QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS RE: "Species Replacement Theory"

It has been pointed out to me repeatedly that if one marine species suffers a decline that another will increase to replace it in such a way that the total biomass is basically unchanged. It is tempting to believe, especially when a prey species is observed to flourish once its predators go into decline. Regarding the disappearance of major quantities of our usual fishing targets, we are told that the “production” has gone into other species that are of no particular interest to us, creatures that we might not even notice (non-commercial species of fish, and the likes of worms, jellyfish, and micro-organisms). It is fairly easy to “prove” the declining biomass of our traditional fishing targets, but it is quite another thing to “prove” that they have not been replaced with an equivalent amount of some other organisms elsewhere in the system (largely because the data has never been collected on the “uninteresting” creatures). But I guess that is the thing that I must try to prove...

“To support your argument you need to show that nothing else is replacing them.”

(OK, I will try.)

For some reason we are told that this is the starting point:

“The simplest starting point must be that biomass is stable. (After all, the oceans and their biota have been there a very long time. Since the waters have neither filled up with fish nor become complete deserts, there must be some stability.)”

The marine ecosystem appears to have existed in a condition of “some stability” for a very long time - but nutrients were always recycled internally before fishing by humans became well established. Our removal of large quantities of fish (and our haphazard replacement of fish flesh with sewage and soot) appears to have effected a real change in the system...the “stability” is no longer apparent, nor is it at all obvious that “biomass is stable.”

Yet the theme is constantly repeated...

“Current dogma predicts (other) species should increase in biomass to replace depleted, over-exploited types.”

“Many fishermen in our province could have told you that the weight of evidence suggests that heavy fishing leads to species replacement (such as skates replacing the dogfish that replaced the cod of George’s Bank) but not to any major change in total biomass.”

A quick check on the stock status of skate reveals that it is in decline as well, so replacement must have happened again, with yet “another” species...

“The species replacement idea first emerged in the Great Lakes, where the salmonids were fished down and the fishery then shifted to whitefish, which proceeded to support catches roughly equal to those that the salmonids had once provided. Then the whitefish were fished down but the industry moved to, I think, lake herring --and still maintained much the same total catch.”

I can see how this sequence of events might have suggested the “species replacement theory,” but not how it offers any proof, nor why this idea should or could be generalized to the ocean.

The “biomass is constant” idea leads to fishery management guidelines like this one:

“As long as the amount taken is not above the stock recruitment levels (not always the case unfortunately), there is plenty of scope for stock replenishment. (i.e. you can sustainably remove biomass every year and the total standing crop will remain the same year on year.)”

One problem with that approach is that the calculations and predictions are based on one species only and take no account of the interactions of that particular fish with the rest of the system. This approach has been used repeatedly and found repeatedly to be flawed. Mathematical “models” used in fisheries management are notorious these days for their high failure rates. It’s because all the models are based on a false assumption “total production always remains the same” or “total biomass is basically stable.” Another way to state it is the old adage “There are lots of other fish in the sea.” It’s just not so.

I also have never been told by a fisherman that there seems to be no major change in total biomass. Most of those that I know are clearly concerned about the future of fishing as a viable occupation. One of our First Nations people was asked to speak at the closing ceremonies of the conference of the “International Ocean Institute” in Halifax in 1998.

“I’m thinking about the kids and our grandkids, are they going to have to walk Mother Earth with a face mask on? I hope not...What you are telling me is you don’t know how to fish...You use the word ‘technology,’ but in my time there has been a decrease in everything...If something isn’t done soon, there will be no more time for any of us. There has to be something better than technology. It was sad a few years ago when our seals got the blame for taking the cod. It wasn’t their fault...those who harvest the earth’s resources must begin putting as much back into it as they remove...”

-- Charlie Labrador, Mi’kmaq Elder of the Ocean

      Home            About          What's New         Article Index        Contact