Well, I don't know if I agree with everything floating around or not, either pro or con concerning "fish farms", we have our own and don't seem to have the problems I see in BC? But I do believe the Fraser Sockeye got hit with a "double whammy"!
To start with, The Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO) is a pattern of Pacific climate variability that shifts phases on at least inter-decadal time scale, usually about 20 to 30 years. The PDO is detected as warm or cool surface waters in the Pacific Ocean, north of 20° N. During a "warm", or "positive", phase, the west Pacific becomes cool and part of the eastern ocean warms; during a "cool" or "negative" phase, the opposite pattern occurs. Younger fish head south into the Gulf of Alaska, while maturing fish stay north of 50 degrees north latitude.
NOAA has studied the oceans for several years now. The ocean's food chain is based on "Plankton", which has declined the last couple of years.
"The ocean's food chain is based upon the growth of billions upon billions of microscopic plants. New satellite data show that ocean warming is reducing these plants ---- thus imperiling ocean fisheries and marine life, according to an article in the Nov. 7 issue of the scientific journal Nature. "We show on a global scale that the growth of these plants, called phytoplankton, is strongly tied to changes in the warming of the ocean," said David Siegel, co-author and professor of marine science in the Department of Geography at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Siegel is also director of the Institute for Computational Earth System Science (ICESS)."
"Phytoplankton grow faster in a cool ocean and slower in a warm one," said Siegel. "The scary part is that the oceans are warming now ---- probably caused by our emissions of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide."
"These microscopic plants are predicted to grow even slower in the warmer oceans of the future. This in turn will reduce the food available to fish and other organisms, including marine birds and mammals, which are supported by the ocean's food chain. Phytoplankton are responsible for about the same amount of photosynthesis each year as all the plants on land combined."
"This study shows that as the climate warms, phytoplankton growth rates go down and along with them the amount of carbon dioxide these ocean plants consume. That allows carbon dioxide to accumulate more rapidly in the atmosphere, which would produce more warming."
"The findings are from a NASA-funded analysis of data from the Sea-viewing Wide Field-of-view Sensor (SeaWiFS) instrument on the OrbView-2 spacecraft, launched in 1997. The uninterrupted nine-year record shows in great detail the ups and downs of marine biological activity or productivity from month to month and year to year. Captured at the start of this data record was a major, rapid rebound in ocean biological activity after a major El Niño event. El Niño and La Niña are major warming or cooling events, respectively, that occur approximately every three to seven years in the eastern Pacific Ocean and are known to change weather patterns around the world."
Scientists made their discovery by comparing the SeaWiFS record of the rise and fall of global ocean plant life to different measures of recent global climate change. The climate records included several factors that directly affect ocean conditions, such as changes in sea surface temperature and surface winds. The results support computer model predictions of what could happen to the world's oceans as the result of prolonged future climate warming.
"When we compared changes in phytoplankton activity with simultaneous changes in climate conditions, the agreement between the two records was simply astonishing," Behrenfeld said.
Ocean plant growth increased from 1997 to 1999 as the climate cooled during one of the strongest El Niño to La Niña transitions on record. Since 1999, the climate has been in a period of warming that has seen the health of ocean plants diminish.
The new study also explains why a change in climate produces this effect on ocean plant life. When the climate warms, the temperature of the upper ocean also increases, making it "lighter" than the denser cold water beneath it. This results in a layering or "stratification" of ocean waters that creates an effective barrier between the surface layer and the nutrients below, cutting off phytoplankton's food supply. The scientists confirmed this effect by comparing records of ocean surface water density with the SeaWiFS biological data.""
I originally believed with Sockeye's main diet, being plankton, this was probably the main cause of the Fraser Sockeye Collapse. Very well could have been... They just starved to death?
When I first wrote this reply I stated, "The "Fish Farm" sea lice, does have some validity? There was a study published in 2006 indicating smolt mortality rate ranged between 5 and 95 percent depending on the time of migration – due to sea lice from fish farms? So, depending on the period of the actual use of the "SLICE" treatment and when the Sockeye migrated, that very well could be and probably is part of it also? The Fraser Sockeye indeed migrate close to shore and swim right past those pens. "
Well, I believe there just might be than "some validity", but a LOT!
I was just viewing "Fraser Sockeye Lice Infection: Response by Marine Harvest", which by the way is just a remake of the same thing published about a year ago?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k56NuDs7 ... re=related I found it kind of interesting, but it left me with more questions than answers concerning their "Managing for Sea Lice" and Marine Harvest Canada's sea life management program"
1. The inspection of 60 farmed salmon over 30 days?
2. Since 2004 have been posting monitored sea lice data?
3. If required a treatment (SLICE, I assume?)may be added?
4. Treatments are rare and occur over a 2 year cycle. This is HUGH, was there a treatment in 2007?
5. All inspected during
this period were well below the threshold?
So, off to the website, I go to find my answers and this is where I got a little surprised! Yep, found the government mandated inspection, monitoring, and documentation requirements. Now the film shows a time frame between January 2008 and June 2008? Nothing addressing the 2007 outgoing migration of the Fraser Sockeye could be found anywhere. So still on my quest, I opened almost all the data pages. The oldest data found was one page dated in 2006. (There could be more as I did not open all the data pages!), but most were showing data started in 2008 or 2009. What happened to the older data of 2004 as claimed in their film?
Here is "The Double Whammy" This strictly my belief, as I cannot find any documentation or answers?
I am of the opinion SLICE was not used "as needed" to control sea lice during the Sockeye outgoing migration. Had it been I do not believe there would have been the collapse to such an extent? And, to the ones that have requested my opinion! I am changing my tune to, "I believe", due to the lack of SLICE and the Sockeye being highly infected with sea lice was the main contributing factor… Now add to that the with Sockeye's main diet, being plankton, Very well could have been... the remainder, just starved to death?If this is true, If I were Canadian I certainly would be asking to see the records for 2007 and when and where SLICE was used. In fact, I would be writing letters, demanding that information?
