Scientists warn that Plankton has declined by 90%

[Darth Yan]

https://www.sundaypost.com/fp/humanity- ... d-animals/

God fucking damn it I really hope humanity doesn't go extinct from this.

[Broomstick]

I'm wondering if increased water temperature and increased acidity are greater factors than some of the pollutants mentioned. Not that any of it is good, of course.

The shit is starting to hit the fan when it comes to the ecosystem.

[Solauren]

The shit is starting to hit the fan when it comes to the ecosystem.

The shit hit the fan a while ago. It's just taken this long for people to accept what the smell was.

[LadyTevar]

I'm wondering if increased water temperature and increased acidity are greater factors than some of the pollutants mentioned. Not that any of it is good, of course.

The shit is starting to hit the fan when it comes to the ecosystem.

Personally, I'd say the Pollutants have been accumulating for 50yrs or more, while the heat is only a couple decades. It's a weakened system being hit with a major shock.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, "Plankton" is not just one species, it's a multitude of algae, small fish/crustacean/coral larvae, tiny jellyfish, etc?

[Broomstick]

Yes, "plankton" is basically any living bits in the ocean below a certain size. Sometimes divided into zooplankton (animals) and phytoplankton (plants).

Really, pollutants have been accumulating a lot longer than just 50 years - all the way back to the start of the industrial revolution when large factories started dumping waste into waterways.

[Bedlam]

Increased heat isn't just a few decades as well, background global warmings being occurring since human's started to use fire. Maybe it wasn't always enough to overcome background fluctuations in climate but CO2 levels have been higher than they would be if human's weren't around for hundreds of thousands of years. It really stepped up around the Industrial revolution and then again in the 20th Century but it's been a long running thing.

[Broomstick]

Ocean life often has ... interesting temperature and acidity limitations that are unknown to land-based life such as ourselves. There are hard limits to the upper temperatures that ocean life of various sorts can endure, and they're lower than you might expect. If (totally ass-pulled numbers) a number of planktonic species simply die at 27 C then where the water hits that temperature those life forms will be eliminated - which may have occurred in equatorial waters even before human-induced heating from time to time.

That's why I asked about the polar oceans and the Pacific - if plankton is still doing well in colder waters then it's the heat that's killing it off and the polar oceans can act as a refuge from which to repopulate the rest of the oceans IF we reduce greenhouse emissions and roll back these changes (which will take generations at this point, yes). If the Polar oceans are similarly decimated than it's not the heat, or not just the heat, that is causing this die-off and the situation may be much more dire.

The ocean acidity is yet another issue. Some types of plankton literally dissolve if acidity exceeds certain parameters. This would be something not limited to the warmer parts of the ocean and is even more worrisome if it is truly global in extent.

[Mr Bean]

Good news, everything still sucks but likely not as bad as the OP says it sucks
Ars technica

Beware of bad science reporting: No, we haven’t killed 90% of all plankton
A very misleading article on marine life has been getting a lot of attention.

Jonathan M. Gitlin - 7/19/2022, 11:04 AM
Plankton are under real threat as our oceans warm and acidify, but they're not all gone yet.

64 with 49 posters participating, including story author

For the past few days, it has been hard to look at social media without coming across a scary-looking report from the Scottish newspaper The Sunday Post. "Scots team’s research finds Atlantic plankton all but wiped out in catastrophic loss of life," reads the breathless headline. The article claims that a survey of plankton in the ocean found that "evidence... suggest 90% has now vanished." The article then goes on to predict the imminent collapse of our biosphere.

There's just one problem: The article is utter rubbish.

The Sunday Post uses as its source a preprint manuscript—meaning it hasn't been peer-reviewed yet—from lead author Howard Dryden at the Global Oceanic Environmental Survey.

There's no denying that our oceans are in trouble—the study notes in its introduction that they have lost 50 percent of all marine life over the past 70 years, and that number is rising at around 1 percent per year. But the Post's article goes further than the preprint, citing plankton counts collected by 13 ships with 500 data points.

Specifically, the article claims that the survey "expected to find up to five visible pieces of plankton in every 10 liters of water—but found an average of less than one. The discovery suggests that plankton faces complete wipe-out sooner than was expected."

Five hundred data points collected from 13 vessels sounds impressive, but David Johns, head of the Continuous Plankton Recorder Survey, describes it as "a literal drop in the ocean." Johns would know—the Continuous Plankton Recorder Survey has been running since 1958 and has accumulated more than 265,000 samples.

The Continuous Plankton Survey has indeed cataloged a loss of plankton over the years—but nothing close to the 90 percent loss claimed by Dryden. "We have noticed long-term changes—northerly movements of plankton species as surface water warms, changes in seasonality in some taxa, invasives, etc.," Johns told Ars by email. "And we work with a wide group of scientists and governmental bodies, providing evidence for marine policy. As a group, we had an email discussion, and no one agreed with this report—and no one had heard of the guy (other than one person, and she was not complimentary at all)."

In addition to the small sample size, the preprint makes no mention of how or when the plankton samples were collected. "If those samples were taken during the day, in surface waters, there is likely lower numbers of zooplankton," Johns explained. "Also, [there is] no mention of what magnification [the researchers] were using. If you were using a low-power microscope, you would struggle to see the small stuff—in warm open ocean Atlantic waters, much of the zooplankton is pretty small, and they might have trouble picking them out."

As noted above, the paper that the Post based its article on has not been peer-reviewed, an apparent theme for Dryden. "It seems he doesn’t really have a scientific profile—none of his work seems to be peer reviewed, which is obviously important when you are making any bold claims," Johns told Ars.

And Dryden is making bold claims. Although he raises the very real problem of ocean acidification, he has appeared to blame the problem on microplastics and not climate change caused by a massive increase of atmospheric CO2 levels. However, in this preprint, Dryden and his co-authors do identify atmospheric CO2 as the driver of ocean acidification, which they warn will result in the loss of 80–90 percent of all marine life by 2045.

In the early days of the pandemic, I was alarmed by the credence given by some in the media to unreviewed studies about COVID-19. It seems we can add marine biology to that list as well.

[LadyTevar]

Interesting rebuttal.

Broomstick also hit it on the nose with the thought that plankton is moving to cooler Northern oceans.

[madd0c0t0r2]

Interesting rebuttal.

Broomstick also hit it on the nose with the thought that plankton is moving to cooler Northern oceans.

Although that has its own issues. The earth is a sphere. As you get further away from the equator, there's less space in each latitude, and it very quickly gets smaller. It's not like plankton are a major part of the ecosystem right?

[Broomstick]

A better measure would be to look at the water volume at the various latitudes. Some latitudes have a lot of land mass in them, reducing ocean habitat considerably. Other latitudes are water all the way around the globe, with no land mass in the way. That complicates the calculations.

Then there are cold-water upwellings to consider.

It's really not as straightforward as it initially appears.

[Solauren]

There is also the fact that we have no idea what the qualifications of the 13 people they he had carry out the survey actually are.

For all we know, some of them are fishermen that went "huh, plankton in the trap. He wanted water samples right? Better filter them out...."

Doesn't change the 'handling discussion' over in SLAM, but still, non-peer reviewed, and the people that have been running the constant global survey going 'load of crap', is very telling.

[Solauren]

Update - Check the website for the group behind it. 'Citizen Scientists', and buying equipment from them.

Yeah, cause I'm qualified to handle a scientific sample using equipment I mail-ordered and have no idea how to check the condition of.

[Broomstick]

There are some types of citizen-scientist data that are worthwhile, and even sought out. I'm not sure ocean sampling surveys are one of them. Even so, analysis and interpretation is usually done by actual trained scientists.

[Solauren]

There are some types of citizen-scientist data that are worthwhile, and even sought out. I'm not sure ocean sampling surveys are one of them. Even so, analysis and interpretation is usually done by actual trained scientists.

Yes, but are the places using them having you mail order and purchase equipment from them?

[Broomstick]

I don't know. The last time I played citizen-scientist was after a local earthquake when I filled out a form for the USGS on line about the experience, so clearly not always.

[Solauren]

Okay, let me put it this way - Alarmist article that is debunked, leads to a website where they are selling questionable equipment to help their studies. Sorry, that sounds so fishy to me, we could use it to rebuild the oceans ecosystems with.

[Broomstick]

Oh sure - I agree it does seem skanky as hell.