Re:‘Heat dome’ probably killed 1bn marine animals on Canada ...
by DiggyJohnson on Thursday July 08, 2021 @11:53AM
(#27773648)
Not a biologist, but I have a metrics question that is suited for someone that is familiar with the biology literature:
How useful of a metric is "number of animals killed?" I don't mean to trivialize the death of 1bn organisms, but I cannot put this number in context, and I don't even know entirely what qualifies as an animal. Somebody ought to remember the bugs.
Is there a more useful metric to capture widespread mortality across all animals or all life? Biomass maybe?
Re:‘Heat dome’ probably killed 1bn marine animals on Canada ...
by iammisc on Thursday July 08, 2021 @11:59AM
(#27773758)
Well according to Google, one anchovy school can contain up to 100 million fish, so 1bn marine animals could mean all the whales died or ten schools of anchovies.
Without further information, I'm unsure what to make of the metric. Of course, microscopic animals are also animals, and important parts of the food chain, but 1billion zooplankton probably would be smaller than the anchovy schools.
Re:‘Heat dome’ probably killed 1bn marine animals on Canada ...
by sharkjacobs on Thursday July 08, 2021 @12:13PM
(#27773990)
I think "1bn" it makes for an attention getting but not an especially useful headline.
It seems like the real story is that mussels can't survive more than a few hours at 40 degrees and died en masse. This has many ripple effects in the ecosystem.
- mussels are a primary food source for many species, like sea stars
- their shells are used as habitats by hermit crabs and other crustaceans and worms
- they help filter the water and keep it clear.
- low oxygen in the water as they decompose
This isn't a longitudinal study, 1bn is just back of napkin math, but it sounds like it is fair to assume that there will be dramatically reduced biodiversity and biomass in the area for years to come. And if another such anomalous temperature event takes place in the next few years it will compound the issue.
Re:‘Heat dome’ probably killed 1bn marine animals on Canada ...
by montalbano on Thursday July 08, 2021 @11:57AM
(#27773717)
The mass death of shellfish would temporarily affect water quality because mussels and clams help filter the sea, Harley said, keeping it clear enough that sunlight reaches the eelgrass beds while also creating habitats for other species.
This is very concerning to me, seagrass is an excellent carbon sink.
Re:‘Heat dome’ probably killed 1bn marine animals on Canada ...
by minikites on Thursday July 08, 2021 @12:11PM
(#27773939)
>Society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in.
We're destroying the planet, but at least we have cheap consumer goods. Future generations (if there are any) will look very poorly upon us. We're fine with any level of environmental destruction because we believe the future always gets better. We implicitly believe that some future genius will invent a solution to climate change that doesn't involve any sacrifice from us. We can't keep assuming a magic solution is going to drop in our lap, we need to start fixing the biosphere now.
Re:‘Heat dome’ probably killed 1bn marine animals on Canada ...
by totheloop on Thursday July 08, 2021 @04:23PM
(#27777136)
What I'm curious about is whether anyone is even working on theoretical versions of such "magic" solutions. I think the public and even governments have some expectation that "someone" is working on solutions that don't require sacrifice - but are we?
Re:‘Heat dome’ probably killed 1bn marine animals on Canada ...
by netcan on Thursday July 08, 2021 @12:53PM
(#27774650)
“The nerdy ecologist part of me is excited to see what will happen in the coming years,” said Harley. “But most of the rest of me is kind of depressed by it. A lot of species are not going to be able to keep up with the pace of change. Ecosystems are going to change in ways that are really difficult to predict. We don’t know where the tipping points are."
It might actually be quite fascinating to document the butterfly effect from this die-off. If you keep an aquarium jar, the unpredictability of booms & busts triggered by die offs are really interesting.
Damage is how we think of it, because it's detrimental to us or things we care about. To the ecosystem, it's change.
How useful of a metric is "number of animals killed?" I don't mean to trivialize the death of 1bn organisms, but I cannot put this number in context, and I don't even know entirely what qualifies as an animal. Somebody ought to remember the bugs.
Is there a more useful metric to capture widespread mortality across all animals or all life? Biomass maybe?
Without further information, I'm unsure what to make of the metric. Of course, microscopic animals are also animals, and important parts of the food chain, but 1billion zooplankton probably would be smaller than the anchovy schools.
It seems like the real story is that mussels can't survive more than a few hours at 40 degrees and died en masse. This has many ripple effects in the ecosystem.
- mussels are a primary food source for many species, like sea stars
- their shells are used as habitats by hermit crabs and other crustaceans and worms
- they help filter the water and keep it clear.
- low oxygen in the water as they decompose
This isn't a longitudinal study, 1bn is just back of napkin math, but it sounds like it is fair to assume that there will be dramatically reduced biodiversity and biomass in the area for years to come. And if another such anomalous temperature event takes place in the next few years it will compound the issue.
As others have said, the marine bio systems contains organisms from unicellular to whale scale. For most purposes a count is meaningless.
For a headline, you need a heart-tugging number.
This is very concerning to me, seagrass is an excellent carbon sink.
https://www.technologynetworks.com/applied-sciences/news/sea...
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-64094-1
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/underwater-mea...
We're destroying the planet, but at least we have cheap consumer goods. Future generations (if there are any) will look very poorly upon us. We're fine with any level of environmental destruction because we believe the future always gets better. We implicitly believe that some future genius will invent a solution to climate change that doesn't involve any sacrifice from us. We can't keep assuming a magic solution is going to drop in our lap, we need to start fixing the biosphere now.
It might actually be quite fascinating to document the butterfly effect from this die-off. If you keep an aquarium jar, the unpredictability of booms & busts triggered by die offs are really interesting.
Damage is how we think of it, because it's detrimental to us or things we care about. To the ecosystem, it's change.
Maybe this global warming, climate change is just like cooking food.
It seems so simple, and with enough effort could be done quickly.
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/27052020/trillion-trees-c...
I also had to carry water to them every day during the drought to keep them alive....
approximately 130 trees per person on the planet :|
Given the context in this topic; See a therapist, perhaps?