EdEarl Posted March 7, 2014 Posted March 7, 2014 undercurrentnews.com An international team of marine biologists has found mesopelagic fish in the earth’s oceans constitute 10 to 30 times more biomass than previously thought, reports Phys.org. UWA professor Carlos Duarte said mesopelagic fish – fish that live between 100 and 1,000 meters below the surface – must therefore constitute 95% of the world’s fish biomass. See also: phys.org This is good news for the ocean, because so much of the worlds fisheries are untouched and because these fish avoid nets.
Phi for All Posted March 7, 2014 Posted March 7, 2014 This is good news, but I didn't see anything in the article about new species, and that's what I gathered from your title.
Arete Posted March 7, 2014 Posted March 7, 2014 What the original article claims is that the biomass of fish in the mesopelagic zone is much higher than previously thought, and speculates that the failure to detect this in the past is because the fish species which occupy this zone are capable of detecting and avoiding nets. The 95% increase the pop sci claims is dependent on an extrapolation of one one study using one echo-sounder used on one voyage is extrapolatable to the entire globe. Understandably, the results of this extrapolation have extraordinarily wide confidence intervals - from 3,000 to 70,000 million tons of fish biomass between the latitudes of 40 degrees North/ South. Therefore, a conservative estimate (using the lower 95% CI from the paper) is a considerable, but much less dramatic increase in estimated fish biomass from 1,000 million tons to 3,000 million tons, with the point estimate being a tenfold increase. The authors are also careful (at least in the actual paper) to couch their results in the context that they are a single study and that further study is needed to provide an accurate estimate. http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140207/ncomms4271/full/ncomms4271.html What they AREN'T claiming, which makes this thread's title misleading, is that discovery equates to dramatic increases in fish species diversity.
CharonY Posted March 7, 2014 Posted March 7, 2014 In cases like this (i.e. wildly misleading title in the news section) wouldn't it be appropriate to change the title?
EdEarl Posted March 7, 2014 Author Posted March 7, 2014 (edited) This is good news, but I didn't see anything in the article about new species, and that's what I gathered from your title. Sorry about that. I'll ask for a title change. Edited March 7, 2014 by EdEarl
imatfaal Posted March 7, 2014 Posted March 7, 2014 Sorry about that. I'll ask for a title change. Done - although I am now looking for the other 95% of the dover sole I bought for our dinner
Phi for All Posted March 7, 2014 Posted March 7, 2014 Fishing conglomerates should be ponying up some heavy research bucks since this may mean restrictions on them could level off (not relax, just stop getting stricter). More studies needed, absolutely! And I love that these fish have adapted to avoid nets, and so quickly!
EdEarl Posted March 7, 2014 Author Posted March 7, 2014 Done - although I am now looking for the other 95% of the dover sole I bought for our dinner LOL. Well, if you want to change it again from "Fish" to "Fisheries" it's OK with me. Thanks.
Arete Posted March 14, 2014 Posted March 14, 2014 I just read a really neat critique of this paper here: http://www.southernfriedscience.com/?p=16806 Turns out that the reason previous studies may have missed all these fish is that they are generally very small in size, and that's how they evade nets. While it's a cool result and all, it seems like the potential impact of the paper on fishery viability might have gotten hyped a bit too much so it could land in Nature - not that I blame the authors for doing it - it's more the journal's fault for forcing them to ham up the sensationalist side of the research for publicity.
imatfaal Posted March 14, 2014 Posted March 14, 2014 I just read a really neat critique of this paper here: http://www.southernfriedscience.com/?p=16806 Turns out that the reason previous studies may have missed all these fish is that they are generally very small in size, and that's how they evade nets. While it's a cool result and all, it seems like the potential impact of the paper on fishery viability might have gotten hyped a bit too much so it could land in Nature - not that I blame the authors for doing it - it's more the journal's fault for forcing them to ham up the sensationalist side of the research for publicity. Cool critique and made a lot of sense. But also highlighted why people should stick to sensible measures and their own subject rather than branch out to other subjects in order to hype the message and "make it more accessible" The blog contained this great paragraph to finish with - to show the tiny size and continued fragility of our fish stocks: "To add even more context, while commercial fishery biomass is less than 510 million tons according to this study (that figure includes numerous non-commercial fish as well), the gross vehicle tonnage of the worlds shipping fleet tips the scale at 1.4 billion tons. " So why did a blogger who was criticising a paper for inadvertant misrespresentation decide to go completely out of his field and commit a similar felony? He linked to a UN Conference on Trade and Development paper on shipping which gave the same figure "The world merchant fleet reached almost 1.4 billion deadweight tons in January 2011," but with a very different designation. Gross Vehicle Tonnage does not equal deadweight tonnes; frankly after too many years in shipping I have never come across the term gross vehicle tonnage (if he meant gross registered tonnage this is even farther from the truth). Deadweight tonnage is almost the exact opposite of gross measurement; in general parlance gross measurements are the sum of the weight of the container (tare) and the weight of the cargo (net) - well the deadweight of a ship is the mass of cargo it could potentially carry before being too deep in water to be safe. So the deadweight is more in line with the net rather than the gross and is a very incorrect way of describing the mass of the world's fleet. But the niceties of deadweight, gross registered tonnage, Gross Vehicle Tonnage, and other silly measurement aside - why on planet earth does a science blogger, in an article pointing out the failings of another paper, feel the need to step out of his comfort zone with nice understandable SI units and start introducing ideas he clearly has no expertise in??
Recommended Posts