Expired Cans of Salmon From Decades Ago Contained a Big Surprise
Parasites can tell us a lot about an ecosystem, because they're usually up in the business of several species. But unless they cause some major problem to humans, historically we haven't paid them much attention.
That's a problem for parasite ecologists, like Natalie Mastick and Chelsea Wood from the University of Washington, who had been searching for a way to retroactively track the effects parasites had on Pacific Northwestern marine mammals.
So when Wood got a call from Seattle's Seafood Products Association, asking if she'd be interested in taking boxes of dusty old expired cans of salmon – dating back to the 1970s – off their hands, her answer was, unequivocally, yes.
The cans had been set aside for decades as part of the association's quality control process, but in the hands of the ecologists, they became an archive of excellently preserved specimens; not of salmon, but of worms.
While the idea of worms in your canned fish is a bit stomach-turning, these roughly 0.4-inch (1-centimeter) long marine parasites, anisakids, are harmless to humans when killed during the canning process.
"Everyone assumes that worms in your salmon is a sign that things have gone awry," said Wood when the research was published last year.
"But the anisakid life cycle integrates many components of the food web. I see their presence as a signal that the fish on your plate came from a healthy ecosystem."
Anisakids enter the food web when they are eaten by krill, which in turn are eaten by larger species.
This is how anisakids end up in the salmon, and eventually, the intestines of marine mammals, where the worms complete their life cycle by reproducing. Their eggs are excreted into the ocean by the mammal, and the cycle begins again.
"If a host is not present – marine mammals, for example – anisakids can't complete their life cycle and their numbers will drop," said Wood, the paper's senior author.
The 178 tin cans in the 'archive' contained four different salmon species caught in the Gulf of Alaska and Bristol Bay across a 42-year period (1979–2021), including 42 cans of chum (Oncorhynchus keta), 22 coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch), 62 pink (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha), and 52 sockeye (Oncorhynchus nerka).
Although the techniques used to preserve the salmon do not, thankfully, keep the worms in pristine condition, the researchers were able to dissect the filets and calculate the number of worms per gram of salmon.
They found worms had increased over time in chum and pink salmon, but not in sockeye or coho.
"Seeing their numbers rise over time, as we did with pink and chum salmon, indicates that these parasites were able to find all the right hosts and reproduce," said Mastick, the paper's lead author.
"That could indicate a stable or recovering ecosystem, with enough of the right hosts for anisakids."
But it's harder to explain the stable levels of worms in coho and sockeye, especially since the canning process made it difficult to identify the specific species of anisakid.
"Though we are confident in our identification to the family level, we could not identify the [anisakids] we detected at the species level," the authors write.
"So it is possible that parasites of an increasing species tend to infect pink and chum salmon, while parasites of a stable species tend to infect coho and sockeye."
Mastick and colleagues think this novel approach – dusty old cans turned ecological archive – could fuel many more scientific discoveries. It seems they've opened quite a can of worms.
This research was published in Ecology and Evolution.
An earlier version of this article was published in April 2024.
66 Dinosaur Footprints Found Hiding in Plain Sight at Australian School
Scientists Discovered a 'Yellow Brick Road' at The Bottom of The Pacific Ocean
Megalodon: Scientists Reveal a Crucial Surprise About The Mega-Shark
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC News
2 days ago
- NBC News
Minimal U.S. effects from tsunami don't mean the forecast was inaccurate
The magnitude-8.8 earthquake off the coast of Russia's Kamchatka peninsula sent a wave of water racing at the speed of a jetliner toward Hawaii, California and Washington state, spurring warnings and alarm overnight on Wednesday. But when the tsunami waves arrived, they didn't cause devastation or deaths in the U.S. and the inundation might not have appeared threatening in some locations where warnings were issued. That doesn't mean the tsunami was a "bust," that it was poorly forecast or that it didn't pose a risk, earthquake and tsunami researchers said. 'You start to hear tsunami warning and everyone immediately thinks of the last Hollywood movie they saw and then it comes in at 3 feet and people are like, 'What's that?'' said Harold Tobin, the director of the Pacific Northwest Seismic Network and a professor at the University of Washington. 'We should count it as a win that a tsunami occurred, we got a warning and it wasn't the worst-case scenario.' Here's what to know. How strong was the Kamchatka earthquake? And why did it change so much? The initial reports of the Kamchatka earthquake from the United States Geological Survey pegged it as a 8.0-magnitude. Later, it was upgraded to an 8.8 magnitude quake. 'That is not uncommon for very, very large earthquakes in those initial minutes,' Tobin said. 'Our standard algorithms for determining the size of an earthquake quickly saturate. It's like turning up an amp and getting a lot of distortion." One of the first signs the earthquake was stronger than the initial seismic reports was an initial measurement from a buoy about 275 miles southeast of the Kamchatka peninsula. The buoy, which is part of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration's DART (Deep-ocean Assessment and Reporting of Tsunamis) system, is connected to a seafloor pressure sensor about 4 miles below the surface. The sensor registered a 90-centimeter wave, which is eye-popping to tsunami researchers. 'That's the second-largest recording we ever saw in the tsunami world,' said Vasily Titov, a senior tsunami modeler at NOAA's Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, adding that it indicated there was 'a catastrophic tsunami propagating in the ocean.' Titov said the only higher reading was from the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami, which caused nearly 16,000 deaths in Japan. Seismic models later confirmed that Wednesday's earthquake was a magnitude-8.8, which means it released nearly 16 times as much energy as a magnitude-8.0 earthquake, according to a USGS calculation tool. Tōhoku was much bigger. Tobin estimated that earthquake released 2-3 times as much energy as was observed in Kamchatka. Titov said the tsunami in Japan was also about three times larger. Additionally, Tobin said the Tōhoku earthquake 'produced an anomalously large seafloor displacement,' lurching and moving more water than expected, even for an earthquake of its magnitude. At Kamchatka, 'it's likely that there was less seafloor displacement than could have happened in a worst case or more dire scenario for a magnitude 8.8,' Tobin said, though more research will be needed to confirm that theory. How did researchers make a forecast? How good was the forecast? In two hours' time, researchers produced a tsunami forecast for 'pretty much the whole Pacific and for warning points along the U.S. coastlines,' Titov said, with predictions of water levels at coastal tide gauges and also for flood inundation. The tsunami took about eight hours to reach Hawaii and 12 hours to reach the California coast. Titov, who helped build the models used by forecasters who issue warnings from the National Tsunami Warning Centers in Hawaii and Alaska, said the models rely on seismic data and the network of nearly 80 DART buoys in place along the Pacific Rim, which sense pressure changes. The U.S. owns and operates about half of the DART buoys. Titov said the models indicated that north shore areas of Hawaii would receive tsunami waves of about two meters or less. 'Hilo was predicted at about still two meters [6.5 feet] and it materialized at about 150 centimeters,' or 1.5 meters [5 feet], Titov said. 'It's exactly how we want it — a little bit on the conservative side.' The same trend played out in parts of California, Titov said. It will take some time to assess how well the models predicted inundation because reports are still coming in about the extent of flooding. 'We know that the flooding occurred at Hawaii. We don't know exactly the extent, but from the reports that I saw on TV, it looks like exactly what we predicted,' Titov said. Why were people in Hawaii evacuated for a five-foot wave? Yong Wei, a tsunami modeler and senior research scientist at the University of Washington and the NOAA Center for Tsunami Research, said a 1.5 meter [5 foot] tsunami wave can be very dangerous, particularly in shallow waters off Hawaii. Tsunami waves contain far more energy than wind waves, which are far shorter in wavelength, period (time between waves) and slower in speed. Wei said tsunami waves of the size that struck Hawaii can surge inland 'tens of meters,' produce dangerous currents and cause damage to boats and other moveable objects. 'People die. If they stay there and they don't get any warning, two meters can definitely kill people,' Wei said. 'If you're on the beach, strong currents can definitely pull you out into the ocean and people will get drowned.' Tobin said the initial warnings were conservative, but appropriate, in his view. 'I don't want people to think, oh, we had a warning and nothing much happened and poo poo it — 'I can ignore it,'' Tobin said. 'Warnings by nature have to err a bit on the side of caution.' Was this a historic event? No. The Kamchatka peninsula has a long history of earthquakes. 'This was an area that was ready for another earthquake and there had been a lot of earthquakes in that region over the last few weeks,' said Breanyn MacInnes, a professor in the Department of Geological Sciences at Central Washington University, which indicates increased risk. In 1952, before scientists had a strong understanding of plate tectonics, a 9.0-magnitude earthquake struck offshore of the Kamchatka peninsula in much the same region, sending a tsunami into the town of Severo-Kurilsk. 'People in Russia were not really prepared for it. It was very big earthquake, a big tsunami and they were caught off guard,' MacInnes said. MacInnes said the tsunami produced was between 30 and 60 feet in height in southern parts of the peninsula. 'Thousands of people were killed and basically the town was destroyed,' said Joanne Bourgeois, an emeritus professor of sedimentology at the University of Washington, who has been studying the region's earthquake history for about three decades. How would the tsunami warning system perform if the earthquake struck closer to home? The Kamchatka tsunami is a megathrust earthquake produced along large subduction zone fault, when one tectonic plate is forced beneath another. The U.S. west coast features a similar fault, called the Cascadia subduction zone, which runs offshore along the U.S. West Coast from Northern California to northern Vancouver Island. 'This is kind of a mirror image across the Pacific,' Tobin said. 'An 8.8 at a relatively shallow depth in Cascadia is definitely in the realm of scenarios. We could have a similar event here.' In fact, Cascadia has the potential to produce much larger quakes, Tobin said. Modeling suggests Cascadia could produce tsunami waves as tall as 100 feet. Subduction zone earthquakes typically produce tsunamis that reach shore in about 30 minutes to an hour, Titov said, which would strain forecasters' capabilities to predict tsunami effects precisely along the U.S. west coast before inundation happened. Titov said more seafloor sensors, more computer processing and innovation with artificial intelligence algorithms are needed to speed forecasting. Tobin said the successful tsunami warning on Tuesday should spur investment in seafloor sensors and seismic monitoring stations offshore along the subduction zone. 'This shows the value and importance of NOAA and the USGS [U.S. Geological Survey] in these times where some of these government agencies have come into question,' Tobin said. 'We wouldn't have had a tsunami warning if it weren't for NOAA and the next one could be a closer event. They showed their value.'
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Why one of the biggest earthquakes ever recorded caused so little damage
It was one of the largest earthquakes ever recorded, a magnitude 8.8 monster off the eastern coast of Russia. Despite its remote location, the size of the quake immediately brought potential danger of tsunami to a significant swath of the globe, including Japan, Canada and the United States. Tsunami alerts immediately went out, covering millions of people, including the entire U.S. West Coast. But for all its fury, the quake ended up not being a catastrophe. Dangerous waves that rose more than 10 feet never materialized outside of Russia, and even there, officials had no reports of deaths, and damage appeared to be limited. "In this case, we mostly dodged a bullet," said Mike Rademaker, harbormaster for the Crescent City Harbor, a place that saw deadly tsunamis both in 1964 with the Alaska mega-quake and 2011 when the great Japanese quake hit. While those events represent worst-case scenarios, Tuesday's temblor represents a best-case scenario. "With tsunamis, location and directionality is everything," said Nathan Wood, a tsunami scientist with the U.S. Geological Survey. The area near the epicenter off Siberia's Kamchatka Peninsula did see damage, but it was sparsely populated. Video of the town of Severo-Kurilsk, on an island just off the peninsula, showed a building being swept away. But for areas farther out, initial modeling suggests the tsunami's energy was directed into the open Pacific Ocean, roughly between Alaska and Hawaii, and had time to weaken before it hit more populated areas. "It just kind of shot right between the two of those [states]," Wood said. The tsunami "impacted the local community that was right next to the source [earthquake] where it happened," Wood said. "But for everyone else, it kind of just shot right down this empty hallway — in between the Aleutian Islands chain and the Hawaiian Islands — and so there wasn't really a whole lot in its way. "So by the time it got to the West Coast, like California, Oregon, a lot of the energy had been dissipated," Wood said. Russia saw tsunami waves as high as 16 feet, according to news wire reports, but tsunami heights maxed out at 4 feet in Crescent City, 3 feet in Arena Cove in Mendocino County, 2.7 feet at Port San Luis in San Luis Obispo County, 2.6 feet at Point Reyes in Marin County and 1.5 feet in Monterey. The totals were even smaller in Southern California. The highest wave in the U.S. was 5.7 feet in Kahului, Hawaii, on Maui. "It's a relatively good day," state Sen. Mike McGuire, who represents a large swath of the Northern California coast, said Wednesday. The extensive alerts issued after the earthquake struck at 4:25 p.m. Tuesday PDT sparked concern across the Pacific, as scientists raced to forecast how extensive the tsunami could be. A magnitude 8.8 quake ranks as the sixth most powerful earthquake on record in the last 125 years. But by Tuesday evening, the National Tsunami Warning Center's forecasts indicated that Crescent City would see a tsunami that would likely cap out at no more than 5 feet, and with places like San Francisco and Los Angeles harbor at less than 1 foot or so. Dave Snider, the tsunami warning coordinator at the National Tsunami Warning Center in Alaska, said it might be too early to assess how much damage this tsunami did, but "it is true, maybe this one wasn't as bad as it could have been." "If the focus of this tsunami's energy is not pointed right at your coastline, the impacts to you could be pretty limited," Snider said. The magnitude of the earthquake is important, but it's "more about how much of that water moved, and what direction was that energy pointed at the coastline," Snider said. "In this case, it looks like maybe it just wasn't focused at the California coastline with that intensity of other known events." There are other tsunami scenarios that pose far greater risks to California. One involves a near-shore tsunami, such as a magnitude 9 earthquake along the Cascadia subduction zone, just off the coast of California's North Coast, Oregon and Washington. Depending on the strength and location of the quake, life-threatening waves could approach the coastline in as few as 10 minutes, perhaps not even enough time for an emergency alert to be issued, much less arrive on your cellphone. Near-shore tsunami from other offshore earthquakes could result in waves of up to 6 feet above mean sea level at San Francisco's Ocean Beach; 8 feet in Long Beach and the Santa Monica Pier; 9 feet in Malibu and 30 feet on Catalina Island. Read more: An earthquake just off California's coast poses dire tsunami risk for many communities Another worst-case scenario involves a major earthquake in Alaska sending a tsunami to California. Maximum projected distant-source tsunamis could bring waves of 15 feet above mean sea level to the Santa Monica Pier and Marina del Rey and 32 feet at San Francisco's Ocean Beach. Awareness of tsunami alerts has improved over the years in large part thanks to deep ocean pressure sensors that can detect tsunami that are overseen by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, said Eric Geist, research geophysicist for the USGS. "There were several, fortunately, in operation right off the Kamchatka subduction zone," Geist said. "So we knew, really quick, that a tsunami — and a fairly sizable one — was generated." One of the tragedies of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami was a lack of warning. Helping matters is that this week's tsunami hit California when there was a lower tide. The extensive warnings offered California officials another chance to handle a tsunami at a time when experts are urging both the public and government agencies to be more prepared. In December, a tsunami warning from an earthquake about 30 miles from the Humboldt County coast prompted a decidedly uneven response across Northern California. It was the first time the San Francisco Bay Area had ever received a warning of a "near-shore" tsunami with little time to evacuate, and the response demonstrated how the public had little awareness of whether they lived or work in a tsunami hazard zone. In the end, only a tiny tsunami, measured at 5 centimeters, was recorded in December. Even Tuesday night, there were problems. The California Geological Survey recently updated its tsunami hazard map — showing places in California that are at risk of tsunami inundation. The state's website crashed, yet again — a repeat of the website failing during the December 2024 tsunami warning, although this time, media outlets, including The Times, made interactive versions available. But other efforts at preparation against tsunami have borne fruit. In Crescent City, officials noted that the one dock that structurally failed — "H" dock — during Wednesday morning's tsunami actually worked as designed. "'H' dock was engineered as a wave-and-current attenuator with closely spaced pilings, which are specifically designed to disrupt and dissipate tsunami energy before it reaches the Inner Harbor," Rademaker said. "So its sacrificial role in the overall design appears to have functioned as intended, absorbing the brunt of the surge, and helping to protect the more interior docks." Crescent City Harbor was totally destroyed during the 2011 tsunami, and also suffered damage from a 2006 tsunami — events that each took a three-year rebuilding process. The statewide total in damage from the 2011 tsunami was estimated at more than $100 million. One person in 2011 died after being swept into the sea while taking pictures of the tsunami. The Crescent City tsunami in 2011 topped out at 8 feet. The 1964 Alaska earthquake set off a catastrophic tsunami that devastated Crescent City, washing away 29 blocks and killing at least 11 people. Surges reached 21 feet above the average low tide. Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times. Solve the daily Crossword
Los Angeles Times
2 days ago
- Los Angeles Times
Why one of the biggest earthquakes ever recorded caused so little damage
SAN FRANCISCO — It was one of the largest earthquakes ever recorded, a magnitude 8.8 monster off the eastern coast of Russia. Despite its remote location, the size of the quake immediately brought potential danger of tsunami to a significant swath of the globe, including Japan, Canada and the United States. Tsunami alerts immediately went out, covering millions of people, including the entire U.S. West Coast. But for all its fury, the quake ended up not being a catastrophe. Dangerous waves that rose more than 10 feet never materialized outside of Russia, and even there, officials had no reports of deaths, and damage appeared to be limited. 'In this case, we mostly dodged a bullet,' said Mike Rademaker, harbormaster for the Crescent City Harbor, a place that saw deadly tsunamis both in 1964 with the Alaska mega-quake and 2011 when the great Japanese quake hit. While those events represent worst-case scenarios, Tuesday's temblor represents a best-case scenario. 'With tsunamis, location and directionality is everything,' said Nathan Wood, a tsunami scientist with the U.S. Geological Survey. The area near the epicenter off Siberia's Kamchatka Peninsula did see damage, but it was sparsely populated. Video of the town of Severo-Kurilsk, on an island just off the peninsula, showed a building being swept away. But for areas farther out, initial modeling suggests the tsunami's energy was directed into the open Pacific Ocean, roughly between Alaska and Hawaii, and had time to weaken before it hit more populated areas. 'It just kind of shot right between the two of those [states],' Wood said. The tsunami 'impacted the local community that was right next to the source [earthquake] where it happened,' Wood said. 'But for everyone else, it kind of just shot right down this empty hallway — in between the Aleutian Islands chain and the Hawaiian islands — and so there wasn't really a whole lot in its way. 'So by the time it got to the West Coast, like California, Oregon, a lot of the energy had been dissipated,' Wood said. Russia saw tsunami waves as high as 16 feet, according to news wire reports, but tsunami heights maxed out at 4 feet in Crescent City, 3 feet in Arena Cove in Mendocino County, 2.7 feet at Port San Luis in San Luis Obispo County, 2.6 feet at Point Reyes in Marin County and 1.5 feet in Monterey. The totals were even smaller in Southern California. The highest wave in the U.S. was 5.7 feet in Kahului, Hawaii, on Maui. 'It's a relatively good day,' state Sen. Mike McGuire, who represents a large swath of the Northern California coast, said Wednesday. The extensive alerts issued after the earthquake struck at 4:25 p.m. Tuesday PDT sparked concern across the Pacific, as scientists raced to forecast how extensive the tsunami could be. A magnitude 8.8 quake ranks as the sixth most powerful earthquake on record in the past 125 years. But by Tuesday evening, the National Tsunami Warning Center's forecasts indicated that Crescent City would see a tsunami that would likely cap out at no more than 5 feet, and with places like San Francisco and Los Angeles harbor at less than 1 foot or so. Dave Snider, the tsunami warning coordinator at the National Tsunami Warning Center in Alaska, said it might be too early to assess how much damage this tsunami did, but 'it is true, maybe this one wasn't as bad as it could have been.' 'If the focus of this tsunami's energy is not pointed right at your coastline, the impacts to you could be pretty limited,' Snider said. The magnitude of the earthquake is important, but it's 'more about how much of that water moved, and what direction was that energy pointed at the coastline,' Snider said. 'In this case, it looks like maybe it just wasn't focused at the California coastline with that intensity of other known events.' There are other tsunami scenarios that pose far greater risks to California. One involves a near-shore tsunami, such as a magnitude 9 earthquake along the Cascadia subduction zone, just off the coast of California's North Coast, Oregon and Washington. Depending on the strength and location of the quake, life-threatening waves could approach the coastline in as few as 10 minutes, perhaps not even enough time for an emergency alert to be issued, much less arrive on your cellphone. Near-shore tsunami from other offshore earthquakes could result in waves of up to 6 feet above mean sea level at San Francisco's Ocean Beach; 8 feet in Long Beach and the Santa Monica Pier; 9 feet in Malibu and 30 feet on Catalina Island. Another worst case scenario involves a major earthquake in Alaska, sending tsunami to California. Maximum projected distant-source tsunamis could bring waves of 15 feet above mean sea level to the Santa Monica Pier and Marina del Rey and 32 feet at San Francisco's Ocean Beach. Awareness of tsunami alerts has improved over the years in large part to deep ocean pressure senors that can detect tsunami that are overseen by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, said Eric Geist, research geophysicist for the USGS. 'There were several, fortunately, in operation right off the Kamchatka subduction zone,' Geist said. 'So we knew, really quick, that a tsunami — and a fairly sizable one — was generated.' One of the tragedies of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami was a lack of warning. Helping matters is that the tsunami hit California when there was a lower tide. The extensive warnings offered California officials another chance to handle a tsunami at a time when experts are urging both the public and government agencies to be more prepared. In December, a tsunami warning from an earthquake about 30 miles from the Humboldt County coast prompted a decidedly uneven response across Northern California. It was the first time the San Francisco Bay Area had ever received a warning of a 'near-shore' tsunami with little time to evacuate, and the response demonstrated how the public had little awareness of whether they lived or work in a tsunami hazard zone. In the end, only a tiny tsunami, measured at 5 centimeters, was recorded in December. Even Tuesday night, there were problems. The California Geological Survey recently updated its tsunami hazard map — showing places in California that are at risk of tsunami inundation. The state's website crashed, yet again — a repeat of the website failing during the December 2024 tsunami warning, although this time, media outlets, including The Times, made interactive versions available. But other efforts at preparation against tsunami have borne fruit. In Crescent City, officials noted that the one dock that structurally failed — 'H' dock — during Wednesday morning's tsunami actually worked as designed. ''H' dock was engineered as a wave-and-current attenuator with closely spaced pilings, which are specifically designed to disrupt and dissipate tsunami energy before it reaches the Inner Harbor,' Rademaker said. 'So its sacrificial role in the overall design appears to have functioned as intended, absorbing the brunt of the surge, and helping to protect the more interior docks.' The Crescent City harbor was totally destroyed during the 2011 tsunami, and also suffered damage from a 2006 tsunami — events that each took a three-year rebuilding process. The statewide total in damage from the 2011 tsunami was estimated at more than $100 million. One person in 2011 died after being swept into the sea while taking pictures of the tsunami. The Crescent City tsunami in 2011 topped out at 8 feet. The 1964 Alaska earthquake set off a catastrophic tsunami that devastated Crescent City, washing away 29 blocks and killing at least 11 people. Surges reached 21 feet above the average low tide.
