Designing High Seas Marine Protected Areas to Conserve Blue Carbon Ecosystems is a great overall report but puts itself in jeopardy by omitting wildlife and biodiversityWhat is the definition of biodiversity? When we ask, what is the definition of biodiversity? It depends on what we want to do with it. The term is widely and commonly misused, leading to significant misinterpretation of the importance of how animals function on Earth and why they matter a great deal, to human survival. Here I will try to More from the climate considerations.
I feel this is the danger of reports written by people who don’t understand systems ecology.
Take this statement:
Scientific understanding of the ocean is most advanced for near-shore and coastal locations. The high seas are, however, gaining recognition as “one of the planet’s largest reservoirs of biodiversity [1] that serve as habitat for whales, sharks, sea turtles and a wide variety of commercially harvested fish species and feature a number of rare and important biological hotspots. Healthy populations of teleost (ray-finned) fish and cetaceans (whales, dolphins and porpoises) have both been identified as potentially significant for their blue carbon contributions [2]. While each ecosystem and its marine living resources are worthy of study from a climate-informed perspective, four living marine resource groupings are particularly important — and, arguably, often overlooked — in this regard: diatoms, ocean calcifers, krill and Sargassum macro-algae. [3]
Three main problem areas are highlighted, above:
- Throughout the report, “biodiversity” is confused with species richnessThe number of species within a given area. Note, this is often confused with biodiversity but is very different. Species richness is not equal in all areas. Desert species richness is lower but the scale and intensity of species function can still be significant as biodiversity is not about number of species, it's about ecosystem processes. More. It references a report by Pew who also make this mistake. There is no relationship between species richness and climate.
- Far from being “potentially significant”, marine vertebrates are in fact the only mechanism for stabilising carbon cycles (this is the “biodiversity” the author should be talking about, above). The authors are wrong in stating that marine algae is “particularly” important.
- Sargassum (a floating marine algae) is important, sure. But sargassum is having unprecedented impacts on areas of the Atlantic, for example, killing entire ecosystemsHow ecosystems function An ecosystem is a community of lifeforms that interact in such an optimal way that how ecosystems function best, is when all components (including humans and other animals) can persist and live alongside each other for the longest time possible. Ecosystems are fuelled by the energy created by plants (primary producers) that convert the Sun's heat energy More. Marine algae is a threat without animals.
These might seem trivial matters but the work can now be challenged by any politician. Sargassum has increased substantially in the last 10 years, in some areas starving the ocean of oxygen, killing animal life and rotting away on beaches, destroying tourism.
A politician would simply say, okay then, nature is adjusting. We’re all going to be okay … and the whole premise of this important work is lost immediately.
The truth is, sargassum is essential but without animals, there is too much free surplus energyThe energy of a system that is emitted as waste and is not part of ecosystem processes. There is always some free surplus energy as this creates the basis for evolution where new species exploit gaps in the ecosystem where free energy becomes available. Surplus energy can occur as a result of disruption or disturbance. When free surplus energy reaches More in the system. Losing sargassum is just as bad as having too much. As usual, it’s not about having too much or too little, it’s about ecosystem stabilisation and that can’t happen without animals.
By not understanding biodiversity and omitting animals and an understanding of complex systems ecology, authors risk shooting themselves in the foot.
