From the department of obvious science and anything to do with climate change must be bad comes this study from Australian National University:
Waves costly for fish
Big waves are energetically costly for fish, and there are more big waves than ever. The good news is that fish might be able to adapt.
“There has been a lot of recent work in oceanography documenting the fact that waves are becoming more frequent and more intense due to climate change,” says Mr Dominique Roche, PhD candidate from the Research School of Biology. “The habitats that fish live in are changing.”
“This is not a localised problem, but something that is documented globally,” adds Ms Sandra Binning, also a PhD candidate in the Research School of Biology.
Mr Roche and Ms Binning are co-authors on a study documenting the energy it takes for fish to swim through large, intense waves. Specifically, they focused on fish that swim with their arm, or pectoral fins, which are very common on both rocky and coral reefs.
“By controlling water flow in an experimental chamber with the help of a computer, we were able to replicate oscillations in the water flow like in a wave pool,” explains Mr Roche.
“We looked at how much energy the fish consumed while swimming without waves, in conditions with small waves, and in conditions with large waves. The idea was to compare the amount of energy that fish consume while swimming in these three conditions when their average swimming speed was exactly the same.”
Mr Roche and Ms Binning found that it’s a lot more energetically demanding for fish to deal with large fluctuations in water speed and wave height.
“It’s harder to constantly switch speeds than it is to remain at a constant speed, like a runner changing between running and walking during interval training versus a steady jog. Well, it’s the same for swimming fish,” says Mr Roche.
“Things could get tough for fish in windy, exposed habitats if waves get stronger with changing climate. But there may be a silver lining,” says Ms Binning.
“In the swim chamber, when the water flow increased, fish had to beat their fins faster to keep up. But when the water flow slowed down, some fish took advantage and rode the wave. Essentially, rather than beating their fins frantically, these fish used the momentum that they had gained while speeding up to glide and save energy.
“This means that some individuals are better at dealing with waves than others, and that there is hope for populations to adapt their swimming behavior to potentially changing conditions in the future,” concludes Mr Roche.
Their research was recently published in the Journal of Experimental Biology. View footage of the study species, Cymatogaster aggregata in the swim chamber.
Source: http://news.anu.edu.au/2014/02/03/waves-costly-for-fish/
=============================================================
Gosh, climate change will cause exhausted fish in the future, because as we all know, fish just can’t adapt to a changing environment; nature so poorly equipped them that something like a change in waves in the ocean will just muck up the whole population, because fish just can’t swim deeper to avoid surface turbulence, or something.
And, because this one species of fish is surely representative of all species and good enough to make a climate change with global ramifications related press release out of. Never mind this fact:
The shiner perch (Cymatogaster aggregata) is a common surfperch found in estuaries, lagoons, and coastal streams along the Pacific coast from Alaska to Baja California. It is the sole member of its genus.
…
They are one of the most common fish in the bays and estuaries of their range, favoring beds of eelgrass, and often accumulating around piers as well. They feed on zooplankton such as copepods, but have been observed to bottom feed as well.
Cuz, well, the bays and estuaries are connected to the ocean, and the ocean has waves, and they are getting bigger. And because, somehow, a bottom fish will be more affected by waves on the surface.
I downloaded the footage of the study species, Cymatogaster aggregata in the swim chamber, and have made it available here:
This is what passes for science now; it looks like a high school science fair project. Note the propeller. What I see is the velocity of water changing due to the propeller, an enclosed box, and no waves, i.e. an unnatural environment. As Willis is often fond of pointing out, an aquarium tank is not the ocean, and behavior of an animal in an artificially controlled setting is no guarantee it models reality, even in the slightest. This doesn’t even look like a good model, because the fish is movement constricted, and can’t change its depth.
I assume they are basing their work on this study, also from Australian National University:
==============================================================
Global Trends in Wind Speed and Wave Height
Science, Vol. 332 no. 6028 pp. 451-455 DOI: 10.1126/science.1197219
- I. R. Young*, S. Zieger, A. V. Babanin
*To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: ir.young@anu.edu.au
Studies of climate change typically consider measurements or predictions of temperature over extended periods of time. Climate, however, is much more than temperature. Over the oceans, changes in wind speed and the surface gravity waves generated by such winds play an important role. We used a 23-year database of calibrated and validated satellite altimeter measurements to investigate global changes in oceanic wind speed and wave height over this period. We find a general global trend of increasing values of wind speed and, to a lesser degree, wave height, over this period. The rate of increase is greater for extreme events as compared to the mean condition.
Then there’s this little gem in the paper:
That paper is contested on the basis of that table:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/334/6058/905.2.abstract
Comment on “Global Trends in Wind Speed and Wave Height”
Frank J. Wentz*, Lucrezia Ricciardulli
Young et al. (Reports, 22 April 2011, p. 451) reported trends in global mean wind speed much larger than found by other investigators. Their report fails to reference these other investigations and does not discuss the consequences that such large wind trends would have on global evaporation and precipitation. The difference between their altimeter and buoy trends suggests a relatively large trend error.
=============================================================
Of course this new paper on waves make fish swim harder [Unsteady flow affects swimming energetics in a labriform fish (Cymatogaster aggregata) ] from ANU is published in the same journal (Journal of Experimental Biology) that says ocean acidification will make damselfish go blind: Ocean acidification will interfere with fish eyes
But what I find most interesting is that the original abstract doesn’t even MENTION climate change:
==============================================================
Unsteady flow affects swimming energetics in a labriform fish (Cymatogaster aggregata)
Abstract
Unsteady water flows are common in nature, yet the swimming performance of fishes is typically evaluated at constant, steady speeds in the laboratory. We examined how cyclic changes in water flow velocity affect the swimming performance and energetics of a labriform swimmer, the shiner surfperch, Cymatogaster aggregata, during station holding. Using intermittent-flow respirometry, we measured critical swimming speed (Ucrit), oxygen consumption rates (ṀO2) and pectoral fin use in steady flow versus unsteady flows with either low- [0.5 body lengths (BL) s−1] or high-amplitude (1.0 BL s−1) velocity fluctuations, with a 5 s period. Individuals in low-amplitude unsteady flow performed as well as fish in steady flow. However, swimming costs in high-amplitude unsteady flow were on average 25.3% higher than in steady flow and 14.2% higher than estimated values obtained from simulations based on the non-linear relationship between swimming speed and oxygen consumption rate in steady flow. Time-averaged pectoral fin use (fin-beat frequency measured over 300 s) was similar among treatments. However, measures of instantaneous fin use (fin-beat period) and body movement in high-amplitude unsteady flow indicate that individuals with greater variation in the duration of their fin beats were better at holding station and consumed less oxygen than fish with low variation in fin-beat period. These results suggest that the costs of swimming in unsteady flows are context dependent in labriform swimmers, and may be influenced by individual differences in the ability of fishes to adjust their fin beats to the flow environment.
=============================================================
So, maybe the whole climate change meme is an addition for the purposes of press release, to gain attention, either way, it all seems fishy to me.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Why wasn’t this released on April 1st?
Are fish good athletes?
The comparative athleticism of fish probably isn’t a thought that crosses many people’s minds. For Sandra Binning and Dominique Roche, its more than just a thought — they’ve built swim tunnels to test fishes’ fitness.
The husband and wife duo, from the ANU Research School of Biology and the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, are ‘training up’ fish that come from areas that don’t get a lot of wave exposure to see if they can become better athletes.
The results may help determine if these fish are destined to survive in a climate that is predicted to deliver more intense, frequent storms.
http://www.anu.edu.au/vision/videos/10071/
The AGW ‘research’ bucket continues to be deep and well filled , resulting , ironical, in the pollution of academia by such rubbish.
David L. Hagen said @ur momisugly February 5, 2014 at 9:01 am
Written records of reliable observations of marine organisms began with Aristotle. While Plato taught that intuition is the basis of reliable knowledge, Aristotle, (Plato’s pupil) disagreed. He felt that accurate observation and description of nature, and inductive reasoning and interpretation were the only way to advance understanding of the natural world. Aristotle made many such observations that were relatively accurate. Indeed, his description of the sex life of sea urchins wasn’t confirmed until the 19thC.
Aristotle’s greatest contribution to science was his development of the forerunner of the modern scientific method. Aristotle had no teachers in the modern sense, predecessors, or corpus of scientific knowledge on which to build. He was the first (of record) to begin such studies and so is rightly called the “Father of Natural History”. He was fully aware of his position as a pioneer. Aristotle wrote:
Aristotle made several important contributions to oceanography and marine biology. He was the first to record hypotheses about the bathymetry of the seas and noted that the seas and continents slowly change through time. Aristotle described and named 24 species of crustaceans and annelid worms, 40 species of molluscs and echinoderms, and 116 species of fish (all from the Aegean Sea). You will often read that he recognized cetaceans (dolphins and whales) as mammals; he didn’t but did distinguish them from the scaly fish.
Presumably, David L Hagen, you believe that navel-gazing trumps observation and induction, and that whales are really fish. What makes people believe that they are so superior to the man that codified the logic behind the computer at which I type? Tell us, David L Hagen, what contributions to knowledge have you made that lead you to view Aristotle with such thinly veiled contempt?
as the frequency of the waves gets larger will the wavelength get smaller? Is there a time after the tipping point and runaway climate change that the wavelength will be so small we can’t see the waves. Will they then simply give the fish a tingly and satisfying massage?
A very nice piece of investigative work, Anthony. Curiously, I used to fish commercially for shiner perch. They have tested them in conditions that they describe as follows:
The odd part, as you point out, is that the shiner perch are not found where there are “large, intense waves”. Instead, they live in “estuaries, lagoons, and coastal streams” … I used to fish them in Tomales Bay. The biggest waves you’ll find there are maybe a foot or so tall (30 cm) …
In coastlines exposed to the open ocean, of course, the wave intensity varies greatly. So whatever the claimed change in average wave height is, it will be dwarfed by the change in wave height from one day to the next.
Finally, I’ve dived extensively back in the wave-cut channels that form on the seaward side of a coral reef. They are a great place to spearfish, the wave action churns up the food. When I started doing it, I ended up exhausted, just trying to stay in the same place … like the poor fishie in the movie above.
After while, though, I learned from the fish not to fight the waves, but instead to just let them move me in and move me out. I also learned from the fish how to hide from the waves, using the natural formations to shield myself from the power of the moving water.
So I agree with all of your well-made points above, Anthony. It’s just another piece of climate hysteria dressed up as science.
w.
So this is where the scripts come from for science fiction movies.
This shows complete ignorance of how waves work. The water is moving vertically, not horizontally, which is why a boat will be raised and lowered by waves but not moved horizontally by them until the waves become much larger than the boat.
**Facepalm**
Third sentence of the story;
“The good new is, fish might be able to adapt.”
Just about had me on the floor I was laughing so hard.
It’s the third day of my annual CPA audit here in my office, things are going well, but always tense.
Thanks, I really needed that.
From a point of view of continuum mechanics we know that we need a much larger box of water (maybe 1 * 1 * 0.5 m^3) to generate waves without worrying about deflection effects. In that way these biologists did a poor job.
“””””…..Mike Jonas says:
February 5, 2014 at 1:01 pm
I have experimental evidence that supports this paper. The most extreme waves are of course surf. If fish have difficulty with just waves, then they would find surf pretty well impossible. If the paper’s underlying hypothesis is correct then there would be no or very few fish in surf. I went surf fishing once, and I didn’t catch any. Now I know why……”””””
Well that’s because you don’t know how to surf fish. The fish are there, specially the perch, and people who know how to do it, do it standing in water up to their knees at most, and they cast their fly only into water that has already “broken” , and is running up the beach (or down).
The perch let the waves give them a free ride, into the coming and going foamy zone, which is stirring up the sand or mud, exposing the little, or not so little crustaceans that dwell there, so they grab them and let the undertow carry them back to wait for the next wave to break.
They sometimes catch 40 # striped bass fishing in that thin water. The fish go where the food is.
If you toss your bait into that ten foot high curl, the wave will take your bait, and you will catch nothing.
You have got to be kidding, this is a PHD level study? Duh, when the water moves, fish have to swim harder. So if the water moves faster, the fish have to eat more food! What moronic professor approved this junior high school experiment??
Not to mention that most coral reefs are barely touched by waves that go above them..
I ought to have a PHD just by being able to figure this one out WITHOUT doing a study…
Jeez…
“””””…..Chris4692 says:
February 5, 2014 at 11:56 am
george e. smith says:
February 5, 2014 at 11:15 am
I’ve spent hours, with a snorkel sitting in wavy water, and watching the little fishies at work, and play.
And the one thing I can tell you is that fish pay no attention to the waves whatsoever; specifically they do not attempt to swim against the waves.
I look forward to seeing your measurements of the respiration rates and other physiological measurements on those fish……”””””
I’ll get that right out to you Chris 4692; just as soon as I figure out how to make such measurements, without IN ANY WAY interfering in the fish’s absolute freedom of movement, and in their natural environment; you know, the one where the frequency of the waves is continually increasing due to climate change.
You say these people are biologists studying fish biology. So why do THEY choose to mention climate change ? They did NOT subject their subject fish to climate change; they put them on a stupid treadmill, where they had NO CHOICE, but to swim.
And what did they discover ? They discovered that when fish are forced to swim faster, they have to wave their fins faster and burn more energy. For just 60 cents, I could have told them; and you, that the fish would wave their fins faster when put on a water treadmill, that forced them to swim, or bang into the file cabinet.; Oh and I would still have enough left to buy a Senior coffee (with two free refills) at MacDonalds.
Simply wunnerful; left in their natural environment; fish choose of their own free will, to NOT swim any faster when the water is moving around, than they do when it isn’t moving at all.
They abused their study subjects by creating a completely phony artificial environment, and trying to palm off the behavior as natural. Just like Jane Goodall did at Gombe, when she put out banana feeding boxes to attract chimpanzees to go someplace they would naturally stay away from, and sells this as “behavior in the wild.”
Fish learn (adapt) extremely rapidly.
On one of my forays, into underwater marine biology research, with a snorkel and a “waving” about school of happy Sergeant Majors (yellow and black striped reef fish off a Sea of Cortez island, I realized that the rocks, I was leaning up against, and banging into at the will of the waves, while sitting on the bottom sand, was festooned with rock oysters; sitting all over those rocks.
Well sergeant Majors aren’t a whole lot bigger than those oyster shells, and they don’t have oyster shell crushing teeth. So they generally are not a threat to rock oysters.
But I certainly am, with the little screw driver blade on my multifunction dive knife.
So while these critters were simply ignoring the hell out of me, as just something that drifted in with the tides, I decided to pop the lid off an oyster and dig it out to cut up for the little fishies. Well thqat completely fake environmental change, totally changed the SM’s behavior, and they flocked to my face mask, and the bits of oyster. They didn’t want to wait for me to cut the oyster up; they were quite happy to just nibble on it in my hand.
Well pretty soon their was no more oyster, and just an empty shell.
That worked so well, I decided to try it again, so I popped the lid off another one, with my new found friends now by my hand to get a better look at the process.
Off came the second lid, and the fish surrounded my hand and chomped on the oyster, without me getting the knife anywhere near it.
As soon as the oyster was gone, and the SMs could find not a scrap, they ALL promptly assembled around the next oyster.
OK Joe ! Get with the program and get this sucker open; we don’t have all day !
It took just two oysters to completely train them to eat the food out of my hand and go to where they knew more was waiting for me to present to them.
Fish do not die of old age figuring out what keeps moving them around, and trying to fight it. They know to just ignore it.
Australian National University? Didn’t they have their license lifted after launching the “Ship of Fools” (SOF) to get stuck in the Antarctic global warming ice in mid summer? Maybe this is part of the significant research the SOF folks promised after their rescue.
The research: where do they think these fish have to get to? Most of what fish do is feed themselves and in this experiment, their food not only oscillates back and forth (and up and down) with them, but the food gets stirred up for them. Damn, wasn’t the Biological research division of this university on the SOF scraping barnacles off some uninhabited islands or something?
Ah yeah, this is hilarious. I’m sure these guys probably spent a lot of money on their education. They probably spent a lot more of everyone else’s money on this incredible study to discover what? That a fish can swim? What were they expecting? Maybe the fish just got bored with their stupidity and decided to humour them. Results inconclusive. I suggest they go back and try again, this time with Great white Sharks.
george e. smith says:
February 5, 2014 at 4:42 pm
Until you figure out how to do those measurements, you have nothing. These biologists have done some measurements to your none. Until you actually do measurements, you are one of several million people that have watched little fishies swim around without adding anything to science. That several million people that have watched the fish swim likely includes these researchers, who may very well have made the same observations that you have but they did not write about it because it’s been done before.
Watching the fish in their treadmill may let the biologists make observations in the wild that will give a clue about what is happening physiologically to the fish as they swim about. Maybe they can devise a way to measure things in the wild. In the meantime they can do their studies to figure out what it is that is meaningful to measure or observe. Meanwhile you are just watching pretty little fishies dart about.
They mention climate change because that’s where the money is. Relate your work to climate change, enhance your chances for your next grant. It’s an ugly situation, but there are boatloads of research money available if you can relate your work to climate change no matter how tenuous the connection.
Let me guess, result of a computer model. Right?
Gary Pearse says:
February 5, 2014 at 5:48 pm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That was UNSW.
But definitely cruelty to animals- they didn’t provide a fish perch.
I suspect the subject of the study is more intelligent than the researchers 🙂
The Git used to catch kelpies (wrasse) in the surf when he was living on the West Coast of Tasmania. Used to fill the freezer from an afternoon’s fishing with a line on a beer can.
I was walking up a hill the other day. Did you know it took more effort to walk up that hill than down it? Amazing! I couldn’t believe it. So I did a study about how plate tectonics …
Fish on a tricycle? Reminds me of the shrimp on a treadmill! Another fascinating study.
You know what you’ve got do.
The Pompous Git says:
February 5, 2014 at 6:36 pm
I suspect the subject of the study is more intelligent than the researchers 🙂
The Git used to catch kelpies (wrasse) in the surf when he was living on the West Coast of Tasmania. Used to fill the freezer from an afternoon’s fishing with a line on a beer can.
_____________________
Got ’em drunk and took advantage of ’em?