Anyone else watch the SBS ducco on Ocean Acidity?

[Baccus]

Did anyone else catch the docco on lastnight about the carbon raising the acidity in the oceans and how it is affecting the very existence of all marine life from the minute snails in the Antartic to corals and fish in the tropics.

They also found that the high levels of carbon no only affects a fishes sense of smell but also seems to scramble the wiring in the brain and stops the affected fish from avoiding potential predators.

The carbon is killing most corals but some corals near PNG are managing to cope with carbon but they severely limit the other species of fish and inverts that can live in the coral because they are thick chunky types of coral.

Anyway with all the carbon doing so much harm to the shells/ corals it got me thinking about all the people using carbon to grow their plants and the long term affects this could be having on their fishes mental capabilities and if it would also be degrading the shrimps shells? Or is it off set by all the other water chemistery being carried out in tanks and high octane foods.

[northboy]

I am a sceptic on all this stuff, The reason is I never see the so called coral deaths?? close to the coast yes from silt but out from the cost??? and carbon is a must for tree growth, all the plants I have seen grown in igloos with extra carbon have done well exceptionally well.

But that is only my view and one more thing, I know for sure Scientists will add facts heavy on the side of what is beneficial to themselves as in, what will help them with the next lot of funding.

We add CO2 to our tanks to grow plants and no one is reporting any difference in there tanks

Bob

[Baccus]

My husband reckoned it was the latest band wagon to jump on, first there was the greenhouse affect, global warming and now this. Where the scientists where doing their research apart from the artic and antartic was two sites near PNG. One coral area that didn't have much carbon and another place where carbon is bubbling up through the sand from under water volcanic activity.

I know carbon is the building blocks for most organisms but what the scientists where saying was that the increased levels if carbon where changing the pH of the oceans.

[Hyzenthlay]

Ocean acidification pretty complicated and usually less immediately dramatic. Small ph changes can have big consequences in the ocean. However I'm not sure it would translate to the fish tank environment because even if we try to create an 'ecosystem' there it is still not going to have the same kind of connectivity. Eg. Most people would consider increased carbon in a fish tank causing plants to outcompete algae a good thing whereas it could have devastating consequences in a complex ecosystem.

The problem with ecology is that people don't tend to think long term and most people will not understand why they should care if for instance, one species of bacteria stops working so efficiently at lower ph even if it has huge consequences somewhere down the line. Therefore the more extreme examples will always be shown in documentaries etc to get people to take notice. Actually, this is possibly more a problem with science communication in general (which is a very underdeveloped field in Australia especially).

For the aquarium fish and shrimp, unless you are dropping your ph so low that it falls outside the parameters the species can live in (or reducing the amount of dissolved oxygen too much) there shouldn't be much problem. We still need to be careful not to overdose liquid carbon and things though as that can have some detrimental effects. Also, if you need to dose carbon for your plants they should be using it up so there shouldn't be that much just hanging around.

Most aquarium species are pretty tough (especially captive bred ones) or they wouldn't have made it far enough to end up in your tank. Also, most people are feeding their fish and shrimp richer and more nutritious items than they would naturally eat anyway so a small decrease in absorption due to water conditions won't have the same effect. Eg. If you notice that your soft acidic water starts causing shell erosion on your snail you would probably increase the hardness or chuck a calcium block in there or something. Reasonably easy to monitor and counter compared to an ocean. :)

I'd question what is meant by scientists adding facts heavy on the side of what benefits them. I can see it where you might want to make what you are writing seem more revolutionary and the usefulness of results can be a bit exaggerated. People want to try and get them published in the better journals (eg. I read one by a guy who really just wanted to keep studying caterpillar locomotion for 20 years and to try to justify it started proposing it as the perfect surveillance robot model). But making stuff up would be dangerous. Research is pretty competitive and funds are limited so there is always someone who disagrees with you on points big or small waiting to catch you out and rip you apart in their own paper if you get a bit suss.

Also, you'd definitely make better money telling people what they wanted to hear or researching something that 3rd parties will pay for. Pure life science research is not something you do if you plan on making a decent living. If someone was telling you about ocean acidification then marketing their own cure (giant calcium block!) then I would be suspicious.

Because not much money goes into research for the sake of expanding knowledge often people are almost forced to study what is currently being funded which results in the trends you see. For instance, I would be much more likely to get a large grant to study the impact of a global temperature increase on commercial abalone (lots of money and they want to make sure they protect it). I wouldn't get a grant for a behavioural study on a species no-one cared about.

As for climate change and ocean acidification, if a scientist could legitimately prove the accepted theory wrong someone would eventually do it. If you had evidence and sat on it eventually someone else would publish anyway and you would have missed the opportunity. No-one credible has done so. Instead we only have things like Andrew Bolt's hilariously terrible climate graph debacle. I'd be overjoyed to hear it was all a mistake but I'm not going to hold my breath.

Sorry for the rant! I am a qualified ecologist but I'm not a practicing one at the moment (what I said about no money or jobs). But I promise you I'm not trying to sell you my revolutionary new theory with accompanying book and cd (although I have an interesting though not particularly useful paper being published about orb weaver spiders and predatory ants). :P

[northboy]

I never fully trust what Scientists say because they are usually on the side of who gave them the money and that is nothing against the scientist its the way the stinking system works.

What never stops astounding me is, nearly all fish bios I have worked with or meet thing we fish keepers are public enemy no1, from what I gather it starts with their mentors and is passed down the line. I have many arguments and still do about long term fish keeps know better about dumping fish in water ways and that its the Mum and Dad with Johnny's fish that will let it free in our waterways and that is where the education needs to be, I talk to hundreds of fish keepers at all levels and 90% don't know that most fish in the hobby are OS natives.

I have even had some of these fish bios ask what area Bristlenose are native to? referring to Australia serious, same 2 did not know that M. trifasciata a native Rainbow fish they had caught in the Cape York study, had different colour forms in every creek, they asked why at the time I have so many tanks of them, that is part of the reason I don't trust Bios and Scientists, they know a lot about a limited field (my rant)

After my rant some of my best friends are fish Bios and we exchange info all the time.

Bob

[Hyzenthlay]

True, some might think that fish keepers in general are irresponsible and just trying to sneak anything they can through quarantine without thinking about the consequences. And they will only necessarily know about the particular species they are studying. Some kind of pick a species and know everything about that and little else. Foreign species do end up in the waterways and then people blame the person who imported it and not the idiot that released the giant gold carp because it's easier to ban imports than to convince every random nitwit not to buy fish and chuck them in the lake when their kid gets bored. It's not fair that responsible people have to cop the flack for other's mistakes but I'm not sure what the answer is and the 'us vs. them' mentality from either side isn't helpful.

Good scientists shouldn't be on anyone's side, but that's a bit idealistic. I just think if the general public had more respect for science there would be less of this kind of gap. It's easy for scientists to get frustrated and then assume everyone is an idiot. Which is wrong, but happens. I mean people get paid ridiculous amounts of money for kicking a ball but not for researching something that can improve people's quality of life. And how many Australian's of the year were sportspeople compared to people who actually did something generally beneficial for others? That is part of the reason why the system is flawed imho.

I'd say be critical, no-one knows everything and people make mistakes, but not to the point of immediately distrusting anyone who is getting paid to research something. Otherwise you may as well never trust any professional.

Sorry if I seem overly passionate. I just know a lot of bios that take pride in their work and value critique and would not stoop to making things up for money. I'm not saying it never happens, just that most aren't like that, just like most dedicated aquarists aren't idiots who release noxious species into the water system.

[fishmosy]

I've contributed lots to another thread on ocean acidification here on SKF so wont repeat the same things here. Use the search function to find what was a polite thread in spite OA being a notoriously polarising issue. I will however preface my remarks by saying that I do work on OA related issues in marine aquaculture, and in a lab along side other scientists who are studying the effects of reduced pH on the growth of calcifying organisms, ie those that grow shells and skeletons.

However, in relation to the specific question by the OP regarding whether adding carbon dioxide to freshwater aquariums to speed the growth of plants, my understanding is that CO2 levels are kept at levels which have little or no effect on fish because the amount that the pH is reduced by is well within the generally wide pH tolerances of fish.

[Hyzenthlay]

Sorry if I seemed terse. I'm just a bit ill and overtired today and I didn't mean to seem grumpy and like I'm trying to shove my opinion into people.

[Squiggle]

Personally, I don't think you came across that way, I see it as a few very informed people have an incredibly interesting discussion on an issue that could be potentially devastating if it is proven to have the effects that are claimed. Everyone is passionate about one thing or another(shrimp for me, lol) & it's good to hear the various points of view & make our own decisions based on the information laid out in front of us. So please don't stop, I feel smarter just watching, lol

[northboy]

I like to get these kind of things going, so long as it stays civil and it has thus far.

Everyone has a point of view they think is right and for me meeting in the middle is always best.

Something that USE TO get up my nose was the fact the some Bios don't want to or won't listen to Lay people because they don't have a piece of paper to say they are educated, no finger pointed. I have prove a number wrong by being able to contribute lots of field and captive info on a few things, to where a few come and ask for help with the things I am up on. I do not profess to know it all and never will but I do know a dam site more than some.

I will have 2 papers coming soon, I won't write them but all the info is mine and I will have input about their out come, the hardest part will be TRYING to get it a bit more my way than the writers and that is where I will most likely have to eat humble pie LOL

They will be on Zebra Shrimp and the first one will be on a group of Freshwater Crabs and the breed and survival tactics.

Bob

PS when I reread that it sound pompous and it is not meant to be that way, so if its read that way do not take it that way, I am not rewriting it because I am slack

[Hyzenthlay]

I saw some of those Zebra shrimp the other day. They are awesome. I got scared off because I heard they are hard to keep though. Maybe once my crystal tank is set up.

If someone has experience in something it shouldn't matter whether they have a piece of paper or not in my opinion. I wouldn't want people to think I would ever shoot anyone down for that. My partner is one of the most intelligent people I know but never went to uni or anything for various personal reasons. And the job I actually get paid for at the moment is mostly self-taught. It's just the proportion of people who have to push their opinions on everything even if their only experience of it was what they saw on A Current Affair or something that get my goat. Not that anyone is doing it here.

[northboy]

Zebs are not that hard, well water changes soft water is fine and your water should be AOK.

AH HA TV experts just like internet experts, got one of them at work, he knows every thing you are talking about but brings himself undone all the time LOL.

My outlook on things is, we are all different and it would be boring if we were all the same, but educated or experienced debate is good and I have been known to back flip on many things when shown the light. Now You and Ben have to open my eyes to the acidification on the sea, but its a big body of water?

Now I am right and that is that, NOT LOL

Bob

PS you are to blame Elizabeth LOL

[Hyzenthlay]

Maybe if we all do one daily water change... :P

Might get some Zebs for my crystal tank when it's finished then. :)

[Wraithie]

I find it very informative to read these discussions, thanks all :)

Also I work in a large research institute with many very intelligent people, sometimes they're just not very smart :)

[Baccus]

I am pleased to see the lively and civil replies to this topic.

I found the documentary very interesting especially when one of the biologists was studying the shells of some minute snail and comparing the same species to specimens caught 20 (I think) years ago to a recent collection. The variation and degrading of these tiny snails shells was shocking and when it is recalled that these very snails form a large basis of many food chains right up to whales the implications get staggering.

There is some possibly good news to all of this. The carbon is actually enabling sea grasses to flourish which can be a boon for dugong, some turtle species and any fish species that use seagrass beds as homes, food or hatcheries. However that than brings back the other issue of how the carbon might be affecting some species of fishes brain wiring and preventing them from avoiding potential predators by scent alone.

And I can understand how in our tanks injected carbon might not be a problem, but should a person ever get lax or a have a major malfunction for a prolonged period I can see how even in our finally tuned tanks it could all go horribly wrong.

It would be interesting to see if the biologists could replicate some of their marine experiments on fresh water fish and see if they end up getting similar or totally varying results.