ATTACK OF THE KILLER SPONGE

It's been a while since I've introduced a crazy-sea-creature...OK, it's been a while since I posted at all, but lets get back to our watery-roots. Today, I'd like to take you down the eddy to a seafloor nightmare: Sponge Bob's evil twin (dun, dun, dun!)



Sponge Bob's Evil Twin?

 ...the Harp Sponge.

The harp sponge (Chondrocladia lyra) is a species of carnivorous deep-sea sponge. Yes, you read that right. Carniverous. Predators.

They don't eat in the typical way of sponges that sweep water into their pores and filter out microscopic bacteria and bits of organic matter for dinner. This sponge is a hunter: it traps larger marine life like copepods and other crustaceans with Velcro-like hooks.

The harp sponge was discovered by Monterey BayAquarium Research Institute off the coast of California. As you can see in this picture, it gets its name (both common, Harp Sponge, and Latin species name, lyra from it's branching arms, or vanes, with vertical limbs that look like the strings of a harp or lyre.

A deep sea Harp Sponge. Photo from MBARI

Don't let the delicate beauty of this bad-boy-Sponge-Bob fool you. Those branching limbs are covered with barbed hooks that trap their prey. Then, the sponge encapsulates them in a digestive membrane, dissolving them into a fish-smoothie that it can absorb through its pores. Yummmm.

Here's another look.

 Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the ocean...


 

TMI! TMI! Science in the Information Age

Douglas Hine wrote a great article on Aeon: What is Information? Where he talks about how we use the internet compared to the promise and potential of the internet. "The internet promised to feed our minds with knowledge. What have we learned? That our minds need more than that."

I found that clarifier misleading. Our minds may not need more than that, but for information to be valuable, our minds have to be able to do something with that information--put it into context, understand it, synthesize that into other knowledge we have and see how it relates. Hine does go on to discuss all that in the article, so read the whole thing--he makes a lot of great points that will get you thinking.

And that, my friends, is the big difference between having access to information and having knowledge.

At the CZ 99 Conference, the keynote speaker talked about how much better/easier things would be in the future for those of us working in natural resource management because of the Web, where everyone would have access to the same information. He spoke of our next big challenge being getting all the available information out to everyone by using this resource, so that better decision could be made! How exciting.

I turned to the person next to me and said something to the effect of, "That's ridiculous. Information isn't knowledge. The next big challenge is going to be differentiating valuable and correct information from garbage. Most people can't. The real challenge is going to be overcoming all the misinformation that will spread." She looked at me like I was nuts and I wondered if I was being too pessimistic.

I'm not making any claims to being prophetic here. Honestly, at the time, I hoped I was just being pessimistic. Yet, all we have to do is look to the discussion of climate science--and the fact we're having a discussion instead of doing something about it?!--to see I was on to something. Even more than I feared. Consider, more people understood and "believed" the science of climate change and global warming in the pre-internet 80s than in the 00s. It has been studied since the 1800s, with a lot of focus and progress through the 50s and 60, so scientists had a pretty good, but not great handle on it back then. They knew it would be big, if we didn't change our dependence on fossil fuels. They were confident we'd have better, cleaner technology before it became a problem. Little did they know the influence oil and gas lobbies would have on our ability to make any meaningful progress in that direction.

The information that was generated back in the 50s and 60s was analyzed and critiqued through the peer-review process, found to be robust and accurate, and then moved into the public realm through popular media--National Geographic, Scientific American, and then on into public policy discussions. By the end of the 1950s the consequences of CO₂ release were clear enough for policy makers to take note. In 1965 President Johnson told the nation "[t]his generation has altered the composition of the atmosphere on a global scale through ... a steady increase in carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels." In 1969 Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan was warning of a dangerous sea-level rise of 10 feet or more. "Goodbye New York" he said. "Goodbye Washington." (NPR, 2014.)

"...climate science and climate change are older than the atom bomb, older than the discovery of penicillin and the older than recognition of DNA. It's older than trans-Atlantic jet flights, digital computers and moon rockets. Climate science and its conclusions are now venerable, established science. To claim anything else is to rewrite history" (NPR, 2014.)

The evidence is overwhelming, the course we have to take (should have taken) is clear, but instead of moving forward, making progress, and at the rapid pace technology would allow us to, we've instead taken a step backward as a society, thanks largely to the information age being the success that it is.

"We're a nation of information illiterates."

As I, and a whole lot of people smarter than I am, saw coming fifteen years ago, our biggest challenge in managing the Earth's valuable and limited natural resources, in managing human health and well-being by ensuring the health of those resources isn't a lack of information, but a lack of knowledge. Too many people confuse information with knowledge, are happy to accept anything they find on the internet as "fact," never using any critical thinking to evaluate the legitimacy of that information, and never using any brain power to take the next step of analyzing it in the context of all other knowledge to make valid assessments about how it applies. We're a society of information-rich illiterates. (For a more in-depth look at the extent of that illiteracy, here's a great article at Open Education.)

Bloom's Taxonomy is a tool that explains how we learn and how we move from information to understanding, to real knowledge--with the ability to apply information appropriately in the correct situations to make valid decisions, then moving to fully understand the implications to other areas, not just the specific situation in which we've learned that information, and finally, the highest level of learning--being able to make valid assessments and evaluate new information and situations with that.

Bloom's Taxonomy

Our overwhelming access to unlimited, unfiltered information, and our indiscriminate use of the internet to get at it and spew it without thinking has led to us lopping off the top 5 layers of Bloom's pyramid. We've become complacent about learning--a society that thrives on information, but cares nothing about comprehending what that information means. Without that level of the pyramid, all the other layers crumble. We can't effectively apply information if we don't understand how and where it's appropriate to do so. We can't analyze bigger related concepts and link together the component parts--synthesize information--if we don't get what those building blocks of knowledge mean and how they relate to each other; we can't expand our use of these concepts and this information to other areas if we don't even understand it at it's simplest level, and without any of that, how do we ever evaluate the real significance of a problem so that we can then solve it?

"Maybe in the next incarnation of technological advancement, instead of being excited about a plethora of information, we'll focus on a plethora of learning and understanding...The Knowledge Age."

As the Information Age has played out so far, the answer to all those questions is, we don't. Is it any wonder I'm a curmudgeon?

Maybe in the next incarnation of technological advancement, instead of being excited about a plethora of information, we'll focus on a plethora of learning and understanding...The Knowledge Age. We can only hope.

RESOURCES
Krumme Family, 2012. Major Categories in the Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (Bloom, 1956). Available at: http://www.krummefamily.org/guides/bloom.html

NPR, 2014. The Forgotten History of Climate Change. Available at: http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2014/05/13/312128173/the-forgotten-history-of-climate-change-science

Open Education, 2009. In the Midst of the Information Age, Why Are We So Uninformed? Available at: http://www.openeducation.net/2009/03/15/in-the-midst-of-the-information-age-why-are-we-so-uninformed/

HARMFUL ALGAL BLOOMS AND YOU!

Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs) occur when usually harmless phytoplankton--microscopic or very small, photosynthetic marine organisms--reach high densities. Their numbers rapidly increase in a given area to the point where they go from harmless to hazardous.

The hazard they present can come from their anatomy, physiology or metabolism.

ANATOMY
Some diatoms, like those pictured below, have sharp spines that can cause fish to suffocate by getting lodged in their gills and causing acute inflammation. Some microscopic algae produce mucus, clogging gills and leading to fish's respiratory failure.

Fish with spiny diatoms in its gills.
(Image from www.bigelow.org)
 

The spiny diatom Corethron pennatum 
(image from www.phys.org)

PHYSIOLOGY AND METABOLISM
Some phytoplankton affect theorganisms that prey on them by interfering with feeding. The mucus the phytoplankton produce might make them unpalatable or indigestible. Others have such low nutritional value that the organisms that eat them actually starve to death!

Perhaps the most well-known HABs are those that produce toxic blooms. We commonly call those "red tides" although the water color isn't necessarily red, but can be yellow, green, or brown due to the sheer numbers of phytoplankton. Some of the algae that cause the color changes are capable of producing powerful toxins that are harmful or deadly to other species. The toxins may kill fish, injure marine invertebrates, and cause human illness or death from ingesting shellfish that have accumulated the toxin in their tissue. Some of the human illnesses from ingesting contaminated seafood include Amnesic Shellfish Poisoning (ASP), Diarrhetic Shellfish Poisoning (DSP), Neurotoxic Shellfish Poisoning (NSP), Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning (PSP), and Ciguaterra Fish Poisoning (CFP).

A "red tide" bloom.
          From The Baltic Sea Portal (Itameriportaali).

While phytoplankton use photosynthesis to create their food source and release oxygen into the environment, their high productivity and short lifespan means a high turnover of biomass---lots of dead microalgae. As those decompose, they quickly deplete all the oxygen in an area, resulting anoxia---low or no oxygen in the surrounding water. Their decomposition also results in the formation of toxic sulfides in the water. The lack of oxygen and production of sulfides creates a deadly scenario for most marine life that can lead to massive fish die-offs.

Fish die-off due to anoxic conditions from a HAB
(photo from G. Pitcher, via www.bigelow.org)

PREDATION
At least one species of phytoplankton, Pfiesteria piscicida, is actually a predator, killing and then feeding on fish in the waters they inhabit.

WHO CARES?

We all should. HABs affect everyone! They're a global threat to living resources, fishing, tourism, and human health because the number and intensity of these events appear to be increasing in many countries. In the last two decades, HABs are estimated to have caused as much as $1 billion in losses to coastal resources and communities (NOAA). Check HERE for more information on the socioeconomic impacts of HABs (WHOI).

Preventing and eliminating harmful algal blooms is no easy tasks. There are numerous factors that influence the formation, distribution and duration of blooms. It’s difficult to control one factor in the environment, let alone all factors for all algae in all locations. In addition, any action taken to prevent or to remove a bloom has consequences for the other organisms in the environment.

A combination of factors contribute to the development of HABs such as the presence of  nutrients, warm temperatures and lots of light. Rising ocean temperatures from climate change, increased nutrient run-off from land due to poor land-development practices and a loss of wetlands, and the break down of marine food chains due to overfishing all play roles and are all increasing, so we can most likely expect to see more and more HABs in the future. 

Researchers are constantly trying to gain a better understanding of HABs to help find ways to control their development and reduce their impacts. Early detection of their formation is critical to prevent impacts to human health by issuing fishery and beach closures in impacted areas. 

If that makes you feel helpless to do anything about HABs, you're NOT! You can help by asking state and local lawmakers to implement better land-use planning and wetland preservation to protect coastal water quality, learning the facts about climate change, and demanding good, research-based science, not hype, someone's political- or financial-gain, or fear, drive government decision-making.



FOR MORE ON HABS, CHECK OUT THESE SITES

• Bigelow Lab for Ocean Science  http://www.bigelow.org/edhab/help_hab.html
• Environmental Health, 2008. Impacts of climate variability and future climate change on harmful algal blooms and human health. http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1476-069X-7-S2-S4.pdf
• Environmental Protection Agency http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/climatehabs.pdf
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service  http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/lessons/bad_algae.html
• Texas A&M, Ocean World Online Textbook http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/oceanography-book/harmfulagalblooms.htm
• Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute https://www.whoi.edu/redtide/home

The Blobfish

Yesterday, The Ugly Animal Preservation Society voted the blob fish the ugliest animal in the world. In honor of the blobfish, I'm reposting this blog from a little over a year ago.

Today, the Smithsonian came up with a rebuttal, In Defense of the Blobfish. The article includes a picture of what the blobfish would look like if we saw it swimming, supported by the ocean's buoyancy. Be sure to take a look if you'd like to see the blobfish in its full and true glory!

From June 2012: My Tribute to the Blobfish

If you've seen "Men in Black 3" the animal in this picture should look familiar. It's a blobfish. Yes, there really is a fish that looks exactly like Jimmy Durante swimming around, or more accurately, floating around, in the ocean.

The blobfish only grows to about 12" in length. It lives 2,000-3,000 feet below the ocean surface in the waters south east of Australia. That's the same depth that fishermen have to go to catch lobster, crabs, and some of our other favorite seafood that we've fished out from shallower waters. The blobfish has no commercial value: it's inedible.

Blobby has no way to escape the fishing nets because, just like he(she?) looks, he's basically a glob of Jell-O. His body is buoyant and he floats in the water column at a depth of about 800m. He doesn't need muscles or oxygen to swim because he doesn't have to swim.

According to Dr. Callum Roberts, one of the world's most respected experts on marine conservation, the blobfish is in danger of becoming extinct because of overfishing: "The Australian and New Zealand deep trawling fishing fleets are some of the most active in the world so if you are a blobfish then it is not a good place to be."

It's sad that, to satisfy our demand for seafood, we're willing to eliminate animals that most people don't even know about. This isn't a case of "people are starving so we have to do this to feed them." These are high-end seafood products going to feed people who all ready have too much protein in their diets. It's even sadder to think, given the vast ocean, that we're unwilling to protect even small areas of it to ensure ocean resources are around for future generations.

Those grumbling loudest about "traditional values" might want to remember back to the day when saving was a prized value. People delayed gratification, foregoing something now for something better in the future. I hold little hope that the marine environment will improve in the future--not with a world population of 7 billion and growing--but maybe by saving some of it now, we can at least have something left for the future.

If you're worried about the blobfish, or any other animal we might be destroying with poor fishing practices, here are some things you can do:

• Before you order that lobster, crab, or other seafood item on the menu, find out where it's from. Only order, buy, eat sustainably harvested seafood. http://www.nrdc.org/oceans/seafoodguide/
• Eat lower on the food chain.
• Support the establishment and management of marine protected areas.
• Use birth control. (Seriously. Don't you think 7 billion people on the planet is a little ridiculous? You don't really need more than replacement children, i.e. 2 kids per couple?)

Sources:

Bathroom Reader Institute (2007). Uncle John's Under the Slimy Sea. Bathroom Readers' Press, Ashland, Oregon. 144 pp.

Hough, Andrew (2010). Blobfish: world's most 'miserable looking' marine animal facing extinction. The Telegraph. Available at: http://tinyurl.com/yju7o5b

Photo from The Telegraph.

What's Up with Waterspouts?

What's up with waterspouts? Sometimes it's fish that go up with them, sometimes periwinkles, and sometimes just clay particles that mix with the condensed water in the funnel cloud and then fall as red water, also known as a "rain of blood." But more on that later...

First, let's take a closer look at this spectacular phenomenon.

Fair-weather waterspout

For as long as humans have observed and recorded events on and around large water bodies, the appearance of waterspouts has evoked superstition, fear, and even contributed to the romance of the sea. Sailors have attributed the phenomenon to sea dragons, sea serpents, and evil spirits. Arabian sailors believed them to be manifestations of Jinees--powerful spirits capable of assuming various forms.

The reality behind the myths and mysteries is twofold: some waterspouts are tornadic, formed from the same factors that result in terrestrial tornados, and others are fair-weather spouts.

Tornadic waterspouts drop down from thunderstorms, squall lines, or the leading edge of advancing cold fronts. Like the typical twisters seen in movies and on episodes of Storm Chasers, tornadic spouts have dark, sinister funnels spawned from large, turbulent "parent clouds."  These are seen most frequently at middle latitudes, off the lee shores of large landmasses where cold continental air sweeps over warmer water. Tornadic waterpouts are often bona fide land tornados that go to sea or cross large inland bodies of water. Tornadic spouts can form over water and come ashore as true tornados, and alike true tornados, they can abate and come back more than once.

Fair-weather waterspouts arise solely over water. They develop at sea level and climb skyward when humid, superheated air circulates convectionally with cooler overhead air. Fair-weather spouts tend to be smaller and of shorter duration than the tornadic variety and are considered relatively harmless. These prevail in equatorial regions, although they do occur in all latitudes during the transition seasons of spring and fall.

In the northern hemisphere, tornadic waterspouts rotate cyclonically (counter clockwise) with wind speeds of up to 130 mph. They can be quite long-lived, lasting on average 15-30-minutes. Their advancing speeds tend to be rather slow (less than 5 mph). Conversely, fair-weather spouts travel faster over a given distance, moving at speeds up to 30 mph, but their rotative speed is much lower. They also dissipate quite quickly, rarely lasting as long as 20-minutes. Fair-weather spouts may rotate in either direction, depending on the nature of the convection currents that form them.

Both types of waterspouts are quasi-seasonal at best. They're seen more frequently in temperate latitudes between May and October, and more in the deep tropics from October through March. Exceptions abound throughout the year in any locale.

String of waterspouts forming over Charlotte Amalie Harbor,
St. Thomas, USVI (2007).

Tornadic waterspouts are more dangerous and destructive since they form from storm clouds. The same dangerous conditions found with severe thunderstorms---strong winds, large seas, hail, and lightening--are commonly found around tornadic spouts. While tornadic spouts are the more dangerous of the two types of spouts, care should be taken when encountering either one of these natural phenomena.

Cool Waterspout Facts

• The Great Waterspout of 1896 formed off Martha's Vineyard on August 19th of that year. Photographs and first-hand accounts from veteran mariners verified the spout was 144 feet thick and 3600 feet high. The spout formed not once, but three times within 45 minutes.

The Great Waterspout of 1896. (Photo from NOAA Image Library.)

• A Tampa, Florida waterspout (June 13, 1952) caused over $75,000 in property damage when it came ashore with 100 mph winds. 

• On September 5, 1935, a tornado/waterspout formed near Norfolk, Virginia and rampaged across Tidewater and Hampton Roads, where it flung railroad cars off their tracks before moving out to sea over the Chesapeake Bay.     

• Waterspouts can form over freshwater in rivers and lakes, as well as saltwater bodies. Several have formed on the Hudson River over the last 100 years.

• The longest recorded waterspout occurred off Eden, Australia on May 16, 1898. Theodolite measurements verified its height at 5,014 feet (although it was only 10' in diameter).

• The widest waterspout on record was 700' wide, formed at Blunt's Reef, California on November 14, 1914.

• Waterspouts have resulted in "rains" of fish, frogs, lizards, tadpoles, and periwinkles, most likely due to waterspouts coming ashore over low-lying marshlands and swamps.

• Some waterspouts have resulted in a "rain of blood" when the spout churns up a nearby stretch of red mud or clay, mixing the particles with the spouts condensed water droplets that fall when the spout dissipates.

 Sources

All At Sea. http://www.allatsea.net/caribbean/water-spout-are-they-dangerous/

Hendrickson, Robert. 1984. The Ocean Almanac. Doubleday Press. 446 pp.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. www.noaa.gov

Welcome to Waterblogged!

Welcome to Waterblogged! This is where I get to write about water, and anything and everything related to water. Bizarre sea creatures, great islands or coastal towns, watersports or events, and the marine environment: If it's water related---and everything is--I might write about it here! Pop in and see what's caught my fancy each week.