John Tullock Live

PBS Broadcast Spotlights Water Pollution Issues

Happy Earth Day!  Or maybe not so happy.

 

Yesterday (April 21) PBS aired the Frontline episode “Poisoned Waters.”  Details and clips have been posted, together with some of the press reaction.

 

The program provides additional evidence of the degree to which human development and other activities threaten our aquatic heritage.  Indeed, threaten our own survival.  Presenting scientific observations such as the discovery of frogs with multiple limbs and male fish producing eggs, the producers demonstrate once again the degree to which fish and other aquatic life become “first responders” to the pollution of waterways.

 

As one might expect, the industries responsible for the problems have their heads firmly buried beneath the sand.  In one of the highlights of the program, a poultry industry spokesman claimed, with a straight face, that nitrogen pollution finding its way into the Chesapeake Bay came not from the half million chickens housed in a factory farm on Virginia’s eastern shore, but rather from the wildlife in the surrounding woods.  This would be funny if it did not demonstrate such craven disregard for the common welfare in the name of profit.

 

The challenges faced by those who try to protect watersheds were made clear in another segment of the program.  In the region around Puget Sound, new land use regulations designed to protect the estuary have led to the formation of a committee of opposition.  Comprised of property owners disgruntled by the new restrictions, the group allowed Frontline reporter Hedrick Smith to tape one of their meetings.  During that taping one participant expressed surprised that residents have not resorted to violence in response to what he considered the unfairness of the new regulations.  This portion of “Poisoned Waters” made all too clear the intensity of perceived conflict between individual rights and public health.

 

All environmental issues are ultimately about land use.  In such matters, when water is involved, as it almost always is, activities far removed can create major impacts downstream.  Inevitably, property owners will try to assert their rights, and in many cases do so with little regard for the rights of their neighbors.  Such conflicts may well become the major focus of environmentalism in the 21st Century.  “Poisoned Waters” did not attempt to offer specific solutions to the problems it uncovered.  But it did make clear the urgent need to find answers to those problems, because our nation’s, indeed the world’s, waters cannot much longer bear the insults of unbridled development.

  

 

Don't Release Fish Into the Wild!

The government of South Africa is considering legislation aimed at controlling invasive organisms, including fish.  Despite appeals to aquarium owners not to release "plecostomus" catfishes into natural waters, specimens of Pterygoplichthys disjunctivus, the vermiculated sailfin pleco, have been collected from South African rivers.  According to a report by John Dawes in the March issue of Pet Product News International, the US Geological Survey is conducting research to determine potential ecological effects of the pleco "invasion."  Dawes notes the same species has been reported from seven other countries, including the United States.

Ecologists have been begging aquarium hobbyists for years not to release exotic fish into natural waters, but the problem repeatedly crops up.  While we still do not know enough about ecosystem dynamics to predict the long term consequences of exotic species invasions, a prudent approach would be to assume they are not helpful.  All of the weeds that plague my garden, for example, are exotics.  We can assume they have been introduced since the arrival of European colonists.  Therefore, in a couple of centuries natural selection has failed to eliminate them.  Plenty of reports show that non-native species, from the zebra mussel to Asian water milfoil to Indo-Pacific lionfish, are wreaking havoc wherever they have become established.  In the case of the vermiculated sailfin pleco, they could be affecting native fish species or damaging invertebrate habitat (which affects the food chain) or even, as a result of their breeding behavior, contributing to bank erosion.

The point is that the effects of introducing any exotic species into any habitat are unpredictable, typically negative, and of unknown duration.  Perhaps, in a thousand years, the local species will adapt to the invader, or perhaps the invader will fail to thrive in unfamiliar surroundings and eventually die out.  But in the meantime, the entire ecosystem can be adversely affected.

And, as a political matter, introductions of invasive exotics by the aquarium industry are unlikely to win us any supporters.  So, please, never release an unwanted fish into a nearby lake or stream.  Even if the odds of its survival seem small, don't take unnecessary risks.  Talk to aquarist friends and your local dealer.  Maybe you can find someone to take the fish off your hands.  Or, as a last resort, euthanize the fish.  But don't release it into the wild.

Our Hobby Blamed for Reef Damage

Reef aquarists know what happens when they allow the pH of their tanks to drop.  Corals are affected adversely.  Scientists are warning that increasing amounts of carbon dioxide entering the atmosphere as a result of human activities are contributing to coral reef destruction worldwide due increased acidification of the ocean.  Add this to the other stresses to which reefs are subjected, and we have a recipe for ecological disaster.  These days, reef biologists continually refer to “the coral reef crisis,” by which is meant the accelerated loss of reefs that has taken place in the past few decades.

No one argues that reefs are in trouble worldwide.  Most of the scientific disagreement regards the exact nature of the particular stress(es) responsible for local observations of reef degradation.  It is often difficult, if not impossible, to tease out a single destructive factor from the plethora of insults to which reefs are subjected on a daily basis.  Pollution, overfishing, and climate change all take a toll.  The cumulative result of all these problems has been the loss of as much as one-fourth of the world’s reefs.

The Caribbean Coral Reef Institute, a cooperative effort between the University of Puerto Rico and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, lists bleaching, disease, eutrophication, invasive species, overfishing, physical damage, pollution, and sedimentation as threats. http://ccri.uprm.edu/threats.html

The World Resources Institute has estimated that 58 percent of reefs worldwide are threatened by human activities.  Of these, the most critically endangered are those in Southeast Asia, the primary source of specimens for the aquarium trade.  Over 80 percent of that region’s reefs, according to a WRI report, are under siege.  The organization identified five “hot spots” of reef destruction.  Topping the list was the Philippines, followed by Indonesia, Tanzania, the Comoros Islands, and the Lesser Antilles in the Caribbean.  http://pdf.wri.org/reefs.pdf

The world has only about 225,000 square kilometers of coral reefs.  This sounds like a lot, but it represents only about one-third the area of Texas, or ten times that of New Jersey.  Despite the relatively small number of reefs, it is estimated they provide economic benefits in the range of US$30 billion per year worldwide.   Tourism accounts for a large proportion of the economic activity generated by reefs, and is adversely affected when reefs are damaged.  In the late 90s, for example, about half the corals in Palau died from a major bleaching event, and by 2001 tourism had declined as much as ten percent.

A tiny fraction of both economic benefit and reef destruction, of course, is accounted for by the aquarium trade.  The most recent estimate I could find placed the value of the US aquarium trade in reef organisms at half a billion dollars.

You can read the bad news about reefs for yourself in the reports cited.  What are the implications for the aquarium trade?  The Pacific Fisheries Coalition says aquarium collecting harms reefs in Hawaii. http://www.pacfish.org/wpapers/aquarium.html   The American Association for the Advancement of Science in a 2001 report said “There is an urgent need to develop positive trade regimes so that only products from reefs under sustainable management plans are allowed into or out of the U.S., to ensure that consumer demand by Americans is not contributing to the decline and degradation of coral reefs.” http://www.aaas.org/international/africa/coralreefs/Coral_Reefs.pdf
The aquarium trade remains in focus as a contributor to reef degradation.  The issues, therefore, remain much as they were a decade ago.  Rather than being seen as a tool for education about reefs and reef conservation, the aquarium trade is seen as part of the problem.  The most significant effort to address the problem by the aquarium industry, the Marine Aquarium Council www.aquariumcouncil.org , is widely considered to be impotent.  While MAC promises that certification leads to healthier fish and lower mortality, the retail dealers with whom I have spoken say this is not the case.  Many cite problems associated with handling by wholesalers and difficulties related to air cargo shipment.  These problems as equal to, or greater than, those arising from destructive fishing practices, the issue that spawned MAC in the first place.

One thing is for sure, as reefs decline, calls for regulation of the marine aquarium trade will increase.  Efforts to discourage marine aquarium keeping have become quite sophisticated.  Check out the video link below, posted exactly one year ago today.  Be warned.  If you think the marine aquarium hobby does more good than harm, the video will likely offend you.  But rather than getting your dander up, try to think of what the hobby and industry might do to counter such criticism.  Email me with your ideas.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73ubulR9JwQ

Is Our Hobby In Trouble?

Despite conditions in the economy, several of the dealers I’ve spoken with say they’re doing fine.  Back in the good old days of the 90s, my store did all right during tough times, too.  People kept coming in for food and supplies, even though they might not buy a new fish or splurge on a bigger setup.  Vance Peters, owner of Vance’s Tropical Fish in Bucksport, ME, offered up a theory when we spoke recently.  Vance suggested that when people are stressed out they turn to their hobbies for relaxation.  He says he’s had a surge in business during the past few months.

Nobody denies that it’s relaxing to watch your aquarium, so Vance may be on to something.  Other sources seem to bear him out.  For example, in a recent email newsletter Ralph Cabage, owner of Aquarium Life Support Systems, a wholesaler in Knoxville, TN, reports that his sales were up in 2008, noting that such results are “No small feat in this environment.”  Agreed.

And consider this observation from a CNN report on the consumer electronics show:

Many Americans are struggling to pay bills, find jobs and even avoid foreclosure, so it may seem like an extravagance to spend hundreds of dollars on a laptop or a digital camera. But financial fears also are leading folks to stay home. Electronics industry observers think this nesting trend could increase demand for Blu-ray players, stereos and video games.

Nesting Trends

Surely the “nesting trend” also applies to aquarium enthusiasts.  This post from Pet Product News bears out that hypothesis.  (Scroll down to the graphic at the bottom of the page.)

One would also expect, though I have no data to support the contention, that the large discount online dealers would be doing well, as hobbyists seek to reduce their costs by any means possible.

Despite these good news reports, however, I wonder how many dealers are having a hard time staying open.  One local store closed this summer even before its doors were open to the public.  If I had to guess, I would say credit issues were to blame.  Small retailers must typically rely on bank credit to manage their cash flow.

Rumor has it another local shop is going down, as well.  I hope they survive, though, because local competition is good for both hobbyists and the dealers themselves.  Competition generates greater interest in the hobby, exposing more people to the delights of aquarium keeping.  When an area has many shops, it also has many hobbyists, and usually a fish club or two.  Twenty years ago, when I opened Aquatic Specialists, there were seven aquarium stores within half an hour’s drive of downtown.  Today, there are only three, one of which may not survive.  We do have full line pet stores that also carry fish alongside dogs, cats, birds, etc., but I am talking about successful aquarium-only shops. How did we get to this point?

Assigning Blame

No doubt, a combination of factors is to blame.  Economic hardship certainly cannot be ruled out.  Lord knows, almost everyone has taken some kind of hit, on investments, home values, maybe even their job.  But the economic disaster is barely a year old, so we must look elsewhere to explain the overall decline.

One factor is the vastly increased availability of virtual pastimes, such as computer games, online social networking, and similar tech trends that compete for people’s leisure time and their disposable income.  Email was almost unheard of, for example, when my store opened in 1987, and data transfer rates were measured in bits per second, not mega-bits per second.

Another technology-related issue is the improvement in air transport.  This has been a double-edged sword for aquarium businesses.  On the one hand, it has led to greater availability of fish and invertebrates from far-flung corners of the planet.  On the other hand, when people can so easily visit a tropical reef or rainforest, they may not have so great a desire to keep denizens of these habitats at home.  Why settle for the faux reef, when a real one is as close as your credit card?

Many independent retailers see e-commerce and large discounters as the major threat to their survival.  About eighteen months ago, then-president Burton Patrick posted a letter on the AMDA web site that leaves no doubt about his position on this issue. (Full disclosure: I founded AMDA in 1995, but have not been an active participant since I sold my interest in Aquatic Specialists a couple of years later.)

I agree with Patrick that the brick and mortar retailer often finds himself outdone on many fronts by the bigger concerns.  Cabage’s newsletter cites many of the same problems that Patrick enumerates.

Regardless of where we assign blame, the bottom line is that we have fewer local shops and fewer people entering the aquarium hobby.  What can we do to stop the downward trend and hopefully reverse it?

Buy Local

Support your local dealer.  I’ve heard and read plenty of hobbyists’ complaints about plenty of dealers.  Nevertheless, we must recognize that local retail shops are the primary source of recruitment for new hobbyists.  They also sell the majority of aquarium tanks.

Shipping costs, according to one online dealer site, will add a minimum of $100-plus to the cost of a glass tank.

Acrylic tanks are less costly to ship, but nevertheless the additional expense is anything but negligible. As a rule, direct shipping is practical only for really large tanks, or nano-reef sizes.  Neither of these is particularly appropriate for a beginner.

That leaves the local shop as the best source for a tank in the 20 to 40 gallon range that most people will want for a first aquarium.  Unfortunately, shops cannot make enough money on these sales alone to remain in business.  They need repeat sales of food and supplies, products that these days a great many people buy online.

Changing this situation is a tough nut to crack, but it will have to happen or the entire industry can collapse.  When the number of aquarium hobbyists falls below a critical point, even the biggest online stores will have to look elsewhere for revenues.

How can we save our hobby and keep prices reasonable, too?  I certainly do not have the answer, but I am willing to bet there is a way.

I would love to hear your thoughts on the subject.

 

Bringing Back the Rare Logperches

Percina rex, the Roanoak Logperch

Among my favorite native fish species, the various logperches rank highly. A closely related group of large darters, the four species found closest to my home share an elongated snout and use it to flip over small stones in order to feed on the invertebrates found underneath. Conservation Fisheries has worked with all four of these logperch species and has enjoyed limited success in propagating them.

I mentioned Percina jenkinsi, the Conasauga Logperch, in an earlier post. Today's comments concern three additional species. Conservation Fisheries pioneered the idea of using “surrogate” species to develop captive propagation protocols. A relatively common and widespread species is selected for first attempts, so that the inevitable mistakes will not be made with another, much rarer species.

  In this case, the Common Logperch, Percina caprodes, has served as a surrogate for two of its far less common relatives. In learning how to rear common logperch, the biologists utilized techniques they developed for the culture of other darter species. Most of the difficulties stem from the problems encountered in working with the tiny, planktonic larvae.  Ultimately, over 1200 common logperch were produced.

Percina caprodes, Common Logperch.

An early beneficiary of the success with Common Logperch was the Blotchside Logperch, P. burtoni. Efforts to propagate this large darter began in 2004, with the collection of wild adults from Spring Creek, a tributary to the Hiwassee River. The intent was to restore populations to Little Tennessee River drainages. Eventually Conservation Fisheries succeeded in producing a few young. These are now on display at the Tennessee Aquarium in Chattanooga. Genetic analyses by Dr. Anna George of the Tennessee Aquarium Research Institute resulted in recommendations to utilize Little River as a source of parental stock for the effort. Little River fish were collected in 2007, but too late for any captive spawning. Hopefully, sufficient numbers will be produced for reintroductions this fall.

Blotchside Logperch, P. burtoni.

The large, impressively colored Roanoke Logperch, P. rex, is endangered. About a year ago, fourteen individuals were collected from the confluence of the North and South Fork Roanoke River near Roanoke, Virginia. They adapted quickly to captivity, swarming to the point where food was added to the tank whenever feeding was anticipated. With this species, too, it will be another season before Conservation Fisheries biologists are confident of their ability to rear them in large numbers.

   The logperches are but a few of the many fascinating fish that inhabit the streams of the Southeast. With continuing work by Conservation Fisheries and its partners, such as the Tennessee Aquarium, we can save these jewels of the mountains for future generations.

Proposed Invasive Species Legislation Goes Too Far

Reports of Indo-Pacific lionfish munching on native fish species off the Atlantic Coast come amid renewed calls for restrictions on the importation of nonnative species. A proposed new law would adversely affect importation, breeding and possession of the approximately 10,000 species in the pet trade, including hundreds of aquarium fish and invertebrates.  Aquarists should let their representatives know this law will adversely affect our hobby and the trade it supports, without effectively dealing with the problem of invasive species.

To be sure, the lionfish problem can likely be traced, sadly, to accidental and/or intentional releases from the aquarium hobby and trade. The fish species in question, Pterois volitans and P. miles have little or no commercial value outside the aquarium industry.  Thus, the initial invaders were probably brought in for aquarium sales.  It is difficult to imagine how they might have become so firmly entrenched so quickly as the result of a random, “ballast water” introduction.  Hobbyists or dealers, unable to cope with a fish that reaches well over a foot in length, have, probably with great reluctance, released numerous adult specimens into our offshore waters, no doubt thinking they were humanely disposing of a pet they could no longer care for. Thus, aquarists will probably have to own this particular invasion.  We are forced to admit that unintended consequences can sometimes be attributed to our well-intentioned efforts in bringing exotic species from the oceans and rivers of the world into our home aquariums.

 

Nevertheless, the latest attempt by Congress to confront invasive species issues, known as the Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act (HR6311), goes too far. It places an unnecessarily onerous burden on the aquarium industry and some others dependent upon animal imports.

 

A key provision of HR6311 directs the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to create and publish a list of wildlife species approved for importation. Thereafter, importation of any species not on the list would be prohibited.  Possession or cultivation of non-listed species would also be banned, leaving open the question of what to do with individuals of any banned species that might already be here.

 

The Act would require the USFWS to take at least eleven factors into consideration in determining whether to list a species. The following list was cut and pasted directly from the text of the bill:

 

(1) the identity of the organism to the species level, including to the extent possible more specific information on its subspecies and genetic identity;

 

(2) the geographic source of the species and the conditions under which it was captured or bred;

 

(3) whether the species has established or spread, or caused harm to the economy or the environment or the health of humans or of wildlife, in ecosystems that are similar to those in the United States but are located outside the United States;

 

(4) the likelihood that environmental conditions suitable for the establishment or spread of the species exist anywhere in the United States;

 

(5) the likelihood of establishment of the species in the United States;

 

(6) the likelihood of spread of the species in the United States;

 

(7) the likelihood that the species would harm wildlife resources in the United States;

 

(8) the likelihood that the species would harm rare, threatened, or endangered species in the United States;

 

(9) the likelihood that the species would harm habitats or ecosystems in the United States;

 

(10) the likelihood that pathogenic species, parasitic species, or free-living species may accompany the species proposed for importation; and

 

(11) other factors important to the risks associated with the species.

 

Sounds like a thorough and reasoned approach, does it not?

 

Most definitely not, according to Marshall Meyers, Executive Vice-President and General Counsel of the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council (PIJAC). Meyers and I have met only once, on opposite sides of the table in discussions about another kind of aquarium industry list. At that time, we had many disagreements, but that is a story for another blog post. Now, we see eye-to-eye on the invasive species issue.

 

Meyers testified before Congress last July 26. Some highlights of his testimony will serve to expose many of the serious flaws to be found in HR6311.

 

In the first place, Meyers correctly points out that much of the bill is redundant.

 

“PIJAC believes ...that the appropriate directives for risk management [regarding invasive species] are contained in the Lacey Act, the National Invasive Species Management Plan [and other initiatives.] As we have testified previously, the requisite human and financial resources have yet to be made available to the relevant federal agencies so that they can fully and effectively implement and enforce existing policies and programs. Until the government is willing to invest in implementation and enforcement of the regulatory measures it has already enacted, additional regulations will serve only to cripple an already faltering system.”

 

I agree completely that better enforcement of existing regulations would serve to accomplish much of what the bill sets out to do, which is reduce the risk of introducing an invasive species into an American ecosystem.

 

Meyer’s testimony focuses, sometimes wryly, upon the obvious lack of understanding on the part of the bill’s authors of the complex nature not only of the pet industry, but also of the biosphere itself. He soberly states,

 

“Since violations of the proposed Act would also constitute a violation of the criminal provisions of the Lacey Act, full and complete lists of what is legal and illegal should be published by the USFWS to ensure adequate notice of what constitutes a violation of law. Due process calls for no less. To ensure proper notice and avoid confusion, the approved and unapproved lists should contain every species in the animal kingdom to ensure that the public is aware of what is illegal as well as legal inasmuch as they are subject to a strict liability criminal statute.”

 

Of course, no list of every species in the animal kingdom exists, even though some efforts are underway to compile one. We don’t know how many species there are, much less which ones might be harmful. If Meyers’ touch of sarcasm here was lost on legislators, it would come as no surprise to me, however. The bill is full of such nonsense.

 

When HR6311 requires that all nonnative organisms proposed for importation to the United States be identified “to the species level, including to the extent possible more specific information on its subspecies and genetic identity” Meyers rightfully asks what should be done about the South American armored catfishes that are imported by the thousands, and which have not yet been described by ichthyologists. For many of these, there is no species name, much less information about genetic identity. One can make a similar argument for the legions of marine invertebrates belonging to undescribed taxa. In terms of the number of affected species, the aquarium industry would surely bear the brunt of this legislation.  There are about 1600 species of freshwater fish, alone, in the aquarium trade.

 

What about “the likelihood that pathogenic species, parasitic species, or free-living species may accompany the species proposed for importation” as a consideration? All animal species harbor other organisms, but as Meyers notes, the mere presence of a secondary organism does not imply danger. Some parasites, for example, survive only in or on a particular host, and thus pose no threat to anything else.

 

These are but some examples of how this proposed legislation falls short. Meyers offers many others in his comments before the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans of the House Natural Resources Committee. The complete text can be accessed at:

 

http://www.pijac.org/files/public/HR6311_MM_Testimony.pdf

 

Even a cursory reading of this document will reveal the extraordinary complexity of the issues involved.

 

Perhaps of greatest importance to aquarium hobbyists, and to the pet industry in general, is Meyers’ scenario for what might happen if HR6311 becomes law without revision:

 

“...common goldfish, many tropical fish, and myriad common species of birds and reptiles would be banned from the entire United States if it could be demonstrated that under Section 3(b)(4) there is a likelihood that ‘environmental conditions suitable for the establishment or spread…exist anywhere in the United States.’ Marine organisms would be banned in Kansas because they might become established in Hawaiian waters; a parakeet would be banned in Minnesota because it could survive in south Florida.”

 

You can read the entire text of HR6311 here:

 

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.6311.IH

 

Once you’re done reading, you might want to email your representative. All of us have an interest in preventing truly harmful species from entering the country for whatever reason. But requiring proof that a species has zero potential for harm anytime, anyplace before it can be imported is not only ludicrous, but mathematically impossible. Industry stakeholders and hobbyists alike should ask Congress to take a more carefully thought-out approach to this problem.

Native Fish Species Under Siege

Conasauga logperch, Percina jenkinsi

Here in the Southeast, we are sweltering through another year of drought. Some parts of the Cherokee and Pisgah National Forests, lying just east of where I live, are experiencing record low precipitation totals. To the west, the broad, flat Cumberland and Barrens Plateau regions are parched.

One can argue whether the dehydration of the normally rain-soaked Central South provides additional evidence of human-induced climate change, but among biologists studying the region’s aquatic wildlife there is no argument about its impact. Changes in weather patterns are affecting the breeding behavior of some native fish species, with spawnings occurring earlier than usual. Spawning behavior in many native freshwater fish species is regulated by temperature, daylength, or a combination. With the recent spate of hot summers, low water, and mild winters, the stream warms earlier, apparently signaling fish to start breeding.

Such behavioral changes could spell disaster. Although data are lacking about the early life history of many species, it is clear that fish larvae depend upon planktonic organisms for food. These tiny critters, such as copepods, rotifers, and protists, are themselves poorly understood ecologically. If the response of a key food species to warmer water does not match that of the fish predator, the latter may be in trouble. Sufficient research to understand fully the ecology of a single small stream could take decades, and we clearly do not have that much time.

Research is badly needed in order to better understand the ecology of the beautiful and unique freshwater fish fauna of the southeastern United States.  In particular, the Tennessee, Cumberland, and Mobile river basins harbor especially rich fish faunas, with many endemic species.

Consider the tiny Conasauga River watershed.  It is located where Tennessee, Georgia and North Carolina meet. It is roughly 100 times smaller than the combined watersheds of the mighty Colorado and Columbia rivers. Yet, between them the two western drainage systems have 58 species of native fish, while the little Conasauga has 79. One example is the endemic Conasauga Logperch, Percina jenkinsi.

A disproportionate number of native fish species range over a small geographic area. This is unsurprising, since the dissected nature of the watersheds contributes to speciation in the first place. Some fish may be endemic to a single creek. The smaller its range, the more susceptible a species is to extinction risks.

Barrens Topminnow, Fundulus julisia

In special danger from the current drought is a species confined to only 3 Tennessee counties. Fundulus julisia, the Barrens Topminnow, will instantly be recognized as a killifish by many aquarium enthusiasts. Like most killies, the males far outshine the females in coloration. Restricted to the Barrens Plateau, the fish inhabits clear, spring-fed streams and relies on aquatic vegetation for spawning.  Now found at but a few localities, it is constantly threatened by habitat destruction and drought.

Due to recurring droughts over the past decade, some habitat has almost completely dried up, leading biologists to establish captive “ark” populations. The fish is easy to breed and the larvae can take live brine shrimp nauplii as soon as they lose their yolk sac. As long as sufficient space is available for growout ponds, the Barrens topminnow can survive even the total loss of its habitat, at least temporarily. Populations are currently being maintained at multiple locations, against the possibility of a total wipeout at one facility. Questions remain about the sufficiency of captive propagation measures to maintain adequate genetic diversity, while at the same time preventing gene flow that would not occur in nature, i.e, between individuals from otherwise isolated populations.

Drought is not the only problem affecting the Barrens topminnow. It competes poorly with the mosquitofish, Gambusia affinis. Gambusia has been widely transplanted for mosquito control, but has become a pest in many areas, ousting native species. Ironically, one positive effect of drought has been to quell mosquitofish in isolated areas. After one Barrens Topminnow site completely dried up in 1998, killing all the mosquitofish, the native fish could be restored a few years later from a captive ark population.

It has been my pleasure for the past two decades to associate with J.R. Shute and Pat Rakes, co-directors of Conservation Fisheries. Their work with the Barrens Topminnow and Conasauga Logperch inspired this post. Credit for the accompanying photos goes to J.R. Shute. During 2007, Pat and J.R. reached a milestone: 50 species of native freshwater fish successfully spawned and reared. Much of its work is funded by state and federal wildlife agencies and private grants, but Conservation Fisheries survives on the support of individual donors. You can learn more about Conservation Fisheries at www.conservationfisheries.org

And Now for the Really Bad News

Last week’s issue of Science, the journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, carried the dismal news that about one third of the world’s coral species are at risk of extinction. Among the most imperiled are those of our own Florida Keys and the

Caribbean

region. The study, which bore the names of 33 distinguished scientists from around the globe, found that the western Pacific region, home to many corals beloved by aquarists, has the highest number of species in all of the extinction risk categories.

 

The survey was exhaustive, examining 845 species of hermatypic corals, and assigning conservation status, based on the IUCN Red List Criteria, for 704 of them. Of those, 231 are in so-called elevated risk categories. A litany of usual suspects are thought to be responsible for the sharp increase in extinction risk, from the global rise in ocean temperatures to an assortment of human-induced alterations and insults to the reef environment.

 

When one contemplates the staggering number of species that depend upon coral reefs for survival, this news appears gloomy indeed. The authors of the study call for more attention to the plight of coral reefs worldwide, and stepped up efforts to ameliorate both the damage and future threats.

 

Aquarium enthusiasts like me will naturally wonder if captive propagation has a role to play in achieving solutions to a potential nosedive of coral biodiversity. Unfortunately, while experimental work with reef restoration does show promise, it is far too late now to look at captive propagation as anything more than a short term solution for a limited number of species. Restoring the world’s damaged reefs requires the redirection of trends, such as onshore development, into a more sustainable path, and with the utmost urgency. Politically, such solutions will be difficult to accomplish.

 

We read repeatedly how China and India’s newly-acquired thirst for oil has contributed to the planet’s multitude of oil-related problems. In an analogous way, development in countries with coral reef resources has contributed to the problems now faced by the reefs. Shrimp farming, for example, embarked upon to feed an ever-growing population, creates pollution that can harm nearby reefs. Whenever the plight of the reefs is invoked, there is almost always a loud voice invoking the plight of the local people, as well.

 

The situation reproduces in microcosm what is possibly the largest single challenge for humanity this century: improving the standard of living for all of the world’s citizens without destroying the ecosystems upon which we all rely for survival.

 

There is a possible bright side. Maybe this report will encourage policy makers insist that industry stop treating the ocean as though it were a universal sink drain, and recognize that the sea, like an aquarium at the mercy of the aquarist, is at the mercy of humanity’s technical prowess. 

 

You can read the Science article abstract here:

 

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1159196

 

A comprehensive report on the status of the coral reefs under the control of the United States can be found here:

 

http://ccma.nos.noaa.gov/ecosystems/coralreef/coral2008/welcome.html

Orchids & Fish: An Alluring Combination

Freshwater Butterflyfish, Pantodon bucholzi

One of the most interesting freshwater fish I’ve ever kept is Pantodon bucholzi, the African Butterflyfish. It is found in tropical western Africa, inhabiting shallow, still pools in flooded areas or at the edges of streams. Although growing to a little over four inches in length, it gets along well with many other fish, even smaller ones. It is also hardy and easy to feed. A long, shallow tank, such as a 30 or 40 gallon size, suits it perfectly. To allow head room for a terrestrial plant display, I settled on a 45 “long” style, with a 12 X 36 inch base and 24 inches of height.

With this species in mind, I wanted to create an aquarium design that would feature not only one of my favorite fish, but also display some interesting orchids, another passion shared by many aquarists.

If you have ever given thought to combining terrestrial and freshwater habitats in the same microcosm, you know that the selection of terrestrial plants requires careful consideration. You want something that remains relatively small, adapts to the warm, humid conditions that will prevail, and hopefully blooms now and then. Few plant families can fulfill these criteria with such exuberance as the orchid family can. With more species than any other plant group, not to mention tens of thousands of horticulturally-derived cultivars and hybrids, the right orchid for your design awaits your discovery.

Plenty of plants will grow well alongside orchids. Many of these, as you might guess, also thrive under glass. Spikemoss, Selaginella species, makes a good ground cover, for example. Bromeliads, club mosses, and ferns can all share the limelight. These and the orchids all grow slowly enough to permit their confinement without constant pruning, an important consideration in the limited growing space afforded by a tank. Furthermore, under proper conditions, pests and disease seldom pose a threat.

Water conditions for this tank are not critical. Near neutral pH and not too hard, at a temperature of 75–78°F, will suit P. bucholzi just fine.

The remarkable butterfly fish feeds at the surface, taking into its capacious mouth all sorts of insects and worms that live in or fall into the water.  So zealously will Pantodon pursue its prey that it may leap right out of the tank trying to catch a moth attracted to the light. Therefore, take sure the tank is well covered. It is not at all aggressive, except toward other surface-feeding fish, which it will consume if it can manage the deed. However, it generally ignores anything swimming below.

Getting a pair of these fish is easy. The rear edge of the male’s anal fin is curved and its outermost fin rays are elongated, while the female has a small, straight-edged, unadorned anal fin. To get them to breed requires a rich diet of fresh insects, something better accomplished in an outdoor pond than an indoor aquarium.

Aquatic plants for this tank might include: Anubias barteri v. nana, Bacopa monnieri, Cryptocoryne wendtii, C. willisi and/or Vallisneria spiralis v. spiralis. Because the water depth will only be about 12 inches, the plants must remain small or be easily pruned to remain within bounds. Avoid floating plants, which will prevent the butterfly fish from feeding at the surface. It will, by the way, take any sort of aquarium fare that floats; insects are not required for its survival. Otherwise, arrange plants and driftwood attractively, taking care to hide equipment. Remember that the tank must be only about half full to allow room above the water.

To provide for the orchids or other terrestrial plants, choose a piece of driftwood that can be placed so it stretches from an upper rear corner diagonally toward the front of the tank. The idea is to simulate a limb that has fallen from a shoreline tree into the water. Once you have the piece of wood placed to your satisfaction (this may requires some trimming), you can mount epiphytic plants on the portion above the water line. For this African-themed tank, you might select Aerangis citrata, a dwarf African orchid species (image above) that produces white, lemon-scented flowers in wintertime. Orchid growers use a pad of horticultural sphagnum moss on the piece of wood to support the roots, and hold everything in place with nylon fishing line. This method has always worked well for me. Once the orchid attaches itself to the wood, in about a year’s time, you can remove the nylon ties.

The variations on this basic idea are endless. Suitable combinations of fish, aquatic plants, and terrestrial plants can be found to represent habitats from every corner of the globe. By incorporating elements such as epiphytic orchids into your displays, you can gain a better understanding of the complex web of life sustained in the tropical forests surrounding the streams that harbor our favorite aquarium fish. This way of thinking about freshwater aquarium design has opened a new horizon for my aquarium keeping adventures, and I hope you discover some enjoyable innovations, too.

Green Aquariums - Why We Need Them

Redtailed Black Shark, extinct in the wild, but thriving in home aquariums.

Although I am no longer an aquarium retailer, I can imagine what most of my former colleagues are going through these days.

I won’t get into the debate as to whether we are now experiencing a recession or even something worse.  I’m no economist. By whatever name, however, in economic hard times one of the first segments to suffer is specialty retailing. Read that as Mom and Pop shops selling everything from model trains to scrapbooking supplies to dive gear and aquariums. The word I hear from friends in the aquatics industry is not encouraging.

Multiple factors surely lie at the root of the current industry slump, but one often cited is the lack of young people entering the ranks of hobbyists.  And one of the reasons given is the concern on the part of the younger generation for damage to natural ecosystems that sometimes results from the aquarium trade. 

Collection Guilt
In my experiences with aquatic wildlife conservation close to home, the youngsters seem to be coming along with as much enthusiasm as I had at their age. I continually meet recent high school and college grads who are well on their way to becoming the marine and freshwater biologists of the next generation. Virtually all enjoy aquariums, and view them as a valuable tool.

As an advocate for a greener aquarium industry for decades, I will not deny that the industry/hobby have done damage. The list of specific problems is serious:

* Overfishing, for example the Yellow Tang in Hawaii;
* Destructive fishing methods, such as collecting with cyanide;
* Targeting of non-adaptable species like Seahorses;
* and more. 

Both freshwater and saltwater players have contributed their share.  Nevertheless, the trend over the past two decades has definitely been toward a more sustainable industry.

Aquarium Rescues
In some cases, aquatic biodiversity has been preserved only because a particular species is popular with aquarists.  The freshwater cyprinid usually known as the Redtailed Black Shark, Epalzeorhynchos bicolor, is considered extinct in the wild, but thousands are shipped to the United States from Asian hatcheries every year.  Thus, this species survives only in aquariums.  Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing whether sufficient genetic diversity has been preserved to insure its long term survival. But at least it has not yet disappeared completely.

Captive propagation has also been responsible for eliminating wild harvest of many freshwater species, and will eventually reduce the demand for some wild marine species, as well. 

Marine enthusiasts will be the first to agree they have a long way to go.  Wild caught fish remain profitable to industry players at all levels, and consumer demand remains strong for many species that will probably never be produced in captivity. That said, the impact of all aquarium wild harvest is minuscule in comparison with the damage wrought by deforestation, pollution, storms, dredging and other causes.

Nevertheless, we should choose specimens wisely and avoid species that have little or no chance of adapting to captivity.  The obligately coral-feeding butterflyfishes, such as the Ornate Butterflyfish, Chaetodon ornatissimus, provide a perfect example. Catching, shipping, selling (and, for the hobbyist, buying) a fish that is going to die within weeks is wrong, and almost everyone involved knows it.

That said, home aquariums can do an enormous amount of good by bringing ordinary folks up close and personal with some of farflung tropical ecosystem’s most beautiful denizens.  A broader awareness of the fragile beauty sheltered within coral reefs and rainforest streams can only increase the desire to protect them for future generations.

This has certainly happened within the ranks of other hobbies involving nature. Tropical orchids and butterflies are produced largely in greenhouses or via special “wildcrafting” projects. 

Hope in Captive Propagation
In both cases, significant technical obstacles had to be overcome in order to succeed. Orchids, for example, do not produce stored food in their seeds, and must be germinated on laboratory media in flasks. Most terrestrial butterflies feed exclusively on one or a few closely related species of plants.  Like culturing algae to feed rotifers, you have to be able to grow the plant in order to culture the butterfly. Despite such challenges, the industries that support fanciers of orchids and butterflies are thriving. 

I was at my local farmer’s market recently and was stunned to find butterflies offered. We now have a butterfly farm in my town! I could, if I wanted, arrange to have native butterfly species released as part of a family celebration.

Only a few decades ago, collectors sometimes chopped down huge rainforest trees just to get the orchids.  Analogous to the poisoning of coral reefs with cyanide, such atrocious practices came to an end primarily because the ability to produce orchids from seed caused the cost of plants to plummet to levels affordable by ordinary people. When the saltwater captive propagation industry matures sufficiently, such will also be the case for it.

Successful Models

Saltwater breeders should look to the freshwater realm for a business model. 

At the moment, saltwater breeding is focused primarily on getting any species to the stage of development where it can be maintained on artificial foods. After that, growout becomes a matter of providing enough space to accommodate the thousands of offspring.  These are really two different operations. 

You might be able to spawn 20 different species with only 20,000 gallons of water, but you will need five times as much water for growout space, maybe more. In the freshwater realm, most of the labor-intensive spawning and larval culture occurs in Asia, where labor costs are lower. Maturing larvae are then shipped to the United States, often to Florida, where growout takes place in vast ponds. Florida, of course, has an abundance of level, sandy savannahs ideal for pond construction, and plenty of water (at least until recently). Something similar should work for saltwater, as well.

So, does aquarium keeping harm the environment? In localized instances, no question about it.

Overall, however, I am inclined to think the influence of aquarists and aquarium keeping on the preservation of aquatic environments is positive and becoming ever more important.

We have, over the past decades, quietly made the aquarium trade greener and greener, before "Green" was trendy. Concerned aquarists must make an effort to communicate this message to our younger generations.