Salt-Water Fish Extinction Seen By 2048

Study By Ecologists, Economists Predicts Collapse of World Ocean Ecology

(WebMD)  The apocalypse has a new date: 2048.

That's when the world's oceans will be empty of fish, predicts an international team of ecologists and economists. The cause: the disappearance of species due to overfishing, pollution, habitat loss, and climate change.

The study by Boris Worm, PhD, of Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, -- with colleagues in the U.K., U.S., Sweden, and Panama -- was an effort to understand what this loss of ocean species might mean to the world.

The researchers analyzed several different kinds of data. Even to these ecology-minded scientists, the results were an unpleasant surprise.

"I was shocked and disturbed by how consistent these trends are -- beyond anything we suspected," Worm says in a news release.

"This isn't predicted to happen. This is happening now," study researcher Nicola Beaumont, PhD, of the Plymouth Marine Laboratory, U.K., says in a news release.

"If biodiversity continues to decline, the marine environment will not be able to sustain our way of life. Indeed, it may not be able to sustain our lives at all," Beaumont adds.

Already, 29% of edible fish and seafood species have declined by 90% -- a drop that means the collapse of these fisheries.

But the issue isn't just having seafood on our plates. Ocean species filter toxins from the water. They protect shorelines. And they reduce the risks of algae blooms such as the red tide.

"A large and increasing proportion of our population lives close to the coast; thus the loss of services such as flood control and waste detoxification can have disastrous consequences," Worm and colleagues say.

The researchers analyzed data from 32 experiments on different marine environments.

They then analyzed the 1,000-year history of 12 coastal regions around the world, including San Francisco and Chesapeake bays in the U.S., and the Adriatic, Baltic, and North seas in Europe.

Next, they analyzed fishery data from 64 large marine ecosystems.

And finally, they looked at the recovery of 48 protected ocean areas.

Their bottom line: Everything that lives in the ocean is important. The diversity of ocean life is the key to its survival. The areas of the ocean with the most different kinds of life are the healthiest.

But the loss of species isn't gradual. It's happening fast -- and getting faster, the researchers say.

Worm and colleagues call for sustainable fisheries management, pollution control, habitat maintenance, and the creation of more ocean reserves.

This, they say, isn't a cost; it's an investment that will pay off in lower insurance costs, a sustainable fish industry, fewer natural disasters, human health, and more.

"It's not too late. We can turn this around," Worm says. "But less than 1% of the global ocean is effectively protected right now."

Worm and colleagues report their findings in the Nov. 3 issue of Science.

---

SOURCES: Worm, B. Science, Nov. 3, 2006; vol 314: pp 787-790. News release, SeaWeb. News release, American Association for the Advancement of Science.

[bluestardad]

Lets show some pictures of Trout, These are not salt water fish but it looks cool any way. Hey maybe there should be a terror alert for a bad fishing day? Stay the Course...Dork

[neitherone]

...and now give me some good news :)

I can't figure out why people don't listen when they hear scientists report the research. Isn't it obvious that a scientist would have far fewer ulterior motives than say a canning industry spokesperson. Well it is to me - but I'm just one of those stupid 'tree huggers' - why I would want to fool people about the threat to our environment or the scientists would gamble with their credibility by spreading false information is beyond me. But I'm too tired to fight any more. Fire up a Marlboro and take a lobbyist and his wife to lunch - just no tuna for the wife or unborn kid.

I can't figure out why people don't listen when they hear scientists report the research. Isn't it obvious that a scientist would have far fewer ulterior motives than say a canning industry spokesperson. Well it is to me - but I'm just one of those stupid 'tree huggers' - why I would want to fool people about the threat to our environment or the scientists would gamble with their credibility by spreading false information is beyond me. But I'm too tired to fight any more. Fire up a Marlboro and take a lobbyist and his wife to lunch - just no tuna for the wife or unborn kid.

The greed in this world on all counts up to problems such as this. God created this world and set up a balance for all living things to exist for the good of each other. When man disturbs this balance in any way you can expect desastrous results.

[observantx]

Looks like we are on our way to actually making science fiction come true. Does "Soylent Green" ring a bell?

Don't expect any meaningful action from our current crop of leaders. They are too busy substituting religion for science. Too busy trying to breathe life back into the Snopes trial. Too busy trying to discredit repeatable, demonstable, fact based truths of how the universe is constructed, how plants grow, how energy is transformed and moved etc.

Another reason to vote. Not just to get this country back on the right path, but to start cleaning up our world and develop ways to feed, clothe, house, move and grow without polluting ourselves out of existence.

[finid-2009]

2048 is a mere 42 years from now. This kind of Armageddon news release from a "New" study always makes me skeptical. Let's get the data out; what trends are they analyzing and how did they reach this conclusion? If their attempt is to shock us into action, this is a poor attempt.

It is, of course, only proper and relevant that we pay some very close attention to the "farming" of the sea for the same reasons that we institute new ideas and procedures in farming the land. I believe that we are currently doing that, maybe not to the extent necessary, but certainly to an extent that we will not be "fishless" in a mere 40 years!

[mvonnet]

Who is this a bad news for? The validity of the research is beyond question here. There has been numerous other independent sources that support the conclusion that biodiversity is declining in both land and sea. The question is what repurcursions does it have for the planet and for our welfare as human beings. I don't think it has any repurcusion on the planet itself as history has proven that life continues to sustain and grow well after the extinction of the dinasours and several other mass extinctions. Which brings to the second issue, do we humans need biodiversity to survive or can technology compensate for it?

[mvonnet]

Who is this a bad news for? The validity of the research is beyond question here. There has been numerous other independent sources that support the conclusion that biodiversity is declining in both land and sea. The question is what repurcursions does it have for the planet and for our welfare as human beings. I don't think it has any repurcusion on the planet itself as history has proven that life continues to sustain and grow well after the extinction of the dinasours and several other mass extinctions. Which brings to the second issue, do we humans need biodiversity to survive or can technology compensate for it?

[bluestardad]

HUG A TREE YOU SHEEP. THIS IS A SMOKE SCREEN, SOME GINNED UP ARTICLE TO MAKE YOU LOOK AT A SHINING THING AWAY FROM THE HAMMER THAT IS COMING TO YOUR HEAD IN THE WAY OF BUSH AND COMPANY. DID NOT EVEN HAVE SALT WATER FISH IN THE PICTURE. DUH:P JEEZZ YOU PEOPLE WILL BUY ANYTHING PUT OUT! HAVE SOME GRASS AND GRAB YOUR ANKLES.

[bobgee_1999]

Go, Lemmings, Go! The decimation of life on earth, preferably human, gives me reason to go on, just to watch.

[dogsoul]

I think this illustrates perfectly the problem with these kinds of debates. Used to be that science was considered more or less a reliable, unbiased, relentlessly objective pathway toward truth. If you could get science on YOUR side of the argument, it gave you tremendous credibility. Of course, many competing interests & even some scientists themselves seeking funding would exaggerate, manipulate, omit and even outright falsify findings in order to capitalize on that credibility so as to further a particular agenda and/or spurn the public into action. We've ALL seen this countless times from ANY side of virtually ANY argument - it's pretty easy to find some "scientific study" to support whatever it is you want it to assert. Science has lost much of its credibility. Now, perhaps the world's oceans will be dead w/in 40 some years as this study purports... but despite an admittedly UNqualified opinion - I tend to doubt that considering the earth's known record of massively variable climate change - I could be dead wrong(pun intended) and would certainly like to hear more qualified opinions on the matter - but IF this study is indeed publishing conclusions that are WAY off base... then how are we to know WHAT to believe amidst erroding public faith in the increasingly corruptable field of science?

[kimberlilly]

Perhaps most of you dont care becuase you wont be here in 2048, But I will and so will my daughter!!! I think if anyone has children,grandchildren ETC.. we better start taking science seriously and get your heads out of the politcal rigamarow. This is serious SH_T!!
When the time comes for changes to actually effect us it's not going to matter if your Republican, Demorcrat or Liberal, WE are all humans and we are doing this!

[jebediah76]

Dogsoul -
The credibility of science not withstanding - whether these guys are grandstanding or not doesn't change the fact that the oceans are in big trouble. everyone knows it - but some folks prefer to wait until those little cans of Tuna on the shelf at the store vanish. The fact is that coral bleaching, dead spots in the Gulf of Mexico, Mercury in our fish, and the increasing difficulty fishermen have making a living are all verifiable facts.
We figured out years ago that if you rotate your crops your field will not *** out on you - is this so difficult a notion to translate to the oceans?? C'mon, people!!

[mrjohnwang]

what bunk. this is about "commercially viable" fishing - it simply means fish will be more expensive - not extinct

the author's name is work - as in fishing bait

[jebediah76]

Gvernement limiting funding for science that flies in the face of party politics erodes the value of funding science in the first place. It isn't cheap and it doesn't tell you what you want to hear - But there should be no doubting what constitutes credible science.

[jlburrell-2009]

this problem effects more than we think-other specices feed on those that us humans eat-not only that but even the state of ten thousand lakes(Minnesota) can't keep the fish population to an average amount because of illegal possesion and just to many fish have been taken out of the water everyday-i think that the world should put slot limits on all species of freshwater and saltwater fish, but the demand of money is the only thing keeping fish protecters from enforcing any kind of law like this.
i have recognized this problem in minnesota in the past 5 years in minnesota, when i go up north to fish there just isn't anymore big fish or a population of good size fish-there is so much to argue about this issue and just like no one believed that global warming is happing they'll just let it go till it's too late!-the mercury level has also gone up in most bodys of water so you really can't eat that much fish anymore(because of global warming), and with all these fancy resturants ordering all these expensive fish dinners is obserd,who really NEEDS these seafood dinners,just take vitamins that support the nutreints of seafood. the fish and seafood industry needs to settle down before they really struggle to find that artic crab or lobster, i'm sure they can find some other thing to invest there money on to save the population of fish. there are so many things that effect this porblem i could write a book about it!

[jlburrell-2009]

not only that but alot of people just don't care, because they probebly hate fish, or just don't believe it because they think our world is so big that it couldn't happen, well i think they're wrong and it can happen-i think if we leave the waters alone for at least 5 years and continue to stock and find a way to reduce the pollution around the world we might have a solution to this problem-but the world is full of ignorant people and this will never happen of course but hopefully the right person reads this so that we all can make a difference in the world that hold a future for our children, i know i want my kids to enjoy what i did in the past before we started messing up our ecosystem.

[velotron]

This kind of Armageddon news release from a "New" study always makes me skeptical. Let's get the
data out; what trends are they analyzing and how
did they reach this conclusion?

The article pointed out the location of their full report: "Worm and colleagues report their findings in the Nov. 3 issue of Science". Here's the abstract:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/314/5800/787
Hopefully you can find the print edition of Science in your local library. (The state of affairs of easy public access to research papers is another matter altogether.) The lead author can probably answer any additional questions you have:
http://biology.dal.ca/us/f/worm/worm.html

[rf35]

It%u2019s likely humans will survive the death of the oceans. Of course, populations will drop and countries like Japan, where seafood is a staple of the diet, will be hardest hit. Coastal regions and most islands may become uninhabitable. But this is a good thing for the Midwest farmers and cattle ranchers%u2026they%u2019ll be holding all the cards when it comes to feeding America and several other countries. Finally, a way for our economy to surge ahead of Japan%u2019s!

[bigeye9]

Actually ocean pollution is seriously improved over the 10 or more years. Fish stocks have been diminishing due to demand, and better fishing techniques. Some posts are correct, fish will just cost more (supply and demand). The Japanese have learned how to raise Blue Fin tuna in hugh floating pens offshore. White Sea Bass were nearly wiped out, but are now also raised in sea water pens, and released into the ocean. Shrimp, Oysters, Lobster, etc. are also raised in the ocean. I'm pretty optimistic, really.

[cwfabian]

Stop and think for a minute people, if you can remember how to do that. I'm not quite ready to call this "junk science" or "scare science" just yet but I become immediately skeptical about studies like these that tag an exact date or year onto them. In 42 years the world's oceans will be empty of fish?? Go get a globe and take a long look at it. See all of that blue stuff? That would be oceans and seas. In the US fishing already IS a heavily regulated industry. There are only certain times and durations for most commercial fishing seasons, size limits depending on species, and only certain waters that can or cannot be fished. I hate to be synical because I am an avid outdoorsman and a steward of the environment, but the bottom line of this study smells political.

[three-o-six]

The error made is that you can not extrapolate a curve as they have when there are so many variables. I am not saying that they are not correct in their current figures. This is the problem with the whole environmental movement. They cry wolf way to often and now no one believes them. (remember that this was supposed to be a bad hurricane year, ect).

[needleman3]

Does it matter what the exact date is? Here in Nova Scotia, where the studies began, some fish populations-- cod, for example, haven't recovered despite a moratorium for over a decade.
There are 200 North Atlantic Right Whales left. That's hardly a sign of hope.

The ocean is as relevant as the forest in terms of the make-up of our atmosphere. Small life forms in the ocean, like trees, manufacture what we humans breathe.

Humans are catching 15,000 sharks every hour-- and only eat the fins. Sharks kill 5 humans every year. We have thrown off the large animal populations in the sea, and the smaller ones will be affected, down to the algae. The human population grows explosively while almost every other large animal species is down to record low numbers and dropping. We're obsessively selfish, destructive, and nuts.

[needleman3]

Does it matter what the exact date is? Here in Nova Scotia, where the studies began, some fish populations-- cod, for example, haven't recovered despite a moratorium for over a decade.
There are 200 North Atlantic Right Whales left. That's hardly a sign of hope.

The ocean is as relevant as the forest in terms of the make-up of our atmosphere. Small life forms in the ocean, like trees, manufacture what we humans breathe.

Humans are catching 15,000 sharks every hour-- and only eat the fins. Sharks kill 5 humans every year. We have thrown off the large animal populations in the sea, and the smaller ones will be affected, down to the algae. The human population grows explosively while almost every other large animal species is down to record low numbers and dropping. We're obsessively selfish, destructive, and nuts.

[diddineye]

Anyone who has seen the Matrix remember when "Mr Smith"said this to"Morpheus":your species doesn`t quite fit the accepted definition of mammals;every other mammal reaches an equilibrium with the environment, but you humans exhaust every resource,and then move on to another area.This most closely fits the definition of a virus."
My quote is probably not verbatum,but the reasonong is clear;we must do better with regard to our stewardship of this planet.Native Americans nurtured,replenished,conserved had respect for mother Earth
Who then is/was the barbarian?

[Wesley_Mouch]

"If present trends continue" is garbage science.

Gee, last week two people died from rabies. This week four people died from rabies. IF THIS TREND CONTINUES then in about 31 weeks 8 billion people will have died from rabies.

I'm astounded that this garbage was published in a peer-reviewed journal.

[arsenixprime]

Before passing judgement on a scientific study, try reading the actual article and not basing your view on a summary. After seeing this article I pulled down the full article. It is a very in depth study, not some idiots extrapolating trends to Armageddon like some of the fools above seem to indicate.

Despite the prediction of extinction the study actually has some positive conclusions. Their findings indicate that existing efforts to protect marine ecosystems work, they just need to be done on a larger scale. They also found that economic income (from both fishing and tourism) increased when waters were protected.

Seriously folks, read the article before dismissing it as "garbage science"... it's at your local library.

James

[arsenixprime]

Before passing judgement on a scientific study, try reading the actual article and not basing your view on a summary. After seeing this article I pulled down the full article. It is a very in depth study, not some idiots extrapolating trends to Armageddon like some of the fools above seem to indicate.

Despite the prediction of extinction the study actually has some positive conclusions. Their findings indicate that existing efforts to protect marine ecosystems work, they just need to be done on a larger scale. They also found that economic income (from both fishing and tourism) increased when waters were protected.

Seriously folks, read the article before dismissing it as "garbage science"... it's at your local library.

James

[juanthomas14]

There had been a moratorium against anchovy fishing between Spain and France. Both governments decided, against the judgement of fishermen and scientists that the moratorium should be lifted ( it was actually a quota system). The results are there for anyone to see. There are hardly any anchovies in Northern Spain where dozens of canneries lived off this industry. It is not too late if tough political decisions are taken and kept.

[chicatibu]

The greatest harm to mankind is fractured science, all the doomsday science isn%u2019t worth a bucket of warm spit in the long run. None of those predictions ever turn out to be right.

[kaiyo4u]

This is a good article, but can they truly predict what the outcome of the decline will be. In the Oregon a few years ago, some species of salmon and steelhead were put on the threatened list and very strict regulations came into effect concering the fisheries of that state. Thye following fishing season (within six months) saw record runs that had not been seen in 20+ years. For all the data we can collect and sort, we still don't have enough to make accurate assessments.
I have to agree with diddineye. It was the industrialization of this land that has brought it to the position it is in today. No regard for the flora and fauna in whatever a business decided to exploit. We have rivers in Montana and Idaho that are just now coming back from to a productive state after the mining activities in the past(we're talking the 1800's).
Please don't think I'm an environmentalist, I tend to stand on the conservation platform. Taking care of where you are to allow it to be more productive for you in the future.
The pursuit of the dollar has caused more ruin, of not just the natural world, but of people's lives as well.
As to whether our oceans will be devoid of life in 42 years, we'll have to see. With the decline of the coral reefs worldwide and the habitat they provide(from other studies), this study may be onto something.
It is time for man to conserve what is available to him and to replenish that which he takes.

[badgerman696]

I have to agree with chicatibu - the prediction about melting of ice in both poles and Greenland were way off. They predicted it would happen within the next 50 years just 10 years ago. Now look - it's already happening. Did anyone think Hudson's Bay would not completely freeze over? That the massive glaciers on Greenland would just begin moving so quickly that the measurements went from feet per year to feet per day? Not me. Silly scientists got it wrong again.

You can't see what is already missing. There used to be a LOT of marine mammals and birds along the north atlantic coastline that were exterminated in the 1800's. They aren't back.

There used to be enormous trees, and forest covering most of the east coast, the likes of which no living human has seen.

In the late 1960's the oceans were touted as the food source that would feed the world. They will be gone soon.


YOu can't see what is not there, so you don't know that it is missing.

I remember in the late 1960's or early 1970's when the staid and conservative National Geographic magazine came out with an issue that said that we are in the greatest extinction since the Permian.

That one took eons to recover from. All our recorded history is an eyeblink in the scale of time that evolution of major taxa occurs. All the changes we are seeing are happening in a coupel hundred years. This is INSTANT.


Dismissing these changes as insignificant is the single greatest mistake we are making. If the ocean ecosystem crashes is could well affect the atmosphere. Most primary production is in the oceans, that is the gas exchange organ for the planet.

Can we as a species be smart? One thingI do know. People protect what they love. Learn, then teach about stewardship, beauty, connection, diversity, sutainability, and persistence.


Time to turn, and to step away from the edge.

You can't see what is already missing. There used to be a LOT of marine mammals and birds along the north atlantic coastline that were exterminated in the 1800's. They aren't back.

There used to be enormous trees, and forest covering most of the east coast, the likes of which no living human has seen.

In the late 1960's the oceans were touted as the food source that would feed the world. They will be gone soon.


YOu can't see what is not there, so you don't know that it is missing.

I remember in the late 1960's or early 1970's when the staid and conservative National Geographic magazine came out with an issue that said that we are in the greatest extinction since the Permian.

That one took eons to recover from. All our recorded history is an eyeblink in the scale of time that evolution of major taxa occurs. All the changes we are seeing are happening in a coupel hundred years. This is INSTANT.


Dismissing these changes as insignificant is the single greatest mistake we are making. If the ocean ecosystem crashes is could well affect the atmosphere. Most primary production is in the oceans, that is the gas exchange organ for the planet.

Can we as a species be smart? One thingI do know. People protect what they love. Learn, then teach about stewardship, beauty, connection, diversity, sutainability, and persistence.


Time to turn, and to step away from the edge.

You can't see what is already missing. There used to be a LOT of marine mammals and birds along the north atlantic coastline that were exterminated in the 1800's. They aren't back.

There used to be enormous trees, and forest covering most of the east coast, the likes of which no living human has seen.

In the late 1960's the oceans were touted as the food source that would feed the world. They will be gone soon.


YOu can't see what is not there, so you don't know that it is missing.

I remember in the late 1960's or early 1970's when the staid and conservative National Geographic magazine came out with an issue that said that we are in the greatest extinction since the Permian.

That one took eons to recover from. All our recorded history is an eyeblink in the scale of time that evolution of major taxa occurs. All the changes we are seeing are happening in a coupel hundred years. This is INSTANT.


Dismissing these changes as insignificant is the single greatest mistake we are making. If the ocean ecosystem crashes is could well affect the atmosphere. Most primary production is in the oceans, that is the gas exchange organ for the planet.

Can we as a species be smart? One thingI do know. People protect what they love. Learn, then teach about stewardship, beauty, connection, diversity, sutainability, and persistence.


Time to turn, and to step away from the edge.

[r639243]

I did have a very valid comment that I laboriously typed up only to be told that I was only allowed 1500 characters.I did not find any indication however ,of the # of characters I had used up so I've deleted my piece.
G Graydon

[blaze_11]

every day people eat something that has come from the oceans in one way or another. so if for some reason you think differently, think about how much fish we catch a day, and then add over the years how many we eat and how many the animals in the ocean and on land eat as well. thats how much fish are gone every day, when you add all of thoughs numbers up it turns out to be big. the fish population can not keep up with that. the fisherman just dont go out onece a year and fish they catch all these fish every day. thats why the fish populationis going down so fast. we keep the fish population at a decline because they can not keep up. if we put in efforts now we might be able to save them, infact we will as some of you have stated and so does the article. this may be a little scare to some of you so u act as though nothing is happening, but its time we see what we are truly doing to our world. Some countries that are entirly based on seafood will be gone. for they will not be able to trade there fish or even eat there fish. they will have to find other ways of eathing, and also find new animals to eat. Japan is one of the many that will have to do this. so before you get all agaisnt this and think they just want to scare you, think about it, if we are fishing every day and catching millions of fish, add that up to 365 days and you are losing tons and tons of fish each year. they cant reproduce that fast. no animal or mammal or sea creature could.

[r639243]

Reference chicatibu 5.07pm nov 4.
That is a blinkered but typical attitude and one usually adopted by people with an ax to grind EG:Fishing Companies.
The study does not have to be exact.If it is only 10% right then we are in trouble.Action needs to be taken before the collapse,if we wait till it happens it's way too late and it could take thousands of years to recover if it recovers at all.
G.Graydon.

[r639243]

As an ex fisherman I can tell.you right here that quotas do not work and never will.The reason is that if a boat is fishing for say,cod,and the quota is filled.The boat does not stop fishing.It just lands only fish that are not cod.It still catches cod,it just can't land them so it dumps them over the side.Either way the fish are still dead .The same applies to size limits for the same reasons.
Measures like this are introduced by politicians to make them look good and impress voters,most of whom do not know enough about it to understand how phony it is.
G Graydon

[gimpy_0688]

In the 80s, scientists ran many series of what the planet would be like in the future. What did they find? That our planet's resources were being depleted, extinction of species increased, basically that the world as we know it was coming to an end. These predictions were proved false. How? They ended up happening sooner than everyone thought.

My point being that the damage cannot be reversed but future effects can be stopped. Do whatever you can to change the future. One person can make a difference, especially if everyone has that attitude.