Overfishing has caused cod to halve in body size since 1990s, study finds
Now scientists have uncovered genomic evidence that intensive fishing has driven rapid evolutionary changes that have contributed to these fish roughly halving in average body length since the 1990s.
The 'shrinking' of cod, from a median mature body length of 40cm in 1996 to 20cm in 2019, has a genetic basis and human activities have left a profound mark on the population's DNA, the study concluded.
'When the largest individuals are consistently removed from the population over many years, smaller, faster-maturing fish gain an evolutionary advantage,' said Prof Thorsten Reusch, head of the marine ecology research division at Geomar Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel and senior author of the research.
'What we are observing is evolution in action, driven by human activity. This is scientifically fascinating, but ecologically deeply concerning.'
The dramatic shrinking of cod has been a source of concern for several decades, but it was not clear to what extent the phenomenon has been driven by environmental factors such as hypoxic conditions caused by algal blooms, pollution and more extreme marine seasonal temperature changes.
'It was very hard to prove that it was an evolution that had happened,' said Dr Kwi Young Han, first author of the study, who completed her PhD at Geomar.
The study used an archive of tiny ear bones, called otoliths, of 152 cod, caught in the Bornholm Basin between 1996 and 2019. Otoliths – a bit like tree rings – record annual growth, making them valuable biological timekeepers.
The scientists combined annual growth data with the cods' body size metrics and genetics to assess whether there had been a genetic shift in the population over 25 years under fishing pressure.
Between 1996 and 2019, the median length of a mature cod in the dataset fell from 40cm to 20cm. The median weight in 2019 (272 grams) was just a fifth of the median weight of a mature cod caught in 1996 (1,356 grams).
The analysis revealed systematic differences between fast- and slow-growing fish and that the gene variants that make a large body size more likely have become less common over time, indicating an evolutionary pressure.
Trawling is intended to be size selective, with legally binding minimal mesh sizes designed to protect smaller individuals and allow fish to reach maturity and spawn before being caught.
However, this may have had the unintended consequence of producing a strong selective evolutionary pressure in favour of smaller fish, which would be more likely to escape the nets.
'The demographic argument is that each individual should at least reproduce once before being caught,' said Reusch. 'While this seems logical in terms of keeping a healthy demography of fish stocks, it has the potential to totally mess up the genetic and size structure.'
The findings, published in the journal Science Advances, could help explain why there has been no rebound in the body size since the collapse of the stock prompted a complete fishing ban of eastern Baltic cod in 2019, which remains in place.
Prof Stefano Mariani, a marine biologist at Liverpool John Moores University, who was not involved in the research, said the genetic analysis could not explain the full extent of the shrinking that has been observed, with environmental factors probably also playing a significant role.
But he said showing that 'the activities of humans can speed up evolution' was a 'milestone' result that highlights the importance of monitoring the gene pool of fish populations, as well as simply tracking numbers of fish.
'It would be really good to try to maintain diversity because as soon as you chop away a certain section of diversity, it's like losing an insurance for the future where that might have an advantage,' he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
3 hours ago
- The Independent
Scientists get amazing rare glimpse inside dying star as it explodes
For the first time, scientists have witnessed the inner workings of a dying star as it exploded, offering an unprecedented glimpse into the intricate process of stellar evolution. While cosmic explosions, known as supernovae, are a common end for massive stars, their violent nature typically obscures the star's internal structure, making direct observation challenging. However, a recent breakthrough involving supernova 2021yfj, located within our own Milky Way galaxy, defied this trend. Researchers were able to observe its unjumbled layers, providing a unique window into the heart of a stellar demise. The collapsing star's outermost layers of hydrogen and helium had peeled away long ago, which wasn't surprising. But the star's dense, innermost layers of silicon and sulfur had also shed during the explosion. 'We have never observed a star that was stripped to this amount,' said Northwestern University 's Steve Schulze, who was part of the discovery team that published the research Wednesday in the journal Nature. The finding lends evidence to ideas scientists have about how large stars look near the end of their lives, organized into layers with lighter elements on the outside and heavier ones close to the core. 'Because so many of the layers had been stripped off this star, this basically confirmed what those layers were,' said Anya Nugent, who studies supernovas at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. She was not involved with the new research. It's not yet clear how this star got so whittled down — whether its layers were flung off violently in the final stages of its life or yanked away by a twin star. Future research may yield clues, though scientists acknowledged such an event may be tough to capture again.
The Independent
4 hours ago
- The Independent
Scientists get a rare peek inside of an exploding star
Scientists for the first time have spotted the insides of a dying star as it exploded, offering a rare peek into stellar evolution. Stars can live for millions to trillions of years until they run out of fuel. The most massive ones go out with a bang in an explosion called a supernova. Using telescopes that peer deep into space, researchers have observed many such explosions. The cosmic outbursts tend to jumble up a dying star's layers, making it hard for scientists to observe the inner structure. But that wasn't the case for the new discovery, a supernova called 2021yfj located in our Milky Way galaxy. The collapsing star's outermost layers of hydrogen and helium had peeled away long ago, which wasn't surprising. But the star's dense, innermost layers of silicon and sulfur had also shed during the explosion. 'We have never observed a star that was stripped to this amount,' said Northwestern University 's Steve Schulze, who was part of the discovery team that published the research Wednesday in the journal Nature. The finding lends evidence to ideas scientists have about how large stars look near the end of their lives, organized into layers with lighter elements on the outside and heavier ones close to the core. 'Because so many of the layers had been stripped off this star, this basically confirmed what those layers were,' said Anya Nugent, who studies supernovas at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. She was not involved with the new research. It's not yet clear how this star got so whittled down — whether its layers were flung off violently in the final stages of its life or yanked away by a twin star. Future research may yield clues, though scientists acknowledged such an event may be tough to capture again. ___ The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Department of Science Education and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
The Guardian
7 hours ago
- The Guardian
Everything Evolves by Mark Vellend review – can Darwin explain JD Vance?
Nobody expected the Spanish Inquisition, but then again no one could have predicted the giraffe, the iPhone or JD Vance. The laws of physics don't demand them; they all just evolved, expressions of how (for better or worse) things happened to turn out. Ecologist Mark Vellend's thesis is that to understand the world, 'physics and evolution are the only two things you need'. Evolution, here, refers in the most general sense to outcomes that depend on what has gone before. Thus the world can be divided into things that are inescapable and things that are contingent, depending on circumstances. In the terminology he borrows from evolutionary biologist Graham Bell, the study of physical necessity is the 'first science'; that of historical contingency the second. So, the periodic table of 90 or so natural elements, which are inescapable given the laws of physics, would fall under the first science. Dung beetles and vice presidents, which aren't, fall under the second. This 'second science', Vellend argues, unites disciplines from evolutionary biology to anthropology, history, economics and political science. If we fail to teach children about evolutionary processes, we 'deprive them of understanding the fundamental set of processes that underlie not only life, but also the cultures and economies (and education systems) in which they live and work'. In developing this thesis, Everything Evolves draws on examples from technology and product design, microbiology, ecology, linguistics, and more. When biologists talk of evolution, they tend to mean the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution by natural selection, which incorporates three phenomena – variation, selection and inheritance. Life generates diversity: some animals, for example, can run faster than others. (Darwin didn't know how such variation arose; it is now attributed to genetic mutation.) Some of those variants help an animal survive because they're better adapted to its environment and circumstances. These are the ones that are selected for inheritance – they're passed on to the next generation, rather than dying out. But Vellend advises against a too Darwin-centric view of evolution. For one thing the theory is much more complex than this bullet-point summary. Some organisms survive by sheer luck, not adaptive advantage, creating random drift in traits. And, as Vellend explains, the nuances seem endless. For instance, the 'fitness' of some variants may depend on how rare or common they are, as he illustrates by analogy with baby names: a name might be more fit when it's unusual than when it's familiar. Fitness is also multi factorial: does a mobile phone perform better in the marketplace by virtue of being smaller, faster, nicer to look at, cheaper? How is one advantage weighed against another? As these examples show, ideas from evolutionary theory can be applied to social systems and artefacts, from corporations to computers. But this doesn't mean they too evolve in strictly Darwinian fashion. Other types of evolution are possible: ones that involve an element of planning, rather than random variation, say. What they all have in common is repeated trial and error, with some way of assessing the products and retaining what works. Vellend attempts to paint this larger picture through the metaphor of an 'evolutionary soundboard' on which a series of dials controlling factors such as variation, inheritance and differential success can be twiddled. It's a noble effort at unification – but as any engineer knows, once you have a complex system governed by many independent factors, the possibility space is vast and the task of predicting (or understanding) outcomes overwhelming. In the end, the message is simply that evolving systems are widespread and massively complicated. Vellend recognises that he is not the first to suggest a distinction between physical determinism and evolutionary contingency. In A World Beyond Physics (2019), for example, complexity theorist Stuart Kauffman argued that 'physics will not tell us whence we come, how arrived, why the human heart exists, nor why I can buy nectarines in Eastsound [an island in the Pacific north-west]'. But can a description of the physical and social worlds really be split so neatly in two? On the one hand, if nature really is lawlike at the fundamental level, doesn't that mean everything that has happened since the big bang, including the evolution of dung beetles, has an inevitability about it? Certainly there seems to be some lawlike predictability to both biological and social evolution. Fluid dynamics makes it likely that many flying things would be winged and swimming things streamlined. Physical principles prevent humans growing 20 ft tall or trees topping about 300 ft. There is a physics that describes traffic jams and networks like the internet or Amazonian ecosystems. On the other hand, quantum mechanics is probabilistic: we can't say what will happen at the microscopic scale, only what might. It's widely thought that the large-scale structure of the universe carries the imprint of quantum fluctuations – of chance – laid down when the cosmos was still around the size of an atom. So in a sense there is a contingency to absolutely everything that exists. Sign up to Inside Saturday The only way to get a look behind the scenes of the Saturday magazine. Sign up to get the inside story from our top writers as well as all the must-read articles and columns, delivered to your inbox every weekend. after newsletter promotion Vellend's proposal for a restructuring of the academic curriculum into the first and second sciences is, then, open to debate. Yet he does a valuable job of reminding us how little fundamental physics explains, or ever will. 'Everything,' the zoologist D'Arcy Thompson is said to have once opined, 'is the way it is because it got that way.' Vellend's title might be truer than even he recognises. Everything Evolves: Why Evolution Explains More Than We Think, From Proteins to Politics by Mark Vellend is published by Princeton (£25). To support the Guardian order your copy at Delivery charges may apply.
