ธันวาคม 09, 2021, 07:22:35 AM
ข่าว: กลับสู่เว็บไซต์ www.nicaonline.com
หน้า: [1]   ลงล่าง
ผู้เขียน หัวข้อ: Seafood supply to dry up by 2048, study says  (อ่าน 4101 ครั้ง)
0 สมาชิก และ 16 บุคคลทั่วไป กำลังดูหัวข้อนี้
Nicaonline
Nicaonline
Administrator
YaBB God
*****

Karma: -1
ออฟไลน์ ออฟไลน์

กระทู้: 2685



ดูรายละเอียด
« เมื่อ: พฤศจิกายน 05, 2006, 01:48:08 PM »

Friday, November 03, 2006Print This Page

GLOBE - There are a lot of fish in the sea, but that may not be true for long. Seafood could disappear completely from menus worldwide by 2048 if current trends of species loss continue, according to a new study by an international team of ecologists.


The ocean's species have been in decline for centuries, but losses have sped up in recent years, said lead author Boris Worm of Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia. And if something doesn't change, in a few decades every viable fishery will have collapsed, their catch having declined by 90 percent or more.

"The loss of species from the ocean is not only harming the ecosystem, it is also harming our own human well-being — our economy, our food supply and our health," Worm said.

The team analyzed 32 previous experiments from around the world that tested the effects on ecosystems when species were removed. The studies all showed species loss led to declines in productivity and stability of the ecosystems.

"We were really surprised, to some extent shocked,by the consistency of the results — how everything fit together at the variable scales, how the different pieces seemed to match together almost perfectly," Worm said. The study appears in the journal Science today.

To continue reading this article please click here

http://www.insidebayarea.com/trivalleyherald/localnews/ci_4596551
บันทึกการเข้า

ความรู้ ข่าวสาร สร้างปัญญา

Nicaonline
Nicaonline
Administrator
YaBB God
*****

Karma: -1
ออฟไลน์ ออฟไลน์

กระทู้: 2685



ดูรายละเอียด
« ตอบ #1 เมื่อ: พฤศจิกายน 18, 2006, 09:27:18 PM »

Friday, November 17, 2006Print This Page
GLOBAL - In 1966, H.B. Stewart referred to the sea as man's "last great relativelyuntapped resource on earth." This ever-declining resource will soon disappear, however, if over-fishing and other human impacts continue at their current pace.


In fact, scientists predict that the world will run out of seafood in just 42 years. In a study published in the journal Science just a little over two weeks ago, 14 researchers led by Boris Worm pointed out that 29 percent of fish and seafood species have already collapsed (that is, they have declined by 90 percent) and about one-third of all ocean resources, including Bluefin tuna, Atlantic cod, Alaskan king crab and Pacific salmon, have already been depleted.

The paper also adds that in addition to wiping out important species, our actions are also hampering the ocean's ability to filter nutrients and resist the spread of disease.

We need to be smarter about what we take from the ocean and how much. Second, we need to actually start imposing fishing limitations and delineating areas of conservation. Instead of doing this, though, the general consensus seems to be that we need to create more industrial-sized fish farms off our coasts. Aquaculture, however, which was invented by the Chinese some 3,000 years ago, has yet to be proved as a viable solution. Fish farming has much too many complications to ever be considered as a worthy substitute to the ocean's resources.

According to the Worldwatch Institute, the world's fish farmers and fishing fleets harvested 132.5 million tons of seafood in 2003 and even this was not enough to account for the demand. If we are consuming too much seafood for even the ocean to provide for us, what makes people think we can farm enough fish ourselves to meet the demand?

To continue reading this article please click here

Source: The Cavalier Daily

บันทึกการเข้า

ความรู้ ข่าวสาร สร้างปัญญา

Nicaonline
Nicaonline
Administrator
YaBB God
*****

Karma: -1
ออฟไลน์ ออฟไลน์

กระทู้: 2685



ดูรายละเอียด
« ตอบ #2 เมื่อ: ธันวาคม 13, 2006, 02:30:55 PM »


Washington researcher blasts 'incredibly sloppy' study's warning of collapsed stocks
Last Updated: Friday, December 8, 2006 | 2:24 PM ET
CBC News

A well-publicized story that forecast the collapse of most of the world's fish stocks is flawed and full of errors, an American fisheries scientist says.

Ray Hilborn, a fisheries scientist at the University of Washington in Seattle, said a study published in the journal Science — which said present trends could lead to the collapse of most stocks by 2048 — cannot be taken seriously.

"This particular prediction has zero credibility within the scientific community," said Hilborn, a professor of aquatic and fishery sciences.

'The authors were just incredibly sloppy in how they used that data.'
-Ray Hilborn, University of WashingtonThe study, written by a team led by Dalhousie University researcher Boris Worm, attracted international headlines with a dire warning, which said current trends of overfishing and climate change were putting most species at risk.

However, Hilborn said the research was based on faulty methodology, including how catch rates were interpreted.

"The authors were just incredibly sloppy in how they used that data," Hilborn told CBC News.

 
"One of the stocks they list as collapsed is the Georges Bank haddock stock, which is bigger now than it has been in 40 years. The catch is lower simply because the regulations are much tighter," said Hilborn.

readmore
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/12/08/fish-study.html#skip300x250
บันทึกการเข้า

ความรู้ ข่าวสาร สร้างปัญญา

Nicaonline
Nicaonline
Administrator
YaBB God
*****

Karma: -1
ออฟไลน์ ออฟไลน์

กระทู้: 2685



ดูรายละเอียด
« ตอบ #3 เมื่อ: ธันวาคม 16, 2006, 01:16:57 PM »

Source: Chronicle Herald  World News    16/12/2006 12:40:19

 



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Jim Meek

I wanted to learn more about the fish fuss, so I tracked down Boris Worm at Dalhousie University. Worm is a slight, 37-year-old marine ecologist who lives in Duncan’s Cove and buys his fish at a co-op store in Sambro.

 

He is also the lead author of a controversial study that suggests the world’s major fish stocks might collapse by 2050 or so.

 

I caught up to Worm at his smallish office in the Life Sciences Building at Dal – a concrete pile that feels a bit like an environmental crisis itself. Worm’s a star now – even his critics would concede he’s done important work. He’s also a soft-spoken academic who runs a very open office.

 

Three people just dropped in while I was there: a co-author of THE paper published by the journal Science on Nov. 3; a woman trying to talk her way into an oversubscribed class; and a young man who had graduate student written all over him – a little too much corduroy and anxiety, if you know what I mean.

 

I came bearing questions about Worm’s work – issues raised by University of Washington fisheries scientist Ray Hilborn. In e-mail correspondence, Hilborn told me – as I reported last week – that Worm erred by basing his gloomy 2050 projections on fish catches.

 

Hilborn says many stocks – like Georges Bank haddock – are doing quite well, thank you, and may not need to go to the rehab centre at all. When I put this to Worm, he started the conversation by calling Hilborn an "excellent" fisheries scientist.

 

Then he told his story.

 

First, he’s kind of frustrated that 10 per cent of his study – the part projecting the possible "collapse" of all major fish stocks by 2048 – is getting 90 per cent of the media attention.

 

He concedes Hilborn’s point that "biomass data are a better indicator than catch data" for projecting fish stock health. Problem is that biomass data aren’t available for at least 50 per cent of fish stocks in the oceans.

 

So as a marine ecologist, trying to model and understand the interaction of all ecosystem species, Worm and his co-authors used all the information they could put their hands on. This included "all existing data on how ocean species contribute to the good functioning of ecosystems" – and a bunch of other technical stuff not suited to a family audience.

 

This was an ambitious, pioneering four-year study. And its main finding is that the "loss of biodiversity is profoundly reducing the ocean’s ability to produce seafood, resist diseases, filter pollutants and rebound from stresses such as overfishing and climate change."

 

To explain this, Worm compares marine ecosystems to an automobile. The stuff you hardly ever think about – like the axle and the drive shaft – are just as important as the steering wheel or the brakes. And a problem with any part of the car can stall you on the highway or put you in the ditch.

 

It’s the same with the oceans. "There is no trivial biodiversity," he says.

 

No one seems to be arguing this point. Nor does anyone dispute that many fish stocks on the high seas are in peril. And I left Worm’s office wondering about the issue that dragged me – so to speak – into this big fish story in the first place.

 

Last month, Canada opposed the idea of a United Nations treaty banning high-seas trawling. And I still agree with the implicit logic – that stopping bad high-seas dragging would put pressure on the more responsible domestic fishery in Atlantic Canada.

 

But I have to tell you – this high-seas dragging stuff is an ugly business. Worm and Hilborn agree on this; the latter told me he "would support a ban on trawling in international waters for the reason that international waters are essentially unregulated."

 

And if that’s not bad enough, these fleets are also heavily subsidized. A recent report published by researchers at the University of British Columbia shows that dragger fleets soak up more per year in subsidies ($150 million US) than they make in profits (about $100 million US). Subsidies have also increased with the cost of fuel.

 

In essence, then, Japan and many European nations are supporting their traditional fishing cultures – or buying votes, if you prefer – by paying their fleets to fish out the high seas. This is worse than economic greed – it is "uneconomic" greed and ecological stupidity.

 

That leads me to conclude that the new (Canada-backed) UN deal on high-seas fishing better yield some tangible results in a hurry. Otherwise, even amateur contrarians like me are going to have to switch sides.

 

Jim Meek is a freelance writer in Halifax. He also works for Bristol Communications as editor of The Inside Out Report, a quarterly journal based on public opinion research.

 

Source or related URL: http://thechronicleherald.ca

 
บันทึกการเข้า

ความรู้ ข่าวสาร สร้างปัญญา

หน้า: [1]   ขึ้นบน
พิมพ์
 
กระโดดไป: