Why are sharks important? Is a question I put to the head of global conservationWhy is animal conservation important? Animal conservation is important, because animals are the only mechanism to create biodiversity, which is the mechanism that creates a habitable planet for humans. Without animals, the energy from today’s plants (algae, trees, flowers etc) will eventually reach the atmosphere and ocean, much of it as carbon. The quantity of this plant-based waste is so More organisation a few years ago. They could not point to any scientific study that would show this. It forced me to write this paragraph in my book, Wildlife in the Balance:
‘Beth Fulton of Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation said that ‘sharks are the glue that holds marine 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 together’. That without sharks, the house of cards falls down. There is little to no direct observation of this happening at sea, as the process is complex and there are few intact shark populations left for us to study: oceanic white-tipped sharks once abundant in the Indian Ocean are almost gone. But mathematically, it is implausible to think that oceans can function(Of an ecosystem). A subset of ecosystem processes and structures, where the ecosystem does something that provides an ecosystem service of value to people. More without animals in the right proportions, and sharks hold a special significance.’ – quote from Wildlife in the Balance
Since then, a lot has changed.
Just this week, Natalie Kyriacou shared a post on LinkedIn referring to a paper showing us that sharks are essential to ecosystem functioning. She adds that:
In places where tiger sharks have declined and turtle populations have expanded, seagrasses are being overgrazed. In Bermuda, for example, the exploding turtle population has led to an almost total collapse of seagrasses.
How to survive the next 100 years
I’m currently working on a second book that looks at the belief systems we need to embrace nature-based recovery of the world’s ecosystems. Among these, is the fact that most ‘discoveries’ made by scientists aren’t that novel. That we’ve known these things for a long time. It doesn’t mean such work is irrelevant but we can’t use that as an excuse to delay taking action.
However, that research also can’t be used to further control nature. We are intent on investing in killing animals on a large scale to try to address imbalance. However, in most cases, this imbalance is caused by something missing from the ecosystem. By removing more from it we further erode the balance.
Here is a peak at a paragraph from my current draft:
‘… if we fence off an area of seagrass and remove turtles for a couple of years, we wouldn’t be surprised to find an increase in seagrass. Hey presto! We have solved our seagrass decline problem. Cull sea turtles and then we can look forward to more carbon capture, more fish and a brighter future for all humanity. Except we know that’s nonsense.’ – quote from draft of How to Survive the Next 100 Years: Lessons from Nature (in prep.)
We wouldn’t think about culling turtles in the absence of Tiger Sharks, yet we cull almost all ‘lesser’ animals for the same reasons. We need to rethink our approach to ecosystem management and make it about changing our behaviour, rather than always imposing our will onto other creatures.
The science we create to prove these things raises other important questions about how we treat the world. The philosophy surrounding decisions based on this research could make all the difference for humanity’s future.
You can read more about sharks and their importance in some recent blog articles here:
