenty of Alaskans depend on for their livelihood.

In 2006, Alaskans passed an initiative curbing the release of dangerous discharges from cruise ships. But the Alaskan government subsequently buckled under and weakened the requirements of the initiative due to pressure from the cruise industry. In 2009, a compromise passed by the Legislature pushed back the date for full execution of the discharge rules to 2016, meanwhile requiring the industry to employ the “most technologically effective” treatment methods. Except this didn’t work.

Earth Island Institute’s Campaign to Safeguard America’s Waters and Friends of the Earth then challenged the permit in court, represented by Earthjustice. The Alaska Superior Court recently ruled that the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation’s (DEC) 2010 cruise ship wastewater discharge permit in fact did not show a correct interpretation of the law that requires cruise ships to use the most effective pollution prevention technologies, because it allowed ships to keep on discharging pollutants at current levels by claiming any technology already in use would be deemed the most effective, according to the green groups.

The permit decision will now return to Alaska for further review. Meanwhile, ships will be allowed to continue discharging under the 2010 permit. Sounds like Alaskans still have a long way to go. (Read more here.)

Increasingly important

As the Arctic continues to melt, it is becoming increasingly imperative to do something about the pollution caused by cruise ships and other large vessels. Melting ice caps will only incite more fishing companies and cruise ship lines to explore the area – and leave their waste behind both in the water and in the air, further exacerbating ecological issues and accelerating climate change.

More countries across the globe are taking seriously the international goal of turning 10 per cent of coastal and marine waters into marine protected areas (MPAs) by 2020, according to a report prepared by the Nature Conservancy and presented this month at a United Nations biodiversity conference held in Hyderabad, India.

Mark Spalding, senior marine scientist at the Nature Conservancy who led the team that gathered the data, recognised that the size of protected areas is small when set against available sqmi of ocean.

Currently, MPAs cover much less than 1 per cent of the world’s oceans, The Christian Science Monitor reports.

But things are quickly changing.

Between 2003-7, MPAs expanded at a rate of about 11.8 per cent a year to cover about 2.5 million square kilometers. By 2010, they spanned some 4.8 million square kilometers – an average growth rate of 31 per cent for each of the intervening three years.

In 2012, protected areas stretch across about 8.2 million square kilometers, making the annual growth rate since 2010 an average of 35 per cent.

Over the next 12-24 months, another 5.2 million square kilometers of MPAs could be added if Cook Islands, Australia and New Caledonia push through with their plans.

One reason for the accelerated growth rate is that a few countries have been working to preserve vast breadths of pristine marine ecosystems that not commonly navigated, such as waters within the US exclusive economic zones (EEZ) off northwestern Hawaii and the Mariana Islands in the Pacific.

Although originally countries had agreed to meet the 10 per cent coverage target by this year, it was clear by 2010 that this target would not be reached, Spalding told. At a United Nations biodiversity conference in 2010 in Japan, negotiators moved the deadline to 2020, while simultaneously rewording the goals to offer more specific guidance on what areas were to receive protection.

The new goals detailed that MPAs would include regions that humans rely on for food or livelihood, regions that safeguard biodiversity and that conservation efforts must reach deep inland to embrace areas whose runoff flows into the rivers that empty into coastal waters.

“If you get it right, you’ll be generating such benefits for people that the whole system should snowball. People look over their shoulders, see an MPA down the road, and say: ‘We want one of those,’” Spalding added.

I did something amazing this weekend: I went snorkeling off Pompano Beach in South Florida. It was my first time and, if I had to think of one word to describe my experience, it was awesome. It was extremely great. I saw the remains of a shipwreck. I saw a shark (and followed it for a bit and tried not be scared). I saw gorgeous fish. I saw different colors and textures of coral. The water temperature was perfect. I got to work on my tan. I exercised in clear blue waters. And I even got a discount because I used a Travelzoo voucher.

Let me tell you more about it.

The company my friend Jen and I used is called Dixie Divers. Their store where you get the necessary equipment for snorkeling (or scuba diving!) and the vessel are in Deerfield Beach, FL, about an hour north of Miami. Here’s a video they made of what’s it’s like to go snorkeling with them (ignore the cheesy music):

Your morning would begin like this: arrive at the store by 8am (they will tell you to get there at 7:30am, but I’m a rebel) to obtain your gear and then drive 5 min. to the water, park, and get on the boat. Once it departs at 8:30am, you’ll get to relax and gaze at this:

About 30 min. later (I’m not sure how long it took because I was enthralled by the view and the breeze), you will find yourself ¼ of a mile off Pompano Beach, where you’ll get to check out the SS Copenhagen shipwreck. I’ll admit that I was not impressed. What I did enjoy was swimming amid a school of silver fish and detecting some kind of a stingray crawling at the bottom along remnants of the ship. You can swim, explore, float lazily, and tan on the boat for 45 min. to an hour.

After that, you will be summoned back on board and taken for a ride to the Nursery reef, which got its name because its residents include nurse sharks (they are used to divers and, according to one of the Dixie Diver tour guides, do not have teeth. I’m not sure I believe him.). This was my favorite snorkeling site! Plenty of fish! A couple of sharks! Underwater caves! Colors galore! A lovely coral reef! See for yourself:

 

All this while basking in the rays of South Florida’s glistening sun, your hair gently caressed by the wind, and listening to Sublime, Bob Marley (of course!), and other bands known for their laid-back and uplifting tunes (all this appears to be the delightful trend when boarding a catamaran and sailing off for a sunset cruise or snorkeling trip here).

This trip comes with sodas, water, animal crackers, and pretzels for you to snack on. I brought my own water and asked to have one of the oranges in the cooler because a) my body does not respond well to gluten and b) if I’m going to gorge myself on sugar, it will come in the form of cake or a frozen dessert, not a toxic soda that will, to boot, make me gassy (TMI? Nobody asked you to read this!). So I abstained. You can bring your own snacks and drinks, including beer and wine, and I encourage you to do both if you’re into that.

[Unfortunately,] I am not getting paid to write this review.

You’re welcome.

Want to go snorkeling?

Other South Florida companies that can take you out on diving, scuba or snorkeling trips or for a sunset cruise include:

• Miami Aqua Tours (leaves from downtown Miami)
• Play Time Water Sports (leaves from Brickell/downtown Miami) – this company is very disorganized and their website sucks. However, I went on their sunset cruise and it was gorgeous. Plus, the tour guides were charming and the trip included unlimited wine, beer, and snacks. Make your reservation a few weeks in advance and you’ll be golden. I might write a review of my trip.
• Miami Water Life Sports (leaves from Key Biscayne in Miami)

Check Travelzoo, Groupon, Living Social, Dealfind, Amazon deals, and others to find discounts for these and other excursions. There are some pretty excellent deals going on. Sign up for Miami, Fort Lauderdale, and other cities if you’re planning to visit!

Do your part to protect coral reefs

There are a few ways you can help protect coral reefs:

• Do not rip off pieces of coral to take home. That is selfish and harmful. Even worse, it can upset ecosystem balance. (Obviously.) Don’t do it.
• Do not litter. Don’t be that jerk. Turtles and other marine animals already eat plastic bags because they confuse them for food, such as jellyfish, and birds and fish everywhere are found dead with pieces of plastic in their digestive systems. Throw your junk in the trash or keep it on you until you return to land and recycle or toss it in a trash can there.
• Wear reef-safe sunscreen. What is reef-safe sunscreen? Sunscreen that doesn’t bleach coral reefs and contribute to their destruction. If you forget yours, Dixie Divers sells some at its store. To be sure you can wear it, however, especially if you choose another company, buy it yourself. It’s available at stores like Whole Foods and of course online via Amazon, Vitacost (my favorite), and other websites. I recently bought Kiss My Face SPF 30 sunblock spray through Vitacost and used it on my snorkeling trip. Highly recommended! Just remember to reapply after each dive.
• Do not feed wildlife.

That said, enjoy the adventure!

As problematic as Greenpeace can be sometimes, I have to say I love what its activists do.

Just today, the environmental group successfully interfered with a super-trawler leaving from the Netherlands for Australia. Activist climbers and divers sabotaged the 140-meter-long FV Margiris in the Dutch port of Ijmuiden by placing a chain around the ship’s propeller and establishing themselves on the cables between the ship and the quay.

The Lithuanian-flagged FV Margiris, one of the world’s largest fishing trawlers, will be re-flagged as Australian and sent off to catch more than 17,000 tonnes of baitfish off the southern island state of Tasmania. The ship’s operators are waiting to receive government approval to leave for Devonport.

“Wherever this ship has gone it has destroyed fish stocks and ruined fishermen’s livelihoods,” Greenpeace oceans campaigner Nathaniel Pelle argued. “Along with a broad cross-section of the community that has declared the Margiris unwelcome, we will be ramping up efforts to stop it doing the same in Australian waters.”

Pelle said that given its history of “plundering oceans elsewhere,” allowing the Margiris to fish in Australian waters represents a mockery of the country’s recent environmental commitments, including its immense network of new marine reserves. Just two weeks ago, Environment Minister Tony Burke announced that Australia will soon have the world’s largest network of marine parks, consisting of five main zones surrounding each of the country’s states and territories, including extending reef protection in the Coral Sea, although it does not ban all commercial fishing there. It would expand the number of protected areas from 27 to 60 and span 3.1 million square kilometers — one-third of Australia’s waters.

“The Margiris is bad news for Australia and globally irresponsible. Offering this vessel yet another fishing ground to plunder simply perpetuates an unsustainable fishing industry,” he stated.

In Tasmania, a petition against the ship’s imminent arrival has attracted thousands of signatures, including those of celebrities such as singer Guy Sebastian and surfer Kelly Slater. Moreover, Australia’s Green Party wants the vessel banned and Tasmanian independent MP Andrew Wilkie earlier this week encouraged Prime Minister Julia Gillard to do the same.

Unfortunately, the Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA) has dismissed concerns about the super-trawler, saying it would have little if any impact on the broader ecosystem in light of the strict catch limits already in place. AFMA also noted that the trawler will be allowed to catch only 10 per cent of available fish, a figure it calls highly precautionary figure because it falls well below international standards.

Seafish Tasmania assured that on-board observers will make sure it complies with the rules. I’m sure we can trust a corporation that makes its money off fishing when it tells us that it will abide by the rules and that its gigantic ship will not cause harm to the ecosystem, right?

Seafish Director Gerry Geen said the AFMA-set quota was estimated to be 5 per cent of the total Australian fishery for baitfish.

“It’s not the size of the boat that matters, it’s the size of the quota,” Geen commented. “The normal process is under way now for Margiris to be registered as an Australian vessel.”

He said his company plans to start fishing in August.

I hope Greenpeace wins this one.

 

Australia will soon have the world’s largest network of marine parks, Environment Minister Tony Burke has announced. It would expand the number of protected areas from 27 to 60 and span 3.1 million square kilometers — one-third of Australia’s waters.

The network consists of five main zones surrounding each of the country’s states and territories.

“It’s time for the world to turn a corner on protection of our oceans,” Burke affirmed. “Australia today is leading that next step.”

“This new network of marine reserves will help ensure that Australia’s diverse marine environment, and the life it supports, remain healthy, productive and resilient for future generations,” he added.

The proposed network extends reef protection in the Coral Sea and would give protection to Australia’s biggest undersea mountain range, the Diamantina fracture zone off the southwest coast, and new parts of the Coral Sea that are vital nesting grounds for green turtles and home to large predatory fish and sharks.

The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) Australia celebrated the news, calling the plan an “important example to the world.”

Still, the plan is not as ambitious as environmental groups had hoped, as they were pushing for banning all commercial fishing in the Coral Sea.

Fishers, of course, say the plan goes too far. Meanwhile, the Greens argue it does not go far enough.

As for commercial fishers, the government will compensate them with up to AUD 100 million (USD 99.6 million) for keeping them out of some of the new marine parks.

The marine reserves network is expected to be completed before the end of the year.

A study by the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego has found a 100-fold upsurge in human-produced plastic garbage in the Great Pacific Garbage Patch within the Pacific Ocean. Researchers found that the plastic debris is disrupting habitats in the ecosystem — but not in the ways you might imagine.

In 2009, a team of graduate students led the Scripps Environmental Accumulation of Plastic Expedition (SEAPLEX) to the North Pacific Ocean Subtropical Gyre aboard the Scripps research vessel New Horizon. The researchers, who focused their studies on an area 1,000 miles west of California, documented an immense amount of human-generated trash, mostly tiny broken down bits of plastic the size of a human fingernail floating across thousands of miles of open sea.

The new study published by a graduate student researcher in the latest issue of the journal Biology Letters reveals that plastic debris in the area popularly known as the “Great Pacific Garbage Patch” has grown by 100 times over in the past 40 years, thereby altering the natural habitat of animals such as the marine insect Halobates sericeus.

“When you go out into the North Pacific, what you find can be highly variable. So, to find such a clear pattern and such a large increase was very surprising,” said graduate student and lead author of the study Miriam Goldstein.

These insects — known also as ”sea skaters” or “water striders” – inhabit water surfaces and lay their eggs on flotsam such as seashells, seabird feathers, tar lumps and pumice. Now, sea skaters have are using plastic garbage as new surfaces for their eggs, which is strongly increasing the insects’ egg densities in the gyre.

This increase, documented for the first time in a marine invertebrate in the open ocean, may affect animals across the marine food web, such as crabs that prey on sea skaters and their eggs.

“This paper shows a dramatic increase in plastic over a relatively short time period and the effect it’s having on a common North Pacific Gyre invertebrate,” said Goldstein, chief scientist of SEAPLEX, a UC Ship Funds-supported voyage. “We’re seeing changes in this marine insect that can be directly attributed to the plastic.”

The amount of plastic debris will influence the survival of species specifically adapted to life on or around objects floating in the water.

The new study follows a 2011 report by Scripps researchers showing that 9% of the fish collected during SEAPLEX had consumed plastic waste. That study estimated that such fish in the North Pacific Ocean ingest plastic at a rate of roughly 12,000-24,000 tons a year.

The new study compared changes in small plastic abundance between 1972-1987 and 1999-2010 through historical samples gathered from various sources. In April, researchers with the Instituto Oceanográfico in Brazil published a report that eggs of Halobates micans, another species of sea skater, appeared on many plastic bits floating in the South Atlantic off the Brazilian coast.

“Plastic only became widespread in late ’40s and early ’50s, but now everyone uses it and over a 40-year range we’ve seen a dramatic increase in ocean plastic,” said Goldstein. “Historically we have not been very good at stopping plastic from getting into the ocean so hopefully in the future we can do better.”

A team of scientists from various universities in Israel has been studying marine macroalgae, also known as common seaweed. The group has determined that these algae can be farmed more quickly than land-based crops used for bioethanol and harvested as fuel without taking up land that could be employed in more profitable or environmentally conscious ways.

In addition, although both seaweed biofuels and bioethanol from food crops are less environmentally destructive than burning fossil fuels, using seaweed to develop biofuels is much more environmentally beneficial than creating bioethanol from crops like corn and sugarcane, as applying such crops for this purpose instead of using them to feed people causes food prices to rocket and can lead to food shortages.

Avigdor Abelson, a professor of Tel Aviv University’s Department of Zoology and the new Renewable Energy Center, also believes that growing macroalgae for bioethanol production can take care of the problem of eutrophication along the country’s coasts.

Eutrophication is pollution in waterways caused by human waste, or sewage, and aquaculture or fish farming operations. The result is excessive amounts of nutrients including phosphates and nitrates as well as harmful algae, all elements that ultimately damage endangered coral reefs. Multiple coastal regions, such as the Red Sea in the south of Israel, have suffered from eutrophication.

The scientists created an artificial “ecosystem” which they call “Combined Aquaculture Multi-Use Systems” (CAMUS). It incorporates the effects of human activity and realistically mimics the marine environment.

According to the scientists, the excess nutrients that come from man-made fish feeders, which are considered contaminants due to their harmful effects on the marine ecosystem, could be utilised by filter feeders like oysters and other shellfish and thus turned into food by these animals to sustain the growth of more seaweed.

Moreover, the seaweed can be grown along the coast unobtrusively, Abelson said.

“By employing multiple species, CAMUS can turn waste into productive resources such as biofuel, at the same time reducing pollution’s impact on the local ecosystem,” he stated.

Another advantage is that seaweed could become a renewable energy source that does not jeopardize natural habitats, biodiversity or human food sources.

Now, the scientists are collaborating to boost the carbohydrate and sugar contents of seaweed so they can efficiently ferment it into bioethanol.

The team is confident that macroalgae will be a major source for biofuel in the future. Let’s hope so!

 

Japan has been facing widespread criticism since it said it will be using some of the public funds allocated for disaster reconstruction to buttress its whaling operations. Instead of going to help fishing communities and others devastated by the 11 March earthquake and tsunami, a portion of the funds will go to strengthen security for the country’s divisive annual whaling hunt. Classy.

The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (SSCS) and Greenpeace accused the Japanese Government of spending an extra USD 30 million on increased security for the whalers, whose efforts are regularly affronted by anti-whaling groups.

The awesome Paul Watson.

“I think that it’s totally disgraceful,” SSCS Captain Paul Watson stated. “People from around the world sending money to help the victims of the tsunami-earthquake were not expecting their money to be used to fund killing whales in the Southern Ocean.”

Before the Japanese fleet departed for Antarctica earlier this week, the coast guard informed it would be sending out guards to protect it from environmental activists, AFP reports.

Fisheries Agency official Tatsuya Nakaoku said the move would ultimately help people who depend on whaling and whose livelihoods were ruined by the tsunami.

“The government will support the reconstruction effort of a whaling town and nearby areas,” he said. “This programme can help it reconstruct food processing plants there…”

“Many people in the area eat whale meat, too. They are waiting for Japan’s commercial whaling to resume,” he retorted.

Last February, the defiant actions of Sea Shepherd prompted Japan to shorten its hunt for the 2010-11 season by a month — after catching only one-fifth of its planned bounty.

Japan intends to kill almost 1,000 whales this time around, The Guardian reports.

In November, the Japanese Government approved a USD 1.6 billion extra budget, the third of 2011, to fund reconstruction and boost the economy lagging from the impact of the March disaster. Of the USD 64.2 million designated for fisheries-related spending, USD 29.3 million were earmarked for “stabilising whaling research.”

“We will bolster measures against acts of sabotage by anti-whaling groups so as to stably carry out the Antarctic whaling research,” the fisheries department then said.

Sea Shepherd is ready to confront the Japanese fleet. Three of the green group’s ships will set sail next week, The Sydney Morning Herald reports.

“We are hoping to deter their operations,” Watson said. “I assume the security vessels will try and dislodge us. I am assuming there will be some difficult confrontations.”

SSCS asked Australia to send a vessel down to keep the peace, but the country refused, he told.

Japan also approached Australia – asking to help protect it from groups like Sea Shepherd – to no avail. Apparently Australia doesn’t buy that Japan whales for scientific purposes, which is what Japan has claimed for a long time.

Australia does not “buy for one minute this argument,” said Australian Environment Minister Tony Burke.

“You don’t travel from one side of the globe to the other to harpoon whales and chop them up in the name of science,” he snapped.

Excellent.

Meanwhile, the clamor got louder this week when Latin American members of the International Whaling Commission urged Japan to halt its “scientific” whaling in Antarctica and respect sanctuaries.

Save the whales!

Climate change will bring a combination of rising temperatures and increased predation that will result in biodiversity loss – and it may be worse than currently predicted, claims a study by University of British Columbia (UBC) zoologist Christopher Harley.

“Global warming is already having significant ecological impacts and it’s only going to get more dramatic,” Harley warned.

The study

Published in the current issue of the journal Science, the study examines how rocky shore barnacles and mussels react to the combined effects of warming and predation by sea stars.

Harley looked at the upper and lower temperature limits of barnacles and mussels from the cool west coast of Vancouver Island to the warm shores of the San Juan Islands, where water temperature rose from relatively cool in the 1950s to the much warmer years of 2009 and 2010.

He found that in cooler locations, mussels and rocky shore barnacles could live high on the shore and be shielded from their predators. But as temperatures rose, barnacles and mussels had to move to lower shore levels — and be exposed to predatory sea stars, whose location has not shifted.

“Sea stars are the terrors of the intertidal zone,” said Harley, Vancouver Sun reports. “As it gets hotter you would expect [species] to just move down to lower positions on the shore where they wouldn’t be out of the water for so long. But things aren’t shifting in unison.”

As daily high temperatures during the summer have jumped by almost 3.5 degrees Celsius in the last 60 years, barnacle and mussels have moved 50 cm lower on the shore. However, the effects of predators, and therefore the position of the lower limit, have thus far remained unchanged.

“That loss represents 51% of the mussel bed. Some mussels have even gone extinct locally at three of the sites I surveyed,” said Harley.

He then found that when stress from sea star predation was reduced by using exclusion cages, mussels and other species were able to live in hotter sites where they usually can’t — and their populations there more than doubled.

“A mussel bed is kind of like an apartment complex – it provides critical habitat for a lot of little plants and animals,” said Harley. “The mussels make the habitat cooler and wetter, providing an environment for crabs and other small crustaceans, snails, worms and seaweed.”

In contrast with many previous studies on how species ranges will change due to global warming, this analysis does not assume that species will simply relocate to remain in their current temperature range.

As animals or plants are unable to change their habitat ranges, Harley told, the findings show that warming and predation together could spawn more widespread extinction than scientists currently anticipate.

“Warming is not just having direct effects on individual species,” Harley added. “This study shows that climate change can also alter interactions between species, and produce unexpected changes in where species can live, their community structure, and their diversity.”

The effect on fishers

Relatedly, UBC researchers have also determined how climate change can impact the economic viability of current fisheries practices. Fish stocks are already yielding fewer fish due to overfishing and environmental factors such as pollution.

“Climate change is likely to cause more losses unless we choose to act,” said Rashid Sumaila, principal investigator of the Fisheries Economics Research Unit at UBC and lead author of the study.

A collaboration between economists, biologists and climate-change scientists, the study gives a broad outlook of the effect of climate change on fisheries and their profitability; it was published online in the journal Nature Climate Change. It received the support of the Pew Charitable Trusts, National Geographic, the World Bank and the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

As waters warm, species move to cooler waters

Warming ocean temperatures have led many species to move farther towards the poles and into deeper and cooler waters. This means that while fishers in a few regions, such as Scandinavia in the far north, may benefit because they will now have more fish to catch, many others, and particularly fishers in the tropics, will lose an important food source along with their livelihoods. (Many fishers in tropical regions are poor and fish to feed themselves and their families.)

Researchers examined regional phenomena to help them find out what could happen on a global scale. For instance, lower catches of pelagic fish (such as sardines and anchovies) in Peru resulting from warmer waters during the 1997-1998 El Niño event caused more than USD 26 million in losses.

“For example, if you think about sardines on the Pacific Coast here: Whenever the temperatures are a bit higher, we see more sardines moving from Mexico through the US to Canada,” Sumaila noted, CBC News reports.

Fish survival is compromised

William Cheung, a biologist at the UBC Fisheries Center, said changes in temperature and ocean chemistry directly and adversely affect the physiology, growth, reproduction and distribution of marine life.

“Fish in warmer waters will probably have a smaller body size, be smaller at first maturity, with higher mortality rates and be caught in different areas,” he explained.

NOAA scientist and co-author Sam Herrick is calling for ongoing studies on how climate change and related factors will shape marine ecosystems and the productivity of fish populations.

Richer fish stocks = better adaptation to change

It was found that the bigger populations are, the better fish can adjust to environmental shifts such as warming temperatures. Minimizing the combined strains from overfishing, habitat degradation, pollution runoff, land-use transformation, competing aquatic resource uses and other anthropogenic factors will also contribute to helping stocks cope with climate change.

“We have to remember that the effect of climate change on the marine environment will occur alongside the impacts on land,” said Daniel Pauly, a UBC fisheries biologist and co-author.  “It will not be easy to divert resources from one sector to help another sector. This is why a strong governance system is needed – to temper the losses on the sectors that are worst hit.”

In other words, government officials need to step up and work harder to stop overfishing and illegal fishing, reduce runoff from agriculture and other polluting sources, and fight habitat destruction, among taking other measures.

Take a small step to make a difference

In the meantime, if you eat fish, something you can do is commit to purchasing only sustainably caught seafood. Read more about how to do this here:

• Greenpeace reveals canned tuna guide
• Fish eaters beware – your “sustainable” fish may not be

Related blog posts on Save Eco Destinations:

• Marine experts spell doom for world’s oceans, Pt. 2
• Marine experts spell doom for world’s oceans, Pt. 1