Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Study: Deforestation Depletes Fish Stocks

Posted by timothy on from the stuff-runs-downhill dept.

Rambo Tribble (1273454) writes Adding to the well-known fish-killing effects deforestation has in increasing turbidity and temperature in streams, a study published in Nature Communications, (abstract, PDF access), demonstrates deforestation causes a depletion of nutrients in associated lake aquatic ecosystems and, as a consequence, impacted fish stocks. Lead author Andrew Tanentzap is quoted as saying, 'We found fish that had almost 70% of their biomass made from carbon that came from trees and leaves instead of aquatic food chain sources.' This has troubling implications, as 'It's estimated that freshwater fishes make up more than 6% of the world's annual animal protein supplies for humans ...' Additionally, this may have significance in regard to anadromous species, such as salmon, which help power ocean ecosystems. The BBC offers more approachable coverage.

69 comments

  1. climate change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And all the climate change believers will diss this article because the carbon from C02 is bad... mmmm kay!

    1. Re:climate change by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      Chemistry isn't your strong suit, is it....

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  2. Well, yeah, you use up the herrings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What else?

  3. this has nothing to do with salmon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    salmon eat in the oceans and go die in freshwater streams where their nitrogen and other nutrients supplies the trees.

    1. Re:this has nothing to do with salmon by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      salmon eat in the oceans and go die in freshwater streams where their nitrogen and other nutrients supplies the trees.

      Have you ever been outside?

      With a few exceptions (eg, the mangrove forests which are ecologically important) MOST trees live outside the river or stream. Water has this tendency to flow downhill, so stuff in the dirt (bits of trees, bits of critters, critter poop, rocks, etc) flows down into the water. For a typical pelagic salmon, most of it's biomass is accumulated in the ocean, then the salmon moves into freshwater to spawn and die. When it dies, the decomposition takes place entirely in the water or perhaps the adjacent land where they flop out of the water or get grabbed and dragged by an enterprising bear (but rarely into the trees). This decomposition is important for the riparian (water based) ecosystem. For the uphill trees and brush, not so much.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:this has nothing to do with salmon by __aanbvm4272 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "get grabbed and dragged by an enterprising bear (but rarely into the trees)". YES it happens all the time...The Bears Racoons and what ever leave a lot of the fish on land where it's ate. But it's not just fish that benefit. All insects that are part of a decaying forest feed the wildlife. and why a tree farm is almost devoid of animals. Just go to one and listen... its quiet. Now go to a real forest and you hear all kinds of life. Trees are not just for humans to exploit. They are there to save our planet from us. No tree hugging, just grow old timber. B4 it's too late.

    3. Re:this has nothing to do with salmon by wbr1 · · Score: 1

      Bears also excrete the used salmon back out.

      --
      Silence is a state of mime.
    4. Re:this has nothing to do with salmon by riverat1 · · Score: 3, Informative

      This has actually been studied and when the salmon die they supply a surprising amount of nutrients not only to the streams but to the surrounding forest. As was pointed out by the two other replies to you the dead salmon get eaten by bears, racoons, otters and other critters that then do what a bear does in the surrounding forest. Here's what looks to be a lesson plan on the subject: Fish as Fertilizer: The Impacts of Salmon on Forest Ecosystems [PDF]

    5. Re:this has nothing to do with salmon by NonUniqueNickname · · Score: 3, Funny

      Do they? Right there in the woods?

    6. Re:this has nothing to do with salmon by ThaumaTechnician · · Score: 3, Interesting

      In addition, the rotting half-eaten salmon carcasses are often the only source of nitrogen for the vegetation.

    7. Re:this has nothing to do with salmon by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      WE have a 10,000 acre tree farm around here and it is full of animals. In fact 90% of Michigan is a Tree farm as it was stripped of trees 200-300 years ago and was replanted, and then harvested, and replanted. huge swaths of the state are perfectly planted rows of pine trees and there is gobs of animals and bugs in them. So many that Freaking bears are now a common sight, and I saw wild coyotes for the first time in my life.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    8. Re:this has nothing to do with salmon by __aanbvm4272 · · Score: 2

      This is true if you count the freshly replanted areas that support deer and elk for a few years. But what rotting wood waste is left to decay naturally? Not much compared to a forest. And how many OLD trees are you growing? I know, it's been explained it is not financially feasible... Tell me how much are those oldest trees worth nowadays IF they would have been spared? $thousands each.

    9. Re:this has nothing to do with salmon by wbr1 · · Score: 1

      I am so glad someone got the joke. Congrats on the fake internet points.

      --
      Silence is a state of mime.
    10. Re:this has nothing to do with salmon by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      OLD trees? none. Michigan was literally stripped back in the 1600-1800's of all trees, I think up near Lake superior there is a park that has one of the trees that are older than 300 years old left standing. Idiot teenagers carve their names into it's bark.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  4. No problemo by ArcadeMan · · Score: 2

    It's estimated that freshwater fishes make up more than 6% of the world's annual animal protein supplies for humans...

    We'll switch to plant protein supplies, thus solving the problem once and for all.

    --
    Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
    1. Re:No problemo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      Most of these plants are indigestible to us, so we will need to replace them. Gonna need to chop down all those trees so we can plant soy and rice... I doubt further reducing biodiversity is going to end well.

    2. Re:No problemo by ramorim · · Score: 2

      The best way for this is called aquaponics. With this technique we can grow not only fishes but edible vegetables in a very fast rate. The best of aquaculture and hydroponics without their respective pitfalls. And we can do this not only in government/private sector large scale, but also in a small modular way: everyone with at last a 5m x 5m space available at home can implement it by their own.

    3. Re:No problemo by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      ONCE AND FOR ALL

      --
      Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
    4. Re:No problemo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh no we won't!

    5. Re:No problemo by pyg · · Score: 0

      Beans instead of fish? Have you adequately considered the effect of increased methane emissions from such a change? Also, household air quality!

    6. Re:No problemo by bosef1 · · Score: 1

      Fish, and plankton, and sea greens, and protein from the sea!

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiyPqbyHXIg&t=2m5s

      Sorry, this is apropos of nothing, but it just... popped in there.

    7. Re:No problemo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, there are plenty of digestable proteins in fruits as well as leafy greens. Go eat a big juicy watermelon for breakfast and you've got 15-20g right there.

      http://www.webmd.com/fitness-exercise/news/20020529/will-eating-more-protein-help-your-body-gain-muscle-faster

  5. Who would have thought? by penguinoid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Who would have thought that destroying an ecosystem would have more than one bad effect?

    --
    Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    1. Re:Who would have thought? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Who would have thought that destroying an ecosystem would have more than one bad effect?

      More to the point, this is hardly a recent revelation.

      People in my part of the U.S. were fighting deforestation (this is a logging region), based on studies that said it caused turbidity in streams, causing among other things nutrification and drastically reducing oxygen, which in turn killed the local aquatic life (which is a major sporting industry in this part of the U.S.).

      And that was when I was, like, 12 years old. Which was a l-o-n-g time ago.

      I'm not saying this paper didn't show something valid. But the suggestion made by OP, that this is all some kind of new revelation, is just a few decades late. Likely there was some fine point in the paper that reinforced what we already knew. But AFAIK, OP says nothing new at all.

    2. Re:Who would have thought? by penguinoid · · Score: 1

      Sure, we knew for a long time that deforestation caused damage to the local aquatic life via several mechanisms. I guess now they claim to have discovered another mechanism, a loss of nutrients (ie, leaves and sticks and fruits and forest insects etc get replaced by erosion-related nutrients). This seems like it would be obvious, although it's not exactly easy to verify.

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    3. Re:Who would have thought? by JimSadler · · Score: 1

      Much of south Florida was built by creating canals to get soil to raise the height of lots so that they would not flood. The consequence was tree stumps and roots of woody plants being exposed to water. That lead to water the color of coffee that is rather permanent as 100 years after the dredging the tanic acid still colors the water. I don't know if any studies have been done on the effects of brown water on species or size of fish populations. Some species seem to not mind brown water one bit. So in addition to tree cutting or brush cutting we would also need to forbid any dredging of canals or even ponds to preserve water clarity. That is not likely to happen at all.

    4. Re:Who would have thought? by rochrist · · Score: 1

      I know. Really, we should just ban all research because it's all just a money grabbing scam. Well, except research about where to look for oil next and how to make more interesting cosmetics!

  6. Fresh Water vs. Ocean Water Fish by ramorim · · Score: 1

    I think this is a real problem only for fresh water ecosystems, and they did not represent the 6% of marine protein (fish, etc) that human intakes. I think 5% came from ocean, and only 1% came from fresh water ecosystems (lakes, rivers, and so on). If this is correct, the problem still exists but affect only 1% of the marine protein resources available. Of course, destroying an inland ecosystem is terrible for the environment and can be lead to other real problems (hazards or even nightmare situations) in other analysis, but not if we are talking about the marine protein resources available (ie. not directly involved)..

    1. Re:Fresh Water vs. Ocean Water Fish by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

      Are you making up shit?

    2. Re:Fresh Water vs. Ocean Water Fish by ramorim · · Score: 1

      No.

    3. Re:Fresh Water vs. Ocean Water Fish by twistofsin · · Score: 1

      Are you sure?

      WHO Nutrition study: Section on worldwide consumption of seafood

    4. Re:Fresh Water vs. Ocean Water Fish by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      "It's estimated that freshwater fishes make up more than 6% of the world's annual animal protein supplies for humans - and the major and often only source of animal protein for low income families across Bangladesh, Indonesia and the Philippines.

      This comes from the Fine Article - where does your data come from?

      While we've only studied boreal regions, these results are likely to bear out globally.

      Now, this is where they go a little hyperbolic. Maybe yes, maybe no.... But lets not get all wound up about this until you've done a bit more work. Much of the deforestation in the world is in Africa and South America, both very different ecosystems from the boreal region.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    5. Re:Fresh Water vs. Ocean Water Fish by __aanbvm4272 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Who can afford ocean fish? Yes 6% is a realistic number for freshwater fish. Not just 1% You see some people (a lot) like to fish and then eat 'em. even catfish! Unfortunately, as the article points out, this is becoming more difficult...eh? Aquaponics does not address the fish in the forest problem except to supply an alternate food source. Who da thought we knew all the implications of maximizing profits in the wood products industry Now that timber has become a Wall Street commodity heaven help us. Nothing else matters but profit.

    6. Re:Fresh Water vs. Ocean Water Fish by abies · · Score: 1

      "It's estimated that freshwater fishes make up more than 6% of the world's annual animal protein supplies for humans - and the major and often only source of animal protein for low income families across Bangladesh, Indonesia and the Philippines.

      This comes from the Fine Article - where does your data come from?

      http://www.thefishsite.com/art...
      Total protein consumption per capita is 78g. Total fish consumption is around 5.5g which gives around 7%. This is for both marine and inland. Then, looking at
      http://www.greenfacts.org/en/f...
      we can get around 41:102 ration between inland:marine, which would mean around 2% of total protein comes from freshwater fish and 5% from marine.

      Now it is your turn to provide some sources outside FA proving 6% for freshwater fish. Articles I have quoted above are from 5-10 years ago - maybe, in meantime, freshwater fish consumption increased by 200%...

    7. Re:Fresh Water vs. Ocean Water Fish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thing is I wouldn't call the nearest river to me a "fresh water" river. It's probably closer to fresh effluent ;).

      I've seen people fish from rivers or lakes that are rather dirty. I doubt eating those fishes is such a good idea.

    8. Re:Fresh Water vs. Ocean Water Fish by rochrist · · Score: 1

      Did you read the part where the 6% fish protein was prefaced by the word FRESHWATER. As in ''It's estimated that FRESHWATER fishes make up more than 6% of the world's annual animal protein supplies for humans' ?

  7. DeForest Kelley brand depleted fish sticks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's a commercial opportunity here! to gouge the Trekkers! They say they don't use money, but they use money!

  8. and defenestration contributes to by Mister+Liberty · · Score: 0

    fish smell.

  9. Good thing we use less paper now by HalAtWork · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Less reason to cut down trees. I still know some people at work who print emails before reading them though, what is wrong with these people? I try to be a good example and casually mention how I avoid using paper in various ways when describing my tasks to others as well as in meetings, but it doesn't seem to make an impression...

    --
    Twinstiq, game news
    1. Re:Good thing we use less paper now by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      Good thing we use less paper now

      Who's we?

      As best I can ascertain, paper usage in the US and Europe has reduced over the last few years, but globally it's still increasing.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    2. Re:Good thing we use less paper now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I still know some people at work who print emails before reading them though, what is wrong with these people?

      Those people are preparing a paper trail to get you fired. Good news too, because unemployment applications have gone paperless, you'll like that.

    3. Re:Good thing we use less paper now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, the good old 'pat yourself on the back, while blaming others for the problem'. Let's face it, there's too many of us. We are eating this planet barren like a swarm of locusts. Bill was right, we're a virus with shoes.

    4. Re:Good thing we use less paper now by Nyder · · Score: 1

      Less reason to cut down trees. I still know some people at work who print emails before reading them though, what is wrong with these people? I try to be a good example and casually mention how I avoid using paper in various ways when describing my tasks to others as well as in meetings, but it doesn't seem to make an impression...

      More reason to use Hemp as a paper source. Annually renewable.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    5. Re:Good thing we use less paper now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fortunately most of the non-recycled cellulose comes from managed forests which are systematically planted and harvested for paper. Rivers cause problems large machines used to harvest the wood. Fields, settlements and wood burning on the other hand might impact more on the forests near rivers and lakes.

    6. Re:Good thing we use less paper now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More reason to use Hemp as a paper source. Annually renewable

      I thought it has 4 growing seasons?

    7. Re:Good thing we use less paper now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Your printer paper usage does not contribute to deforestation, because the paper comes from tree farms (regularly replanted).

      Your co-workers probably print emails to reduce eyestrain while reading them. Some people suffer from this more than others.

      If you are interested in encouraging noble causes, there are better ones to champion than this.

    8. Re:Good thing we use less paper now by munch117 · · Score: 1

      Less reason to cut down trees.

      More to the point, less reason to plant trees. When there's no money in felling trees, trees get felled or burned anyway to make room for agriculture.

    9. Re:Good thing we use less paper now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Less paper, more reason to deforest.

    10. Re:Good thing we use less paper now by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Probably that work has crap monitors. It was very common here at the office until we replaced everyone's monitor with a 2K resolution 24" monitor. The email printing stopped overnight.

      If your employer was not a bunch of cheap fools and bought quality IT equipment for people to use, they would not have to resort to printing hings they cant read well on a screen.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    11. Re:Good thing we use less paper now by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      Fortuitously forest grows pretty darn fast; if you are not picky about what specie of tree you get. Much more of the USA is forested than say 100 years ago, and lots of that is just from nature reclaiming land not deliberate planting by humans.

      As people stopped cutting wood as a primary fuel source for heating and cooking and as agriculture has consolidated and moved toward more efficient land use lots has grown back.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    12. Re:Good thing we use less paper now by volmtech · · Score: 1

      I'm sure your are intimately involved with paper at least once a day. My town has a mill that produces this product. Tens of thousands of acres of pine forest are harvested on a forty year cycle. It's called tree farming. My land was harvested in 1970 and now it's ready to produce another crop. You can't imagine the riot of growth that occurs when light gets to the soil that's been churned up by the logging equipment. Deer and other animals have a feast. Climax pine forest has no browse, the tall trees block all the light. This Florida where it's flat. Logging in mountainous areas requires strip logging to prevent runoff.

  10. How? by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

    TFS says, 'We found fish that had almost 70% of their biomass made from carbon that came from trees and leaves instead of aquatic food chain sources.' I haven't read the article itself, and probably wouldn't get too much out of it because I never studied the right parts of chemistry, etc. to understand all of the details, but if somebody knows how they were able to determine this and can put it in layman's terms, I'd appreciate it. I'm not disputing their results, but I would like to learn how they got there.

    --
    Good, inexpensive web hosting
    1. Re:How? by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      That bit intrigued me too, I know carbon comes in different isotopes and that CO2 from FF burning has an isotopic signature. The age of the carbon is what makes FF burning identifiable, I'm not sure why carbon from trees should be any different to carbon from seaweed.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    2. Re:How? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea, seems to be a lot of comments on CO2 being tossed around lately that can't be verified. On Cosmos a couple weeks ago Neil DeGas Tyson claimed they can tell the difference between volcanic CO2 and human made CO2. I thought it was pure BS, and couldn't find anything explaining it. I supposed an isotope or somthing could tell, but what I found instead was that we are measuring CO2 levels near active volcanoes and the measurements are probably wrong because of that.

      Funny how a lie made me look something up and found additional lies.

    3. Re:How? by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      For those who are wondering how scientists can tell the different, the Wikipedia article has a section on various Reservoir Effects, including how volcanoes can skew the dates if their effect isn't properly adjusted for.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    4. Re:How? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks. From your link it looks like they are using different isotopes of C in the CO2, C12 or C14, which is what I guessed. However they give examples of many sources for each isotope, volcanoes only giving out the C12. However there appears to be many other sources for the C12, and many for the C14, so while there is a "shred" of truth to Tyson's statment it actually is very misleading because he made it sound like they can measure the source accuratly wihtout any problems. That looks like it is not the case at all.

    5. Re:How? by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      There are 2 stable isotopes of carbon 12C and 13C. Carbon 14 has too short a half life to be significant in this case. The lighter 12C carbon atom is preferred by photosynthesis so biomass has less 13C than there is in general on the Earth. Since fossil fuels have a mostly biological origin the CO2 emissions from them have less 13C than purely geologic sources like volcanic emissions. It's not all that difficult to measure those things.

  11. Further scare for my OSHW project by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I designed a combined cooker and water distiller in hope of helping the 0.8 billion people without drinking water.

    In countried like Cambodia and Thailand they use charcoal for cooking made of forests which causes deforestation. he economy is actually good. Fortunately the increased consumption of the device is only oin the 10-19% range.

    But anyway. I hope it won't bring dead fish together with drinking water! :)

    http://ronja.twibright.com/distillcooker/

    1. Re:Further scare for my OSHW project by mrvan · · Score: 1

      Are you serious? You design some sort of wonderful device that can help hundreds of millions of people, that cost 2900,- to design, and you (a) could not find any party such as oxfam interested in sponsoring this and (b) you hope that the public will somehow start donating money to you based on vague promises and some sort of manual with everything interesting XXX'd out.

      I have to say, specifying development costs in CHF gives it some air of credibility, I guess NGN would have been a bit too obvious?

      If you are legit, just contact some aid companies or just release everything already and then ask for donations

  12. More sqwauking by MouseTheLuckyDog · · Score: 1

    from the chicken littles.

  13. undo mod by Layzej · · Score: 0

    undomod

  14. Re:I'm going outside right now to plant a tree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good on you! Is it a Liberty Tree? 'Cuz blood is its natural manure.

  15. No sh1t Sherlock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is one of those instances where you wonder how much they spent to work out something so basic a 2nd grader could give you the answer.
    An absolute classic "No sh1t Sherlock"
    You remove a whole chunk of an eco system and wonder what the results are going to be ?
    "Stupid is as stupid does"

  16. problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Too many people want to live too good and eat too much...
    The ONLY ONE solution to this problem is to kill off few billion people... Bad for people, good for planet.
    Unfortunately our specie cannot reason with brain , we are multiplying like viruses until we kill ourselves along with out planet.
    The good news is - planet will recover. We won't survive anyway.

  17. wasn't this already determined decades ago? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the effects of deforestation on fish populations in rivers and streams was already studied and the results quoted decades ago in support of new forestry managment plans that would leave trees along waterways when an area was harvested. Property owners were hounded by government officials who made sure any development did not disturb too many trees close to waterways using regulations supported by that research.

    Did someone pay to do the study again to see if things somehow changed?

    Even big timber companies Like Weyerhauser (who've been doing renewable, reharvesting of the same plots of land repeatedly since the 70's) accepted the studies. Who knows they might have even sponsored them.