10 million scallops are dead; Qualicum company lays off staff
- Thread starter seadna
- Start date
Englishman
Well-Known Member
GLG this guy is trying to sound knowledgeable with his nattering about buffering capability but he clearly does not know his chemistry. A buffering solution is that containing the salt of a strong alkali and a weak acid - something like sodium carbonate or sodium citrate. The vast majority of the salts in the sea are ordinary sodium chloride (NaCl) which is the salt of strong alkali and a strong acid so it is permanently disassociated (goes around in solution as hydrated ions). Bottom line - seawater is a very POOR buffering solution and high concentrations of CO2 are going to affect the oceans significantly!
Last edited by a moderator:
Englishman
Well-Known Member
Not sure I buy the premise of this article. Using genomics to build resistance to disease or some biological trait like faster growth is one thing. I don't see how you can use genomics to overcome the laws of chemistry. The shells of shellfish are mostly calcium carbonate CaC03. Calcium carbonate dissolves in acidified solution . End of story. So unless you can develop an organism that makes shells out of something else present in seawater (I don't think there is much dissolved titanium LOL!!) then this idea is a pipe dream, with no basis in chemistry.
Last edited by a moderator:
Cuba Libre
Well-Known Member
yes-- but remember that at one time science said that the sun revolved around the earth... So not quite "end of story", what we have been accepting as "fact" many times in the past, has changed as circumstances changed. Let hope for the best ( but be prepared for the worst-- )
GLG
Well-Known Member
If it's question of chemistry verses biology I'll pick chemistry.
You might find a strain of scallop that is more tolerant to a small pH drop
but my bet is you wont find one that can take the drops they are seeing.
Some adult shellfish are more hardy to lower pH but in the larva stage??.... that can't be good.
I suspect we will see a drop in the bio-mass and like the west coast of Washington aquaculture is done.
The wilds may hang on a little longer but unless things change..... they are done too.
Things could change with the currents that flow up the west coast.
If for some reason the pH goes up in that upwelling then we can buy some time.
If not stuff like zoo-plankton and shell fish will have a hard time surviving.
There goes the food chain....
You might find a strain of scallop that is more tolerant to a small pH drop
but my bet is you wont find one that can take the drops they are seeing.
Some adult shellfish are more hardy to lower pH but in the larva stage??.... that can't be good.
I suspect we will see a drop in the bio-mass and like the west coast of Washington aquaculture is done.
The wilds may hang on a little longer but unless things change..... they are done too.
Things could change with the currents that flow up the west coast.
If for some reason the pH goes up in that upwelling then we can buy some time.
If not stuff like zoo-plankton and shell fish will have a hard time surviving.
There goes the food chain....
I'm not sure who/what you and GLG are referring to.
Englishman
Well-Known Member
Science never said the sun went round the earth. That was the ignorant pronouncement of church dogma. As soon as science and the scientific method got going around the time of the Renaissance that put paid to that idea and established the difference between scientific fact and speculation and fantasy.
Genomic research can play around with the genetic code and make an organism behave differently. It cannot overcome the laws of chemistry and calcium carbonate will always dissolve in acidic solutions - it is the basis of the formation of stalactites and stalagmites in caves - the carbonate to bi-carbonate cycle under the influence of C02 dissolved in rainwater.
Which is why I say that genomic manipulation would have to make shellfish build their exoskeletons out of something other than CaCo3 - which seems pure fantasy and highly unlikely.
Cuba Libre
Well-Known Member
Just one further comment,
Science never said the sun went round the earth. That was the ignorant pronouncement of church dogma.....
What you are missing is that that WAS the science of the day. And can it be said that we know everything we will ever know about science ?
There are too any examples of things that we discovered that were considered impossible "in the day" You say its impossible????? Well I dont know-- so until proven that genomic manipulation will not help-- I will keep an open mind.
Science never said the sun went round the earth. That was the ignorant pronouncement of church dogma.....
What you are missing is that that WAS the science of the day. And can it be said that we know everything we will ever know about science ?
There are too any examples of things that we discovered that were considered impossible "in the day" You say its impossible????? Well I dont know-- so until proven that genomic manipulation will not help-- I will keep an open mind.
GLG
Well-Known Member
This guy....
Patrick we know LNG, Coal, Tarsands, Logging and Fishfarms are on your client list....
http://www.desmogblog.com/patrick-moore
He some times travels the country "speaking" to wingnut groups. I was invited to hear him talk but turned down the offer. I did not want to blow a fuse..... My friend came back from the event flaming about AGW and it's natural causes..... Doh.... Yea... Yea... it's just leftys making it all up.....
There are certainly still a great number of unknowns - mostly at a microscopic level but I would say the general basics we have figured out and these facts are hard to dispute - think gravity. CaCO3 cannot be formed below ph7, very simple. There is nothing that can be done about that. But what they could do is throw a bunch of limestone in the shellfish bays and artificially drive up the ph. In any case, this is very sad to see but call it evolution or human manipulated evolution but the world is changing and ecosystems will alter - some organisms will die and new ones will take over - nature will find a balance at every level. Question is will we like what we will get and ultimately will we be able to survive the changes we have driven and accelerated. For us westcoastlers, the immediate question will be, will we like seeing our north pacific turning into an ecosystem that resembles something more like the North Sea - forget the salmon, whales, eagles, bears....think more cod and flounders, sea gulls and rats.
GLG
Well-Known Member
I found this but I have not read the paper.
http://www.pnas.org/content/110/17/6937.abstract
Rising atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO[SUB]2[/SUB]) conditions are driving unprecedented changes in seawater chemistry, resulting in reduced pH and carbonate ion concentrations in the Earth’s oceans. This ocean acidification has negative but variable impacts on individual performance in many marine species. However, little is known about the adaptive capacity of species to respond to an acidified ocean, and, as a result, predictions regarding future ecosystem responses remain incomplete
GLG
Well-Known Member
Ok so I read the paper and this here is the important stuff.
Link Between Acidification and Population Growth.
Our results suggest a conceptual model in which acidification experienced by a population of developing larvae results in impaired growth or mortality in some individuals, but natural selection across this fitness differential results in a population that is better adapted to acidified conditions. For this process to occur, two conditions must be met. First, there must be genetic variation within the population for response to low pH. In addition to our data, three recently published studies using breeding and growth experiments in two sea urchin species and a bryozoan highlight the importance of standing genetic variation for an organism’s ability to respond to ocean acidification (44⇓–46). Second, there must be robust populations with excess reproductive capacity.
This second condition is important because adaptive capacity is a double-edged sword. Populations experiencing selection pay a selective cost in terms of reduced demographic growth and reproductive potential (12, 47) because individuals that are less fit experience lower growth or survival. Populations impacted by climate change, overfishing, and other anthropogenic impacts may have low population growth and impaired capacity to absorb these selective impacts of acidification. Thus, although marine populations in upwelling systems may possess the capacity for adaptation, maintenance of robust populations in the future is an important part of any climate response strategy. Future studies are needed to empirically test for loss of genetic diversity through rapid evolution in response to ocean acidification.
So in a nutshell in this study of sea urchin they can adapt but they need the genes and they need a large health population to do so. How this relates to shellfish here in the SoG is another question. I do recall reading that there were going to be winners and losers with the drop in pH. The problem was we don't eat the winners and the losers are the ones that people have jobs around.
GLG
Well-Known Member
Here is a link to some up to date papers on the subject.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/320/5882/1490.short
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/320/5882/1490.short
Common sense tells me that a smaller change of ph over a longer period of time will be better tolerated than a larger change of ph over a shorter period of time. Changes we are seeing are happening very fast relative to any hope of successful genetic adaptability. I agree with the study that very few numbers may survive which would make those species not commercially viable for decades, even generations.
Englishman
Well-Known Member
I completely disagree with you. That was NOT science, that was unsubstantiated belief. No one at that time took objective observations and measurements, did calculations and came up with "evidence" that the sun went round the earth. There was no science at that time; it was just emerging form the dogmas of church and the influence of the Greek philosophers who though you could understand everything by just thinking about it.
So without any understanding of gravity and the cosmos they just looked at the sun rising and setting and in a simple ignorant Greek philosopher kind of way "assumed" the sun went round the earth and it was "proven" in the bible. I repeat - that is NOT science!
The real scientific method has come up with irrefutable laws and physical properties since those days. Among them are gravity, the periodic table of the elements and a complete understanding of the chemical properties of every element and common compound. And that includes CaCo3 dissolving in acid solution to form soluble bi-carbonates. Genomics cannot change that and if you believe it can you do not understand chemistry or science and believe in magic!
I gotta agree with Englishman on this one. Belief is a subset of theology. There is no "scientific method" to belief, other than the potential scientific study of how people come to believe (i.e. study of human brains and development; study of human civilization and religion, etc.). The actual individual "belief" part does not require one to utilize scientific methods - in fact many religions often force people to throw away their natural tendency to question and test theories in favour of dogma or interpretations from religious leaders. Science does not equal religious dogma. They are not the same thing.
GLG
Well-Known Member
Maybe I missed something... I think we are all on the same side.
Cuba Libre pointed out that we need more info on the potential for adaptation.
Nothing wrong with that as I see it...
....
If you were going to ask DFO questions what would they be.
Here is my list and I'm asking for input....
What is being done to monitor this situation in the SoG,
Where is the monitoring taking place right now in the SoG.
What is planned for future monitoring for the SoG.
Who is in charge of the monitoring and how do we get the data.
What does this mean for the food chain in the SoG
Cuba Libre pointed out that we need more info on the potential for adaptation.
Nothing wrong with that as I see it...
....
If you were going to ask DFO questions what would they be.
Here is my list and I'm asking for input....
What is being done to monitor this situation in the SoG,
Where is the monitoring taking place right now in the SoG.
What is planned for future monitoring for the SoG.
Who is in charge of the monitoring and how do we get the data.
What does this mean for the food chain in the SoG
cuttlefish
Well-Known Member
Research on oyster adaptability not from the SoG but from nearby.
http://www.thefishsite.com/articles/contents/bg-10-6629-2013.pdf
"Our results suggest that Olympia oyster larvae do not demonstrate the ability to fully counteract exposure to ele- vated pCO2 conditions in high food environments. Furthermore, low food environments and elevated pCO2 conditions both lead to reduced larval growth and total weights, but these stressors operate additively rather than synergistically. This study shows that even when food supply is abundant, larvae exposed to elevated pCO2 are smaller and weigh less than larvae in ambient conditions. This difference in larval size and weight will likely influence juvenile growth through larval carry-over effects, and could have significant implications for adult populations."
Those all are good questions for DFO. I don't have any to add. I hope you get some honest answers.