Subcommittee to Continue Hearing Series on Magnuson-Stevens ActWASHINGTON – U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska), chairman of the Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard, will convene the hearing titled “Reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act: Fisheries Science,” at 2:30 p.m. on Tuesday, October 24, 2017. The hearing is the fourth of the series and will focus on the state of our nation’s fisheries and the science that supports sustainable management.Witnesses:- Mr. Karl Haflinger, Founder and President, Sea State, Inc - Dr. Ray Hilborn, Professor, University of Washington School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences - Dr. Michael Jones, Professor, Michigan State University Quantitative Fisheries Center - Dr. Larry McKinney, Director, Texas A&M University Harte Research Institute for Gulf of Mexico StudiesHearing Details:Tuesday, October 24, 20172:30 p.m.Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries and Coast GuardThis hearing will take place in Russell Senate Office Building, Room 253. Witness testimony, opening statements, and a live video of the hearing will be available on www.commerce.senate.gov.
Several hundred tons of squid offloaded in Ventura
Ventura Harbor saw a haul of around 300 to 400 tons of squid Tuesday morning, which harbor officials say is a good sign. TYLER HERSKO/THE STAR
The smell of squid filled the air Tuesday morning at Ventura Harbor, where workers were bustling to offload hundreds of tons of it.
The morning’s activities represented one of the largest squid hauls the harbor has seen in recent history. Approximately 300 to 400 tons of squid were brought into the harbor, representing a positive turn of events, said Frank Locklear, manager of commercial fisheries and technology at the Ventura Harbor Village Marina.
Locklear noted that squid season typically begins in April and the harbor saw squid through June. That said, Locklear added that squid numbers were practically nonexistent from July through September, which forced the harbor’s fishing companies to carefully save their resources until squid returned. Beyond that, the past three years have been particularly difficult for squid fishing due to poor weather conditions.
While the harbor prefers to receive around 500 to 600 tons on an average day, Locklear was confident that Tuesday’s haul represented a change of fortune. Squid fishing is one of the leading factors in the harbor’s success, according to Locklear.
“The harbor is a huge economic ball that is supported by the fishing industry,” Locklear said. “Fishing is the lifeblood of this harbor, and squid is the key.”
The squid fishing businesses that use the harbor export a significant majority of their yields to China, Locklear said.
Most of the squid sold in restaurants is imported from Asia, where squid cleaning and processing is cheaper.
Regardless, Locklear stressed that squid fishing is crucial to the economic well-being of both local fishing companies and the harbor as a whole. The harbor uses part of the revenue it receives from squid fishing companies to send representation to Washington, D.C., to get the funding it needs for dredging, which removes sand and sediment from the bottom of the harbor’s entrance.
Regular dredging is of paramount importance, and squid fishing is the primary thing that makes dredging possible, according to Locklear.
“Ventura Harbor is home to three large recreational marinas that have dive boats, island excursion boats and sport fishermen that need to get out of the harbor to survive,” Locklear said. “Without the funds that we get for our squid, we can’t go to Washington to get the funding we need for dredging. If we don’t dredge yearly, our boats can’t come in and out.”
Read original post: http://www.vcstar.com/
Why a small, oily, strong-tasting fish is showing up on restaurant menus
You probably didn’t expect to see sardines on the list of 2017 food trends. The small, oily fish have an assertive flavor that can be a turnoff for some. Most people associate them with cans, which runs contrary to our notion that the best food is fresh. They feel like a throwback to an era when people didn’t understand exactly how good food could be.
Americans “weren’t going to embrace grandpa’s can of sardines on the supermarket shelf,” says Elizabeth Moskow, culinary director for the Sterling-Rice Group, a branding agency that put sardines on its trend forecast for the year. But high-quality canned sardines, as well as fresh ones, are making more appearances on restaurant menus. “I think the American palate may be ready for something as strong as sardines,” Moskow says.
Sardines are high in omega-3 fatty acids, which may reduce the risk of heart disease. They’re also environmentally friendly, because they’re lower on the food chain.“They were considered kind of a trash fish, and not something as prized as they currently are or could be in the future,” says Jon Sybert, chef and co-owner of Adams Morgan’s Tail Up Goat restaurant, which has rotated through several sardine dishes throughout the year. He particularly likes preparing them in a salt crust, which keeps them super moist, and serving them with a chocolate rye bread.
A fisherman uses a hook to bring sardines onto a fishing boat in Matosinhos, Portugal. (Nacho Doce/Reuters)
The sardine’s popularity is benefiting from a recent wave of travel to Portugal, one of this year’s “it” destinations. There, tourists encounter tinned sardines with beautiful packaging, canned in high-quality oils, often with spices, pickles or peppers.“The reality is you can’t get fresher,” says Kathy Sidell, owner of the Saltie Girl restaurant in Boston, pointing out that the fish are often canned directly off the docks. Saltie Girl has sold sardines fried, grilled, marinated and canned, served with bread and a house-made butter, similar to how the fish are presented in Portugal. “We often say it’s like a charcuterie board, but with seafood,” she notes.At Mola, a Spanish restaurant in Mount Pleasant, you’ll find a house-cured sardine plate with an aioli and piquillo pepper, a riff on a dish co-owner Erin Lingle had in Madrid, or pan-roasted sardines with paprika vinaigrette and a side of Swiss chard.The dishes have proved popular, thanks in part to the enthusiasm of her staff.“People are learning to embrace those aspects of sardines rather then find them off-putting,” Lingle says. “I love sardines because they are an oily, strong-flavored fish that stand up well to bold flavors.”
Originally posted: https://www.washingtonpost.com/
'Rule of Thumb' Management Approach Is Wrong For Forage Fish, Dr. Ray Hilborn Tells U.S. Senate
Saving Seafood interviews Dr. Ray Hilborn about forage fish management ahead of his testimony before the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries and Coast Guard.
WASHINGTON (Saving Seafood) – October 31, 2017 – At a hearing of the U.S. Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries and Coast Guard last week, respected fisheries scientist Dr. Ray Hilborn testified that fisheries managers “can do better than a one-size-fits-all” approach to managing forage fish. He also said there was “no empirical evidence to support the idea that the abundance of forage fish affects their predators.”Dr. Hilborn’s comments came in response to questioning from Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS) about whether fisheries managers should manage forage fish according to a “rule of thumb” approach, where fisheries are managed according to a set of broad ecological and management principals, or a “case-by-case” approach, where management is guided by more species-specific information.Dr. Hilborn, a professor at the University of Washington’s School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, was part of a team of top fisheries scientists that recently examined these issues, as well as what effects fishing for forage fish species had on predator species. Their research indicated that previous studies, like a 2012 report from the Lenfest Forage Fish Task Force, may have overestimated the strength of the predator-prey relationship.Before the hearing, Dr. Hilborn spoke with Saving Seafood about his research and his message for lawmakers.“It’s very clear that there really are no applicable rules of thumb, that every system is independent [and] behaves differently, and we need to have the rules for each individual forage fish fishery determined by looking at the specifics of that case,” Dr. Hilborn told Saving Seafood.He also discussed his team’s finding that forage fish abundance has little impact on their predators. They looked at nearly all U.S. forage fish fisheries, including the California Current system and Atlantic menhaden, and concluded that predator species generally pursue other food sources when the abundance of any one forage species is low.“The predators seem to go up or down largely independent of the abundance of forage fish,” Dr. Hilborn said, adding, “For Atlantic menhaden, for their major predators, the fishery has reasonably little impact on the food that’s available to them.”Another key message Dr. Hilborn had for the Subcommittee was that fisheries managers must determine what they want to accomplish so that scientists can advise them accordingly.“The time has come to refocus our fisheries policy on what we actually want to achieve because rebuilding is only a means to an end,” Dr. Hilborn told Saving Seafood. “Do we want to maximize the economic value of our fisheries? Do we want to maximize jobs? Do we want to maximize food production?”In his testimony, Dr. Hilborn praised U.S. fisheries policy that has “led to rebuilding of fish stocks and some of the most successful fisheries in the world.” He attributed this success to a variety of factors, including funding of NOAA, regionalizing fisheries management decisions, and requiring managers to follow science advice. As a result, overfishing should no longer be the top priority for fisheries managers, he testified.“The major threats to U.S. fish stock and marine ecosystem biodiversity are now ocean acidification, warming temperatures, degraded coastal habitats, exotic species, land based run off, and pollution,” Dr. Hilborn testified. “Overfishing remains a concern for a limited number of stocks but should not continue to be the most important concern for U.S. federal fisheries policy.”The hearing was the latest in a series examining reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the nation’s supreme fisheries law. It was organized by subcommittee chairman Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK), and focused on fisheries science.
Originally posted: Saving Seafood Inc.
Testimony of Ray Hilborn to U.S. Senate subcommittee
Testimony of Ray Hilborn to U.S. Senate subcommittee.
Professor has a message for Congress: Overfishing is over
Rob Hotakainen, E&E News reporterPublished: Monday, October 23, 2017Ray Hilborn. Photo credit: University of Washington
Fisheries scientist Ray Hilborn. University of Washington
To his detractors, fisheries professor Ray Hilborn is an "overfishing denier," a scientist who's all too eager to accept money from industry groups to pay for his pro-fishing research.To his backers, he's a hero, a respected researcher who can always be counted on to challenge environmental groups that want to limit fishing.Love him or hate him, there's little doubt that the outspoken Hilborn has attained an international profile and that he has found a way to win big-time attention in fishing circles.His next stop is Capitol Hill.Tomorrow, Hilborn, a professor of aquatic and fishery sciences at the University of Washington, will appear before a Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation panel, getting another chance to argue his case that overfishing is no longer a concern for the United States.He's one of four experts scheduled to testify before the Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries and Coast Guard."What I'm going to say in my testimony is that overfishing is no longer the major threat to the sustainability of our oceans or biodiversity," Hilborn said in an interview. "My first line on Tuesday is going to be that we have really fixed our fisheries by having fisheries management follow science advice — and if you stop doing that, you're in trouble."Hilborn also said it's time to stop "vilifying" fishing."I wrote the book on overfishing, called 'Overfishing: What Everyone Needs to Know,' by Oxford University Press," Hilborn said. "You know, overfishing is a serious problem in many places. It's not a very serious problem in the United States now. It was 30 years ago. ... And the U.S. has responded, as has Europe. In most developed countries, fish stocks are increasing in abundance, they are not declining in abundance."The question of overfishing is a key focus for Congress as lawmakers consider making changes to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, a law passed in 1976 that sets the rules for fishing in federal waters (E&E Daily, July 17).Backers and opponents alike credit the landmark law for improving the health of U.S. fish stocks, though many worry the Trump administration has moved too quickly to allow more fishing.Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, who oversees NOAA, heightened those concerns with two key decisions: In June, he extended the season for the Gulf red snapper by 39 days, and in July, he overturned a decision by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission that would have cut New Jersey's recreational quota for summer flounder, also known as fluke (Greenwire, Sept. 20).Critics fear Ross' decisions could lead to overfishing and jeopardize both fish stocks in the long run.Meanwhile, the president's fisheries chief, Chris Oliver, told a House Natural Resources panel last month that 91 percent of all fishing stocks assessed by NOAA are no longer subject to overfishing.Oliver, the head of NOAA Fisheries, told the Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans that the U.S. had "effectively ended overfishing," allowing "room for flexibility" in applying annual catch limits (E&E Daily, Sept. 27).Those are fighting words for many conservationists who worry the Trump team has already gone overboard in bowing to the demands of fishing groups."When they talk about flexibility, they're really talking about rollbacks," said John Hocevar, a marine biologist and ocean campaigns director for Greenpeace USA.An ideal spokesman?Hilborn has plenty of fans, but he has faced accusations of industry bias.Last year, he won the International Fisheries Science Prize at the World Fisheries Congress in Busan, South Korea, recognized for a 40-year-career of "highly diversified research" on behalf of global fisheries science and conservation."There aren't many fisheries scientists in the country who can match Ray Hilborn," said Noah Oppenheim, executive director of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations. "He's the ideal spokesman for his field to educate Congress about how science informs fisheries management. Anyone who questions Ray's professional or scientific integrity doesn't understand how science works, at best."But a study by Greenpeace last year found that Hilborn accepted more than $3.55 million from 69 commercial fishing and seafood interests to pay for his research from 2003 to 2015."It seems like he uses his genuine scientific credentials to make himself more valuable to industry as a spokesperson," said Hocevar. "On climate denial, there are a bunch of those guys. But with fisheries, Hilborn is the guy. ... He's the go-to, and there's really no one else out there like him who will come out and talk about how we don't need marine protected areas and how the real problem is underfishing, not overfishing."Greenpeace gained access to University of Washington documents that showed Hilborn's long and extensive links to fishing, seafood and other corporate groups by filing a request under the state's public records law.After Greenpeace complained that Hilborn had not properly disclosed his affiliations in all his published papers, the university investigated the issue and concluded Hilborn had not violated any of its policies.But Hocevar said the issue is still relevant."He took millions of dollars from industry. ... And studies have shown that where you get your funding from does create bias in terms of findings," Hocevar said.Hilborn dismissed the criticism from Greenpeace."You know, they're hopeless fundamentally," he said. "They're basically a money-raising organization, and they have to scare people to raise money. They're not interested in science at all. ... Greenpeace has sort of put its cards on the table that fishing is a big deal, and they're not going to raise money if people don't believe that fishing is a threat."Schedule: The hearing is Tuesday, Oct. 24, at 2:30 p.m. in 253 Russell.Witnesses: Karl Haflinger, founder and president, Sea State Inc.; Ray Hilborn, professor, University of Washington School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences; Michael Jones, professor, Michigan State University Quantitative Fisheries Center; and Larry McKinney, director, Texas A&M University Harte Research Institute for Gulf of Mexico Studies.
Originally published: E&E Daily
Coastal Researchers, Fishermen Worried About More Frequent Low Oxygen Zones
Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary research team members, Kathy Hough and LTJG Alisha Friel, recover sensors deployed seasonally off the coast of Washington from the research vessel Tatoosh in July 2017. — S. Maenner / NOAA
Scientists in Oregon and Washington are noticing a disruptive ocean phenomenon is becoming more frequent and extreme. It involves a suffocating ribbon of low oxygen seawater over our continental shelf.The technical term is hypoxia, sometimes called "dead zones," It's an unwelcome variation on normal upwelling of cold, nutrient rich water from the deep ocean. When the dissolved oxygen drops too low, it drives away fish and can suffocate bottom dwellers such as crabs and sea worms who can't scurry away fast enough.It seemed to marine ecologist Francis Chan like this is happening most every summer lately. So the Oregon State University researcher looked back as far as coastal oxygen readings go—to about 1950—to see if it's always been this way."The ocean starting in 2000 really looked different from the ocean we had between the 1950s and 1990s,” Chan said.Chan said climate change could affect oxygen levels via disrupted circulation and ocean warming. A September storm flushed away this year's low oxygen zone by churning Northwest coastal waters. But Chan described the severity of the low oxygen readings recorded this summer as among the worst ever observed locally."It's very much a patchy ribbon," he said from his post in Newport, Oregon. Marine surveys and fixed instruments recorded notably low oxygen values from south of Yachats up past Newport.Ten oceanographic moorings deployed by the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary also found very low (hypoxic) oxygen values between Cape Elizabeth and Cape Flattery, Washington, this summer."This is not a happy year for organisms out on the coast," said Jenny Waddell, the marine sanctuary's research coordinator.Waddell added that at least one sensor dipped into anoxic conditions, "where there's literally no oxygen.""We had indications of a relatively persistent hypoxia event along the Quinault Reservation coastline," wrote marine scientist Joe Schumacker of the Quinault Department of Fisheries in an email Friday. "Dead fish and shellfish at various locations and times beginning near the end of July and extending through most of August."More frequent and severe near-shore hypoxia concerns fishermen and crabbers. Commercial harvesters face reduced catches and economic losses when crabs suffocate and fish and prawns flee the oxygen-starved waters.One of the tip-offs to OSU researchers of the onset of low oxygen conditions this summer was when Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife biologists monitoring crab populations noticed crabs dying from lack of oxygen in a research trap. Other observers noted crabs leaving the ocean to seek more oxygenated waters in coastal estuaries and bays.Earlier this year, researchers and fishery advocates found a receptive ear at the Oregon Legislature when they presented their concerns about silent changes in the ocean. Legislators approved the creation of a new council to be co-chaired by the state Fish and Wildlife director and an OSU leader.The council is tasked with recommending and coordinating a long-term strategy to address hypoxia as well as ocean acidification.
Originally published: http://nwnewsnetwork.org/
California NGO Drops Out of Stakeholder Process, Sues State Over Whale Entanglements in Crab Fishery
— Posted with permission of SEAFOODNEWS.COM. Please do not republish without their permission. —
Copyright © 2017 Seafoodnews.com
SEAFOODNEWS.COM [Seafood News] by Susan Chambers - October 4, 2017
The Center for Biological Diversity has targeted the California Dungeness crab fishery by suing the California Department of Fish and Wildlife Tuesday.The Center claims California crab fishery is causing the illegal "take" of whales and sea turtles.Each entanglement of a humpback whale, blue whale or leatherback sea turtle violates the federal Endangered Species Act, the Center said in a press release, and the department is liable for causing these unlawful entanglements because it authorizes and manages operation of the fishery.California Dungeness Crab fishermen were outraged at the lawsuit. They said the Center should instead continue to be part of the multi-stakeholder process that is working on solutions to whale entanglements.In a statement, the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Organizations said "California crab fishermen and women take the health of the ocean incredibly seriously. Without a healthy ocean we simply cannot fish. This is why we do everything we can to avoid whales when we fish, and fishermen have risked life and limb to help whales escape in some of the rare instances in which they do become entangled.""This is also why commercial crab fishermen and women are already working hard together with an organized varsity team of state and federal scientists, environmental groups, and the professional marine mammal rescuers themselves to develop and implement best practices for our fishery. Our voluntary efforts are already working: entanglements are down 81% in 2017 and we are incredibly proud of this progress."
"The Center for Biological Diversity's lawsuit is disappointing because it seems designed to divide rather than unite the very groups who are already committed and working hard to finding proactive solutions. This litigation may also end up diverting limited state resources away from developing practical solutions, safety and environmental enforcement at sea, and the sustainable management of our fisheries."
The Center says the lawsuit seeks common-sense reforms to the fishery such as restricting the amount of gear in whale hotspots like Monterey Bay and reducing the amount of rope running through the water.However, the lawsuit itself says the Center requests the court order the department to apply for an incidental take permit from the National Marine Fisheries Service -- a process that may or may not consider the efforts so far by the state and industry to decrease whale entanglements.“These tragic entanglements are happening in record-breaking numbers," attorney Kristine Mondsell said in the press release. "That’s why we’ve had to sue to force California officials to finally take their responsibilities seriously.” Yet CBD has not acknowleged that entanglements are down 81% in 2017.The leading effort in California is the Dungeness Crab Fishing Gear Working Group, comprising fishermen, state and federal agency representatives and conservation groups. The Center for Biological Diversity also was a member for awhile until it disagreed with other participants and dropped out. Other groups such as The Nature Conservancy and Oceana continue to work with the state and industry on methods to decrease entanglements."This news should not deter the Working Group from continuing to move forward in your collective efforts," CDFW Marine Region Manager Craig Shuman said in an email to the group's participants and other state officials Tuesday. "We are encouraged by the Working Group’s progress to develop a Risk Assessment and Mitigation Program (RAMP) and the steps that are being taken to test and evaluate the RAMP during the 2017-18 pilot."Fishermen are testing two electronic tools during the upcoming 2017-18 season, including eCatch, a phone/tablet-based application developed by The Nature Conservancy that logs fishing activity and GPS coordinates; and a solar logger device that passively collects fishing activity data. The industry and state also have updated a guide of best practices with methods designed to decrease whale entanglements; moved forward with a program to recover derelict gear; and participating in studies and training to minimize interactions.The Center's complaint relies on information to show that whale entanglements have increased in recent years. However, the Center does not point out that some whale populations have been increasing in recent years as well. Nor does it take into account changes in the crab fishery or gear distribution due to seasonal issues such as domoic acid. It also doesn't identify how fishermen have been instrumental in helping disentangle whales, such as the one off of Crescent City, Calif., earlier this year.
Subscribe to SeafoodNews.com
What scientists are learning about the impact of an acidifying ocean
The effects of ocean acidification on marine life have only become widely recognized in the past decade. Now researchers are rapidly expanding the scope of investigations into what falling pH means for ocean ecosystems.The ocean is becoming increasingly acidic as climate change accelerates and scientists are ramping up investigations into the impact on marine life and ecosystems. In just a few years, the young field of ocean acidification research has expanded rapidly – progressing from short-term experiments on single species to complex, long-term studies that encompass interactions across interdependent species.“Like any discipline, it takes it time to mature, and now we’re seeing that maturing process,” said Shallin Busch, who studies ocean acidification at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Northwest Fisheries Science Center in Seattle.As the ocean absorbs carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels, the pH of seawater falls. The resulting increase in acidity hinders the ability of coral, crabs, oysters, clams and other marine animals to form shells and skeletons made of calcium carbonate. While the greenhouse gas effect from pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere has been known for decades, it wasn’t until the mid-2000s that the impacts of ocean acidification became widely recognized. In fact, there is no mention of acidification in the first three reports from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, issued in 1990, 1995 and 2001. Ocean acidification did receive a brief mention in the 2007 report summarizing the then-current state of climate science, and finally was discussed at length in the latest edition released in 2014.But about halfway through that brief dozen years of acidification research, a shift started taking place.“The early studies were just a first step and often quite simple,” said Busch of ocean acidification research. “But you can’t jump into the deep end before you learn how to swim.”That started to change about five or six years ago, according to Philip Munday, who researches acidification effects on coral reefs at Australia’s James Cook University. “The first studies were often single species tested against ocean acidification conditions, often quite extreme conditions over short periods of time,” he said. “Now people are working on co-occurring stresses in longer-term experiments.”That includes studying how acidification could change how organisms across a community or ecosystem interact – in other words, how the impacts on one species affect those it eats, competes with or that eat it. It also means looking at how impacts could change over time, due to species migrating or adapting, either in the short term or across a number of generations and how such effects may vary within the same species or even with the same population.Nine examples of this new generation of acidification research are included in the latest issue of the journal Biology Letters. One study, for example, found that the ability to adapt to pH changes differed in members of the same species of sea urchins based on location. Another discovered that a predatory cone snail was more active in waters with elevated carbon dioxide levels but was less successful at capturing prey, reducing predation on a conch species. Another highlights that an individual organism’s sex can affect its response to acidification.Munday, who edited the series of papers, said one of the major takeaways is that researchers are increasingly studying the potential for species to adapt to ocean acidification and finding those adaptations can be quite complex.He pointed to a study on oysters. Previous work had shown that oysters whose parents were exposed to acidification conditions do better in those conditions than those whose parents weren’t. But in a new study, researchers found that when they exposed the offspring to additional stressors – such as hotter water temperatures and higher salinity – those adaptive advantages decreased.All the studies call for including often-overlooked factors such as sex, location or changes in predation rate in future studies. Otherwise, researchers warn, impacts will be increasingly difficult to predict as the ocean continues to acidify.“It’s far too early to make any sort of generalities,” Munday said.The latest paper from NOAA’s Busch also cautions against generalities. By building a database of species in Puget Sound and their sensitivity to changes in dissolved calcium carbonate, she found that summarizing species’ sensitivity by class or order rather than the specific family can result in overestimating their sensitivity.She compared it to similarities between people in the same immediate family versus people who are distant cousins. “There would be a lot more variation among those people because they’re not super closely related,” she said. “But when people started summarizing data really early in the field, there wasn’t much data to pull from. So it was done at a class level.“Now that we have many more studies and information to pull from, how we draw summaries of species response should be nuanced,” she added.Acidification research is likely to get only more nuanced in the years ahead. From the broad initial projections of average, ocean-wide surface acidity, for instance, researchers have started to pinpoint local pH projections, local impacts and local adaptations.
“We know the ocean is changing in a number of ways,” said Busch. “So just studying one of those factors without looking at the other changes in what’s going on in the ocean is not going to yield useful results.”
Matthew O. Berger, NewsDeeply, 2 October 2017. Article.
Originally published: https://news-oceanacidification-icc.org/