Shrinking Nemo – global warming to make fish smaller

From the University of British Columbia , a fish story inspired by a model:

Fish getting smaller as the oceans warm: UBC research

Changes in ocean and climate systems could lead to smaller fish, according to a new study led by fisheries scientists at the University of British Columbia.

The study, published today in the journal Nature Climate Change, provides the first-ever global projection of the potential reduction in the maximum size of fish in a warmer and less-oxygenated ocean.

The researchers used computer modeling to study more than 600 species of fish from oceans around the world and found that the maximum body weight they can reach could decline by 14-20 per cent between years 2000 and 2050, with the tropics being one of the most impacted regions.

“We were surprised to see such a large decrease in fish size,” says the study’s lead author William Cheung, an assistant professor at the UBC Fisheries Centre. “Marine fish are generally known to respond to climate change through changing distribution and seasonality. But the unexpectedly big effect that climate change could have on body size suggests that we may be missing a big piece of the puzzle of understanding climate change effects in the ocean.”

This is the first global-scale application of the idea that fish growth is limited by oxygen supply, which was pioneered more than 30 years ago by Daniel Pauly, principal investigator with UBC’s Sea Around Us Project and the study’s co-author.

“It’s a constant challenge for fish to get enough oxygen from water to grow, and the situation gets worse as fish get bigger,” explains Pauly. “A warmer and less-oxygenated ocean, as predicted under climate change, would make it more difficult for bigger fish to get enough oxygen, which means they will stop growing sooner.”

This study highlights the need to curb greenhouse gas emissions and develop strategies to monitor and adapt to changes that we are already seeing, or we risk disruption of fisheries, food security and the way ocean ecosystems work.

###

Note the press release headline: Fish getting smaller as the oceans warm: UBC research – they tout that as if it were measured, it isn’t.

Of course actual field experiments with real data trump models every day of the week and twice on Sunday. For example here’s a graph from the paper The effect of temperature and fish size on growth, feed intake, food conversion efficiency and stomach evacuation rate of Atlantic salmon post-smolts by Handeland et al published in the journal Aquaculture in June 2008:

Fig. 1. Mean weight in Atlantic salmon smolts (±SE, n=23) transferred to seawater at 6 (□), 10 (Δ), 14 (⋄) and 18 (○) °C. The first point (week 0) refers to the freshwater group (control). Different letters indicates significant differences (Student–Newman–Keuls, pb0.05) between temperature groups at same time of sampling, n.s., non significant.

The authors conclude:

In conclusion, the present study shows ontogenetic variation in optimum temperature for growth in juvenile Atlantic salmon smolts, with increased temperature optimum for growth and decreased temperature for feed conversion efficiency as the fish grow bigger.

Temperature tolerance increases with size, but Atlantic salmon smolts are eurythermal (Able to tolerate a wide range of temperatures.) in the size range investigated. 

Full paper here (PDF)

Now as Willis would point out, clearly this is tank studies, and not the open ocean, and you can’t duplicate the complexity of the ocean in a tank. But the fish don’t seem to have a temperature issue, in fact they seem to thrive at warmer temperatures. The claim is that as oceans warm, less oxygen will be available, and that will stunt the growth of fish. This claim in the modeling paper comes from the elemental saturation curve for dissolved oxygen (DO) in water, which is much like that of CO2. From a lecture on water chemistry at keystone.edu:

I found this part of the lecture interesting, and was something I didn’t know:

Nota bene:  100% saturation does not mean that no more O2 can be held in solution.  I have measured DO >200%.  Does this mean that bubbles should be forming?  No, not necessarily. Saturation here means that 10.92 mg/l can be held at equilibrium; if 200% is produced by intense photosynthetic activity, the extra amount will be lost (diffused) at the air/water interface.

  • a nomogram can be used to determine degree of saturation; use a straightedge to connect the water temperature and DO.  Read the % saturation at the intersection of this line with the middle line.
Dissolved Oxygen % Saturation Nomogram

 ·         at 10 meters, with a temperature of 10°C, at surface pressure would hold (at 100% saturation) 10.92 mg, but you may find 15 mg/l.; compared to the surface it would be supersaturated, but at the depth and pressure it’s at, it may be less than saturated.

o       How can water be supersaturated?

§         intense photosynthesis

§         entrainment of air falling over a dam or spillway; high pressure of impact drives gases into solution; may lead to gas bubble disease, a problem in TVA dams

§         affects fish if subjected for a few hours to >115% saturation; bubbles form in tissues; emboli collect in gills causing anoxia and death; also affects cladocerans.  Other biota, e.g., crayfish and stoneflies are hardier.

So, too much oxygen is also a problem. But what really piqued my interest wad the statement of “intense photosynthesis” as a cause. That made me wonder if photosynthetic algae and diatoms would respond to increased temperature, so I went looking and found this paperProduction and fate of extracellular polymeric substances produced by benthic diatoms and bacteria: A laboratory study by Lundkvist et al.

And the graph showing how photosynthetic oxygen production changes with temperature, again hard data from observation:

Fig. 7. Dose-response curve on light intensity and photosynthesis measured as oxygen production by benthic algae population.

So, it seems to me that the ocean already has this worked out. If O2 can be supersaturated, and “intense photosynthesis” can be a cause, it would seem that warmer water that normally would get oxygen from air-sea interaction and entrainment might be supplemented from increased algal photosynthesis.

Besides, broad differences in oxygen content by latitude are well known:

Image: Wikipedia

And fish aren’t static entities…they move. So I suppose I’m not too worried about global warming shrinking fish. Overfishing is likely a far greater problem for reduced fish size, as are oxygen deprived dead zones due to fertilizer runoff as we’ve seen in the Gulf of Mexico:

Dead zones occur throughout the world and are caused primarily from excess fertilizer and animal manure run-off, as well as, emissions from sewage treatment plants, urban and suburban run-off, and air emissions from vehicles. The largest dead zone in the country occurs at the mouth of the Mississippi River in the Gulf of Mexico each spring. In past years, the dead zone (pictured in the satellite image as the red coastal areas around Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida) has encompassed some 5,000 square miles. – ewg.org

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
106 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Chris B
September 30, 2012 7:34 pm

The model would be better used as a video game App for your smart phone.

September 30, 2012 7:37 pm

Sounds fishy to me 😉

Manfred
September 30, 2012 7:50 pm

Whilst individual modeled fish may shrink, the piscine collective will grow with more food available?

tgmccoy
September 30, 2012 7:50 pm

OH Boy! I smell grant money!

SteveC
September 30, 2012 7:52 pm

Fish always shrink when you cook ’em!

Tim Walker
September 30, 2012 7:54 pm

It made me wonder why the warm seas of today have any large fish in them. Somebody better tell the big fish, ‘the models say they can’t grow that big in warm water’. Then there are the epocs of the past when the seas and oceans were warmer. The large fish fossils of those times must be fake.

September 30, 2012 7:55 pm

overfishing has NOTHING to do with this. never before in the history of the earth has their been any warmer state where life has thirved!!!!!!
oh wait…

mr.artday
September 30, 2012 7:57 pm

More and more, the papers in Nature Climate Change sound like conversations overheard in the patients day room of a mental hospital.

Peter
September 30, 2012 8:03 pm

Did I see that dreaded term ‘computer modelling’ again?? They were then ‘surprised’ to see the fish shrinking (on the computer screen that is). Well that ‘proves’ it then, whatever the computer said must be true.

george e smith
September 30, 2012 8:03 pm

That’s why Whale sharks and basking sharks are found mostly in the tropics, as also are the big marlins and tuna species. Can’t think of a fish that is particularly big found in the Arctic ocean.

Jeff D
September 30, 2012 8:03 pm

We were just told that the human population will be decreasing by 300,000,000 due to CAGW. Looks like our demise will keep the balance to fish size in check and there will still be plenty to eat.

Juice
September 30, 2012 8:06 pm

Sorry, but I don’t know where else to put this. Here’s a book review of “Prize Fight: The Race and the Rivalry to be the First in Science”.
Down And Dirty Science –
An exploration of the lengths some scientists will go to for credit, fame, and glory

It’s very interesting. I might just pick up the book. It describes cronyism and conflicts of interest in the world of science funding and publication. Just thought it would be interesting to people here.

Gary Hladik
September 30, 2012 8:07 pm

We’re all supposed to drive compact cars instead of SUVs, right? So what’s wrong with compact fish? 🙂

Katherine
September 30, 2012 8:10 pm

But the unexpectedly big effect that climate change could have on body size suggests that we may be missing a big piece of the puzzle of understanding climate change effects in the ocean.
Not even a hint of suspicion that their model might reflect their lack of understanding of reality. PlayStation “scientist.”

Lightrain
September 30, 2012 8:21 pm

“we may be missing a big piece of the puzzle”
GIGO

September 30, 2012 8:26 pm

Two fish quotes seem apropiate….first to the Darth Mega-warmists and Luke Mini-warmists on the Orwellian group think of Carbon climate forcing:
“We don’t know who discovered water….but we are pretty sure it wasn’t the fish”.
Second, from the seldom quotable Sarah Palin….here directed at ‘consensus science’
“Only dead fish go with the flow”.
Obi “No Warm Kanobi

old44
September 30, 2012 8:29 pm

Why are green bureaucrats and academics listed as separate groups?

Rick Bradford
September 30, 2012 8:35 pm

Perhaps if today’s climate ‘consensus scientists’ had to use nomograms instead of fast computers, they would have more time to consider whether they were making complete idiots of themselves.

AndyG55
September 30, 2012 8:37 pm

I think I’ve figured it out,
Someone changed their 24′ screen to a 22″ screen !!

David Falkner
September 30, 2012 8:37 pm

Can I say that I think you missed the 100,000,000 will die from global warming story?
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/09/27/report-100-million-could-die-from-climate-change-by-2030

AndyG55
September 30, 2012 8:38 pm

24″ ……. darn typo agian

Dr Burns
September 30, 2012 8:44 pm

There’s also an evolutionary effect that makes fish grow smaller.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090303193950.htm

aharris
September 30, 2012 8:53 pm

Personally, I think this is less likely due to too little oxygen and more likely due to the temperatures they kept the fish at along with their methodology. If you look, they kept the fish at the same temperatures all the time. Some fish don’t like to be at certain temperatures and 18 C is really at the upper limit of species tolerance here as evidenced by the highest mortality numbers and simple check of species preferred temperature; just because they can tolerate a temperature doesn’t mean they like it. One would think that these guys would likely seek cooler water if given the chance.
Something else to consider is that higher temperatures will do two things to your tank: 1.) It will reduce oxygen solubility. Given that they made sure that all tanks had at least 80% oxygen saturation in their outflows, this should not have been a concern. 2.) It will increase the metabolism of your inhabitants increasing the amount of biological waste they produce reducing your water quality. This does affect your tank life’s growth rates because less pristine/healthy water is less conducive to rapid growth. This would make your tank inhabitants smaller at higher temperatures. However, in the ocean, this would not be a problem because you do not have the closed environment issues that all tank environments suffer from.
Had they kept the higher temperature fish in a cleaner environement, they might have closed the growth deficit. This is why you raise aquarium fry in a bare bottom tank, feed them three times daily and vacuum that bottom once daily before doing a massive water change of at least 2/3 water volume to maximize your fry growth. It’s about as close as you can get to simulating a lake type environment in the home aquarium.
But that’s what my untutored hobbyist insticts tell me from looking at their methods. There are just some things they don’t say.

AndyG55
September 30, 2012 8:55 pm

Anyway, small Nemo are REALLY cute !!!

AndyG55
September 30, 2012 9:01 pm

george e smith says:
Can’t think of a fish that is particularly big found in the Arctic ocean.
Do you count whales as a fish ? 🙂
Down here, the whales choose WARMER northern waters in the winter and head back south during summer.
Must be just about time to watch a few heading south past Newcastle. Great sight they are too :-))

1 2 3 5