|
|
Post by sigurdur on Apr 7, 2016 0:15:23 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Apr 7, 2016 18:57:31 GMT
In the late 80s and early 90s, the Caribbean reefs were still pretty special. But this was in the eyes of a newcomer to the ocean, who had not seen them when they were really pristine. All the old folks who had grown up on the reefs talked of the days when the reefs were teeming with fish and nobody who could swim ever went without a meal. Over the years, those stocks were depleted by rapidly expanding populations and hoards of tourists feeding at the local restaurants and commercial fishermen selling into the foreign fish markets. More and more of the literature is documenting that the health of the reefs and the fish are interdependent. Interestingly, the best preserved reef system in the western hemisphere is said to lie off the south coast of Cuba, where Castro (who apparently was an avid scuba diver) banned commercial fishing and limited tourist entries to 1000 people per year. Research suggests that these reefs did not succumb to the diseases that swept through most of the rest of the Caribbean in the 90s. Coincidence??? Coincidence? Maybe. Lets put it this way. . . .much of what passes for ecosystem science is quite akin to climate science. The idea that healthy ecosystems with abundant populations of marine sea life at all trophic levels in the ecosystem is beneficial to the ecosystem, in general, is a good idea. Overfishing has been a problem in some areas and for some species of fish. In general, for US waters a large number of local movements resulted in public initiatives that put bans on commercial fishing gears blamed for excessive bycatch or habitat damage. Then in 1996 the Sustainable Fisheries Act was passed by Congress and signed into law. This mandated managing catches at sustainable rates. The result of all this has reversed the overfishing problem in waters controlled by the US. There is still more work to be done but success has come from fishery management, primarily based on population dynamics, reducing bycatch, and direct physical habitat damage as opposed to ecosystem concepts. Ecosystem approaches to fishery management may someday offer success but like the climate we have one heckuva a lot to learn and not a whole lot of relevant data to learn from. In recent years there has been a lot of alarmism on corals. Indeed physical coral damage has been widespread. Anchoring and bottom dragging have been identified as two of the biggest problems. Coral bleaching alarmism began several years ago in relationship to AGW. However, there is not data to support that notion, much less to support fishing as the culprit. I recall reading not too long ago about a major coral bleaching event in Australia in a place where one of the largest unperturbed zones was in place along the Great Barrier Reef. I have been involved in this area for a lot of years. Its good to keep an open mind and realize that there is a lot of particulars and a strong need to correctly parse out the specific causes for a problem. In general, I agree with all your points. As for major pelagic fisheries, I have no personal experience with them. And yes, ecosystem science has its fair share (or more) of quacks. As for corals, they will push their growth environment just like any other organism ... and events outside the longer-term normal will smack them back. Extreme low-water tides can kill their too shallow extremes, tropical storms will break them up, extreme heat events (and as you pointed out cold) will cause bleaching, from which some or many will not recover. All natural recurring events ... nothing unusual here. They bounce back over various lengths of time assuming nothing radically changes their general growth environment over the longer term. While attempting to avoid the jump to unjustified conclusions, my years of reading and personal observation have left me with some strong gut opinions on coral-structured ecosystems. Could they be wrong? Of course. Amongst these are a belief that there are certain key symbiotic relationships that structure shallow reef systems. At the top of this list is the relationship between the corals and the grazers...followed by that between the corals and zooxanthellae. The later is an energy relationship. The former is a competition removal - shelter relationship. In the presence of suitable hard substrate, corals colonize and build the structure, which is occupied by the grazers and numerous other organisms ... not unlike forests, except here the builders are animals. In nutrient-poor locations, the zooanthellae provide excess energy to the corals, who, in turn feed the algae with their waste. And the grazers 'mow' the substrate space competitors. Add nutrients and the grazers multiply and continue to mow. Research shows that fish size and mass will expand to fit the structure of the substrate. Reduce a reef to rubble and you will be left with a bunch of small fish. Even the resident piscivores become smaller in a geometrically reduced substrate Such is the importance of shelter in shallow tropical waters where shelterable substrate is at a premium. Change any of these structuring relationships either radically (and permanently) or by slow attrition and the physical structure of the ecosystem may well flip into a different mode...and this new mode will likely be less productive (in a fish sense). This is important given the importance of fish protein to growing populations of coastal dwellers in the 'third' world. While there is always a need for additional research, the tropics are full of examples of shallow coastal, coral-structured ecosystems reverting to less productive substrates as fleshy algae displaces the corals and the carbonate structures erode to bits and pieces. No scientific picture is ever perfect, and there are always surprises (both good and bad). But it very much looks like that the 'unsustainable eating of the reef fish' (and we don't really know what that is) may ultimately result in 'the eating of the reef structure'. Forget AGW. The issue is not whether corals will disappear. The issue is whether an important source of marine protein and biodiversity will be seriously degraded for poor tropical populations. But hope springs eternal. Education programs are said to be having positive effects as locals begin to understand that the future of 'their resources' are in 'their hands'. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Apr 8, 2016 2:56:11 GMT
Coincidence? Maybe. Lets put it this way. . . .much of what passes for ecosystem science is quite akin to climate science. The idea that healthy ecosystems with abundant populations of marine sea life at all trophic levels in the ecosystem is beneficial to the ecosystem, in general, is a good idea. Overfishing has been a problem in some areas and for some species of fish. In general, for US waters a large number of local movements resulted in public initiatives that put bans on commercial fishing gears blamed for excessive bycatch or habitat damage. Then in 1996 the Sustainable Fisheries Act was passed by Congress and signed into law. This mandated managing catches at sustainable rates. The result of all this has reversed the overfishing problem in waters controlled by the US. There is still more work to be done but success has come from fishery management, primarily based on population dynamics, reducing bycatch, and direct physical habitat damage as opposed to ecosystem concepts. Ecosystem approaches to fishery management may someday offer success but like the climate we have one heckuva a lot to learn and not a whole lot of relevant data to learn from. In recent years there has been a lot of alarmism on corals. Indeed physical coral damage has been widespread. Anchoring and bottom dragging have been identified as two of the biggest problems. Coral bleaching alarmism began several years ago in relationship to AGW. However, there is not data to support that notion, much less to support fishing as the culprit. I recall reading not too long ago about a major coral bleaching event in Australia in a place where one of the largest unperturbed zones was in place along the Great Barrier Reef. I have been involved in this area for a lot of years. Its good to keep an open mind and realize that there is a lot of particulars and a strong need to correctly parse out the specific causes for a problem. In general, I agree with all your points. As for major pelagic fisheries, I have no personal experience with them. And yes, ecosystem science has its fair share (or more) of quacks. As for corals, they will push their growth environment just like any other organism ... and events outside the longer-term normal will smack them back. Extreme low-water tides can kill their too shallow extremes, tropical storms will break them up, extreme heat events (and as you pointed out cold) will cause bleaching, from which some or many will not recover. All natural recurring events ... nothing unusual here. They bounce back over various lengths of time assuming nothing radically changes their general growth environment over the longer term. While attempting to avoid the jump to unjustified conclusions, my years of reading and personal observation have left me with some strong gut opinions on coral-structured ecosystems. Could they be wrong? Of course. Amongst these are a belief that there are certain key symbiotic relationships that structure shallow reef systems. At the top of this list is the relationship between the corals and the grazers...followed by that between the corals and zooxanthellae. The later is an energy relationship. The former is a competition removal - shelter relationship. In the presence of suitable hard substrate, corals colonize and build the structure, which is occupied by the grazers and numerous other organisms ... not unlike forests, except here the builders are animals. In nutrient-poor locations, the zooanthellae provide excess energy to the corals, who, in turn feed the algae with their waste. And the grazers 'mow' the substrate space competitors. Add nutrients and the grazers multiply and continue to mow. Research shows that fish size and mass will expand to fit the structure of the substrate. Reduce a reef to rubble and you will be left with a bunch of small fish. Even the resident piscivores become smaller in a geometrically reduced substrate Such is the importance of shelter in shallow tropical waters where shelterable substrate is at a premium. Change any of these structuring relationships either radically (and permanently) or by slow attrition and the physical structure of the ecosystem may well flip into a different mode...and this new mode will likely be less productive (in a fish sense). This is important given the importance of fish protein to growing populations of coastal dwellers in the 'third' world. While there is always a need for additional research, the tropics are full of examples of shallow coastal, coral-structured ecosystems reverting to less productive substrates as fleshy algae displaces the corals and the carbonate structures erode to bits and pieces. No scientific picture is ever perfect, and there are always surprises (both good and bad). But it very much looks like that the 'unsustainable eating of the reef fish' (and we don't really know what that is) may ultimately result in 'the eating of the reef structure'. Forget AGW. The issue is not whether corals will disappear. The issue is whether an important source of marine protein and biodiversity will be seriously degraded for poor tropical populations. But hope springs eternal. Education programs are said to be having positive effects as locals begin to understand that the future of 'their resources' are in 'their hands'. I am not in disagreement with any of your points either. I would just point out that greenhouse gases provide an intuitive answer for the average temperature of our climate also. Yet defense of the greenhouse warming rests on a concept of slowing of cooling caused by a warm atmosphere. Since greenhouse gases allow for the atmosphere to cool rather than warm and the fact our climate temperature is measured in the atmosphere rather than the radiating surface (we have all hot footed it across a hot surface a lot hotter than the air), its not clear that greenhouse gases actually are the cause for the temperatures we see in the climate. Its a case of what comes first the chicken or the egg and the actual cause is not clearly demonstrated. Then as we move to the "flip into a a different mode" concept its pretty akin to the feedback issue surrounding greenhouse gas emissions. We simply do not know and experimentation has not provided a consistent answer. Also intuitive ideas of keystone species and ecological causes and effects need demonstration. Here on the west coast of California we have extensive marine reserves put in place to demonstrate these intuitive ideas of cause and effect. Just a few weeks ago the Fish and Game Commission determined they needed to triple the experiment time length as a response to no response noted by science in the originally established time frame. Just like actual global temperatures vs modeled global temperatures. OTOH, where habitat damage is happening it needs to be stopped or mitigated. As a side note, mitigation is far under utilized as a solution as the idea of an "artificial reef" does not ring the bell for the nature buff. Yet we can build great reefs and have. where overfishing is happening it needs to be managed to sustainable levels. thats something everybody is in agreement on as the future of commercial fisheries depends upon it. The only naysayers are those who think their personal impact is not the problem. . . .which can be a plausible assumption considering we don't understand well all the causes and effects of natural variation. Sustainable levels for individual species is fairly well understood and implementing management with a few generations of experience almost always results in sustainable populations for the managed specie when the management agency is not politically-influenced to turn a blind eye to unintentional or unmanaged catches. appropriate management actions for saving ecosystemsent seems a long way off. but thats really the case because marine reserves quite simply do not work as well as thought by many. If they did we would be a lot further along in understanding the issue. The literature is full of effusive descriptions of the results of marine reserves but never seem to bring a level of data that verifies the conclusions. A lot like a lot of climate studies. I have read hundreds of these and what all I have seen proven by them is that managing a specific population of fish that had been overfished can sometimes recover that population with reduced fishing. . . .like in no shiit. Where they haven't its typically a case that fishing on the entire stock was not reduced enough. While the grazer/coral concept is intuitive its difficult to attribute reef success to it. I won't get into this much but it is important to note that humans are not the only predator in the ecosystem for the grazers. In California we have been problems with huge numbers of sealions. the numbers are unnatural because people are prohibited from molesting these animals and long lived and low productivity sharks, like the white shark have been depleted. The sharks are now protected and every year we are seeing more. with the number of sealions for food its difficult to say there is any limit for this population in the next few generations, which is apt to start getting a little tough for the dive and surf crowd. So what is a natural population? Look at forestry. Douglas fir is a big commercial tree specie in the west. When the competing bushes and hardwoods are cut back the Douglas Fir grows fast, straight, and knotfree. You can get a commercial tree in half the time of a naturally grown tree. Natural growth results in a stronger, a more beautiful, closer grained, more natural wood with more figure. And of course the natural tree has had to cope with more, not fewer grazers because of ranchers killing off grazer predators to protect domestic stocks and support for the hunting crowd. I am a big Teddy Roosevelt fan because he protected stuff, for the aesthetic and real benefit of mankind. Its opposed to the typical NGO protection of protecting nature to save the world. Flat truth is all we know is how to make it better for us, we have no idea of how to make it better for the world. |
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Apr 8, 2016 8:14:12 GMT
HELP!! I'm still having a problem with MissouriBoy's posts. This is how they display, irrespective of whether I use Firefox, Chrome or Micro$oft Edge:  Makes it very difficult to read. Can a smart person suggest a fix? Repeat: It's only MB's posts that display like that. |
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Apr 8, 2016 9:18:26 GMT
Odd....I see them just fine....I'm afraid I'm not smart Ratty! ! You'll have to wait for one of them. .....
|
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Apr 8, 2016 15:28:48 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Apr 8, 2016 18:19:44 GMT
Ratty - I note that Icefisher's response to which I responded looks different in the part you copied and inserted in your post.
The line breaks are in different places than they show on my screen.
I put carriage returns at the end of each of my lines. Does Icefisher?
It looks like your display is wrapping the line differently.
Don't have a clue why.
|
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Apr 8, 2016 18:56:24 GMT
I am not in disagreement with any of your points either. I would just point out that greenhouse gases provide an intuitive answer for the average temperature of our climate also. Yet defense of the greenhouse warming rests on a concept of slowing of cooling caused by a warm atmosphere. Since greenhouse gases allow for the atmosphere to cool rather than warm and the fact our climate temperature is measured in the atmosphere rather than the radiating surface (we have all hot footed it across a hot surface a lot hotter than the air), its not clear that greenhouse gases actually are the cause for the temperatures we see in the climate. Its a case of what comes first the chicken or the egg and the actual cause is not clearly demonstrated. Then as we move to the "flip into a a different mode" concept its pretty akin to the feedback issue surrounding greenhouse gas emissions. We simply do not know and experimentation has not provided a consistent answer. Also intuitive ideas of keystone species and ecological causes and effects need demonstration. Here on the west coast of California we have extensive marine reserves put in place to demonstrate these intuitive ideas of cause and effect. Just a few weeks ago the Fish and Game Commission determined they needed to triple the experiment time length as a response to no response noted by science in the originally established time frame. Just like actual global temperatures vs modeled global temperatures. OTOH, where habitat damage is happening it needs to be stopped or mitigated. As a side note, mitigation is far under utilized as a solution as the idea of an "artificial reef" does not ring the bell for the nature buff. Yet we can build great reefs and have. where overfishing is happening it needs to be managed to sustainable levels. thats something everybody is in agreement on as the future of commercial fisheries depends upon it. The only naysayers are those who think their personal impact is not the problem. . . .which can be a plausible assumption considering we don't understand well all the causes and effects of natural variation. Sustainable levels for individual species is fairly well understood and implementing management with a few generations of experience almost always results in sustainable populations for the managed specie when the management agency is not politically-influenced to turn a blind eye to unintentional or unmanaged catches. appropriate management actions for saving ecosystemsent seems a long way off. but thats really the case because marine reserves quite simply do not work as well as thought by many. If they did we would be a lot further along in understanding the issue. The literature is full of effusive descriptions of the results of marine reserves but never seem to bring a level of data that verifies the conclusions. A lot like a lot of climate studies. I have read hundreds of these and what all I have seen proven by them is that managing a specific population of fish that had been overfished can sometimes recover that population with reduced fishing. . . .like in no shiit. Where they haven't its typically a case that fishing on the entire stock was not reduced enough. While the grazer/coral concept is intuitive its difficult to attribute reef success to it. I won't get into this much but it is important to note that humans are not the only predator in the ecosystem for the grazers. In California we have been problems with huge numbers of sealions. the numbers are unnatural because people are prohibited from molesting these animals and long lived and low productivity sharks, like the white shark have been depleted. The sharks are now protected and every year we are seeing more. with the number of sealions for food its difficult to say there is any limit for this population in the next few generations, which is apt to start getting a little tough for the dive and surf crowd. So what is a natural population? Look at forestry. Douglas fir is a big commercial tree specie in the west. When the competing bushes and hardwoods are cut back the Douglas Fir grows fast, straight, and knotfree. You can get a commercial tree in half the time of a naturally grown tree. Natural growth results in a stronger, a more beautiful, closer grained, more natural wood with more figure. And of course the natural tree has had to cope with more, not fewer grazers because of ranchers killing off grazer predators to protect domestic stocks and support for the hunting crowd. I am a big Teddy Roosevelt fan because he protected stuff, for the aesthetic and real benefit of mankind. Its opposed to the typical NGO protection of protecting nature to save the world. Flat truth is all we know is how to make it better for us, we have no idea of how to make it better for the world. Indeed we have ... both intentionally and accidentally. I have been amused / perplexed with the 'naturalist' crowd that scream and moan and attempt to eliminate even the most basic of docks or other 'open' structures in tropical waters, when a perusal of those that have been around a few years shows that this new 'hard' substrate (even treated wood) are quickly colonized by corals, sponges and other bottom settling organisms. These are immediately occupied by small fish and other organisms. Shelterable substrate is an extremely limited resource and its rare to find anything sticking above the bottom that is not settled. I am a big Teddy Roosevelt fan because he protected stuff, for the aesthetic and real benefit of mankind. Its opposed to the typical NGO protection of protecting nature to save the world. Flat truth is all we know is how to make it better for us, we have no idea of how to make it better for the world.
No doubt in my mind. And I'm a Teddy fan as well, although he's often trashed as a God-awful progressive by some. Ugly is not in vogue. Clown fish and koalas get oohs and ahhs, but flatworms and centipedes don't make the cut. Of course we all have our preferences ... ticks are on my personal extermination list.  Some things are hard to be green about. |
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Apr 8, 2016 22:42:25 GMT
Ratty - I note that Icefisher's response to which I responded looks different in the part you copied and inserted in your post. The line breaks are in different places than they show on my screen. I put carriage returns at the end of each of my lines. Does Icefisher? It looks like your display is wrapping the line differently. Don't have a clue why. MB, try a post without carriage returns, just let the text wrap. I (think I) know it's got something to do with how my laptop or OS or  ? is interpreting CHR(13)/CHR(10). BTW, If I copy and paste your stuff into a text editor, it displays perfectly. |
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Apr 8, 2016 23:57:28 GMT
Ratty - I note that Icefisher's response to which I responded looks different in the part you copied and inserted in your post. The line breaks are in different places than they show on my screen. I put carriage returns at the end of each of my lines. Does Icefisher? It looks like your display is wrapping the line differently. Don't have a clue why. MB, try a post without carriage returns, just let the text wrap. I (think I) know it's got something to do with how my laptop or OS or ? is interpreting CHR(13)/CHR(10). BTW, If I copy and paste your stuff into a text editor, it displays perfectly. OK. i'll just repeat my above message without carriage returns. I note that icefisher's response to which i responded looks different in the part you copied and inserted in your post. The line breaks are in different places than they show on my screen. I put carriage returns at the end of each line. Does Iccfisher? It looks like your display is wrapping the line differently. Don't have a clue why. Now this is three and one half lines approximately without carriage returns. So maybe you can tell me if it works or not. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Apr 9, 2016 3:42:58 GMT
I don't use the carriage return for lines, only paragraphs. The editor automatically wraps the text in the display so carriage returns for each line is going to probably show up in a different place than where you want it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Apr 9, 2016 5:32:00 GMT
MB, try a post without carriage returns, just let the text wrap. I (think I) know it's got something to do with how my laptop or OS or ? is interpreting CHR(13)/CHR(10). BTW, If I copy and paste your stuff into a text editor, it displays perfectly. OK. i'll just repeat my above message without carriage returns. I note that icefisher's response to which i responded looks different in the part you copied and inserted in your post. The line breaks are in different places than they show on my screen. I put carriage returns at the end of each line. Does Iccfisher? It looks like your display is wrapping the line differently. Don't have a clue why. Now this is three and one half lines approximately without carriage returns. So maybe you can tell me if it works or not. Perfect result (see screen shot for what I am seeing now) !! Still a mystery why others don't get the same formatting as me ? |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Apr 9, 2016 7:36:30 GMT
HELP!! I'm still having a problem with MissouriBoy's posts. This is how they display, irrespective of whether I use Firefox, Chrome or Micro$oft Edge: I am using Windows 7 on a full HD screen in Chrome. I can duplicate your problem by using the control minus key combination making the type and window smaller. Are you reading this on a small screen? |
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Apr 9, 2016 11:45:06 GMT
HELP!! I'm still having a problem with MissouriBoy's posts. This is how they display, irrespective of whether I use Firefox, Chrome or Micro$oft Edge: I am using Windows 7 on a full HD screen in Chrome. I can duplicate your problem by using the control minus key combination making the type and window smaller. Are you reading this on a small screen? 27" BENQ RL monitor Icefisher. Mind you, I'm running it off a laptop but .......... I had the same problem with an up-spec desktop too. If MB stops using the <Return> key and lets the forum editor wrap the text, I should be fine but I couldn't ask him to do that. Nobody else has the problem (still puzzles me, being from an IT background). Appreciate your input but you need to get back to ice fishing. PS: I have a friend, a marine biologist, who swam with penguins in the Antarctic ** ** before they were all wiped out by a rogue iceberg/sheet. |
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Apr 9, 2016 15:28:03 GMT
OK. i'll just repeat my above message without carriage returns. I note that icefisher's response to which i responded looks different in the part you copied and inserted in your post. The line breaks are in different places than they show on my screen. I put carriage returns at the end of each line. Does Iccfisher? It looks like your display is wrapping the line differently. Don't have a clue why. Now this is three and one half lines approximately without carriage returns. So maybe you can tell me if it works or not. Perfect result (see screen shot for what I am seeing now) !! Still a mystery why others don't get the same formatting as me ? You're just special Ratty!  |
|
Some things are hard to be green about.
? is interpreting CHR(13)/CHR(10). BTW, If I copy and paste your stuff into a text editor, it displays perfectly.