We’ve already had a “climate craziness of the week” so I’ll just file this bit of blather under another category. First, this article in The Independent, which aims to scare the children.
Now here’s the press release from the University of Bristol. Note the simplistic experiment, followed by broad disclaimers about it, emphasis mine.
=======================================================
Ocean acidification leaves clownfish deaf to predators
Press release issued 1 June 2011
Baby clownfish use hearing to detect and avoid predator-rich coral reefs during the daytime, but new research from the University of Bristol demonstrates that ocean acidification could threaten this crucial behaviour within the next few decades.
Since the Industrial Revolution, over half of all the CO2 produced by burning fossil fuels has been absorbed by the ocean, making pH drop faster than any time in the last 650,000 years and resulting in ocean acidification. Recent studies have shown that this causes fish to lose their sense of smell, but a new study published today in Biology Letters shows that fish hearing is also compromised.
Working with Professor Philip Munday at James Cook University, lead author Dr Steve Simpson of the School of Biological Sciences at the University of Bristol reared larvae straight from hatching in different CO2 environments.
“We kept some of the baby clownfish in today’s conditions, bubbling in air, and then had three other treatments where we added extra CO2 based on the predictions from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for 2050 and 2100,” Dr Simpson said.
After 17-20 days rearing, Dr Simpson monitored the response of his juvenile clownfish to the sounds of a predator-rich coral reef, consisting of noises produced by crustaceans and fish.
“We designed a totally new kind of experimental choice chamber that allowed us to play reef noise through an underwater speaker to fish in the lab, and watch how they responded,” Dr Simpson continued. “Fish reared in today’s conditions swam away from the predator noise, but those reared in the CO2 conditions of 2050 and 2100 showed no response.”
This study demonstrates that ocean acidification not only affects external sensory systems, but also those inside the body of the fish. The ears of fish are buried deep in the back of their heads, suggesting lowered pH conditions may have a profound impact on the entire functioning of the sensory system.
The ability of fish to adapt to rapidly changing conditions is not known. Dr Simpson said: “What we have done here is to put today’s fish in tomorrow’s environment, and the effects are potentially devastating. What we don’t know is whether, in the next few generations, fish can adapt and tolerate ocean acidification. This is a one-way experiment on a global scale, and predicting the outcomes and interactions is a major challenge for the scientific community.”
The work was funded by the Natural Environment Research Council UK (Simpson) and the Australian Research Council (Munday).
Paper
‘Ocean acidification erodes crucial auditory behaviour in a marine fish’ by Steve Simpson, Philip Munday, Matt Wittenrich, Rachel Manassa, Danielle Dixson, Monica Gagliano and Hong Yan in Biology Letters.
=====================================================================
Translation: “we put the fish in a significantly different water environment, and they reacted differently”. Anyone who has ever owned a freshwater or saltwater aquarium can tell you about what happens when you transfer fish from the water environment they are used to, to one they aren’t. pH shock and Osmotic shock often often result from the abrupt change. The key is abrupt change, whether embryo or adult, the fish are wired for a specific ocean environment, change that environment abruptly and the fish change too. What they’ve done here is take 40 years of gradual change and compress it to the here and now.
And I have to think, these guys chose the absolute worst fish for the experiment, because I’m betting they didn’t go out and get wild embryos, but rather took the easy path of tank raised clown fish embryos. From Wikipedia:
Clownfish are now reared in captivity by a handful of marine ornamental farms in the USA. Clownfish were the first species of Saltwater fish to successfully be Tank-raised. Tank-raised fish are a better choice for aquarist, because wild-caught fish are more likely to die soon after purchasing them due to the stress of capture and shipping. Also, tank-bred fish are usually more disease resistant and in general are less affected by stress when introduced to the aquarium. Captive bred clownfishes may not have the same instinctual behavior to live in an anemone. They may have to be coaxed into finding the anemone by the home aquarist. Even then, there is no guarantee that the anemone will host the clownfish.
The “may not have the same instinctual behavior to live in an anemone.” is troubling. It suggests that tank raised clownfish may not be “normal”. And of course when I backtrack to the source method (from the Simpson paper) for obtaining embryos (Munday et al, 2008, referenced in the current paper) I find this:
Clownfish were reared at James Cook University’s experimental aquarium facility where the pH of unmanipulated seawater was 8.15 ± 0.07. This is similar to the pH that pelagic larvae would experience during development in the open ocean (1).
James Cook University in Townsville QLD has direct access to the ocean, so it would seem right that they have direct access to “unmanipulated seawater”. Still, they were tank raised, and that’s a different environment than the ocean and their wild cousins.
Let’s have a look at the paper.
======================================================
Ocean acidification erodes crucial auditory behaviour in a marine fish
Abstract
Ocean acidification is predicted to affect marine ecosystems in many ways, including modification of fish behaviour. Previous studies have identified effects of CO2-enriched conditions on the sensory behaviour of fishes, including the loss of natural responses to odours resulting in ecologically deleterious decisions. Many fishes also rely on hearing for orientation, habitat selection, predator avoidance and communication. We used an auditory choice chamber to study the influence of CO2-enriched conditions on directional responses of juvenile clownfish (Amphiprion percula) to daytime reef noise. Rearing and test conditions were based on Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predictions for the twenty-first century: current-day ambient, 600, 700 and 900 µatm pCO2. Juveniles from ambient CO2-conditions significantly avoided the reef noise, as expected, but this behaviour was absent in juveniles from CO2-enriched conditions. This study provides, to our knowledge, the first evidence that ocean acidification affects the auditory response of fishes, with potentially detrimental impacts on early survival.
- Received March 14, 2011.
- Accepted May 10, 2011.
- This Journal is © 2011 The Royal Society
Full paper here
=============================================================
First, note the time-line; it was fast tracked. It went from submission to approval in two months. It seems that according to this journal statement, they go for “fast track science” as a matter of policy:
Articles submitted to Biology Letters benefit from its broad scope and readership, dedicated media promotion and we aim for a turnaround time of within 4 weeks to first decision.
Looks like a paper mill to me.
And, this may indicate the paper was chosen on something other than scientific merit, emphasis mine:
Selection Publishing Criteria
The criteria for acceptance are: scientific excellence, work of outstanding quality and international importance, originality and interest across disciplines within biology. To be acceptable for publication a paper should represent a significant advance in its field, rather than something incremental.
All manuscripts are assessed by a member of the Editorial Board, who advises the Handling Editor on the suitability of the manuscript for Biology Letters. Based on this, the Handling Editor decides whether the paper should be rejected or sent for full peer-review. Many good papers are rejected at this stage on the grounds that they are insufficiently novel, due to high competition for space.
So, “novelty” is primary acceptance criteria and peer review is on a 4 week fast track. Check.
It seems volume of peer review is celebrated at this journal. That’s something I’ve never seen before in any other journal.
What really seems to be missing from this clownfish experiment is a control experiment. For example, did they test the fish by putting them in water that represents the CO2/ ocean environment of 10-40 years ago? I seems they only tested for the future representing 600, 700 and 900 µatm pCO2. Here’s what they say about the method:
The CO2-conditions of our rearing and test environments were current-day ambient (∼390 µatm), and elevated-CO2 treatments (approx. 600, 700 and 900 µatm), consistent with the range of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predictions for CO2 concentrations at the end of the twenty-first century [2].
This is very important, because the paper assumes that only an increase of CO2 will change clownfish behavior. Did they test for decreasing CO2 levels and what the fish would do then? Apparently not, and that basic use of a control seemed to have escaped those high volume peer reviewers racing to meet the 4 week deadline.
By not testing for a decreased CO2 situation, they invalidate their own premise. And that’s on top of the fact that they aren’t using wild clownfish embryos and they are making abrupt changes in the water chemistry that generations of the fish have not experienced and doing it only in one direction, up.
This is high school science stuff guys. I wait for an explanation as to why you didn’t test for a decrease to CO2 and the resultant pH on clownfish embryos.
So I wonder, if we take 10 peer reviewers from the “wilds” of science, put them in a think tank, increase the ambient CO2 levels to more than double they are used to, and then tell them they have 4 weeks to review 100 papers, will they still produce good science?
Maybe they need more peer reviewers in that clown car to be sure.
Well gee, if atmospheric levels of CO2 reach 3000 ppm…………….I guess so.
Old but still a nice one:
They aren’t really deaf. They’re just clowning around. That’s why they’re called “clownfish”. If you try and study their eyesight, they’ll pretend to be blind.
Reminds me of the now thorougly “green-peaced” fish and wildlife dullards who recently collared a wolf here in NE Oregon and ended up with a dead collared wolf less than a week later. Now that’s my kind of protectionism. Collar me some more uv’dem woofs.
http://www.katu.com/news/local/117280433.html
More news about (somewhat larger) fish’s hearing capabilities: http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/journal/great-white-sharks-attracted-to-acdc.htm.
Still unclear if increased CO2 will give them Bieber Fever instead.
The paleo records clearly show that ocean PH was much more acidic over most of the past 100 million years. There has been a small increase the natural acidic levels of the ocean over the past 10 million years, which clearly cannot be due to human activity.
Coincidentally, this is about the time that the ice ages began. Perhaps the true cause is temperature not CO2? That temperature is driving CO2 and ocean acidity. After all, CO2 does lag temperature in the paleo records. Something ignored by mainstream climate science and AGW.
Why would the clownfish go deaf when they evolved in a world where the past acid levels in the ocean were much higher? They are simply returning to a more natural state for the oceans, which are currently quite caustic, possible as a result of the ice ages.
page 53:
http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/oceanography/faculty/zeebe_files/Publications/ZeebePQ01.pdf
If one removes the ‘f” one is left with …
… Clownish Experiment
In this experiment, did they take into consideration the bubbles that tank filters make in the water with respect to noise levels, types of noise and the vibrations? Might this play into the factor of the clown fish not responding to the subjected “ocean preditor” noise? Too many factors that are missing that really doesn’t similate the “natural” environment to which the clown fish are exposed. They are assuming the simple things, and not the “complicated” factors of nature.
You couldn’t make it up!!
What a load of total b******s.
No doubt we will see Greenpeace sending boats over coral reefs dropping loads of mini ear trumpets.
What gets me is what sort of mind can think of testing the relationship between global warming and deafness of clownfish, it sounds like something from Monty Python. I had just finished reading the previous posting about the stressed out Banded Morwongs (both of them) and I thought that things could not get any more surreal…..and they did.
I keep marine tropicals and have a clownfish, they are one of the easiest of fish to keep. They can tolerate extremes of temperature, ph, water hardness and salinity.
I think to be on the safe side I will take it to the vets for a hearing test, if it has impaired hearing does anyone know if I can get it put on Disability Living Allowance?
From the same source:
CO2 Ph
300 8.16
500 8.04
1000 7.88
2000 7.72
Ph 7 is neutral. So, even if CO2 levels were to reach 2000 ppm, something that will take hundreds of years at rpesent rates, the ocean will STILL BE CAUSTIC.
The idea that the ocean is becoming acidic is scientific nonsense. The oceans are becoming neutralized. They are becomming less caustic,which should on balance be good for life.
If the ocean Ph was increasing, if the oceans were moving in the other direction and becoming more caustic, this would be a concern. A caustic solution dissolves living tissue.
Place some hair in an acid solution. Typically nothing will happen. Now place the hair in a caustic solution. The hair will melt. Commercial hair removers are not acid, they are caustic.
Place some fat in an acid solution. Typically nothing will happen. Now place the fat in a caustic solution. The fat will melt. This is how soap was originally made. Water poured though the ashes of a fire will produce a caustic solution. Fat then dissolved in this solution produces soap.
Now imagine that you are a fish swimming in a caustic ocean. For protection you would need a layer of mucous to avoid being dissolved. Thus fish are often referred to a slimy. This is protection against the caustic nature of the current oceans.
In the past oceans were less caustic, and fish would not have needed the protective layer of mucous. Those fish that evolved a mucous coating survived the oceans becoming more caustic.
Our expectation is that some human embryos in the future may be on a field of grass and passing a ball betwixt them and getting jostled and bumped. So we’ll take these and throw them on that field now and see what happens when the get treated as such.
We’re sorry to report that it turned out to be a bloody mess. Yes, it’s true that we didn’t give them the benefit of 10-15 years of time to adapt. But if we act now, maybe we can prevent the devastating future that awaits them.
“The work was funded by the Natural Environment Research Council UK (Simpson) and the Australian Research Council (Munday).”
OMG! This could have been a great Grade 6 science experiment for an 11 year old.
Can our governments PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE STOP THIS WASTE OF OUR TAX MONEY!!!
hmmm. Given the attractive coloring of said fish, I wonder if they could be used as bait. Just supposin now. No one need to get their knickers in a green-stained bunch.
Were the clownfish tested as a group or as individuals?
If as a group then there may well be an element of “follow the leader(s)” were it is only one or 2 of the fish that react (or dont react) to the noise and the others just follow them.
“Juveniles from ambient CO2-conditions significantly avoided the reef noise, as expected, but this behaviour was absent in juveniles from CO2-enriched conditions”
========================================================
Follow up study…….
CO2 enrichment causes clownfish to be better adjusted and not so flighty………
Anthony, I know these guys. They did not monitor for calcium levels at all. Higher pH results in more calcium in solution in natural conditions, but not in aquarium conditions. They artificially raised the pH with a low calcium level. The pH would have had nothing to do with it if they had maintained buffer and Ca levels.
This is even below high school science…………but it keeps the money flowing
Pamela Gray says:
June 4, 2011 at 10:59 am
hmmm. Given the attractive coloring of said fish, I wonder if they could be used as bait. Just supposin now
=====================================================
Pam, they are commonly referred to as sharks in pretty pajamas…….
They are mean as a snake
Pamela Gray says: “Reminds me of the now thorougly “green-peaced” fish and wildlife dullards who recently collared a wolf here in NE Oregon and ended up with a dead collared wolf less than a week later.”
After necropsy, cause of death remains unknown, but $10,000 in rewards have been offered.
http://www.kval.com/news/local/118177039.html
http://www.wkrg.com/news/article/10000-in-rewards-offered-in-killing-of-ore.-wolf/1055053/Oct-08-2010_3-09-pm/
Hummm, aside from the noise of the bubbles, could Nemo have found himself experiencing hypoxia from the artificially induce high levels of CO2, hence rendering him unresponsive and making one pectoral fin smaller that the other ?
Hummmm, why did I waste my time even thinking about it :~)
Honestly, I’d really like to meet these authors and rip into them. What a complete waste of public money and very poor ‘science’ to boot.
“The oceans are becoming neutralized. They are becomming less caustic,which should on balance be good for life.”
Absolute nonsense. Do not make statements regarding other people’s supposed scientific ignorance based on your own sixth grade understanding of the prionciples involved. Different organisms have differing requirements wrt pH, and there is nothing inherently and universally ‘good for life’ about neutral pH. Some organisms, like most fish, do best in moderatley basic pH environments. For such organisms, a change to somewhat more basic conditions (‘more caustic’ in your terms) would be better thana change toward more neutral conditions, which could be lethal.
Did they have a calcium carbonate source such as a bed of shells which would react ?
The ocean does have this, and so pumping in CO2 could have an effect very different to that seen in a bare tank.
But does the CO2 enriched ocean water have the same affect on the predator fish larvae, creating predators that can’t hunt as well? Loss of hearing & smell among predator fish would seem to balance out the playing field
How many holes are there any this study? Enough to drive Al Gore’s houseboat through it, in my opinion. Anthony has pointed out several, but here is an additional one I see.
First, flight responses are learned mechanisms. A fish learns to swim to safety when it hears a predator because either it sees another fish swim away and imitates that other fish or it swims away when the threat develops further and it learns a safe place to go to not be eaten. Fish are not born with an “instinct” to swim away when they hear a noise; if they were, there would be a lot more fish in the world.
So, the experiment involved using speakers to introduce sounds in the tanks. You notice no threat was introduced along with the sound. Which means the fish did not have a reason to swim away or learn the behavior of swimming to safety. There is no proof that the fish did not hear the sound, only that they did not react. If they have no reason to react to a sound (a predator or other threat), then why would they react.
There might be reason to believe they did not hear the sound if these were fish raised in the wild, and already familiar with the sound and the survival response needed there. But these were tank raised fish, which presumably means they had never been exposed to a threat consistent with the recorded sounds. Also, the normal flight response of clownfish is to get back within the protective environs on the anemone they make their home. As pointed out by Anthony, tank raised clownfish are less likely to view the anemone as home, and must be “coaxed” into finding the anemone.
I might consider this a valid experiment if the way they initially introduced the predatory sound into the tank was by releasing a predator into the tank. If the fish did not learn to respond to the sound after repeated exposure to attacks by the predator, then you could say that there was a likelihood that something in the environment of the fish was responsible. As is, there are too many possibilities for the source of the lack of response to lay the blame at one of them.
As well as differences in available carbonates from bare tank to sea floor, bubbling in the CO2 using tiny bubble injectors or suchlike is different from surface transfer of gases.
They should just have enriched the atmosphere, not injected CO2 …why make it even more artificial than necessary ?
after all Sharks respond to hearing signals, the splashing/thrashing of a sick or injured fish, and odor signals, blood in the water from miles away.