by simon
Why are the oceans important? The importance of wildlife.

The importance of the oceans, their wildlife and ecosystems

The land and oceans are part of one system: Earth. So when we ask, why are the oceans important? We’re asking about our own future. Life began in the ocean billions of years before the first plants or animals colonised land. Oceans regulate the state of our atmosphere because they are 99 per cent of the volume of living space for animals and wildlife is the mechanism that drives stability.

Climate change has always been the symptom of biodiversity loss … that’s to say, the breakdown of the complex connectivity between lifeforms that allows Earth to flex in response to changing conditions. Ocean wildlife has, for the large part, acted as a buffer against the most catastrophic effects and since about fifty million years ago, has kept our climate quite stable.

Industrial fishing only happened recently in our planet’s history and this reduction in the abundance of wildlife represents our greatest challenge for survival.

Below you will find a range of articles designed to inspire an understanding of the magnitude of animal impact on our oceans.

What’s more important, the ocean or the land?

The importance we bestow on the land is anthropocentric because we live there. It’s naturally important to us that we protect it. Nonetheless, if life in the ocean dies, we suffer irreversible changes to land-based ecosystems and climate.

In this article, we take a look at many of the ways that land and oceans are linked together.

The answer to the question, ‘why are the oceans important’, is that we live on the land but the oceans regulate Earth’s temperature. The oceans are equally vital to the land we live on.

Latest posts about why the oceans are important

Brown Boobies feeding on Flying Fish. Drawing, Simon Mustoe

Animals don’t compete with humans and successful animals don’t compete with each other. Competition theory may be one of ecology’s failures. It’s not that it’s incorrect. It describes one mechanism but alone, this has little to do with how ecosystems work overall. In a functioning world, populations have to avoid competition at all costs. It’s literally the opposite of what most people think. The idea that animals are in competition with us for food, is in our imagination. As long as we treat our relationship with wildlife as a competition, we have little chance of rebuilding the natural world we need to survive.

The predator prey paradox

Any animal that lives in a foraging zone risks being eaten by a predator. That’s obvious enough. But it is wrong to assume that this leads to the depletion of prey.

The ultimate winner of a competition will be the one that kills another but in an ecosystem, just as many predators die of starvation as live through eating. If they didn’t, their populations would keep expanding forever. Every prey animal is a predator in its own right, hence predators and prey populations fluctuate together. If predators don’t eat, the prey disappear and visa versa. Unless the system is in balance, it cannot be sustained.

Predprey-graph.png
Canadian Lynx and Snowshoe Hare populations over 90 years, from MacLulich, (1937) [1] showing how predator and prey populations follow the same pattern.

When framed this way, it isn’t so much a paradox as a misinterpretation. It’s important though, because when we think we’re competing with animals, it makes us want to kill them. That’s not in our interest.

Science keeps misleading us into thinking humans and animals compete

A colleague sent me a paper just published in Nature under the title ‘Direct evidence of a prey depletion “halo” surrounding a pelagic predator colony’ [2]. The study looks at the relationship between colonial seabirds and flying fish around Ascension Island.

Animals don't compete with humans, it's in our imagination
Flying fish are filter-feeders that prey on plankton in sea water. Brown Boobies prey on the fish from above. The flying fish numbers are depleted by the birds, that specifically breed during periods when the fish are particularly abundant. The birds transfer, amplify and concentrate nutrients that increase the fish biomass around the island. The system’s ‘biodiversity’ is the sum of all these parts. When we introduce fisheries, we have to be careful not to manufacture competition because this upsets the balance and collapses the system that provides out food. Conservation of seabirds is actually necessary for food security.

The paper says that ‘food limitation … naturally limits many predator populations’ but that is only a half truth.

The scientists maintain this limits seabird abundance and they could be threatened by over fishing. The latter idea is correct. However, by implying simple predator-prey relationships, it perpetuates the myth that we can survive in competition with seabirds.

At best, it is misleading and will create conflict between conservationists and fishers. At worst, it can be used by fisheries to support proposals to ‘manage’ wildlife. In other words, to kill seabirds and marine mammals that might be depleting stock. We cannot manage wildlife, it manages us.

It is wrong and counter-effective to even imply this. As I’ve written previously, by ignoring the fundamental role of animals in the integrity of our own economies, we undermine conservation and mislead our food industries into thinking they are better able to manage wildlife than to live with it.

  • Why are Long-tailed Ducks important?

    Why are Long-tailed Ducks important?

    Whenever I see a wildlife spectacle, I’m always asking myself this question … or I often get asked the same: what is this animal doing here? This isn’t the hardest…

If humans compete with animals, we threaten our own survival

Competition is unhealthy and reduces the chance of surviving. Sustainable ecosystems reach peak performance only when the majority of animals avoid competition. The total sum of these systems is what creates human food security and stable climate. Otherwise, all the resources become too thinly spread and chaotic.

If you’re already familiar with this blog, you’ll know this comes back to how wildlife transfers, amplifies and concentrates nutrients. I have written about how Dugongs strip seagrass away but it bounces back bigger than ever. Remove the Dugongs and the seagrass becomes unhealthy. Insects deplete tomatoes but that makes the fruits more nutrient-rich. The same goes for grassland plains, grazed by herds of Wildebeest in Africa and oceanic islands, replete with their seabirds.

And besides, it makes no sense any other way. Predators have to be integral to ecosystem function, or else how do you explain why they existed before us? Take a step back. Consider an island with abundant seabirds. Imagine what it used to be like. In the past seabirds were MORE abundant …back when there were MORE fish … before we started industrial fishing … and before we started killing MORE seabirds.

Somewhere along the line, someone has to ask … ‘hang on though, doesn’t this mean natural prey depletion is a good thing?’ And they’d be right.

An urgent change of perspective is needed

A successful species does what’s needed to condition, enrich and sustain the environment it lives in. Future fisheries and indeed, our survival, depend on letting go of the misconception that we compete with nature. Animals don’t compete with humans. This is a self-centred philosophy we have manufactured for our short-term convenience. We have to realise that this is undermining the ecosystems that deliver food to our plates.

The international decade for biodiversity began last month and as yet, I’m not seeing clear signs that the role of wildlife in ecosystem stability is being properly understood. This latest paper in nature is another example.

All conservationists have a duty of care to themselves, the planet and humanity, to make sure we tell the right story: the story that animals are essential for a habitable Earth. This is the only thing that will make a difference and convince people to stop killing animals. And only that will ensure we have a future.

  1. MacLulich D A (1937) Fluctuations in the Number of the Varying Hare (Lepus americanus) (Univ. of Toronto Press, Toronto)
  2. Sam B. Weber, Andrew J. Richardson, Judith Brown, Mark Bolton, Bethany L. Clark, Brendan J. Godley, Eliza Leat, Steffen Oppel, Laura Shearer, Karline E. R. Soetaert, Nicola Weber, Annette C. Broderick. Direct evidence of a prey depletion “halo” surrounding a pelagic predator colony. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Jul 2021, 118 (28) e2101325118; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2101325118
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestLinkedinRedditWhatsappEmail

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Accept Read More