Climate change could stop fish finding their friends

Jul 01, 2014
This image shows tropical damselfish (Chromis viridis) schooling in a coral reef. Credit: Miss Lauren Nadler

Like humans, fish prefer to group with individuals with whom they are familiar, rather than strangers. This gives numerous benefits including higher growth and survival rates, greater defence against predators and faster social learning. However, high carbon dioxide levels, such as those anticipated by climate change models, may hinder the ability of fish to recognise one another and form groups with familiar individuals.

Scientists at the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies at James Cook University, Australia, have been studying the effect of carbon dioxide on the schooling behaviour of the tropical damselfish Chromis viridis. Lead investigator Miss Lauren Nadler found that juvenile fish normally require three weeks to recognise their school-mates, however elevated carbon dioxide levels significantly impaired this ability.

Climate change models predict that carbon dioxide levels and ocean acidity will more than double before the end of the century. To investigate if this would affect social recognition in fish, schools were kept under elevated levels of carbon dioxide, similar to those projected for 2100 by models produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Individual fish were then given a "choice test" where they were placed between two schools – one of familiar fish and the other made up of strangers. Whilst fish kept under normal conditions consistently chose the familiar school, fish reared under high CO2 conditions showed no preference for either the unfamiliar or familiar school.

It is thought that carbon dioxide interferes with the functioning of neuroreceptors in the fish brains. Higher levels change the concentration of ions (electrically charged atoms and molecules) in the fishes' blood, altering the way that the neuroreceptors work. This impairs basic senses, such as sight and smell, which are vital for recognition in fish.

These results could have serious implications for , whose habitat is already threatened by . "Familiarity is an important trait for defence, particularly in a predator-rich environment like a coral reef", says Miss Nadler. "Since half of all species in the world school at some point during their lives, including economically important species, these effects could be critical for species that rely on group-living to avoid predators".

Explore further: Fish from acidic ocean waters less able to smell predators

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Carbon dioxide affecting fish brains: study

Jan 16, 2012

Rising human carbon dioxide emissions may be affecting the brains and central nervous systems of sea fish, with serious consequences for their survival, according to new research.

Report supports shutdown of all high seas fisheries

Jun 05, 2014

Fish and aquatic life living in the high seas are more valuable as a carbon sink than as food and should be better protected, according to research from the University of British Columbia.

Ocean acidification leaving fish in the dark

Jan 30, 2014

Increasing carbon dioxide in the world's oceans could hamper fishes' eyesight, slowing their reaction times and leaving them vulnerable to predators or unable to hunt, new research has shown.

Ancient reefs preserved tropical marine biodiversity

Jun 04, 2014

Habitat refugia in which coral reefs have remained stable over time played a key role in preserving tropical marine fish biodiversity, a study highlights. Researchers at the Laboratoire Ecologie des Systèmes ...

Recommended for you

Pharmaceuticals and the water-fish-osprey food web

10 hours ago

Ospreys do not carry significant amounts of human pharmaceutical chemicals, despite widespread occurrence of these chemicals in water, a recent U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and Baylor University study finds. ...

User comments : 33

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

antigoracle
3 / 5 (10) Jul 01, 2014
And in other hilarious news, Disney to release Not Finding Nemo.
antigoracle
2.7 / 5 (7) Jul 01, 2014
Hey Phil...Phil...PHILLLLL...where are you Phil.
You are not Phil!!
holoman
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 01, 2014
Carbon Emissions are Necessary for Seawater Acidification to Produce Cheap Hydrogen

Pollution is GOOD !

http://thomasinst...bly.com/

TegiriNenashi
3 / 5 (6) Jul 01, 2014
Perhaps they [the researchers] should study if their own neurons were inhibited [by elevated levels of CO2], first?
Vietvet
2.6 / 5 (10) Jul 01, 2014
It figures the first four comments would come from science denying idiot trolls.
aksdad
2.8 / 5 (9) Jul 01, 2014
Is it becoming harder to get fund research unless you link it to "climate change", meaning global warming? It should seem obvious that living organisms can adapt to moderate changes in their environment. The theory of evolution--the bedrock of biological studies--predicts this. The rate of change in CO2 levels is moderate but if you suddenly introduced high levels of CO2 to fish adapted to current levels of CO2, it would not be terribly surprising that it may alter their behavior. Luckily they have another 86 years to adapt to levels expected in 2100.
antigoracle
2.3 / 5 (9) Jul 01, 2014
The scientists also confirmed that AGW Chicken Littles are similarly affected, because when asked, they could not find a single friend.
howhot2
2.5 / 5 (8) Jul 01, 2014
It's typical of the global warming deniers and their child like fetish with fish. They can't even figure out that the fish breath under water and are sensitive to changes in pH. Deniers instead of considering the dreadful consequences of CO2 pollution on the planet, would rather joke about Nemo and what he might look like 86 years from now.

I agree with you Viet, what bone heads these doofus deniers are.
TegiriNenashi
2.3 / 5 (6) Jul 01, 2014
You imply that extremely complex and sophisticated biochemical pathways might be affected by changed pH? Big deal. What those antropathetic emissions impaired researchers fail to understand is that in couple of generations evolution would find a way to fix it.
cantdrive85
2.7 / 5 (7) Jul 01, 2014
It is thought that carbon dioxide interferes with the functioning of neuroreceptors in the fish brains. Higher carbon dioxide levels change the concentration of ions (electrically charged atoms and molecules) in the fishes' blood, altering the way that the neuroreceptors work.


The obvious answer to AGW is to increase the use of nuclear power...

Deniers instead of considering the dreadful consequences of CO2 pollution on the planet, would rather joke about Nemo and what he might look like 86 years from now.


The great thing about nuclear power is we don't have to wait "86 years" to get results.

http://rt.com/new...ish-238/

Climate change models predict that carbon dioxide levels and ocean acidity will more than double before the end of the century.


Fortunately they are just models, although AGWites treat them like devout religionists treat the gospels.

Look, here is their idol...
http://deeliberat...gore.jpg
howhot2
2.5 / 5 (8) Jul 02, 2014
You imply that extremely complex and sophisticated biochemical pathways might be affected by changed pH? Big deal. What those antropathetic emissions impaired researchers fail to understand is that in couple of generations evolution would find a way to fix it.


Well then perhaps in a few generations of evolution your great grand kids might develop a third lung to suck in the excess CO2 and convert it to a hydrocarbon fuel for their growing butt wheel! Evolution has all kinds of weird ways of fixing stupid.

thermodynamics
3 / 5 (4) Jul 02, 2014
Cantdrive: With your view of the EU, and the idea that the sun runs on electric currents instead of nuclear processes, how can you believe in nuclear reactors or do they run off of electric currents that the nuclear engineers don't understand?

Your pushing nuclear reactors seems to me like an atheist praying to Thor. Help me understand how nuclear processes work in your EU.
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 02, 2014
The existence of nuclear power doesn't mean the sun is a nuclear furnace any more than it might be coal combustion. BTW, nuclear engineers are familiar of the plasma processes that enable nuclear power, sadly astrophysicists still rely on theories developed before the advent of nuclear power. As Alfven said; "The cosmical plasma physics of today is far less advanced than the thermonuclear research physics. It is to some extent the playground of theoreticians who have never seen a plasma in a laboratory. Many of them still believe in formulae which we know from laboratory experiments to be wrong. The astrophysical correspondence to the thermonuclear crisis has not yet come."
And if you actually ever clicked on a link you may realize my reference to nuclear power was a facetious one. I very much enjoy sushi, but thanks to Fukushima I no longer am able to partake in the yummy delicacies. I prefer my fish without being fortified with radioactive debris.
thermodynamics
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 02, 2014
Cantdrive said:
And if you actually ever clicked on a link you may realize my reference to nuclear power was a facetious one.


The problem is that it is difficult to figure out when you are facetious considering the insane babble that comes out of your posts. Since you have so little understanding of physics that you think a star can be driven by electrical currents, I have no idea that you see anything facetiously. I have clicked on your links in the past and the lack of understanding of electricity and magnetism as well as particle physics is astonishing. You are pathetic in every way. I assume you have never had a physics class or if you did you failed and blamed it on the professors. Your math and physics is incredibly weak or you would be able to prove your EU to be absurd. You have to invoke ignorance and conspiracies to be able to justify your view because actual observations show your theories to be absurd.
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 02, 2014
Since you have so little understanding of physics that you think a star can be driven by electrical currents


Since you're so brilliant, maybe you'd like to expound on why stars cannot be powered by electric currents...And please do so without the usual hand flapping.
antigoracle
2.3 / 5 (6) Jul 02, 2014
Evolution has all kinds of weird ways of fixing stupid.
-- howhot2
That's the spirit. There may still be hope for your offspring.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Jul 02, 2014
The existence of nuclear power doesn't mean the sun is a nuclear furnace any more than it might be coal combustion
@cd
the reciprocal is also true, so there goes your argument FOR EU pseudoscience
BTW, nuclear engineers are familiar of the plasma processes that enable nuclear power, sadly astrophysicists still rely on theories developed before the advent of nuclear power
conjecture based upon blatant stupidity and ignoring evidence: http://www.pppl.gov/
you've now only proven that you are stupid AND illiterate
As Alfven said
may have been relevant 40 yrs ago, but NOT TODAY as has already been proven
expound on why stars cannot be powered by electric currents
Thompson already has, but you ignored it, so why keep posting it?
go here: http://www.tim-th...eas.html
and
http://www.tim-th...sun.html

one reason your EU twits will not publicly debate! NO EMPIRICAL DATA
and IRRELEVANT PSEUDOSCIENCE

still waiting for that public EU debate!
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Jul 02, 2014
I very much enjoy sushi, but thanks to Fukushima I no longer am able to partake in the yummy delicacies. I prefer my fish without being fortified with radioactive debris.
@cd
you are most likely referring to Sashimi, NOT Sushi
In English, sashimi is often used to describe uncooked fish preparations. The original Japanese delicacy basically consists of different species of fish dipped in a mixture of wasabi and soy sauce that are sliced into thin pieces and then served raw. On the other hand, sushi essentially means vinegar rice that is topped up with countless varieties of additional ingredients, most popular of them being fresh raw fish.


http://www.differ...sashimi/

you must live in a landlocked area ...
thermodynamics
2.6 / 5 (5) Jul 02, 2014
TCS: Thank you for the great web sites on the stupidity of Cantdrive. It will be interesting to see what hand waving (if he even understands the arguments) he can come up with. Nice concise arguments on a subset of the really off-the-wall ideas of the EU group.
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 02, 2014
Ah yes, ol' Timmy T and his pith ball electrostatics, sadly he doesn't understand the model in the least bit. His arguments remind me of this Timmy.
http://www.youtub...RGUZrrG8

Timmy T and Hawking in a street fight?
http://www.youtub...dR6LLCmY

Captain Stupid, when you said you had nothing but time you were absolutely right. I do understand the difference, if only you were so concerned about the difference between "hot gas" and plasma.

Thermodynamics, the question was directed at you, you are the brilliant one. I await your response to a legit question. And if you copy/paste Timmy T's comments (as I anticipate), be sure to give proper credit.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (4) Jul 03, 2014
pith ball electrostatics, sadly he doesn't understand the model in the least bit
@cd
he understands the model far better than you, but he ALSO understands REAL PHYSICS far better than you or any of your idiot EU engineers who IGNORE relevant information: engineers DO NOT learn about astrophysics, whereas astrophysicists DO LEARN ABOUT PLASMA PHYSICS- proven time and again to you
Timmy T and Hawking in a street fight?
so you've completely abandoned even your hand waving and gone straight to attacking as well as stupidity? guess I hit a sore spot
if only you were so concerned about the difference between "hot gas" and plasma
and I do understand, but apparently YOU DO NOT, nor do you understand gravity, fusion, or many other aspects of plasma physics or astrophysics...

Where are your BS engineers when it comes to PUBLIC DEBATE? guess they don't like looking stupid in public... wish you had the same aversion

EU = PSEUDOSCIENCE and nothing else
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Jul 03, 2014
TCS: Thank you for the great web sites on the stupidity of Cantdrive. It will be interesting to see what hand waving (if he even understands the arguments) he can come up with. Nice concise arguments on a subset of the really off-the-wall ideas of the EU group.
@Thermodynamics
Sure thing! Thompson also argued against EU and CD here on phys.org a while... but nothing is going to change CD's mind because he cannot comprehend REAL physics and REAL science, only what he is taught on his thunderbutts web site. Too bad, too... his tenacity could benefit science.
Let me see if I can't dig up some of the other sites Thompson posted for refute against CD and alfie/et al.

howhot2
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 03, 2014
Evolution has all kinds of weird ways of fixing stupid.
-- howhot2
That's the spirit. There may still be hope for your offspring.

And yours too. AGW Extinction won't exclude yours either.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Jul 03, 2014
maybe you'd like to expound on why stars cannot be powered by electric currents
@cd
I would ask you how it is feasible or what physics would create a star in space but you would only refer me to your thunderbutts site and that is nothing but PSEUDOSCIENCE wrapped in CONSPIRACY THEORY dipped with blatant stupidity and ignoring modern physics as well as most other modern science
TCS: Thank you for the great web sites
@Thermodynamics
you can read how Thompson disembowels the EU argument starting here: http://phys.org/n...ggs.html
and if you look at where he posted and his profile here:
https://sciencex....hompson/
you can see that he has been very helpful and left a lot of links to good sites as well as completely destroyed EU pseudoscience.

The only reason CD is posting again is he THINKS that everyone forgot about how he was proven to be stupid very thoroughly by Thompson.
thermodynamics
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 03, 2014
CantThink: You are looking for arguments that show that the sun is not likely to be powered by electricity. The amount of energy released by the sun is approximately 3.8x10^26 W.

How much current is that from your current sheets and how does it get to the sun?

The theory of fusion matches that output well.

How does current that matches the amount needed get to the sun and what produces the current?
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 03, 2014
How does current that matches the amount needed get to the sun and what produces the current?

Ulysses discovered powerful spiral magnetic fields above the Sun's poles, such fields cannot exist w/o electric currents. That would be one consideration, but not the only. According to NASA data there are plenty electrons and ions available to power the sun.

http://electric-c...2013.pdf
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Jul 03, 2014
http://electric-c...2013.pdf
@cd
sorry, this is a link to a PSEUDOSCIENCE site, and therefore it cannot be trusted

IF THERE WERE RELEVANT and LEGITIMATE SCIENCE PUBLICATIONS that support your conjecture, then you would be able to find it at a reputable site with a reputable peer reviewed published paper supported my legitimate physics etc

try again, and this time find some REAL science and skip the electric sky thunderbutts links which have all the scientific authority, relevance and validity as the 4chan/b site does
cantdrive85
2.1 / 5 (7) Jul 03, 2014
http://electric-c...2013.pdf
@cd
sorry, this is a link to a PSEUDOSCIENCE site, and therefore it cannot be trusted

IF THERE WERE RELEVANT and LEGITIMATE SCIENCE PUBLICATIONS that support your conjecture, then you would be able to find it at a reputable site with a reputable peer reviewed published paper supported my legitimate physics etc

try again, and this time find some REAL science and skip the electric sky thunderbutts links which have all the scientific authority, relevance and validity as the 4chan/b site does

OK CAPTAIN CAPS LOCK
thermodynamics
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 03, 2014
Cantdrive: I just spent a period of time looking at the paper you gave as "proof." Let me point out that it is wrong. It interprets the "increase of a factor of 100 of incoming electrons" from the interstellar wind as an increase by 100 in the total electrons. The NASA press release (not a paper) is clear that it is a change in the incoming electrons, not total electrons and it is extremely low. It is also directional and not homogeneous. The idea that the sun is positively charged (as noted in the references for the paper) is not supported by anything other than EU writeups. None of the references (other than EU papers) shows a charge for the sun. Where did that come from?

So, there is no reference that supports the total of incoming electrons.

There is no support for the sun being positively charged.

Those two seem sufficient to show that the paper does not show anything other than hand waving. Please show me the numbers as primary references from NAS
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 03, 2014
I just spent a period of time looking at the paper you gave as "proof."

Proof? No, not proof but a piece of evidence. I grasp the difference. BTW, where is the "proof" for the existence of DM?

Let me point out that it is wrong. It interprets the "increase of a factor of 100 of incoming electrons" from the interstellar wind as an increase by 100 in the total electrons.


The NASA quote; " Voyager has detected a 100-fold increase in the intensity of high-energy electrons from elsewhere in the galaxy diffusing into our solar system from outside"

The NASA press release (not a paper) is clear that it is a change in the incoming electrons, not total electrons and it is extremely low.


It would be "incoming" electrons which would be required to produce the required current. And although low in that one spot, but considering a spherical boundary something greater than 5x10^27 square meters it works out to be a significant current.

cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 03, 2014
The idea that the sun is positively charged (as noted in the references for the paper) is not supported by anything other than EU writeups.


Why are there incoming electrons? Magic? Or is it that the electrons are attracted by the positively charged Sun? Clearly the Sun does not have the same potential of it's surrounding environment, otherwise there would be no heliosphere, etc... Realize he is using an electric circuit analogy and the physics of that phenomena are well known. GR is completely based upon two foundational assumptions, yet it doesn't stop you from believing in it.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Jul 03, 2014
Proof? No, not proof but a piece of evidence
@cd
if you linked something in support of your argument (like you said above, a piece of evidence) then you are linking it as proof of either concept or as proof of support for your argument, therefore his assignment of the word "proof" is legitimate and used properly, whereas your denigration and attempt at syntactical or semantic distraction is irrelevant and without merit
...the electrons...positively charged Sun?
or is it more likely that gravity as well as force (from the sun as well as other stars and sources) contributes more than you would like to admit?
the physics of that phenomena are well known
which is how we know the sun is fusion based and not electrical circuit based
GR is completely based upon two foundational assumptions, yet it doesn't stop you from believing in it
because it is successful and makes predictions predictions that prove it, which your EU does NOT do...

keep trying spark boy
yep
1 / 5 (1) Jul 04, 2014
The gas model sun was in error in the 19th century when it was devised and that did not change when codified in the 20th. These old models of cosmology need revision.
Lets start with a liquid sun. http://www.nasa.g...ain.html
http://www.google...88,d.aWw