Basic premise of this paper: 1. let’s take fish out of their natural ocean environment, 2. put ’em in a tank where they are stressed, 3. crank up the temperature, 4. see if any fish die, 5. count dead fish, 6. assume natural adaptation is impossible 7. report news of future doom to the world via press release.
Via Eurekalert:
According to an international team of researchers, the rapid pace of climate change is threatening the future presence of fish near the equator. “Our studies found that one species of fish could not even survive in water just three degrees Celsius warmer than what it lives in now,” says the lead author of the study, Dr Jodie Rummer from the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies at James Cook University.
Dr Rummer and her colleagues studied six common species of fish living on coral reefs near the equator. She says many species in this region only experience a very narrow range of temperatures over their entire lives, and so are likely adapted to perform best at those temperatures.
This means climate change places equatorial marine species most at risk, as oceans are projected to warm by two to three degrees Celsius by the end of this century.
“Such an increase in warming leads to a loss of performance,” Dr Rummer explains. “Already, we found four species of fish are living at or above the temperatures at which they function best.”
The team measured the rates at which fish use oxygen, the fuel for metabolism, across different temperatures – at rest and during maximal performance. According to the results, at warmer temperatures fish lose scope for performance. In the wild, this would limit activities crucial to survival, such as evading predators, finding food, and generating sufficient energy to breed.
Because many of the Earth’s equatorial populations are now living close to their thermal limits, there are dire consequences ahead if these fish cannot adapt to the pace at which oceans are warming.
Dr Rummer suggests there will be declines in fish populations as species may move away from the equator to find refuge in areas with more forgiving temperatures.
“This will have a substantial impact on the human societies that depend on these fish,” she says.
A concentration of developing countries lies in the equatorial zone, where fish are crucial to the livelihoods and survival of millions of people, including those in Papua New Guinea and Indonesia.
In an era of rapid climate change, understanding the link between an organism and its environment is crucial to developing management strategies for the conservation of marine biodiversity and the sustainable use of marine fisheries.
“This is particularly urgent when considering food security for human communities.”
‘Life on the edge: thermal optima for aerobic scope of equatorial reef fishes are close to current day temperatures’ by Jodie Rummer, Christine Couturier, Jonathan Stecyk, Naomi Gardiner, Jeff Kinch, Goran Nilsson and Philip Munday, appears in Global Change Biology.
Abstract
Equatorial populations of marine species are predicted to be most impacted by global warming because they could be adapted to a narrow range of temperatures in their local environment. We investigated the thermal range at which aerobic metabolic performance is optimum in equatorial populations of coral reef fish in northern Papua New Guinea. Four species of damselfishes and two species of cardinal fishes were held for 14 days at 29, 31, 33, and 34 °C, which incorporated their existing thermal range (29–31 °C) as well as projected increases in ocean surface temperatures of up to 3 °C by the end of this century. Resting and maximum oxygen consumption rates were measured for each species at each temperature and used to calculate the thermal reaction norm of aerobic scope. Our results indicate that one of the six species, Chromis atripectoralis, is already living above its thermal optimum of 29 °C. The other five species appeared to be living close to their thermal optima (ca. 31 °C). Aerobic scope was significantly reduced in all species, and approached zero for two species at 3 °C above current-day temperatures. One species was unable to survive even short-term exposure to 34 °C. Our results indicate that low-latitude reef fish populations are living close to their thermal optima and may be more sensitive to ocean warming than higher-latitude populations. Even relatively small temperature increases (2–3 °C) could result in population declines and potentially redistribution of equatorial species to higher latitudes if adaptation cannot keep pace.
=============================================================
UPDATE: from comments –
Even relatively small temperature increases (2–3 °C) could result in population declines and potentially redistribution of equatorial species to higher latitudes if adaptation cannot keep pace.
But what’s this I see? Acclimatization of the damselfish mentioned above! Good grief, we can’t have this.
Abstract – 2013
Evidence for developmental thermal acclimation in the damselfish, Pomacentrus moluccensis
Tropical species are predicted to have limited capacity for acclimation to global warming. This study investigated the potential for developmental thermal acclimation by the tropical damselfish Pomacentrus moluccensis to ocean temperatures predicted to occur over the next 50–100 years. Newly settled juveniles were reared for 4 months in four temperature treatments, consisting of the current-day summer average (28.5 °C) and up to 3 °C above the average (29.5, 30.5 and 31.5 °C). Resting metabolic rate (RMR) of fish reared at 29.5 and 31.5 °C was significantly higher than the control group reared at 28.5 °C. In contrast, RMR of fish reared at 30.5 °C was not significantly different from the control group, indicating these fish had acclimated to their rearing temperature. Furthermore, fish that developed in 30.5 and 31.5 °C exhibited an enhanced ability to deal with acute temperature increases. These findings illustrate that developmental acclimation may help coral reef fish cope with warming ocean temperatures.
Proof positive that anything that blames man-made climate change will get funded and pass peer review no matter how illogical or stupid it is. I can blame my headache on AGW, create a computer model that shows headaches increase as temperatures warm, and get funding. Didn’t sleep well last night? AGW causes more restless nights, my model says so. Where is my money? Oh, you sleep well last night? AGW causes you to sleep better, my model says so. Where is my money?
What I learn from this study is that if you own a tropical fish aquarium, don’t let the temperature rise too fast or your fish will die.
The main fail is the assumption that the tropics warm the same as global temperatures even if it did occur. The scientific evidence that these alarmist claims never use, shows that the tropics hardly change over millions of years compared to the poles and mid-latitude regions. The difference between the tropics during the last major ice age and now was around 1 c warmer.
Therefore shows global temperatures warm around 7 times greater than the tropics. So if global temperatures were to warm 2-3 c then the tropics would warm about 0.36 c. It is amazing and not surprising these days how many ifs/maybes occur in supposedly science, where are the scientific evidence/facts? They have failed to acknowledge that most of the warming even with AGW theory occurs at the poles. if they stuck to science then a claim like this would never look robust, It is the new political environmental spin based on pseudoscience. (unfortunately its been happening for years)
“Already, we found four species of fish are living at or above the temperatures at which they function best.”
Doesn’t this statement negate their hypothesis?
Right now it’s about 15F here-darn sure not my optimum.
I personally think they are on to something.
I have seen similar trials carried out on prawns/shrimp in boiling water, and observe that they do not last long at all.
They are, however, delicious.
For those worried about heatstroked fish in higher latitudes here is evidence of their swimming abilities.
… premise of this paper: 1. let’s take fish out of their natural ocean environment, 2. put ‘em in a tank where they are stressed, 3. crank up the temperature, 4. see if any fish die, 5. count dead fish, 6. assume natural adaptation is impossible 7. report news of future doom to the world via press release.
Haaarump!
Reminds one of the Texas Aggie-scientist-and-the-frog joke … goes like this:
Scientist is conducting an experiment on how far a frog is able to jump. For the first trial he places the frog on the table and says, “Jump frog jump!” The frog jumps four feet and two inches.
The scientist takes out his notebook and writes in it, “With four legs, frog jumps four feet and two inches. The scientist then takes out a knife, cuts off one of the frogs legs and places him back on the table. Again, he says, “Jump frog jump!”
The frog now jumps two feet and one inch. The scientist takes out his notebook and writes down, “With three legs, frog jumps two feet and one inch.” The scientist takes out a knife again and cuts off another one of the frogs legs. He places the frog back on the table and yells, “Jump frog jump!”
The frog jumps one foot. The scientist takes out his notebook and writes down, “With two legs, frog jumps one foot.” He takes out his knife and again cuts off another leg. He places the frog back on the table and yells, “Jump frog jump!”
The frog jump 5 inches. The scientist takes out his notebook and writes down, “With one leg, frog jumps 5 inches.” He takes out his knife and cuts off the last remaining leg of the frog. He places the frog back on the table and yells, “Jump frog jump!”
The frog doesn’t move.
“Jump frog jump!!” The scientist yells a bit louder, but the frog still doesn’t move. “JUMP FROG JUMP!” The scientist says screaming at the top of his lungs. The frog still does not move.
The scientist takes out his notebook and writes down, “With all four legs cut off, frog goes deaf.”
– – – – – – – – – – –
Haaarump!
So I guess moving to cooler water is simply out of the question?
Reminds me of two of my favorite studies.
In one, they took future temperature changes (from models) and plugged them into another model for tracking fish migrations. Conclusion? The fish can’t swim fast enough to escape warmer waters.
The the other, they were Andean birds. They had good field data from research a couple of decades previously. They took temperature data, which I believe tracked reasonably with model projections, then surveyed the bird populations and ranges. Finally they matched the field data against their modelled data. The first surprise was in finding that the ranges of the various birds had changed little – i.e. they were not moving up in elevation as predicted by the model, as temps increased. The second surprise was with their conclusion – the birds were at risk of extinction because they were not adjusting their range. In other words, they were doomed because they were too stupid to listen to what the model predicted.
This was one of the many examples which helped convince me that something has gone off the tracks. Seeing scientists who, when their field data doesn’t match their models, automatically assume the problem is not with the models but the data.
“Dr Rummer suggests there will be declines in fish populations as species may move away from the equator to find refuge in areas with more forgiving temperatures.”
Even if that proved to be the case, Dr Rumpole also knows that one or more niches would be opened up.
Life finds a way
Jimbo, thanks for the links to studies done by real field working marine biologists. Real observational data always trumps these fake conditions paper This read to me like the sort of study we would assign undergraduates to just for the experience of collecting data and observing trends.
I really wasn’t worried about the fish (and I doubt anyone else here was seriously). First, the ability of the fish to migrate is well known, though I was glad my memory is backed up by actual studies you cited. I was beginning to think that the entire ocean biology field had gone off the rails. Second, the scenario cited in the study for warming is ridiculous in the extreme even in accordance with worst case cited by the IPCC. I don’t understand how these folks can even perform an experiment like this without relating it to real world conditions at all. This is so artificial that it has no bearing on anything.
Humanoid: most adaptable species on the planet next to blood sucking mosquito. Build expensive swimming pool. Heat one end to 82F, heat other end to 112F. Insert humanoid researchers into warmer end of pool. Do not allow them to migrate to cooler section of pool. Come back the next day. Count dead humanoid researchers.
…and write stupid paper for 1st graders, get grant money….
Who on the planet eats and relies on damselfish and cardinal fish? I’m pretty sure the rest of humanity could spare them a few cases of Spam…
_Jim says:
February 11, 2014 at 9:51 am
It should be Haroop!
D Long says: @ur momisugly February 11, 2014 at 7:41 am
My experience with tropical fish at home has taught me that the rate of temperature change is a lot more important than the absolute temperature – when talking about a few degrees up or down.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes, the fastest way to kill your fish is to change the temperature too fast. That is why when you bring the little fishies home from the pet store you set the bag of water plus fish in the aquarium and allow the temps to equalize.
Where is PETA when you need them. /sarc
sunshinehours1 says: @ur momisugly February 11, 2014 at 9:24 am
Fish, in 350F oil, covered with a nice tempura batter, will not survive…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Darn, you just made me hungry.
markx says: @ur momisugly February 11, 2014 at 9:47 am
I personally think they are on
tosomething.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There fixed it for you.
What is the highest sea surface temperature measured ever?
Alan the Brit says:
February 11, 2014 at 8:56 am
I am beginning to actually think the world is indeed only a few thousand years old! After all, how could species of any kid evolve to become so pathetically genetically weak & not be able to survive gradual changes in ocean temperatures, atmospheric temperatures, etc. Must be true! 😉
——————————————————
So true!!! I would expect this type of fear from creationist that feel the planet is only a few thousand years old, God put everything here, and we were to be the keepers of the garden until we screwed that up.
The evolutionists they shouldn’t fear changes one bit, they should embrace it. Changes are the engines that drive evolution. The species best adapted to it’s environment is the one that survives. Why is is that these same people panic about every little change and want to save every single species?
They may say that it’s because “man” is scewing everything up. So which way is it? Are we special, put here by God, and need to take care of this garden, or are we part of nature, a product of evolution, and have every right to make this place as nice for ourselves as possible. And if that means our environment doesn’t suit a few fish and polar bears then that’s just too bad for them.
From the age of fishing. When water is hot, fish dive to deeper waters. When water is [cold], fish rise towards solar heated water. Colder currents come out tributaries. Fish love atomic plant’s warm waters in winter. I guess we will have to shut them down.
Don’t fish in a full Moon period. Big fish feed on smaller fish above. If cattle are laying in field and a full moon, forget it.
Maybe if the study used dynamite in parts of the experiment they might get a higher “confidence” level in their study .
Paul
[Then again, old water doesn’t heat up much. Mod]
Do they have any idea what it means a raise in temperature of 2-3 oC. Assuming the same relative humidity, cloud cover etc, from where comes the required vast amount of energy?
What a waste of money.
Gail Combs says:
February 11, 2014 at 11:53 am
sunshinehours1 says: @ur momisugly February 11, 2014 at 9:24 am
Fish, in 350F oil, covered with a nice tempura batter, will not survive…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Darn, you just made me hungry.
****
Yeah I just bought some tuna steaks – on sale none the less.
Now, if I did not have 16″ of global warming covering my grill I would not be stuck using a cast iron skillet. OH well. MY gf will eat them any way.
We laugh (rightly so) when 9/11 “Troofers” conduct amateurish experiments that “prove” one thing or the other of one of their ridiculous claims.
But we DON’T call it science…
After extensive studies with fish in aquariums we have discovered that allowing nitrogen wastes to build up in a period of time that is 100,000 times faster than what occurs in nature general kills the fish.
After extensive studies with SST we have observed that 4-6 degree tempurature swings from El Nino to La Nina have not killed off reef fish in Papua/New Guinea and observational evidence indicates that Dr. Rummer needs to read the above analogy.