Click on the images to view larger versions.
For the past 6 days, I have been quite fortunate to experience my first offshore cruise in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean aboard the CCGS M. Perley – a Canadian Coast Guard research vessel. This is not my first time away from land – I’ve conducted research from fishing vessels in the Bay of Fundy and from zodiac in the Bras d’Or lakes. Even as a kid growing up in a small fishing community I was exposed to the sea, frequenting fishing vessels owned by friends’ parents. However, this was my first time venturing a substantial distance offshore on a large research vessel to sample the benthic diversity associated with the NW Atlantic.
As a recently hired biologist at Fisheries and Oceans Canada in Moncton, New Brunswick, I was offered the chance to assist in an annual (but temporary) scallop survey off the northern coast of New Brunswick. The five-year-long survey has been established since 2012, with this year being the last year of the survey. A bottom trawl is used to collect benthic samples. We trawled for 2 minutes at each site and organisms brought up were sorted, identified, counted, weighed, and measured on deck in between drags. This made for intensive 12 hour days, but the data alone provided enough currency and motivation to keep me going.
While the cruises are dedicated to assessing scallop populations off the coast of New Brunswick, data on a slew of other benthic species are collected. Indeed abundances and biomass of all collected species are recorded, along with other basic morphometrics of other key species (e.g. carapace morphometry of crabs and lobsters, and lengths of fishes). We also had a CTD on board, equipped with probes to measure depth, conductivity, temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen, and pH.
The experience was nothing short of spectacular. I’ve come to note that sunrises and sunsets are much more appealing from sea. The diversity of animals was astounding and unpredictable from trawl to trawl – crustacaens, cnidarians, echinoderms, molluscs, poriferans, and fishes were all apparent in multiple trawls. The most common species were crustaceans. Shrimps (Argis dentata, Pandalus borealis, Pandalus montagui, and Sclerocrangon borea) and rock crabs (Cancer irroratus) really dominated the trawls.
Closer to shore, lobsters (Homarus americanus) were quite abundant as well, while an abundance of snow crabs (Chionoecetes opilio) and toad crabs (Hyas araneus and Hyas coaractatus) were frequent at more offshore sites – in one trawl we hauled up >80 snow crabs! We also recorded quite a few Acadian hermit crabs (Pagurus acadianus).
In some of the trawls, a vast array of other species were evident. Echinoderms were also abundant. Sea cukes (Cucumaria frondosa, Psolus fabricii), urchins (Strongylo- centrotus droebachiensis), sand dollars (Echinarachinus parma), sea stars (Asterias spp., Crossaster papposus, Henricia sanguinolenta, Leptasterias polaris, Solaster end- eca), and brittle stars (Ophiopholis aculeata) were quite abundant in many trawls – we even saw a couple of large basket stars (Gorgonocephalus arcticus)!
A number of bivalves were also present, including clams (Arctica islandica, Cyclocardia borealis, Cyrtodaria silique, Mactromeris polynyma, Serripes groenlandicus, and Yolida sp.,), scallops (Chlamys islandica, Placopectin magellanicus), and horse mussels (Modiolus modiolus). Similarly to bivalves, brachiopods were abundant at a number of sites. We also observed a number of gastropods (Buccinum undatum, Neptunea decemcostata, Colus stimpsoni, Aporrhais occidentalis, Lunatia heros) and chitons were abundant at a number of stations. Less common were sponges, jellyfishes, and sponges. Tube worms (Polychaeata) dominated the deeper muddy zones (>50 m depth).
Fishes were also present in a number of trawls. Species observed included American plaice (Hippoglossoides platessoides), Arctic alligatorfish (Ulcina olrikii), Atlantic poacher (Leptagonus decagonus), cunner (Tautogolabrus adspersus), fourline snakeblenny (Eumesogrammus praecisus), yellowtail flounder (Limanda ferruginea), winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus), longhorn sculpin (Myoxocephalus octodecemspinosus) shorthorn sculpin (Myoxocephalus scorpius), grubby (Myoxocephalus aenaeus), lumpfish (Cyclopterus lumpus), ocean pout (Zoarces americanus), sea raven (Hemitripterus americanus), and sand lance (Ammodytes sp.)
Of course other species have been observed on trawls that I have not attended. The above list is nowhere near exhaustive, but is an overview of the species that I observed during my time on the M. Perley. The experience was fantastic, and I look forward to the next opportunity to get back to a place with a flat horizon.
Until then, it’s back to manuscripts and grant proposals…
This afternoon I engaged in a Twitter conversation with some colleagues regarding the use of the term dreissenid in the context of “dreissenid mussels”. Colleague A wanted to know if dreissenid should be italicized. I assured her that it indeed does not, because Dreissenidae is a family of mussels containing 3 genera and is not a single genus (to which she obliged). Colleague B then questioned this and asked what to do if using the term when only referring to the genus Dreissena, whereby I suggested using a more specific term (i.e., Dreissena spp.). Colleague A then responded that she originally wanted to use the term to describe only the genus Dreissena, and that this was common practice. Then I got annoyed (again) at common names in general…
So which is it – does dreissenid refer to the family Dreissenidae or the genus Dreissena?
The answer is that it’s commonly used for both. Although many scientists may not care about or acknowledge this, the interchangeability of common names across different taxonomic resolutions can be problematic for a number of reasons.
Let’s first look at a relatively simple example. Say I published a paper on “dreissenid mussels” in the Journal of Crappy Nomenclature, and in the introduction made the claim that there are 16 species of dreissenid mussels. Without context, the reader has no idea as to whether there are 16 species within the family Dreissenidae or 16 species within the genus Dreissena unless they search this information themselves (there are 16 species in the family Dreissenidae; Figure 1).
Likewise, let’s say that in the same paper I was to claim that dreissenid mussels reside in supraterranean (above ground) freshwater systems. While that is true for the genus Dreissena, there exists a subterraneous genus of Dreissenidae (Congeria; resides solely in cave river systems). Again, without context, the reader would be left searching such information. Unfortunately, many readers would not recognize the need to search for this information and would likely apply the information obtained from the two statements outlined above in the context of how they interpret the term “dreissenid mussels”, which may be correct or incorrect depending on my definition of “dreissenid mussels”. Thus, in subsequent publications obtaining information from my hypothetical paper on dreissenid mussels, information may be incorrect, but nonetheless become “common knowledge”.
While the above examples may appear extreme, particularly for those who study these mussels, the points still stand – and for many more taxa than the example herein. Researchers conducting work on species new to them must learn as much about their new study species and related taxa as possible. In this way, using common names interchangeably across levels of taxonomic resolution can easily create problems for these researchers and the propagation of incorrect biological information may result. Furthermore, other problems with common names arise when even more generic terminology is used, like “cushion stars”.
Ultimately, there are two ways to solve the problems outlined above: either define the range of taxa (up front) that a common name being used encompasses, or stop using common names all together. If we are to follow the biological writing rules of Dr. Pechenik (i.e., more concise = better), scientific works would benefit from the elimination of common names (for example, “Dreissena spp.” consumes less space than “dreissenid mussels”, and the former would not require a formal definition). Not only does the use of precise taxonomic nomenclature reduce verbiage, but it would remove the potential for misinterpretation with respect to the breadth of biological processes across various levels of taxonomic resolution. That, and we would negate complex Twitter conversations regarding how to use common nomenclature and have more time to spend on writing our actual papers…
So, in conclusion, just stop using common names. They suck.
Dr. Arthur McDonald was recently crowned co-winner of the 2015 Nobel Prize in physics for his work with neutrinos at the SNO Lab in Sudbury, Ontario, helping to discover that neutrinos do indeed have mass. Dr. McDonald was born and raised in Sydney, NS and received his BSc and MSc degrees at Dalhousie University in Halifax. As a fellow Cape Bretoner, this story has affected me on a personal level (in a positive manner, of course), and so I thought I would share my thoughts about it here:
I first and foremost want to cordially congratulate you on receiving the Nobel Prize in Physics for your work with neutrinos. The award is an outstanding achievement for anyone, and for it to be awarded to a fellow Cape Bretoner is something that I am elated to proclaim.
Secondly, I wanted to reach out and let you know what the announcement meant for at least one fellow, Cape Breton-bred scientist. I’m currently pursuing my PhD in marine science, and although it is unrelated to particle physics and cosmology, I take an overarching pride in your accomplishments (as does the rest of the island and country). Being from Sydney, I’m sure you know how close-knit our communities are, and how we, as Cape Bretoners, tend to take pride in our island. That sentiment has and always will remain a part of my demeanor, and it is with that that I pen this letter.
Being an academically-minded person from an industrial-minded demography isn’t always an easy thing. While predominantly supportive, family, peers, and notable acquaintances often question the reasons for not settling down with a steady job and a family and are often quite critical of choices and sacrifices made. At times, the pressure from such beloved people that accompanies being a student and/or unemployed at 28 years of age can be overwhelming and stressful – indeed this is the case for many graduate students and early career scientists, and I have found myself at times questioning the very same things as a result. However, your leadership and hard work reiterate not only my reasons for doing what I do, but also reinforce my sheer love and passion for science, the unknown, and gaining a better understanding of the world. Your accomplishments highlight the fact – for me (and many others I’m sure) – that a small-town Cape Bretoner from a coal-mining family can succeed and thrive in the world of science and academia. Moreover, your success and contributions highlight the fact that Cape Bretoners are not preemptively destined for small-town life and a menial existence, but are capable of sheer greatness – something that I think many folks at “home” too often forget.
So from all Cape Bretoners, whether they know it or not, I want to extend our congratulations and gratitude for what you’ve accomplished for yourself personally, for small town Cape Breton, for the country of Canada, and for the world. Without your contributions, we would not be able understand the world in the way that we do, and that is a gift to humans and akin the world over. But as a Cape Bretoner, I want to thank you for making us proud, showing the world what we really have to offer, and instilling a drive for success and knowledge in a small-town kid with an appetite for the unknown.
With best regards,
Jeff C. Clements
Recently, California governor Jerry Brown signed a bill exiling personal and religious beliefs as legitimate exemptions for child vaccinations. While I personally commend Gov. Brown for taking such a strong stance in the interest of public health, many do not share my optimism. Unsurprisingly, proponents of the anti-vaccination movement (like Jim Carrey) spoke out against the decision. As you likely know, these individuals protest vaccinations on the assumption that chemical preservatives in the vaccines cause autism, with many “anti-vaxxers” often stating that their son or daughter showed signs of autism only after getting their shots. These claims of vaccinations causing autism stem from a debunked and retracted scientific article suggesting that an increase in autism diagnoses was linked to the appearance of the MMR vaccination. Since the paper’s retraction, numerous studies have failed to find any link between vaccines and autism. Furthermore, not only was this paper retracted because the data were falsified, but the causal conclusions of the paper were based on correlational evidence, much like the statements of anti-vaxxers with autistic children – a logical fallacy in the realm of good science.
Although correlation does not imply causation, correlations can often provide hints of a causal relationship. However, when simply presented with a correlation, four outcomes are possible:
- A causes B
- B causes A
- A and B are related by a common causal agent
- A and B are completely unrelated but have coincidentally similar patterns/trends
As such, it is important to look at correlational evidence with a critical eye and explore mechanisms of causality that lend evidence for a causal relationship before making any substantial claims. For example, the correlation between increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations, increasing global temperature, and anthropogenic CO2 emissions would not be sufficient to conclude with confidence that increasing anthropogenic CO2 is causing global warming. However, a plethora of studies reporting that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere really does lead to increasing temperature, that other sources of atmospheric CO2 are negligible in comparison to anthropogenic sources, and that other pollutants do not contribute to increasing temperature as much as CO2 does do provide evidence that increasing atmospheric CO2 is caused by human activity, and that this is the cause of global warming. Although such exploration may uncover a causal link, many correlations simply fall under #4 above. To illustrate such non-causal correlations, various articles have been published online. Most notably, a website – Spurious Correlations – highlights bizarre and often hilarious non-causal correlations.
To join in on the spurious correlation fad, I decided to look at some strange correlations with my academic performance thus far by comparing the number of papers I’ve published during each year of my Ph.D. between 2012 and 2015 (2015 data reflect papers that have been published, submitted, are in press, or are in prep); 10 such correlations are below. All of these correlations are strictly non-causal and the relationships are not linked in any way – they are simply meant for your entertainment by imagining the comedic nature of causal links between the variables.
1. Annual publications correlate with atmospheric CO2
Clearly my publications are causing global warming, right “skeptics”?
2. Annual publications correlate with McDonald’s net income
Ba-da-ba-ba-ba, I’m publishing!
3. Annual publications correlate with cumulative annual spending on advertisements by mobile companies
Maybe smartphones really do make you smarter.
4. Annual publications correlate with ratings of “Suits” finales
Maybe my co-authors have lost interest in Harvey Specter.
5. Annual publications correlate with Alexander Ovechkin’s scoring productivity
Should I thank Ovi, or should Ovi thank me?
6. Annual publications correlate with the legalization of same-sex marriage in the USA
Seems like America and I are both doing something right.
7. Annual publications correlate with Nicolas Cage movie appearances
It’s not exactly mai-thais and yatzee out here.
8.Annual publications correlate with airplane accidents
If it was paper airplanes, this might actually be causal.
9. Annual publications correlate with US chain store sales
I don’t think journal fees are included in chain store sales.
10. Annual publications correlate with the price of coffee
And the winner for “correlation most likely to be causal” goes to…
At some point or another, you’ve probably read or heard the common headline:
“Climate change threatens ____________ (insert your favorite species).”
But once you’ve digested the doom-and-gloom story, have you ever wondered how we know how climate change impacts various marine species? What is it that scientists do that leads to such claims? Are these claims legitimate? How accurate are they?
When assessing the impacts of climate change on living organisms, most studies employ controlled experiments, where researchers can tinker with one or a number of relevant variables to mimic predicted future conditions and observe how organisms respond to these conditions. There are substantial problems with this approach, however. First, biological responses are typically assessed in the context of only one or two environmental stressors, while we know that a multitude of factors (e.g., temperature, acidification, eutrophication, hypoxia, salinity, etc.) will have independent and/or synergistic biological impacts. Second, over the duration of such experiments, conditions are often kept constant, mimicking average future conditions. Finally, studies typically assess species in isolation, which doesn’t adequately address the community and/or ecosystem consequences of climate change, nor how individual species will respond when residing in their natural habitats. Consequently, I argue that the biological effects of a changing climate are, at present, poorly understood.
The ways in which organisms respond to a given environmental stressor do not solely depend on that single stressor. The interactive effects of multiple environmental stressors can elicit drastically different biological responses. For example, it is increasingly recognized that food availability can modulate the magnitude of effect when assessing the biological impacts of climate change in the ocean, suggesting that, at least physiologically, many species can tolerate a warming and acidifying ocean as long as they have enough energy to do so. In a recent literature review of the behavioural impacts of ocean acidification (Clements & Hunt, in review), we found that 7/8 publications incorporating the independent and synergistic effects multiple environmental stressors (Table 1) in experiments derived different conclusions than when acidification was tested in isolation. Furthermore, the outcomes were all over the board, with additional stressors attenuating, amplifying, or not affecting the behavioural endpoint in question. The problem is that only 8/57 studies actually addressed the effects of multiple environmental stressors – a problem that transfers other biological responses to climate change as well.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that nature is far from stable. Growing up in the Maritime Provinces of Canada, I know that a look out the window from one moment to the next can yield drastically different weather observations. While the term “weather” applies to environmental phenomena over small temporal scales (hours, day, weeks, months, etc.), “climate” refers to the average of those weather conditions over long periods of time (years, decades, centuries, millennia, etc.). Since climate is a function of weather, understanding the impacts of climate change requires incorporating an understanding of the weather that derives the climate. The variability (i.e., the weather) around projected climatic means can modulate the amount of time that an organism experiences environmental conditions above or below a threshold whereby the organism is affected (Figure 1). Unfortunately, few studies take variability into consideration. In the same literature review mentioned above (Clements & Hunt, in review), only 1/57 studies took variability into consideration, reporting a negative effect of acidification + variability, while acidification alone elicited no effect. Furthermore, studies incorporating multiple environmental stressors and their associated variability are virtually non-existent. Ultimately, a strong understanding of how climate change influences biology requires embracing variability, not dismissing it – otherwise our understanding remains flawed.
Species interactions can also elicit different responses to climate change. For example, the presence of marine plants and their density/abundance within a given marine system can, to an extent, buffer oceanic pH and mitigate the impacts of ocean acidification to other organisms residing within that system. As such, understanding the impacts of climate change in terms of community- and ecosystem-wide consequences not only provides a broader understanding of the biological and ecological impacts of climate change, but can provide a more accurate understanding of how individual organisms will be impacted by shifting environmental conditions within their natural habitats.
So does this all mean that we shouldn’t worry about climate change? – ABSOLUTELY NOT! Climate change is currently, and will continue to be a huge problem for humans and a plethora of other organisms. However, I do think that the degree to which climate change will be a biological problem is poorly understood. On the bright side, scientists are beginning to recognize these shortcomings and are now working toward a better understanding of how climate change will affect marine organisms. Furthermore, not all studies simply employ highly controlled laboratory experiments; there is field evidence that provides sound information regarding the biological effects of climate change for some species. Ultimately, stamp collecting gets us nowhere – experimental approaches need to incorporate multiple shifting stressors and their associated variability, as well as numerous species (optimally mimicking communities or ecosystems) in order to adequately understand the biological implications of a changing climate. Until then, we will likely remain naive about the ways in which climate change will impact marine species.
The year was 2011, and Rob Saunders, CEO of Island Scallops, had some grim news to report from his scallop hatchery in Qualicum Bay, BC – every scallop the company had put in the water over the past 3 years had died. The likely culprit? – ocean acidification (OA). Seawater pH levels reaching 7.2 had been reported from the area, where typical seawater hovers around a pH of 8. Consequently, Island Scallops was forced to dramatically scale back production, shutting down its processing plant and laying off 1/3 of its employees.
Although often considered a future problem, OA is already impacting coastal systems on the Pacific coast of North America. Aside from the shellfish crises in the Northwest United States, and British Columbia, Feely et al. (2008) reported undersaturated seawater (with respect to aragonite; a mineral form of calcium carbonate) upwelling along the continental shelf of the Pacific coast of North America from Canada to Mexico. More recently, it has been suggested that these chemical changes in the same area are already resulting in negative biological implications at the base of the food web (Bednaršek et al. 2014). As a result of these immediate threats of OA, various committees and national projects have been formed to address and monitor OA in the United States, such as the NOAA Ocean Acidification Program (NOAA OAP), while documents outlining strategic plans for research, monitoring, and tackling the problem of OA in the US have been published in recent years (e.g. OCBP 2009, NRC 2010, IWGOA 2014) (Europe is also leading the way in this area, but I will stick to North America for the purposes of this post; for a glimpse at the European Project on Ocean Acidification, EPOCA, see here). In fact, the United States federal government, through NOAA initiatives, has a total of 16 buoys/moorings monitoring OA in their national waters (10 on the Pacific coast, 6 on the Atlantic coast) (Figure 1).
While the US Federal government appears to be sufficiently concerned about OA, the Canadian Federal government seems much more disinterested. In their 2012 State of the Oceans report, Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) reported that, due to its age, Pacific sub-surface water already contains a high concentration of CO2 and periodic episodes of undersaturated (pH<7.7) surface waters already occur on the Pacific coast of Canada (DFO 2012). In the report, DFO also stated that on the Atlantic coast of Canada, bottom waters in the St. Lawrence Estuary have dropped 0.2-0.3 units over the past 70 years (in comparison to the global average decrease of 0.1 units) resulting in biological implications for bottom-dwelling animals, and suggested that water from Arctic outflow moving through the Canadian Arctic Archipelago is bringing more acidic waters to the east coast of Canada, potentially making it more susceptible to future changes (DFO 2012). Although the report clearly outlines that ocean acidification is already a problem on both Canadian coasts and suggests that future conditions will get worse, the Canadian Federal government is doing very little to address OA in Canada, simply stating in the report that “Continued scientific research into ocean acidification is necessary to identify its impacts and drivers, which vary by location, with a view to developing a coherent response to the issue”. While 16 buoys are monitoring OA in US waters, Canada has a total of 1 (Pacific coast), which is itself a collaborative project with NOAA in the US (Figure 1). Canada has, however, been involved in the AMAP project which has contributed to monitoring Arctic OA, but the only other governmental OA research program in Canada is just getting off of the ground at a DFO lab in St. Andrews, New Brunswick; however, this program is very primitive and requires much more time, effort, and funding to appropriately establish an OA monitoring program on Canada’s east coast. When it comes to policy, OA isn’t even on the radar in Canada. Although, the President of the United States committed to protecting marine ecosystems of the US and tackling the problem of OA in June of 2014 (not to mention the myriad regional initiatives aimed at addressing the problem in the United States), the Canadian government has yet to mention the prospect of trying to mitigate the implications of OA in our country. While the United States have multiple, detailed documents outlining OA and potential adaptation strategies, the latest formal report outlining Canada’s action on climate change designates less than a page to OA (Warren & Lemmen 2014). Furthermore, although the Canadian government is abundantly proud of its ecoENERGY program (i.e., investing money into oil and natural gas exploration), the ecoACTION program (i.e., actively taking action against ecological problems such as climate change and ocean acidification) has been dismantled. Finally, although government agencies such as NOAA in the US and EPOCA in Europe have devoted a substantial amount of time into public outreach and education, government scientists studying OA in Canada are still struggling to speak outside of their offices.
For the past decade or more, OA has been on the radars of scientists around the world. With its imminent threat to marine organisms around the world, from individual species to global biodiversity, acidification has been a hot topic, peaking the interest of scientists and (some) policy makers alike. Although disparately necessary, a global policy to address the threat of OA is lacking. Consequently, a disconnect exists between regions around the world, with some taking notice and action more than others. Although the United States has begun to lead the way in OA research and mitigation (along with numerous countries in Europe), it is quite clear that the Canadian Federal Government and associated policy makers are drastically lagging when it comes to acting on OA, a detrimental environmental issue the requires immediate attention. As a result, research into OA in Canada is drastically hindered and negative instances such as those at Island Scallops aren’t likely to be prevented for quite some time to come.
Feely RA et al. 2008. Evidence for upwelling of corrosive “acidified” water onto the continental shelf. Nature, 320, 1490-1492.
Ocean Carbon and Biogeochemistry Program 2009. ocean acidification: Recommended strategy for a U.S. national research program [online]. Accessed 01/12/2014 from http://www.us-ocb.org/publications/OCB_OA_Whitepaper.pdf.
National Research Council 2010. Ocean acidification: A national strategy to meet the challenges of a changing ocean [online]. Accessed 01/12/2014 from http://hofmannlab.msi.ucsb. edu/resources/OA_A%20National%20Strategy%20to%20Meet%20the%20Challenges%20of%20a%20Changing%20Ocean.pdf.
Bednaršek N et al. 2014. Limacina helicina shell dissolution as an indicator of declining habitat suitability owing to ocean acidification in the California Current Ecosystem. Proc R Soc B, 281, DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2014.0123.
Fisheries and Oceans Canada 2014. Canada’s state of the oceans report, 2012 [online]. Accessed 01/12/2014 from http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/science/coe-cde/soto/report-rapport-2012/index-eng.asp#a2.
Interagency Working Group on Ocean Acidification 2014. Strategic plan for federal research and monitoring of ocean acidification [online]. Accessed 01/12/2014 from http://www.whitehouse. gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/NSTC/iwg-oa_strategic_plan_march_2014.pdf.
Warren FJ & Lemmen DS 2014. Canada in a changing climate: Sector perspectives on impacts and adaptation. Government of Canada, Ottawa, 286pp.