Ret Talbot Live

Underwater to Get Out of the Rain

Trevor Norton's 2004 book Underwater to Get Out of the Rain; A Love Affair with the Sea

I recently started reading Trevor Norton’s Underwater to Get Out of the Rain. The book is advertised as “An enticing celebration of the creatures, the science, and the wonders of the ocean, by the marine biologist known as ‘Bill Bryson Underwater'.” While I am still in the book’s infancy, I feel confident in recommending it as a worthwhile read if you, like me, are an aquarist with an eye toward science and the ecosystems which science strives to catalog and, at times, even demystify. The reason I am mentioning it here is because, first, I think you might like the book, and second, I seem to be bumping up against the 19th century naturalist Philip Gosse a lot lately (see Marine Algae and the Balanced Tropical Saltwater Aquarium, The Value We Place on Animals and Marine Aquarium Keeping with a Cold Chisel), and this book is no exception.

Imagine my glee when Gosse is introduced to Norton’s readers on page 23 with a wee tidbit of Gosse trivia of which I was unaware. Norton writes, “The most widely read Victorian naturalist, Philip Henry Gosse, wrote a detailed study of the sea serpent and was clearly a believer.” Gosse believed in Nessie, I think to myself. A quick trip to the bookshelf confirms that indeed Mr. Gosse wrote about the likely existence of sea serpents in chapter 12 of his book The Romance of Natural History (there is a 2007 edition out). The chapter is entitled “The Great Unknown,” and there, on page 300 (I’m reading the sixth edition), Gosse writes: “Perhaps the most renowned of all these doubtful questions is the existence of the ‘Sea-serpent.’"

Wow! But I digress.

Trevor Norton is really neither writing about sea serpents nor Gosse in Underwater to Get Out of the Rain, but the aquarist will be pleased to find that Trevor does make more than a tentative excursion into the world of marine aquaria. For example, Norton gives Gosse the credit for creating the word “aquarium,” and he also gives Gosse props for devising “a formula for artificial sea water to avoid the inconvenience, delay and expense attendant upon the procurement of sea water from the coast.” Of course Gosse’s contribution to “the world’s first public aquarium” (London) is mentioned, as is Gosse’s methodology for collecting marine aquarium specimens—a topic about which I have written here and to which I would like to briefly return.

Philip Henry Gosse circa 1853

Norton writes that the aquarium fad of the early 1850s quickly evolved (or devolved, depending upon your point of view) from aesthetic appreciation to environmental degradation. “[T]he emphasis,” Norton explains, “was now on collecting, not looking, and collecting was not a gentle art.... The effect on shore communities,” Norton concludes, “was devastating.” Gosse’s son, the biased lens through which many Gosse biographers view the man, describes the devastation and his father’s complicity in it. Norton quotes the son:

If anyone goes down to those shores now…let him realise at once, before he takes the trouble to roll up his sleeves, that his zeal will end in labour lost. There is nothing now where in our day there was so much…

All this is long over, and done with. The ring of living beauty drawn about our shores was a very thin and fragile one. It had existed all those centuries solely in consequence of the indifference, the blissful ignorance of man. These rock basins, fringed with corallines, filled with still water almost as pellucid as the upper air itself, thronged with beautiful sensitive forms of life—they exist no longer, they are all profaned, and emptied, and vulgarized. An army of ‘collectors’ has passed over them, and ravaged every corner…That my Father, himself so reverent, so conservative, had by the popularity of his books acquired the direct responsibility for a calamity that he had never anticipated…cost him great chagrin.

I suppose it’s the age-old story of destroying that which we love, and yet it does not have to be this way, does it? As I walked along the coves to the north of my home in Laguna Beach, California this morning, I marveled at what remains of our tidepools, and, while I can only imagine what they once were, I am appreciative that we are learning, once again, to view them with a naturalist’s eye.

The protection afforded this little strip of coastline is not without its critics or flaws, but it may be just what is needed so that the next generation will not look back on us as Edmund Gosse looked back on his father...

...Or as Norton puts it in Underwater to Get Out of the Rain in mind,

…I envy those who explore this world for the very first time to discover the strung beads of magenta weed, hermit crabs with eyes on stalks and anemones with tentacles outstretched in anticipation of a lucky lunch. I wish tomorrow’s children all the surprise and wonder that have been mine.

Rhetoric, Science and Hobby

In my blog entry of 6 July 2008 titled “Coral Reef Aquaristics–More Than Just a Hobby?” I wrote something that struck a chord with some readers. To wit:

“Too often there is a latent distrust–even bordering on animosity—between many scientists and hobbyists.”

I was not trained as a scientist, but some of my best friends were, and a few of them took issue with my statement. Some said it was “exceedingly harsh," while others claimed it was “too polarizing” or “overly simplified.” At least one person said it was “simply untrue.”

Such are the pitfalls of rhetoric, and, yes, I am guilty of all of the above…well almost all.

While my statement certainly was intentionally harsh, polarizing and overly simplified (such is the rhetorical freedom of blogging, some might say), I don’t think it was “simply untrue.”

Consider the following.

In a recent conversation with an aquarium industry insider (admittedly not simply a hobbyist, but also most certainly not a scientist), we were discussing the merits and possible implications of a scientific study on herbivorous fishes (see my 19 June 2008 blog entry titled “Herbivores & Our Aquariums: Knowing What We Think We Know”) when he said the following about scientists:

“I think many…researchers are not in it to win it...but in it to skin it and move on with their careers. I think this helps us understand the culture of research people better, as even the very, very sincere ones follow their mentors, their schooling, their cultural dispositions, their world view—most of which is slanted way, way our [American/industrialized/Western] way…. I am just not too keen on the ‘get grants/publish or die motive’ that permeates so much of [the scientific research]. I think this conflict of interest hurts the promulgation of better science and keeps it less relevant to the people in the frontline fishing villages. I believe it promotes the better grant writers and not the better work.”

Then, in an interview with a marine scientist regarding the very same story on the very same day, we got to talking about how decisions in the marine aquarium industry ought to be made, and the scientist said the following about the industry insider:

“At some point these ‘industry people’ are going to need to move beyond emotion, anecdote and profits and look to the science as the motivating factor in decision making. There is a body of data available and much more being produced daily by trained researchers who have the credentials, knowledge and techniques at their disposal to produce solid, peer-reviewed papers and data. Too often this falls on deaf ears in the marine aquarium hobby. I’m not bashing experience in the industry or hobby as a factor in decision making, but the science is what’s verifiable, and it’s the only thing, more often than not, which moves beyond the politics.”

Distrust? Animosity? I think there is at least a smidgeon of both in each of these very thoughtful and heartfelt comments. Don’t you?

I’m not saying there is an unbridgeable divide—an abyss, if you will—between the hobby and the science. In fact, I am keenly aware that there are many, many hobbyists and scientists intent on creating a positive, fruitful space at the intersection of science and hobby; I speak with many of them daily.

As a hobbyist with a stake in the industry (what I write about the industry does pay my bills, after all), I believe that science and hobby are going to need to build stronger bonds—that’s why I write this blog. Sometimes I may err toward rhetorical hyperbole to try to make a point and get the conversation started, but if a conversation ensues, then we’re probably moving in the right direction.

Herbivores & Our Aquariums: Knowing What We Think We Know

Pencilstreaked Rabbitfish, Siganus doliatus. Image © Scott Michael.

I’ve been writing a lot about herbivorous aquarium fishes recently. To me, they are emblematic of that which I care about most in this hobby—the intersection of science, conservation and marine aquarium-keeping.

In terms of the aquarist in me, I love herbivorous fishes for their ability to control algae growth and their interesting behaviors, but I am also keenly aware of concerns expressed by conservationists about dwindling wild populations of species like the once ubiquitous yellow tang. I believe a robust marine aquarium industry can and should play a critical role in tropical reef conservation, but like any industry, I believe we must ensure we do so in a sustainable manner, and sustainability brings me to science.

Charting a course for our industry into the future must be based on sustainability insofar as marine researchers define it based on their field work within the reef ecosystems we strive to replicate in our aquaria. Yes, there are other legitimate concerns, such as local economies dependent on the marine trade in developing island nations, but, as aquarists, we must also make an effort to guide our industry based on the available data. The natural byproduct, of course, is that we become better aquarists by better understanding the animals we keep.

Nature's Biocontrols

As it turns out, scientists are interested in herbivorous fishes for much the same reason that aquarists are—as a biological control for marine algae. Neither aquarists nor scientists like to see algae-dominated reefs where corals are choked to death. Increasingly, however, this is what scientists are seeing on the world’s tropical reefs. Finding which fishes are the best grazers on which types of algae may prove critical to helping degraded reefs recover.

It may also prove important to developing better husbandry practices when keeping herbivorous fishes in marine aquaria where most of us commonly assume that an herbivore is an herbivore is an herbivore.

Dr. David Bellwood, a researcher from the Australian Research Council (ARC) Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies,has demonstrated in his research that we don’t really know as much as we think we do about herbivores.

In a recent experiment, Bellwood caged off plots on the Great Barrier Reef in order to prevent any large herbivores from grazing. As expected, dense macroalgae  (e.g. Sargassum spp.) grew.

When Bellwood removed the cages three years later, he watched, expecting the 43 known herbivorous fishes in the area to work their magic. What he saw, however, was a couple of large batfish eating almost all the macroalgae, while the known herbivores essentially ignored it. This shocked Bellwood for a couple of reasons. First, batfishes are relatively rare on the Great Barrier Reef and second, they are considered omnivores with a strong preference for meaty marine flesh.

Batfish Surprises

“Much to my amazement, the batfish appeared to be attracted to the algal stands,” says Bellwood. “It was not at all what I expected, as algal feeding is unusual for this species of batfish. Sessile invertebrates, not Sargassum, normally dominate this fish’s diet.”

Pinnate Batfish, Platax pinnatus, juvenile. © Scott Michael.

Within five days of removing the cages, the batfish had cut the volume of macroalgae in half, and, after eight weeks, they had virtually removed it all. Two months of daily video tape showed eleven species of rabbitfishes (Siganidae), 15 species of parrotfishes (Scaridae), seven species of surgeonfishes (Acanthuridae), and two species of rudderfishes (Kyphosidae) move through the study site, and yet, except for two of the rabbitfish species, none of them fed to any extent on the macroalgae.

What does this mean for my aquarium? Well it doesn’t mean I’m headed out to buy a batfish (although based on some of my discussions with Dr. Bellwood, rabbitfishes are my top aquarium herbivorous fishes), but it does mean that I am thinking about herbivory in a different light. It’s interesting to note that, as aquarists, we already knew much of what Bellwood demonstrated.

For example, how many of us have at some point introduced an animal to take care of an out-of-control algae problem, knowing that once the algae was gone, other animals would have to be employed for future maintenance? While Bellwood’s study may have upset the conventional wisdom within the scientific community, his results were fairly consistent with what we, as aquarists, already knew.

This makes me excited about opening up more avenues for dialog between scientists and aquarists in pursuit of a sustainable hobby, sustainable ecosystems and better husbandry.