Study: Deforestation Depletes Fish Stocks

Rambo Tribble (1273454) writes Adding to the well-known fish-killing effects deforestation has in increasing turbidity and temperature in streams, a study published in Nature Communications, (abstract, PDF access), demonstrates deforestation causes a depletion of nutrients in associated lake aquatic ecosystems and, as a consequence, impacted fish stocks. Lead author Andrew Tanentzap is quoted as saying, 'We found fish that had almost 70% of their biomass made from carbon that came from trees and leaves instead of aquatic food chain sources.' This has troubling implications, as 'It's estimated that freshwater fishes make up more than 6% of the world's annual animal protein supplies for humans ...' Additionally, this may have significance in regard to anadromous species, such as salmon, which help power ocean ecosystems. The BBC offers more approachable coverage.

Who would have thought?

[penguinoid]

Who would have thought that destroying an ecosystem would have more than one bad effect?

Good thing we use less paper now

[HalAtWork]

Less reason to cut down trees. I still know some people at work who print emails before reading them though, what is wrong with these people? I try to be a good example and casually mention how I avoid using paper in various ways when describing my tasks to others as well as in meetings, but it doesn't seem to make an impression...

Re:this has nothing to do with salmon

[__aanbvm4272]

"get grabbed and dragged by an enterprising bear (but rarely into the trees)". YES it happens all the time...The Bears Racoons and what ever leave a lot of the fish on land where it's ate. But it's not just fish that benefit. All insects that are part of a decaying forest feed the wildlife. and why a tree farm is almost devoid of animals. Just go to one and listen... its quiet. Now go to a real forest and you hear all kinds of life. Trees are not just for humans to exploit. They are there to save our planet from us. No tree hugging, just grow old timber. B4 it's too late.

Re:Fresh Water vs. Ocean Water Fish

[__aanbvm4272]

Who can afford ocean fish? Yes 6% is a realistic number for freshwater fish. Not just 1% You see some people (a lot) like to fish and then eat 'em. even catfish! Unfortunately, as the article points out, this is becoming more difficult...eh? Aquaponics does not address the fish in the forest problem except to supply an alternate food source. Who da thought we knew all the implications of maximizing profits in the wood products industry Now that timber has become a Wall Street commodity heaven help us. Nothing else matters but profit.

Re:Who would have thought?

[Jane Q. Public]

Who would have thought that destroying an ecosystem would have more than one bad effect?

More to the point, this is hardly a recent revelation.

People in my part of the U.S. were fighting deforestation (this is a logging region), based on studies that said it caused turbidity in streams, causing among other things nutrification and drastically reducing oxygen, which in turn killed the local aquatic life (which is a major sporting industry in this part of the U.S.).

And that was when I was, like, 12 years old. Which was a l-o-n-g time ago.

I'm not saying this paper didn't show something valid. But the suggestion made by OP, that this is all some kind of new revelation, is just a few decades late. Likely there was some fine point in the paper that reinforced what we already knew. But AFAIK, OP says nothing new at all.