From the UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA and the fishy science department…
Fish are expected to shrink in size by 20 to 30 per cent if ocean temperatures continue to climb due to climate change.
A new study by researchers at the University of British Columbia provides a deeper explanation of why fish are expected to decline in size.
“Fish, as cold-blooded animals, cannot regulate their own body temperatures. When their waters get warmer, their metabolism accelerates and they need more oxygen to sustain their body functions,” said William Cheung, co-author of the study, associate professor at the Institute for the Ocean and Fisheries and director of science for the Nippon Foundation-UBC Nereus Program. “There is a point where the gills cannot supply enough oxygen for a larger body, so the fish just stops growing larger.”
Daniel Pauly, the study’s lead author and principal investigator of the Sea Around Us at the Institute for the Ocean and Fisheries, explains that as fish grow into adulthood their demand for oxygen increases because their body mass becomes larger. However, the surface area of the gills — where oxygen is obtained — does not grow at the same pace as the rest of the body. He calls this set of principles that explains why fish are expected to shrink “gill-oxygen limitation theory.”
For example, as a fish like cod increases its weight by 100 per cent, its gills only grow by 80 per cent or less. When understood in the context of climate change, this biological rule reinforces the prediction that fish will shrink and will be even smaller than thought in previous studies.
Warmer waters increase fish’s need for oxygen but climate change will result in less oxygen in the oceans. This means that gills have less oxygen to supply to a body that already grows faster than them. The researchers say this forces fish to stop growing at a smaller size to be able to fulfill their needs with the little oxygen available to them.
Some species may be more affected by this combination of factors. Tuna, which are fast moving and require more energy and oxygen, may shrink even more when temperatures increase.
Smaller fish will have an impact on fisheries production as well as the interaction between organisms in the ecosystems.
###
Pauly and Cheung’s study “Sound physiological knowledge and principles in modeling shrinking fishes under climate change” was published in Global Change Biology doi: 10.1111/gcb.13831.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“…but climate change will result in less oxygen in the oceans….” How does this Carp get Oxygen???
What so suddenly all the fish will head North and South to avoid the warming waters???
Hey what if the waters cool? will the fish get 20-30% larger??
Absolute BS. Some of the best fish in the world are warm water fish eg the great Barramundi. Even if it did happen – how long?
On the Great Lakes, warmer winters make for much bigger salmon the following year. During cold winters their metabolism apparently slows down and they dont feed as much.
During a hot summer sometimes they just go little deeper to find the water temperature they prefer. Sometimes they don’t have to go deeper if winds are from the right direction. Temperatures change drastically from day to day, and they will move miles in a day to find the temperaure they like.
When I heard this garbage on the radio I instantly thought of the Barramundi and thought no way it could be all gilled fish , must just be the cold loving species but we’ve had ice ages that came and went and warmer periods but still have big fish in cold and warm waters .
This is just so true.
Every time I have sailed across the equator, the sea is just boiling with gasping, shrinking fish.
Also supposed to affect sharks more but again there are species that prefer the warmer water .
I guess the reports of Megalodon are false it went extinct 2.6 million years ago at the start of the current ice age
So sayeth the Wizard of CO2: “Shrinking and gasping for air — oh my! Shrinking and gasping for air — oh my!”
Burning turbines will leave humans and woodland animals gasping for air.
This 5 hours ago. Thankfully it didn’ t set the other nearby reliable and emissions free power plant on fire…
http://www.asahi.com/sp/ajw/articles/AJ201708220035.html
It might be instructive if you googled the number of installed turbines world wide, then searched for all turbine fires in a year
I get about one report a week. There is a media blackout in Canada according to a good source there. A partial blackout in regions in the US, EU and AU/NZ.
I worked in the industry and also served as a volunteer fire chief/ foredt fire warden with a service area of 2,500 + sq miles.
There is a big problem here and I intend to adress it with facts.
Please excuse my spelling errors.
Address and Forest Fire Warden were mispelled. My apologies for being a bit pissed, old and using an iphone.
On that note, how many Hoverboards were made and how many of them caught fire before a recall was issued? What about the batteries Boeing was using?
Neighbours Sue Wind Power Operator – Infigen – for $20m Damages Caused by Devastating Wind Farm Fire
On 17 January 2017, wind farm operator Infigen sparked a blaze that ripped across the southern Tablelands of NSW and destroyed 3,400 hectares (8,400 acres), hundreds of sheep and cattle, sheds and at least one home. STT first reported on it on 25 January: Wind Power Setting the World on Fire: Infigen Sparks Devastating NSW Bushfire
The losses suffered by neighbours are in the tens of $millions. A class-action just launched by some of those neighbours is chasing Australia’s most notorious wind power outfit for $20 million in loss and damage, with more neighbours set to join the action and add many $millions more to that number.
https://stopthesethings.com/2017/05/15/neighbours-sue-wind-power-operator-infigen-for-20m-damages-caused-by-devastating-wind-farm-fire/comment-page-1/
They say bumble bees shouldn’t be able to fly …. but they do. I’m betting fish will also defy these wizards of smart.
According to my calculations, old doomsayers ought to be able to learn new tricks. So far, no luck.
Why nobody slaps these people for stupidity is beyond me.
Stupidity is legal. Slapping isn’t — it’s a form of assault. Hence the need for free speech leavened by ridicule. Both are still legal. . . so far.
Actually the problem here is peer review. It’s clearly broken. Scientific method meets government grant money, and loses.
The point here seems to be that gills limit the size of fish, dependent on the available oxygen in water. So the current upper limit on fish size would be represented by the largest gilled fish extant today. That would be the the whale shark – typically nearly 10 meters and 9 tonnes for an adult. This would not seem to be a problem for other species, which would presumably have their size limited by other factors.
The tropics have some of the largest bony fish species in the world… Giant Groupers, Giant Wrasse, Marlin, etc… I’m not sure where these so called Marine Biologists are coming from?
The only species of marine life that I have found to be smaller in the tropical warm waters than in colder southern waters is the Blue Swimmer crab, Portunus pelagicus. These crabs are definitely larger in the southern colder waters of the Peel Inlet of Mandurah or the Swan River in Western Australia than they are in the tropical waters of Nth Queensland’s Princess Charlotte Bay.
But crabs aren’t bony fishes….
Or they could swim off where its best for them, as we have migrtaed over 10,000 years of continual climate change. But no one seems to think beyond their tiny little bubble of expectation that nothing must change, a perception because they don’t live long enough to notice it. Everything changes, all the time, some slower than others. The only correct evolutionary response is to adapt. Moving is easier than evolving.
Climate Change Corollary 101: Climate change harms polar bears, butterflies, honey bees, bunny rabbits, fish, crops, humans and all good forms of life.
Climate Change Corollary 102: Climate Change is beneficial to ticks, fleas, rats, mosquitoes, bacteria, virus’s, weeds and all bad forms of life.
Climate Change Corollary 103: Research funding and peer review standards for the study of Climate Change will be applied based on accepted assumptions and standards consistent with Corollary’s 101 and 102.
Climate Change Corollary 104: Global warming since the advent of the Industrial Revolution is assumed to be caused by humans.
Climate Change Corollary 105: The optimal level of temperature for the planet, was the global temperature measured at the advent of the Industrial Revolution.
Climate Change Corollary 106: The optimal level of carbon dioxide for the planet, was the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide at the time of the advent of the Industrial Revolution.
Climate Change Corollary 107: Processes that led to natural Climate Change in the past are assumed to be negligible.
Climate Change Corollary 108: Carbon dioxide is pollution when defined in terms of it’s role in Climate Change.
Climate Change Corollary 109: Photosynthesis plays only a minor role in assessing the effects of carbon dioxide on life.
Caused by humans — land use change, land cover change contribute to the change in temperature at local and regional level. This is not part of global warming. So 104 is invalid statement.
The natural variability in climate is the major contributor for agriculture and water resources and as well health related problems. Temperature is modified by rainfall and thus humidity and thus wind speed and direction. So 107 is invalid statement.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
WRT#102, Until 5-6 years ago, I found 3-5 ticks per week during the summer on my clothing. Since then there have been literally zero for years now. WUWT? I don’t miss the critters a bit.
No ticks? Did you have a spell of extremely hot weather during that time? Extreme heat dries out ticks and reduces their populations.
During the very hot summer of 2011, I walked through the woods around my house watering trees (a bad drought was occurring at the same time as the high heat), and did this for several months and never got one tick on me. Normally, ticks are plentiful in the areas I walked.
So the high heat definitely affected the ticks at that time, but they are back in business today, six years later, so it wasn’t a knockout blow. Of course, we have had fairly mild, wet summers most every year since 2011, which is good for ticks (and all living creatures:).
As a former alumnus of the University of British Columbia, I must state how proud I am to know that when cattle are extinct we will not lack for a source of their most aromatic leavings because my old univeristy has found a way to synthesize the material in massive quantities from taxpayer funding.
Tell this to the basking shark.
will cutting fossil fuel emissions save the poor fish from shrinking and gasping?
Here is another example of a case where “scientists” need to do some actual science.
They propose a theory that on the face of it, gills grow slower than body and warmer water holds less gases (oxygen), seems to have some logic. So they make a prediction based on their theory.
Up to here I don’t see any problem. But them stop. And so stops any resemblance they have to scientists. The last, and most important step, is missing. TEST THE THEORY.
Set up a number of separate tanks at different temperatures and dissolved oxygen content. Then actually raise fish of a number of species in the tanks for a few years, Finally measure the fish and see if the fish from warmer tanks with less oxygen smaller than those from colder tanks with more oxygen.
Meanwhile, dwindling belief in CAGW is leaving Climatists budgets and jobs shrinking, and the remaining holdouts grasping at straws.
Pauly and Cheung have just laid to waste the fear of sea level rise. All those shrinking fish should displace less water and thus adequately compensate for the heat expansion of the water in which they swim.
From the alleged research.
The author ‘names’ his theory? With such a self explanatory name too; not!
• Larger body mass = greater oxygen demand. Profound!
• “the surface area of the gills — where oxygen is obtained — does not grow at the same pace as the rest of the body”
Amazing claim!?
Did the research authors actually raise fish under the specified environment parameters? No.
Apparently this “set of principles” is only predefined model programming.
Amazing!
Meaning, the research authors are unaware or perhaps just ignore normal biology.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-lE7NELr6gns/TkCnmtjy9ZI/AAAAAAAAAGY/nE-aiJ9U_PU/s1600/prop2.jpg
From a human perspective then, humans are already suffering from “climate change”. Where a human’s body grows many times larger from infant to adult; a human’s head only grow 30% larger.
Gasp!
And these characters are:
• Associate professor at the Institute for the Ocean and Fisheries
• Director of science for the Nippon Foundation-UBC Nereus Program
• Principal investigator of the Sea Around Us at the Institute for the Ocean and Fisheries
Perhaps they’re over qualified?
Gross assumptions:
• “Warmer waters increase fish’s need for oxygen”
• “climate change will result in less oxygen in the oceans”
• “This means that gills have less oxygen to supply to a body that already grows faster than them”
Absurd leap to conclusion based on zero evidence:
“The researchers say this forces fish to stop growing at a smaller size to be able to fulfill their needs with the little oxygen available to them”
Reading this drivel causes one to wonder if the alleged research paper is simply psychological testing on unsuspecting subjects testing truly bad research science acceptance.
Ian W and tty:A typical tropical ocean surface energy balance gives the evaporative heat flux as 80 W/m^2,the back I.R.radiation as 350 W/m^2, and the I.R. emission as 415 W/m^2.How do these values support your ideas about the role played by evaporation?
Granted, I am neither Ian nor tty. However, if you can ask them a question uninvited, so I can ask you a question uninvited:
Consider that SST is lowered by a hurricane’s passage. While the hurricane passes over a patch of sea, cloud cover is much greater than the norm. Since cloud cover increases back radiation, while I.R. emission would be unchanged, what do you conclude about the role played by increased cooling due to evaporation affected by stronger wind?
SR
I call the practice of producing not-ready-for-prime-time climate reports and always predicting dire consequences in the future “What if” research or the “cart before the horse syndrome.” It works like this. Someone hypothesizes a future climate anomaly. Taking that hypothesis as a given, other researchers churn out reams of reports that describe the disastrous effects on people, plants, water supplies, air, fish, insects, etc. that will occur because of the anomaly. The “If such and such happens…” is dropped from the discussion.
Focusing research on untested hypotheses to prepare for an event with little or no likelihood of occurring is the wrong research, and policies stemming from that research are the wrong policies. The “results” from such research stimulate baseless scare-mongering. Get the science right first, and the right policies will follow. Research on an untested hypothesis is based on a fairy tale.
Have these guys not seen fish fossils from the Devonian onward? Or fished in the tropics, fresh water or salt?
We’re not talking about 45C water.
“Gasping Fish and Panting Squids: Oxygen, Temperature and the Growth of Water-Breathing Animals” I never saw a panting squid or anything breathing water, but I suspect I have seen more gasping fish than Pauly. He is a well-known crisis type, and as many still are, long doing exceptionally well, in one sense, anyway. The fisheries situation, models again, is not simple and Pauly has been part of the oceans dying crowd for decades. Without much trouble I found these quick examples, as Hilborn’s work that I know about is solid and has not gotten along well with the crisis crowd. Each paper has to be judged on its own, however, but I have a bias against papers with too many authors.
Pikitch, E., P.D. Boersma, I.L. Boyd, D.O. Conover, P. Cury, T. Essington, S.S. Heppell, E.D. Houde, M. Mangel, D. Pauly, É. Plagányi, K. Sainsbury and R.S. Steneck. 2017. The strong connection between forage fish and their predators: response to Hilborn et al. (2017). Fisheries Research [in press]
Hilborn, R. and C. V. Minte-Vera. 2008. Fisheries-Induced changes in growth rates in marine fisheries: Are they significant? Bulletin of Marine Science. 83(1): 95–105.
de Mutsert, K., J. H. Cowan, Jr., T. E. Essington, & R. Hilborn. 2008. Reanalyses of Gulf of Mexico fisheries data: Landings can be misleading in assessments of fisheries and fisheries ecosystems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 105(7):2740-2744.
The same species occupying a temperature gradient (compare Florida with Virginia) will be larger with lower temperature. Oxygen is a problem with aquatic organisms and may be one reason why they came out on land to increase it some roughly 30X. Some very active fish are somewhat warm-blooded, including large sharks (mako) and oceanic fishes(tuna).
I recall a seminar on this over two decades ago where the “superior” (trouts, etc.) were going to be replaced by the “inferior” southern species. There are many more species of fishes in warm water than cold, many quite large. Maybe they will.
Oxygen does seem to be more of the driving factor than temperature; wherein warm water holds less oxygen than cooler. Fish adapted to a range respond to reduced oxygen with increased resting heart rate & there is subsequently reduced aerobic ATP production in other tissues (demonstrated as more phosphorus found in it’s inorganic molecular form than compounded as phospho-creatine). See free full text available on-line: “Oxygen limited thermal tolerance in fish? Answers obtained by nuclear resonance techniques”.