Fishtastic!
Hi, Miko! posted by Dr. Wu at 8:24 PM on November 30, 2005
This makes my link to a video of people running around jumping, seem so unprofessional. posted by TwelveTwo at 9:19 PM on November 30, 2005
Fantastic post, thanks Miko! posted by madamjujujive at 10:53 PM on November 30, 2005
So... how many?
Or is this another one of those bait and switch FPPs? posted by JParker at 11:58 PM on November 30, 2005
Awesome, Miko. (But, yeah, what's the answer? A thousand?) posted by Plutor at 3:53 AM on December 1, 2005
Such a great post! The illustrations alone are worth the price of admission, but wait, right now you can also get all the history and fishy goodness you can stand for no extra charge. Thanks. posted by OmieWise at 6:19 AM on December 1, 2005
Well, I guess it was a rhetorical question, but I'll have a go. Exact numbers aren't readily to hand, even in these links. The 1880 Fish Census gathered "about 260 species, with over 50 species new to science." That survey concentrated on mid- to North Atlantic waters. The last link above is related to this present-day fish census, an ongoing project that will count species and also estimate populations.
As to numbers of individuals, biologists and fishermen still argue as to how to estimate population size. Mostly, scientists use mathematical models to project populations from limited sampling. A new strategy is to extrapolate from historical data. One of my friends worked on part of it at UNH (the New Hampshire UNH), where it's called HMAP. It was a really cool project where they used dockside records from the late 1800s to estimate cod populations using modern modeling techniques. They found bad news. The maritime historians and marine scientists I've worked with seem to think we are basically living in a time of an aquatic holocaust -- today's data indicates a loss of species diversity, lowest numbers of individuals, and smallest range of distribution. posted by Miko at 6:26 AM on December 1, 2005
The males, however, have specially adapted biting teeth and when they find a female they bite into her body forming what becomes a permanent attachment. The body of the attached male parasite modifies to the point of being practically non-functional, except in terms of sperm production
The fish decline is a an example of the tragedy of the commons. Individual countries grab what they what with no concern for the supply, & it's hard to regulate as fish schools migrate from territory to territory posted by beautifulatrocities at 12:04 PM on December 1, 2005
True, beautiful atrocities, that is one big reason. But people are also looking at others, such as: habitat destruction caused by dragging heavy otter trawls for miles across the sea floor, ripping up the ocean bed; changes in currents and ocean temperatures due to global warming, which affects food supply; and disruption of the equilibrium of species caused by humans selectively removing big predators and finfish while leaving less commercially valuable species to overpopulate, spike, and crash. posted by Miko at 2:42 PM on December 1, 2005
My jaw is in the dropped position. Also, I laughed out loud at JParker's comment posted by nomad at 6:18 PM on December 1, 2005
Your turn, nomad! posted by Miko at 6:50 PM on December 1, 2005
« Older
In 1244, Montsegur
saw the slaughter of the Cath...
| OpenStreetMap...
Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by longsleeves at 8:04 PM on November 30, 2005