Starting in the seventies, researchers began to document the existence of "dead zones" in the world's oceans. These are areas of low oxygen where marine life can no longer be supported. They are located in coastal areas, where the vast majority of aquatic life is normally located. In 2004, a UN study reported 146 dead zones in the world's oceans. In 2008, the journal Science reported a count of 405 dead zones, up to 70,000 square kilometres in size.
Dead zones in the coastal oceans have spread exponentially since the 1960s and have serious consequences for ecosystem functioning. The formation of dead zones has been exacerbated by the increase in primary production and consequent worldwide coastal eutrophication fuelled by riverine runoff of fertilizers and the burning of fossil fuels.
The first cause listed is the runoff of fertilizer. Modern agricultural methods produce much greater crop yields than traditional farming practices, but in order to do they must apply significant amounts of fertilizer. This usually contains nitrogen and phosphorus, much of which ends up as runoff in rivers and tributaries, which eventually lead to the ocean. The result is, in effect, the fertilization of the ocean, which results in ocean-based plant life (such as phytoplankton) growing much more rapidly than usual. The consequence of the resulting algal bloom is that oxygen is depleted, so that larger forms of life, such as fish, can no longer survive.
It is possible for dead zones to be reversible if fertilizer inputs are stopped or significantly reduced. A dead zone in the Black sea largely disappeared after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Many countries suffered extensive economic difficulties, with the consequence that they could not afford to use fertilizer. After some time fishing became possible once again.
The second cause listed by Science is the burning of fossil fuels. The issue here is that of global warming, caused by the emissions generated from the use of these fuels. There are several factors here. First, as levels of carbon dioxide increase in the atmosphere, the ocean begins to absorb more carbon dioxide as well. As this report details the increase in CO2 makes it harder for marine life to breath, and when combined with the reduction in oxygen caused by the dead zones, puts a double pressure on marine life. Another report describes how changes in ocean currents, caused by global warming, could lead to the dead zones growing by as much as a factor of 10.
It is clear that dead zones are a significant, and growing, problem for the world's oceans. Unfortunately, however, this is not the only stressor on marine life. Overfishing has also led to a great reduction in fish stocks worldwide, as well as species extinction. An article in Scientific American reports on a Nature article from 2003 which concludes that 90 percent of large fish have already disappeared from the ocean, largely as a result of overexploitation by industrial fisheries.
There is also significant pollution of the world's oceans, far and above the issue of fertilizer runoff. Habitat destruction, especially the loss of coral reefs, is another major factor. The destruction of the corals is largely being caused by ocean acidification, which is occurring because of the increase of CO2 levels in the oceans, as mentioned above. While any individual species might be able to survive one of these factors, the combination of all of them is frequently more than enough to cause extinction, and the general loss of biodiversity.
If we don't take action, it is possible that most salt-water fish could be extinct by as early as mid-century. Ocean life is extremely important for us and the biosphere as a whole. Of course, for many people in the world, fish and other sea creatures are a primary source of food, and one they are dependant on. Other land-based creatures also depend on ocean life, and its loss would dramatically impact them and terrestrial extinction rates as well.
There are several things that can be done to help prevent the death of our oceans. First, we must stop overfishing. In many areas, fishing may need to be banned outright (which has already happened in some areas). Failure to do this does fishermen no good, as the fish stocks they depend on have already been depleted in many cases, and others will become so quickly without any action taken. We also need to reduce the use of fertilizer as much as possible, and to try to capture as much runoff as possible. Obviously, we also need to urgently address global warming, for reasons that extend further than the health of the oceans.
If we fail to address these problems, and continue on our present course, there are many young people alive today that may live to see a world in which the oceans are devoid of fish entirely.

7 comments:
" there are many young people alive today that may live to see a world in which the oceans are devoid of fish entirely."
Ending with an emotional appeal like that does nothing for your argument, at least to a GW skeptic like me. Young people mainly see fish in aquariums, which are mostly exotic fish that have little or no commercial value. Captive breeding technology is constantly improving, and might be the best way to preserve species of fish. Farming gives a financial incentive to preserve the species as well.
"Captive breeding technology is constantly improving"....
.....because it's generally awful and has nowhere to go but up. It is by no means a reliable fail-safe option if we destroy wild species or their habitats. There's a reason most zoos have the same catalogue of animals--because those are the handful that can reliably breed in captivity at all.
Reducing runoff, stop overfishing... good, good. These are concrete, achievable goals that can be done without major disruptions of our economy, and without handing more power over my life to governments.
AGW? Come on. "if, as in many climate model simulations"... is a direct quote from the second of your referenced articles. The IPCC simulations have been shown, at least to me (and I've been dealing with computer simulations of various physical systems for 40 years) to be somewhere between complete bullshit and wishful (for the grant money) thinking, so making them the linchpin of a theory is a big mistake.
Rail against the provable evils that attack the oceans, but don't expect the gossamer wings of GLOBAL WARMING! (run away, run away!) to carry any weight for your arguments.
Anon, the scientific community has complete consensus about global warming being real, and caused by man. See here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
"Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion"
If you think you know more than all the world's scientists, please publish your results in Nature or Science and have them peer-reviewed. If they stand up, the scientific community will change its mind, and so will I.
Canada Guy, you sure attract some trolls! This letter, sent to every US Senator and signed by every reputable scientific organization, is indicative of the consensus: http://wildwildweather.com/forecastblog/2009/10/a-letter-you-should-read/
And as for models, they are not necessary to prove climate change is happening. The empirical evidence is just as conclusive as an apple falling from a tree or the puzzle of the continents, mountain ranges, and exposed layers or strata should be sufficient to prove plate tectonics. Melting glaciers and ice caps and permafrost, wilder more violent weather episodes, rising seas, and spreading droughts are plenty to indicate the climate is warming.
Aside from these looming disasters caused by CO2, emissions from gasoline and ethanol are producing enough toxic ozone and peroxyacetyl nitrates to destroy vegetation. These invisible but lethal components in the atmosphere are well known to be toxic to plants (and humans, causing cancer, emphysema and asthma). Symptoms of the cumulative damage has been visible this past summer on the eastern seaboard of the USA, and in addition for the first time there was universal poisoning of annual plants.
Think of the potential for crop failure, and famine - ecosystem collapse, and mass extinctions, if we continue spewing fuel emissions into our air. That's the terrestrial version of ocean acidification.
I'm glad that you blogged this piece. But please don't waste your time with the denialist(s)..aka 'Trolls'; they are usually the ones who want to carry on with business as usual. Keep up the good work!
Hi Anon, thanks for the comments! Yes, when I started this blog, I had the comments wide open, and I tried to respond seriously and rationally to the deniers, but eventually I got sick of making the same arguments over and over.
I no longer accept comments denying global warming, just as I wouldn't accept comments saying the Earth is flat or only 6000 years old. I should probably put together an official policy on comments and put on a link on the main page. At some point I need to go through my old articles and clean them up too. Another couple items on the todo list. :)
Post a Comment