Whale sharks are massive energy-crunching behemoths that, ironically, spend their lives in the most nutrient-poor oceans. Why? Here’s the first paradox of ecology that stumps most people. The richest, most diverse and abundant 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 have very little surplus energy. For instance, warm tropical Pacific water enters the coral triangle of eastern Indonesia long after it’s been stripped bare of nutrientsEnergy and nutrients are the same thing. Plants capture energy from the Sun and store it in chemicals, via the process of photosynthesis. The excess greenery and waste that plants create, contain chemicals that animals can eat, in order to build their own bodies and reproduce. When a chemical is used this way, we call it a nutrient. As we More. Yet this region has always been an incubator for global ocean biodiversity. It also has a greater density and diversity of ocean wildlife than anywhere else on Earth – including whale sharks. To answer the question: ‘How do we know whale sharks are important?’ we have to look differently at their world, including how it connects to ours.
Whale sharks are remarkably stealthy quiet achievers
A marine mammal biologist friend once said they were unimpressed by whale sharks. Someone else remarked about how few facts about them are exciting – apart from their size. It’s true. We know almost nothing about whale sharks. I doubt, to be honest, that we’ll discover anything extraordinary enough to compete on National Geographic’s Shark Week.
But I think this in itself makes them remarkable. Whale sharks are slow-moving filter-feeders that don’t appear to forage in the highest food gradients like blue whales. They have a thick blubber layer and a very slow disposition, perfectly suited to living on the margins of what we consider 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 hotspots. This often means the very deep sea.
The sharks’ spotted patterns take on a different meaning at night. They blend in perfectly under faint bioluminescence and aren’t camouflaged to avoid predators. These stealthy behemoths quietly creep up on and among their prey. They make themselves part of the planktonA soup of micro-organisms. Usually refers to all the zooplankton and algae in the ocean but can also be used to describe tiny insects in the atmosphere (see aerial plankton). More and spend their lives vacuuming it up in vast quantities.
There might be 200,000 of them left in the world but we have no precise idea how many there used to be. They are the consummate example of animal impactWhat is Animal Impact? Without wildlife, Earth would not be habitable for humans, because it's animals that stabilise ecosystems. It’s a fundamental law of nature that animals (and humans) exist because we are the most likely lifeforms to minimise environmental chaos. Animal impact, therefore, is a measure of how much all wildlife is collectively responsible for creating a habitable Earth. The More. They nonchalantly go about their role in nature and deny us more than a glimpse into their enormous significance.
Why whale sharks matter to us
Proof of why whale sharks matter is a panacea
The problem as I explain here is that human-animal-ecosystem connections are almost impossible to prove. Why? Well, it’s for similar reasons that nutrientA substance that contains the raw materials for life. At a chemical level, these are contained inside compounds that are absorbed into the body and essential energy-containing molecules are extracted, so that energy can be transformed into other chemical processes that use the energy for living. More poor areas support abundant wildlife.
A wild, stable and steady-state ecosystem functions quite normally and is ‘data poor’ in respect to anything we can reliably measure. All of the ‘surplus’ information is used up … hidden from view. This also goes for animals like whales sharks, that act stealthily and unpretentiously.
Plus, we’ve degraded most ecosystems, so at best scientist have little reliable evidence of ‘working systems’ to measure any more.
That’s what’s so important about relatively pristine areas like eastern Indonesia. The truth here can stare us in the face, if we know how to look. Then again, it would take hundreds of years to prove how relationships exist between people and whale sharks. Ironically, it is often only after damage is done to our wildlife that matters start to become apparent and are boldly considered by scientists. Before then, we don’t even ask the question. Even if we did, we can’t prove the importance. This is paradox number two.
Modern science is not the best or only tool we have to use. The glacially-slow actions of whale sharks belies a greater truth that’s revealed through natural philosophyNatural philosophy concerns itself with the question of 'why' things work [1]. Natural science tries to work out 'how' [1]. Understanding the difference is fundamental to conservation but is largely missing . Natural philosophy has more in kin with ecological wisdom, such as the beliefs, cultures and traditions of first nations peoples all over the world. It embraces an understanding More. That their animal-led systems are robust and play an enormously powerful role in the evolution of our own survival and the regulation of planet Earth’s life support.
Whale sharks build ecosystems for us and them
The consequence of loss of whale sharks will be severe because it threatens food security and climate for billions of people. But for reasons explained above, primary research, albeit important and directed at saving wildlife, ends up clutching at straws. We’re simply not asking the right question, or framing the science in a way that really matters.
For instance, one of the more important findings from satellite tracking is that tags often ‘switch off’ in high-density shipping channels. Researchers suspect, quite logically, that whale sharks are being struck and killed by ships.
A visualisation of shipping routes showing the relative abundance of shipping through Eastern Indonesia and East Timor. Adapted from https://www.marinetraffic.com/. Whale Shark satellite tracking (from Conservation International) for the northwest monsoon period is overlaid, showing overlap between shipping and whale sharks in a deep water channel in the Timor Sea.
What of that finding though? What difference will knowing that make to our decisions about what to do? How can we change the hearts and minds of governments to move the shipping channels or slow down ships?
Until losing whale sharks is recognised as an existential loss to human life, there will be no chance of changing our own behaviour.
This is not an anthropogenic argument
Humans aren’t separate from animals. As I explain in my book Wildlife in the Balance we are part-and-parcel ecosystems, alongside wildlife. We share the same origins and fate as whale sharks.
This has nothing to do with ‘anthropogenic’ (human-led) reasoning. When we argue that animals provide us with ‘ecosystem services’ we aren’t devaluing their intrinsic importance at all. Well, not unless we regard ourselves as superior and separate to wildlife and nature.
The fact is, that anything we do to kill whale sharks is bad for humanity. So, the reverse stands, that whatever we do to protect them is good for us too.
In a balanced system, humans and whale sharks exist together. The only window we really have into this relationship is through ancient customs. To experience their relationship with the local people is to know why whale sharks matter.
The Sama-Bajau
The predominant cultural group of eastern Indonesia are the Sama-Bajau who have plied their trade fishing here for 12,000 – 15,000 years. To hunt whale sharks is forbidden. They are are sacred animals, and protect fishers from harm. The same applies to whales and dolphins too. Hence, there are very few indigenous villages in the whole region that traditionally hunt any such animals.
Modern threats to whale sharks don’t come from traditional practice. But these fishers are among the poorest people on Earth, which makes their traditions vulnerable to outside influence. Such ‘westernisation’ leads to reduced connection to sea-country, resulting in an abandonment of customary law.
When combined with illegal poaching, ship-strike, ghost nets and commercial fishery bycatch, it becomes a problem for everyone. Not least, the very people who depend on the sea for their livelihood and have been custodians for whale shark protection for thousands of years.
On the other hand, the voluntary feeding of whale sharks around ‘bagans’ (traditional bait-fish fishing vessels) is a relatively new activity. For the fishers it simply makes sense. By looking after the whale sharks, the sea will continue giving them fish to eat. I suspect most westerners question whether it’s ‘ethical’ to feed the sharks without any consideration of the eternal relationship Sama-Bajau have with them.
How do the Sama-Bajau know whale sharks matter?
Any long-held belief that any animal is important, stems from knowing that the survival of such species is necessary for the survival of people as well. These customs can only survive if they are compatible with ecosystem stability. Which means, in that sense, both people and whale sharks are one and the same – we are both animals.
The average human generation is 27 years, which has given the Sama-Bajau over 500 generations to learn how to survive in eastern Indonesia. But long before that, their ancestors would have already been practiced in sustainable fishing. Whale sharks, meanwhile, have been around for 245 million years, Hominids for 2 million years. Where evolution is concerned, there is no effective starting point to this connection.
It’s not that the Sama-Bajau researched (or learnt) how whale sharks mattered. They just knew why – that is natural philosophy. These traditions evolved as a way for patterns of human endeavour to exist longest. Humans became among the likeliest to survive because of an intrinsic respect for nature. Today, the challenge we face, is to ‘learn’ this because we know why it’s needed, without needing to prove how it works.
The Sama-Bajau were connected to the sea in a most powerful way. To threaten whale sharks was to threaten their own survival.
My next article on whale sharks will look at the behaviour of whale sharks in Saleh Bay and how that gives us a glimpse into their animal impact.
