Ecologically Sustainable Yield - Report

[Kalkbreath]

Use the Fla Keys as the , example, the scenario does not fit there because neither urchins or herbivores have ever been collected.

Another absolutist statement that has no basis in reality.

Of course urchins and herbivores have been collected!
You can get urchins and tangs from several Florida collectors, and they are all located in the Keys! Argh. Be that as it may...

Regarding your theory about water quality having an effect on the urchin's relative lack of comeback, you are both right and wrong. The problem is that urchins have two issues: First, the relatively small number that survived means that they are spread further apart, so reproduction is far less likely. Sperm and egg bundles have to meet. If they don't, it doesn't matter how fecund the urchins are- there will be no reproduction at all. Second, from what is known about the settlement cues for urchin larvae, they require a rather specific habitat in order to settle. If they don't find it, they just die. The papers I have read all indicated specific coralline algaes as I recall, though it has been a few years since I have read them. So it would make sense that fleshy algaes would decrease coral cover and decrease coralline algae cover. Urchins wouldn't settle directly onto fleshy algaes.

So you can see a reasonable explanation exists that does not require a major nutrient input increase in order to explain what happened to the reefs post-1983. Nutrient levels stay the same, grazing pressure decreases, fleshy algae growth proliferates. Fleshy algae growth comes at the expense of coral/coralline algae cover, which thereby limits areas where new urchins can recruit. This thereby explains why they haven't rebounded in numbers over the past 20 years. This explanation does not require nutrient levels to increase in order to work, but it should be obvious that if they did, the problem would only become worse.

I'll leave it to others to work out why herbivorous fish have not recovered or peaked in the past 20 years.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

The number of blue tangs removed from the waters of Fla has always been tiny and they have never been impacted or listed as threatened {byUS Fish and Wildlife} .........the number of urchins collected is less then one millionth of the wild population ..........And I see plenty of Urchins and snails all over the Keys ..........but they aint eating the slime Algae or Macro , because its not a natural food item for them........nor for the tangs.........which also abound........Funny , The disease found to be killing the staghorn corals in the Caribbean is also found in the anus of Floridians? Coincidence? I dont think so .........I see large groups urchins in the keys .......each urchin produces how many eggs? 10 million? seems like in ten years ........Even ONE horny urchin and his lady urchin could repopulate or rather recopulate the entire region? :wink:

 

[Kalkbreath]

My point is that the reason the Urchins and herbivores cant rebound is the water quality......Use the Fla Keys as the , example, the scenario does not fit there because neither urchins or herbivores have ever been collected......Your blaming the overfishing of food fish ...........but all the fish disappeared, even tiny blennies and gobies ! no one over fished these guys......there is little connection between the two........do you think the urchin virus is from over fishing?

What baloney Kalk. Urchins do unbelievably well in poor water quality which you'd know if you'd been to the Philippines. Danajon bank - turbid, full of algae is an urchin haven (for some species).

In the Caribbean, they got wiped out with a DISEASE that came up from S America some where. Since then, urchins, in the absence of heavy predation by fish that eat them have been doing just find.

Who knows what triggered the virus. Maybe overfishing in S America released urchins from predation, allowing them to increase and when they got to really high densities, disease kicked in. Often happens in areas that are "mono crops'

The point is that no one is saying "overfishing is the only issue on reefs". But similarly, I won't accept that overfishing is irrelevant in the face of larger problems. It's just not true.

Why don't you check out the work on Florida fish populations by Jerry Ault at Rosenstiel ...

Blue hula

Why dont you explain how fishing for selected species kills off all the other species? Were not talking about blast fishing or blanketing cyanide pellets over the side of the boat in PI{which you think doesnt exist anyway} grouper fishing and Removing predators means more tiny fish not less..........Do you really think the Jamaican people over fished molley miller blennies? which are not only so tiny that at two ounces, would make quite a small meal ........even for a Jamaican with smoke induced "Munchies"...........But these fish should be at record levels with such a huge food reserve..........How did the Non target fish populations plummet from food fish and sport fish collection?

 

[blue hula]

Why dont you explain how fishing for selected species kills off all the other species? Were not talking about blast fishing or blanketing cyanide pellets over the side of the boat in PI{which you think doesnt exist anyway} grouper fishing and Removing predators means more tiny fish not less..........Do you really think the Jamaican people over fished molley miller blennies? which are not only so tiny that at two ounces, would make quite a small meal ........even for a Jamaican with smoke induced "Munchies"...........But these fish should be at record levels with such a huge food reserve..........How did the Non target fish populations plummet from food fish and sport fish collection?

Kalk,
Could you please identify where I indicated that the Jamaicans have overfished the molley miller blenny ? Or any other blenny.

The crux of your argument has been that fishing does not affect ecosystem health or habitat quality (i.e. your posts 1-6 on the previous page). You've now shifted to asking how fishing for target species affects non-target species.

Essentially, both of these are asking the same question i.e. whether fishing causes changes in ecosystem - habitats and communities.

There is a whole bunch of scientific evidence to say this is the case. The area of research is referred to as "trophic cascades" by which they mean that there are top down effects (e.g. from changes in predator communities) on ecological communities. This is as opposed to a view in which the only way to affect communities is via bottomup effects (e.g. from changes in primary production (i.e. more algae with more nutrients). BOTH CAN AND DO OCCUR.

Evidence for top down (trophic cascades) are as follows - I've included the scientific reference and would point out that all of these papers have been published in peer reviewed, high quality international journals.

(1) In the Black Sea, decreases in top predator species that have been overfished (bonito, mackeral) have led to increases in fish that eat plankton, decreases in zooplankton and increases in phytoplankton (algae). The increase in phytoplankton is thought to have occured due to OVERFISHING not nutrient loading (Daskalov, 2002. Marine Ecology Progress Series Vol 225)

(2) In New Zealand, increased numbers of snapper in a marine park reduced the number of urchins which allowed recovery of kelp forests. In areas where fishing continues and snapper populations are drastically reduced, urchins abound and there is no kelp to be seen. NOTE THE ROLE OF NO TAKE AREAS IN ECOSYSTEM RECOVERY (Shear and Babcock 2003, Marine Ecology Progress Series Vol 246)

(3) In a review of 18 marine studies, the presence of predatory fish reduced presence of herbivorous fish and lead to on average a 4.7x higher level of turf algae (Shurin et al. 2002. Ecology Letters vol 5)

(4) There is some evidence from the Great Barrier Reef that incraesed fishing pressure reduces the number of predators of the Crown of Thorns Starfish leading to outbreaks of these starfish and increased predation on corals and decreased fish production (Keesing and Halford 1992, Ormond et al, 1991).

(5) In Jamaica, the work by Terry Hughes, contrary to your suggestion suggests very clearly that overfishing contributed to urchin outbreaks and loss of fish habitat.

(6) Plus the work by McClanahan in Kenya which I already cited.

(7) Plus evidence in lakes that shows clearly (based on 54 studies) that changes in predatory fish lead to changes in primary production and that indeed, this was a stronger impact than that seen when adding nutrients (Brett and Goldman, 1996 Proc National Academy of Science vol 93 and Brett et al 1997 Science v 271).

Oh - and there is a whole book by Stephen Hall, ex director of hte Australian Institute of Marine Sciences called "Ecosystem impacts of fishing"

So what does this mean - you overfish, the habitat changes and then - species composition of fish communities change.

The evidence is compelling and it is there. The research has been done by competent scientists - please don't compare it to what you see in your fish tank.

This doesn't mean we can dump sewage at will - it means (once again) that fishing plays a role in changing ecologica communities and we need to consider this aspect as well.

Blue hula

 

[mkirda]

The number of blue tangs removed from the waters of Fla has always been tiny and they have never been impacted or listed as threatened {byUS Fish and Wildlife} .........the number of urchins collected is less then one millionth of the wild population

Wow, Kalk... I can't believe it. You admitted you were wrong.
That is a first on this board, I think...

..........And I see plenty of Urchins and snails all over the Keys .

'Plenty of' does not mean that the numbers have rebounded, Kalk.
Your basis for this qualitative statement is the past 18 years or so, meaning that the numbers of urchins after the crash have maintained or increased slightly. They have not been reported to be anywhere near their pre-1983 numbers in any part of the Caribbean AFAIK.

.........but they aint eating the slime Algae or Macro , because its not a natural food item for them........nor for the tangs.........which also abound........Funny , The disease found to be killing the staghorn corals in the Caribbean is also found in the anus of Floridians? Coincidence? I dont think so .........

That an agent for just one of the many diseases that affect corals happens to be part of the intestinal critters of humans is interesting. It is also quite personally revealing that despite evidence linking fishing and habitat degradation, you choose not to accept these linkages, but that you do accept linkages between coral diseases and possible sewage outfalls, which have not been proven. Really, this is quite personally revealing, Kalk, that you would choose to accept as 'absolute truth' that which scientists have put forth as a possible explanation, yet reject that which they have demonstrated to be cause and effect.

Thanks to John Brandt for posting the article that illustrates so effectively the beneficial effects of MPAs.

I see large groups urchins in the keys .......each urchin produces how many eggs? 10 million? seems like in ten years ........Even ONE horny urchin and his lady urchin could repopulate or rather recopulate the entire region? :wink:

Sure, it would seem that way. However, due to the very problems I outlined earlier, this is not the way things have worked out. Let's use a terrestrial example... If a farmer were to throw a ton of corn seeds from an airplane across the great plains, chances are very good that a fair portion of the corn would grow. If the farmer were to throw a ton of corn seeds out over a Walmart parking lot, how many do you think would grow?
This is the important point, Kalk. When the reefs have switched from coral/coralline dominated structures to fleshy algae dominated structures, the reef looks far more like the Walmart parking lot than the tilled farmland. The farmer could throw two tons or ten tons out- It wouldn't matter because the settlement cues don't exist any longer (in any abundance). Recruitment matters.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[Kalkbreath]

Why dont you explain how fishing for selected species kills off all the other species? Were not talking about blast fishing or blanketing cyanide pellets over the side of the boat in PI{which you think doesnt exist anyway} grouper fishing and Removing predators means more tiny fish not less..........Do you really think the Jamaican people over fished molley miller blennies? which are not only so tiny that at two ounces, would make quite a small meal ........even for a Jamaican with smoke induced "Munchies"...........But these fish should be at record levels with such a huge food reserve..........How did the Non target fish populations plummet from food fish and sport fish collection?

Kalk,
Could you please identify where I indicated that the Jamaicans have overfished the molley miller blenny ? Or any other blenny.The TOPIC OF THIS POST IS THAT JAMAICAN REEFS HAVE NO FISH LEFT, AND THE ALGAE OVERTOOK ALL THE CORAL...:

By the 1990s, Jamaica's reefs were depleted of both carnivorous and herbivorous fish and smothered with fleshy algae, such as Sargassum. Sea urchins were uncommon, and the vast diversity of the reefs was reduced. READ THE SUBJECT MATTER BEFORE DIVING IN .


The crux of your argument has been that fishing does not affect ecosystem health or habitat quality (i.e. your posts 1-6 on the previous page). You've now shifted to asking how fishing for target species affects non-target species. NO , MY TAKE IS THAT REMOVING PREDATORS INCREASES FISH POPULATIONS ......ALTHOUGH IT IS POSSIBLE TO HAVE TOO MANY FISH ON A REEF ..........IT HAS NEVER BEEN DOCUMENTED TO HAVE HAPPENED MORETHEN ONCE.

Essentially, both of these are asking the same question i.e. whether fishing causes changes in ecosystem - habitats and communities.

There is a whole bunch of scientific evidence to say this is the case. The area of research is referred to as "trophic cascades" by which they mean that there are top down effects (e.g. from changes in predator communities) on ecological communities. This is as opposed to a view in which the only way to affect communities is via bottomup effects (e.g. from changes in primary production (i.e. more algae with more nutrients). BOTH CAN AND DO OCCUR.

Evidence for top down (trophic cascades) are as follows - I've included the scientific reference and would point out that all of these papers have been published in peer reviewed, high quality international journals.

(1) In the Black Sea, decreases in top predator species that have been overfished (bonito, mackeral) have led to increases in fish that eat plankton, decreases in zooplankton and increases in phytoplankton (algae). The increase in phytoplankton is thought to have occured due to OVERFISHING not nutrient loading (Daskalov, 2002. Marine Ecology Progress Series Vol 225)i AGREE IT CAN HAPPEN, BUT INCREASES IN RUNOFF AND SEWAGE ARE MORE LIKELY THE CULPRIT....WATER LEVELS OF NITRATE AND PHOSPHATE ARE UNDETECTABLE DUE TO THE ALGAE ABSORBING THE EXCESS NUTRIENTS { JUSTLIKE IN A REEF TANK }

(2) In New Zealand, increased numbers of snapper in a marine park reduced the number of urchins which allowed recovery of kelp forests. In areas where fishing continues and snapper populations are drastically reduced, urchins abound and there is no kelp to be seen. NOTE THE ROLE OF NO TAKE AREAS IN ECOSYSTEM RECOVERY (Shear and Babcock 2003, Marine Ecology Progress Series Vol 246)i AGREE, BUT COLDWATER ECOSYSTEMS ARE NOT THE FOCUSS .AND INVOLVE A DIFFERENT SET OF DYNAMICS.......MANY URCHINS ARE A GOOD THING IN YOUR FLA SCENARIO?..

(3) In a review of 18 marine studies, the presence of predatory fish reduced presence of herbivorous fish and lead to on average a 4.7x higher level of turf algae (Shurin et al. 2002. Ecology Letters vol 5)YES, YOU ARE MAKING MY POINT!LESS PREDATORY IS USUALLY A GOOD THING

(4) There is some evidence from the Great Barrier Reef that incraesed fishing pressure reduces the number of predators of the Crown of Thorns Starfish leading to outbreaks of these starfish and increased predation on corals and decreased fish production (Keesing and Halford 1992, Ormond et al, 1991).TOTAL B.S ........SHOW ME THE STOMACH CONTENTS ANALYSIS

(5) In Jamaica, the work by Terry Hughes, contrary to your suggestion suggests very clearly that overfishing contributed to urchin outbreaks and loss of fish habitat. SORRY, SEEMS YOU HAVE IT BACKWARDS......NOW TOO MANY URCHINS CAUSES ALGAE OUTBREAKS?

(6) Plus the work by McClanahan in Kenya which I already cited.

(7) Plus evidence in lakes that shows clearly (based on 54 studies) that changes in predatory fish lead to changes in primary production and that indeed, this was a stronger impact than that seen when adding nutrients (Brett and Goldman, 1996 Proc National Academy of Science vol 93 and Brett et al 1997 Science v 271).

Oh - and there is a whole book by Stephen Hall, ex director of hte Australian Institute of Marine Sciences called "Ecosystem impacts of fishing"

So what does this mean - you overfish, the habitat changes and then - species composition of fish communities change.

The evidence is compelling and it is there. The research has been done by competent scientists - please don't compare it to what you see in your fish tank.

This doesn't mean we can dump sewage at will - it means (once again) that fishing plays a role in changing ecologica communities and we need to consider this aspect as well.

Blue hula

Where in any of this does it say that food FISHING decreases non target reef fish populations? and causes the coral reef to become unhealthy

 

[Kalkbreath]

OPS

 

[Kalkbreath]

The number of blue tangs removed from the waters of Fla has always been tiny and they have never been impacted or listed as threatened {byUS Fish and Wildlife} .........the number of urchins collected is less then one millionth of the wild population

Wow, Kalk... I can't believe it. You admitted you were wrong.
That is a first on this board, I think...

..........And I see plenty of Urchins and snails all over the Keys .

'Plenty of' does not mean that the numbers have rebounded, Kalk.
Your basis for this qualitative statement is the past 18 years or so, meaning that the numbers of urchins after the crash have maintained or increased slightly. They have not been reported to be anywhere near their pre-1983 numbers in any part of the Caribbean AFAIK.

.........but they aint eating the slime Algae or Macro , because its not a natural food item for them........nor for the tangs.........which also abound........Funny , The disease found to be killing the staghorn corals in the Caribbean is also found in the anus of Floridians? Coincidence? I dont think so .........

That an agent for just one of the many diseases that affect corals happens to be part of the intestinal critters of humans is interesting. It is also quite personally revealing that despite evidence linking fishing and habitat degradation, you choose not to accept these linkages, but that you do accept linkages between coral diseases and possible sewage outfalls, which have not been proven. Really, this is quite personally revealing, Kalk, that you would choose to accept as 'absolute truth' that which scientists have put forth as a possible explanation, yet reject that which they have demonstrated to be cause and effect.

Thanks to John Brandt for posting the article that illustrates so effectively the beneficial effects of MPAs.

I see large groups urchins in the keys .......each urchin produces how many eggs? 10 million? seems like in ten years ........Even ONE horny urchin and his lady urchin could repopulate or rather recopulate the entire region? :wink:

Sure, it would seem that way. However, due to the very problems I outlined earlier, this is not the way things have worked out. Let's use a terrestrial example... If a farmer were to throw a ton of corn seeds from an airplane across the great plains, chances are very good that a fair portion of the corn would grow. If the farmer were to throw a ton of corn seeds out over a Walmart parking lot, how many do you think would grow?
This is the important point, Kalk. When the reefs have switched from coral/coralline dominated structures to fleshy algae dominated structures, the reef looks far more like the Walmart parking lot than the tilled farmland. The farmer could throw two tons or ten tons out- It wouldn't matter because the settlement cues don't exist any longer (in any abundance). Recruitment matters.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

Why dont you explain how fishing for selected species kills off all the other species? Were not talking about blast fishing or blanketing cyanide pellets over the side of the boat in PI{which you think doesnt exist anyway} grouper fishing and Removing predators means more tiny fish not less..........Do you really think the Jamaican people over fished molley miller blennies? which are not only so tiny that at two ounces, would make quite a small meal ........even for a Jamaican with smoke induced "Munchies"...........But these fish should be at record levels with such a huge food reserve..........How did the Non target fish populations plummet from food fish and sport fish collection?

Kalk,
Could you please identify where I indicated that the Jamaicans have overfished the molley miller blenny ? Or any other blenny.

The crux of your argument has been that fishing does not affect ecosystem health or habitat quality (i.e. your posts 1-6 on the previous page). You've now shifted to asking how fishing for target species affects non-target species.

Essentially, both of these are asking the same question i.e. whether fishing causes changes in ecosystem - habitats and communities.

There is a whole bunch of scientific evidence to say this is the case. The area of research is referred to as "trophic cascades" by which they mean that there are top down effects (e.g. from changes in predator communities) on ecological communities. This is as opposed to a view in which the only way to affect communities is via bottomup effects (e.g. from changes in primary production (i.e. more algae with more nutrients). BOTH CAN AND DO OCCUR.

Evidence for top down (trophic cascades) are as follows - I've included the scientific reference and would point out that all of these papers have been published in peer reviewed, high quality international journals.

(1) In the Black Sea, decreases in top predator species that have been overfished (bonito, mackeral) have led to increases in fish that eat plankton, decreases in zooplankton and increases in phytoplankton (algae). The increase in phytoplankton is thought to have occured due to OVERFISHING not nutrient loading (Daskalov, 2002. Marine Ecology Progress Series Vol 225)

(2) In New Zealand, increased numbers of snapper in a marine park reduced the number of urchins which allowed recovery of kelp forests. In areas where fishing continues and snapper populations are drastically reduced, urchins abound and there is no kelp to be seen. NOTE THE ROLE OF NO TAKE AREAS IN ECOSYSTEM RECOVERY (Shear and Babcock 2003, Marine Ecology Progress Series Vol 246)

(3) In a review of 18 marine studies, the presence of predatory fish reduced presence of herbivorous fish and lead to on average a 4.7x higher level of turf algae (Shurin et al. 2002. Ecology Letters vol 5)

(4) There is some evidence from the Great Barrier Reef that incraesed fishing pressure reduces the number of predators of the Crown of Thorns Starfish leading to outbreaks of these starfish and increased predation on corals and decreased fish production (Keesing and Halford 1992, Ormond et al, 1991).

(5) In Jamaica, the work by Terry Hughes, contrary to your suggestion suggests very clearly that overfishing contributed to urchin outbreaks and loss of fish habitat.

(6) Plus the work by McClanahan in Kenya which I already cited.

(7) Plus evidence in lakes that shows clearly (based on 54 studies) that changes in predatory fish lead to changes in primary production and that indeed, this was a stronger impact than that seen when adding nutrients (Brett and Goldman, 1996 Proc National Academy of Science vol 93 and Brett et al 1997 Science v 271).

Oh - and there is a whole book by Stephen Hall, ex director of hte Australian Institute of Marine Sciences called "Ecosystem impacts of fishing"

So what does this mean - you overfish, the habitat changes and then - species composition of fish communities change.

The evidence is compelling and it is there. The research has been done by competent scientists - please don't compare it to what you see in your fish tank.

This doesn't mean we can dump sewage at will - it means (once again) that fishing plays a role in changing ecologica communities and we need to consider this aspect as well.

Blue hula

THERE ARE MANY UNDERWATER LOCATIONS IN THE CARRIBEAN WHICH ARE AWAY FROM ANY FISHING PRESSURES AND ALOST UNVISITED BY MAN .........YET , EVEN THESE AREAS SHOW SIGNS OF THE **** BACTERIA KILLING 100 YEAR OLD BRAIN CORALS? tELL US HOW IN SOME AREAS ,EVEN IF FISHING LEVELS ARE UNCHANGED IN THE LAST 400 YEARS ITS ONLY IN THE LAST THIRTY THAT THE REEFS HAVE BEGUN TO DECLINE? OH AND PLEASE TELL ME HOW TO HIGHLITE THE QUOTES IN SEPERATE BLOCKS LIKE YOU DID ABOVE?

 

[blue hula]

To get the quotations around a set of text, you make sure that you have


[ quote="Kalkbreath" ] at the beginning (or whoever it is ...) and
[ /quote ] at the end of the section you're quoting ... and if you have quotes within quotes, just make sure you always have an end quote at the end of each section ...

Blue hula

 

[blue hula]

buty don't put the spaces between square brackets and text ... i put them in only so it wouldn't actually do the quoting

 

[Kalkbreath]

I will humbly admit your much more versed in PHP then I ............................

at the beginning (or whoever it is ...) and

Thankyou.....you have empowered me.........{In my best superhero voice}."Now prepare to meet your doom"!.........thanks :wink: "Im going to return to my alter ego character now ..........{Evil Cyanide Man}

 

[mkirda]

How did the Non target fish populations plummet from food fish and sport fish collection?

Can you first explain why you think that impacts in one place (i.e. one target species) would not have effects in more than one other place?

One look at even a simplistic model of the food web on a simple ecosystem should dispel that notion immediately. Have you never seen one?

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[mkirda]

THERE ARE MANY UNDERWATER LOCATIONS IN THE CARRIBEAN WHICH ARE AWAY FROM ANY FISHING PRESSURES AND ALOST UNVISITED BY MAN .........YET , EVEN THESE AREAS SHOW SIGNS OF THE crap BACTERIA KILLING 100 YEAR OLD BRAIN CORALS?

All that tells me is that Floridian fecal matter is unlikely be the source, and that the bacterium is likely all over the Caribbean.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[blue hula]

Kalk,

The topic of this post is that fisheries management needs to be broadened to a more ecosystem basis because fishing affects more than the fish that are targetted (e.g. if affects other species and habitats) NOT Jamaica as you indicate.

Temperate studies are applicable to when what we're really discussing is whether trophic cascades exist. They do thus I think you're on indefensible ground to suggest that fishing has no impacts.

If you want to engage in a discussion of the merits of the papers I've cited, please first read them.

Blue hula

 

[Kalkbreath]

How did the Non target fish populations plummet from food fish and sport fish collection?

Can you first explain why you think that impacts in one place (i.e. one target species) would not have effects in more than one other place?

One look at even a simplistic model of the food web on a simple ecosystem should dispel that notion immediately. Have you never seen one?

Regards.
Mike Kirda

Yes , removing the predators causes a change............is leaves More fish {uneaten} :wink: .........Just like the urchins senerio...... :wink:

 

[Kalkbreath]

THERE ARE MANY UNDERWATER LOCATIONS IN THE CARRIBEAN WHICH ARE AWAY FROM ANY FISHING PRESSURES AND ALOST UNVISITED BY MAN .........YET , EVEN THESE AREAS SHOW SIGNS OF THE crap BACTERIA KILLING 100 YEAR OLD BRAIN CORALS?

All that tells me is that Floridian fecal matter is unlikely be the source, and that the bacterium is likely all over the Caribbean.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

And why the sudden increase in bacterium? These brain corals are perhaps thousands of years old? That means they have not seen bacteria levels high enough to harm them in thousands of years.......You real think that modern day tourism and land based agriculture are not to blamefor dead the corals and missing gobie fishes .........or do you hold fast to the idea that mackerel and cod fishing ...........causes bacteria levels to increase , urchins to drop dead , algae to flourish and tiny blennies to vanish...............Tell you what .........Lets duplicate my scenario {thats pollution is behind 99%] ........You test my theory, and I will test yours............First you ............stand on top of you aquarium..........then take a dump and urinate into your tank ...........climb down and in a few days report back with us on this board about the results of you experiment.............In the mean time I will conduct a test of your theory, I will remove all the fish from my tank and wait for the urchins to die and algae to overtake the dense coral........{wait , I dont have any fish in my tank,never had?} .....................Look forward to hearing the results of your scientific study :wink:

 

[mkirda]

Look forward to hearing the results of your scientific study :wink:

That you would even begin to think that this would be scientific again screams how little you understand science.

Why don't you explain to the group how or why you think that bacteria levels have increased in 'remote and untouched' areas of the Caribbean? You claim to have figured out that Floridian fecal matter is behind the Pan-Caribbean reef decline, yet you fail to show how this has occurred. Please let us know the basis of your research.

In other words, if you want to continue to claim cause and effect, please explain the linkage(s) to us. I don't believe that you can do so.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[Kalkbreath]

Look forward to hearing the results of your scientific study :wink:

That you would even begin to think that this would be scientific again screams how little you understand science.

Why don't you explain to the group how or why you think that bacteria levels have increased in 'remote and untouched' areas of the Caribbean? You claim to have figured out that Floridian fecal matter is behind the Pan-Caribbean reef decline, yet you fail to show how this has occurred. Please let us know the basis of your research.

In other words, if you want to continue to claim cause and effect, please explain the linkage(s) to us. I don't believe that you can do so.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

For the same reason the larval babies return to the site of their parents spawn.........after spending months or years drifting about in the ocean currents thousands of miles ..Along with used condoms and fecal matter}.......only to return back from where they started as eggs and sperm.......the ocean currents distribute humans sewage far and wide ...........its a great circle.......the bacteria in the Caribbean comes from all of mankind .......not just the Sunshine State. Somewhere in this site I believe this was a topic ........If I remember correctly, The bacteria is only found in human and pig intestines?[ "Sounds like a bunch of crap to me"{pun intended} :wink:

 

[blue hula]

Kalk,
I know of no fish larvae that spend years drifting in the ocean.

Indeed, recent research suggests that larval fish actually don't randomly drift, spread passively by ocean currents. There is increasing evidence of "local retention" of larvae (see work of Warner for instance) and that larvae have strong behavioural capabilities that allow them to choose their own destiny so to speak - see work of Stobutski, Job and Meekin on swimming, vision and hearing respectively.

The fact that local retention is common is one of the reasons that fish populations are much more vulnerable to overexploitation than previously thought.

In a review of coral disease in the Caribbean (http://globalcoral.org/rapid_spread_of_ ... n_cari.htm), the authors conclude that presence of coral diseases is generally NOT correlated to human activities with the exception of black band disease - found in areas with more pollution.

No evidence that diseases are found spreading with human sewage throughout the Caribbean in even the most remote areas away from humans .... the disease that you're referring to - the Elkhorn white pox is associated with bacteria found in human and pig guts (as you say) but the researchers have not linked it to a human source and nor do they indicate it is found in remote areas.

Sewage is subject to dilution the same way cyanide is ;-)

What was your source?

Blue hula

 

[PeterIMA]

Kalk, While I agreed with you that there are problems of nutrient pollution and most probably bacterial contamination in the Florida Keys, the main problem is overfishing. Dr. Jerald Ault of the University of Miami published a paper in the US Fisherey Bulletin several years ago that demonstrated that most species of grouper and snappers were overfished. The link between reduced fish abundance from bacterial contamination that you suggest has not been demonstrated.

Peter Rubec

 

[mkirda]

For the same reason the larval babies return to the site of their parents spawn.........after spending months or years drifting about in the ocean currents thousands of miles ..Along with used condoms and fecal matter}.......only to return back from where they started as eggs and sperm.......the ocean currents distribute humans sewage far and wide ...........its a great circle.......the bacteria in the Caribbean comes from all of mankind .......not just the Sunshine State. Somewhere in this site I believe this was a topic ........If I remember correctly, The bacteria is only found in human and pig intestines?[ "Sounds like a bunch of crap to me"{pun intended} :wink:

Kalk,

Can you go back and read the question? You didn't answer the question I asked.

Regards.
Mike Kirda