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.

13 of 69 comments (clear)

  1. 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.

    1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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!
  4. 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...

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.
  8. 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]

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

    Do they? Right there in the woods?

  10. 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.

  11. 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.