Slashdot Mirror
Study: Deforestation Depletes Fish Stocks
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.
We'll switch to plant protein supplies, thus solving the problem once and for all.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
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
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)..
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!
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
"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.
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
Chemistry isn't your strong suit, is it....
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Bears also excrete the used salmon back out.
Silence is a state of mime.
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]
from the chicken littles.
Do they? Right there in the woods?
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
In addition, the rotting half-eaten salmon carcasses are often the only source of nitrogen for the vegetation.
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.
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.
I am so glad someone got the joke. Congrats on the fake internet points.
Silence is a state of mime.
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.