Ocean Conservation & Tidalpunk

675 readers
1 users here now

A community to discuss news about our oceans & seas, marine conservation, sustainable aquatic tech, and anything related to Tidalpunk - the ocean-centric subgenre of Solarpunk.

Posts and comments from Meta or X will be removed. See this post for more info.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
26
27
 
 

The method, she says, is simple, inexpensive and saves complex scientific explorations and audits of marine life. It is also effective, (...)

28
29
 
 
  • Kenya is considering building a nuclear power plant in Uyombo, a coastal town in Kilifi county. It would be near Mida Creek mangroves, Arabuko Sokoke Forest Reserve and Watamu National Marine Park and Reserve, all recognized for their high biodiversity, including endemic species and coral reefs.

  • The plant’s cooling system could raise water temperatures in the area. This could harm marine life, potentially causing further coral bleaching and disrupting plankton and other critical species, which would, in the long run, affect the entire food chain.

  • Residents and environmentalists, including marine biologist Peter Musila, have criticized the project and the government for poor communication, lack of public consultation and insufficient information on nuclear waste management.

  • Musila argues Kenya does not need nuclear energy given the country’s renewable energy potential, and such a project raises concerns about potential accidents and long-term impacts on ecosystems and local livelihoods.

30
 
 

For centuries, the deep, resonant songs of blue whales have travelled across entire oceans, carrying messages between the planet’s largest creatures. Now, these voices are fading. A new six-year study off California’s coast suggests that marine heatwaves and noise pollution are altering the soundscape of the sea, and scientists warn the silence signals serious trouble.

31
32
33
 
 

cross-posted from: https://sh.itjust.works/post/43431219

Scientists say they have at last solved the mystery of what killed more than 5 billion sea stars off the Pacific coast of North America in a decade-long epidemic.

The culprit? Bacteria that has also infected shellfish, according to a study published Monday in the journal Nature Ecology and Evolution.

Now that scientists know the cause, they have a better shot at intervening to help sea stars.

Prentice said that scientists could potentially now test which of the remaining sea stars are still healthy — and consider whether to relocate them, or breed them in captivity to later transplant them to areas that have lost almost all their sunflower sea stars.

34
 
 

Forget photosynthesis—these marine communities rely on chemosynthesis to survive in darkness, and under intense pressure.

35
 
 

A study led by Associate Professor Kelton McMahon at University of Rhode Island’s Graduate School of Oceanography has found that food webs on tropical reefs are more fragile than we once thought. Instead of being part of a highly connected system where species can easily switch food sources, many reef creatures in these incredibly biodiverse ecosystems rely on surprisingly narrow, specialized energy pathways that link specific species to distinct sources of primary production.

36
37
38
39
40
 
 

archive link

The talks, in Jamaica, are before the International Seabed Authority (ISA), the only organization that can legally approve mining in ocean areas beyond countries’ national jurisdictions, according to an international treaty called the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

41
 
 

Other studies have highlighted non-plastic textiles lasting for two months or more in rivers and oceans, where they break up into hundreds of thousands of microfibers.

These microfibers are so prevalent in waterways that they have contaminated animals across the food chain, from filter-feeding mussels and oysters to top predators such as sharks and the seafood we eat.

They are also found in remote locations as far away as the Arctic seafloor and deep sea, thousands of miles from civilization. These discoveries highlight that non-plastics last longer than we think.

We do not yet know how much of a threat these materials are to the environment. Only the manufacturers know exactly what's in the textiles we use.

42
43
5
submitted 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) by solo@slrpnk.net to c/tidalpunk@slrpnk.net
 
 

What the scientists got right

  • Oil spills would decrease in frequency and quantity;
  • More food would be collected from rocky shores, both recreationally and commercially;
  • The global redistribution of non-native species would increase as global temperatures change;
  • A combination of agricultural intensification, and riverside and coastal urbanisation, would lead to increased sediment running into rivers, estuaries and seas.

What the scientists got partly right

  • The forecasts were insufficiently optimistic about reductions in the impacts of chemical compounds, such as tributyltin (TBT), which were subsequently the subject of international legislation;
  • Scientists were very aware of the influence of climate fluctuations, but didn't fully appreciate the varied impacts they would have on species and ecosystems;
  • They also underestimated the importance of extreme weather events resulting from climate change;
  • Scientists correctly predicted an increase in coastal defence structures to tackle rising sea levels and stormier seas but underestimated their likely impacts on wider coastal ecosystems;
  • Recreational use of coastal areas has increased, but rather than having a solely negative effect it has actually led to people appreciating these regions more.

What the scientists got wrong

  • Coastlines are more vulnerable now to eutrophication - an increase in the concentration of nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus - than they were 25 years ago;
  • Concerns about the intensification of aquaculture, and particularly impacts from genetically modified organisms, have so far proved unfounded;
  • Anticipated harm to habitats as a result of offshore renewable energy installations has not materialized;
  • The impacts of ultraviolet radiation on coastal species were not fully appreciated.

What the scientists missed

  • The impacts of coastal mining;
  • Ocean acidification and its potential impact on marine species;
  • The effects of artificial light pollution;
  • The effects of noise pollution;
  • Extreme flood and drought events;
  • The scale and effects of plastic pollution;
  • The impacts of pharmaceutical contamination;
  • The combined effects of various environmental threats and chemical compounds.
44
45
46
47
 
 

Something remarkable is happening beneath the waves off the coast of Rhode Island. What began as an offshore energy project has quietly turned into a massive, unexpected win for marine life. According to Chris Buxton, writing for Daily Kos, the five wind turbines near Block Island have triggered a boom in fish populations, transforming turbine foundations into thriving artificial reefs.

Fishermen were skeptical at first. But after the turbines went up in 2016, local Captain Hank Hewitt noticed black sea bass returning in record numbers. Within two years, their population had increased tenfold near the turbine sites. Other species like porgies and cod followed, drawn to the mussel-covered pylons and protected underwater spaces.

Science backs the fishermen’s stories. A seven-year study monitoring over 600,000 fish from 61 species found no harm to marine life—only growth. Similar results have been seen in Europe, where Danish and Belgian wind farms now host booming underwater communities.

48
 
 

A new study finds there are 27 million metric tons of invisible plastic particles in the North Atlantic alone.

In the oceans, the most widespread type of plastic pollution may be the kind you can’t see.

A new study published Wednesday in the journal Nature estimates that the North Atlantic Ocean alone contains 27 million metric tons of nanoplastic — plastic particles 100 times smaller than the width of a human hair. That figure is 10 times higher than previous estimates of plastic pollution of all sizes across all the world’s oceans, according to the study’s authors.

Microplastics range in width between 0.001 millimeters and 5 millimeters, making them up to 5 million times bigger than nanoplastics.

49
50
view more: ‹ prev next ›