‘The Ocean of Life’—And the Sorrow Beneath the
Sea.
By Callum Roberts
Imagine an underwater world without whales, sharks, and dolphins, where
jellyfish and algae rule. It's already happening, says marine biologist Callum
Roberts in his new books, The Ocean of Life.
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 that anything has changed.
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 truth is that we are voyaging into
such seas again today.
Illustration by Newsweek (source photos): Monroe County Library (left); Loren
McClenachan / Scripps Institution of Oceanography
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.
The Ocean of Life: The Fate of Man and the Sea’ by Callum Roberts. 416 p.
Viking Adult. $19.60.
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.
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.
Reprinted by arrangement with Viking Penguin, a member of Penguin Group (USA)
Inc., from The Ocean of Life by Callum Roberts. © 2012 by Callum
Roberts.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment