logo
Honey, We Shrunk the Cod

Honey, We Shrunk the Cod

New York Times15 hours ago

Call it the case of the incredible shrinking cod. Thirty years ago, the cod that swam in the Baltic Sea were brag-worthy, with fishing boats hauling in fish the size of human toddlers. Today, such behemoths are vanishingly rare. A typical Eastern Baltic cod could easily fit in someone's cupped hands.
Experts have suspected that commercial fishing might be to blame. For years, the cod were intensely harvested, caught in enormous trawl nets. The smallest cod could wriggle their way out of danger, while the biggest, heaviest specimens were continually removed from the sea.
One simple explanation for the phenomenon, then, was that the fish were not actually shrinking: Rather, they were simply eliminated as soon as they grew big enough to be caught.
But a new study suggests that intense fishing was driving the evolution of the fish. Small, slow-growing cod gained a significant survival advantage, shifting the population toward fish that were genetically predisposed to remaining small. Today's cod are small not because the big individuals are fished out but because the fish no longer grow big.
The data, which were published on Wednesday in the journal Science Advances, add to a growing body of evidence that human activities like hunting and fishing are driving the evolution of wild animals — sometimes at lightning speed.
'Human harvesting elicits the strongest selection pressures in nature,' said Thorsten Reusch, a marine ecologist at the GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel in Germany and an author of the new paper. 'It can be really fast that you see evolutionary change.'
Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Your food is full of microplastics—and now we know why
Your food is full of microplastics—and now we know why

Fast Company

time5 hours ago

  • Fast Company

Your food is full of microplastics—and now we know why

A study published this week delves into the mystery of how the plastic objects we interact with daily shed tiny particles that creep into our bodies, brains and guts. While the scientific focus has long been on how microplastics pollute our environment and impact wildlife, researchers are increasingly raising alarms about how the same contaminants can wreak havoc in the human body. The new research, published in the journal NPJ Science of Food, wove together data from 100 previous papers that studied microplastics, nanoplastics and plastic particles. The results were compiled into an open database published by the Food Packaging Forum, a Swiss nonprofit that examines chemicals in food packaging. Microplastics and nanoplastics are plastic particles in the millimeter to nanometer range, with the latter causing even more concern among scientists because their tiny size makes them able to slip into human cells. 'This is the first systematic evidence map to investigate the role of the normal and intended use of food contact articles in the contamination of foodstuffs with MNPs [microplastics and nanoplastics],' lead author of and Scientific Communication Officer at the Food Packaging Forum Dr. Lisa Zimmermann said. 'Food contact articles are a relevant source of MNPs in foodstuffs; however, their contribution to human MNP exposure is underappreciated.' How we interact with plastic matters The new study looked at a broad range of 'food contact articles' that included water bottles, cutting boards, food processing equipment and packaging ranging from food wrappers to tea bags. Most food packaging contains plastic, even many things that seem like they don't, like the paper that wraps around cold cuts and cheese, cardboard takeout containers and glass bottles and jars, which often have a plastic-coated closure. The authors focused on how everyday objects used as intended can shed microplastics and how that shedding can worsen over the course of repeated interactions. Across 14 different studies, microplastic shedding was found to increase with repeated uses, including screwing a reusable water bottle lid on and off, washing a melamine dish or putting plastic tableware into contact with hot foods 'These findings are relevant for reused plastic [food contact articles] and should be considered when assessing the safety of FCAs across use cycles,' the authors wrote. Based on their research, and its blind spots, they stressed the need for future studies to delve more deeply into how repeated interactions, heating and washing affects how much microplastic is shed by kitchenware and food packaging that most of the world's population might come into contact with countless times each day. The authors also found that the bulk of the research on microplastics focused on only a few kinds of objects that come into contact with food and drinks, like water bottles and tea bags. Similarly, more studies focused on PET and polypropylene over other common plastics, leaving a lot of unknowns about how much plastic is being shed by food packaging made out of other materials. Food and beverage containers can expose the human body to microplastics every time we interact with them but relatively little is still known about how that process works. That mystery is an ominous one considering how ubiquitous plastics are globally in food packaging and preparation and how their presence is increasingly linked to reproductive, digestive and respiratory problems and potentially even colon and lung cancer. Plastics appear to have no trouble finding their way into the human body. Another recent study found that the adult brain can contain a plastic spoon's worth of microplastics and nanoplastics, an amount that's seven to 30 times higher than what might be found in the liver or kidneys. Those kind of findings show that it's imperative for future research to track down how all of that plastic is finding its way into the human body and what exactly it does once it gets there.

Amazon Wants Denis Villeneuve's ‘Bond' Movie as Soon as Possible
Amazon Wants Denis Villeneuve's ‘Bond' Movie as Soon as Possible

Gizmodo

time7 hours ago

  • Gizmodo

Amazon Wants Denis Villeneuve's ‘Bond' Movie as Soon as Possible

Now that we know a Denis Villeneuve-helmed Bond reboot is officially coming, there's a very obvious next question: who's gonna step into the role of 007? A new report from Variety suggests some of the top contenders, and the selection of actors in the running is fascinatingly mixed, at least in the sense that the character is traditionally played by a Brit. Australian-born Jacob Elordi, star of Guillermo del Toro's upcoming Frankenstein for Netflix, is a strong pick and stands apart from the rest of the competition with recent moody turns in roles such as Elvis in Priscilla and an ill-fated rich kid in Saltburn. Then there's Tom Holland, the Spider-Man star whose name has been floating around for a while for the role and whose upcoming roles include being part of Christopher Nolan's Odyssey epic. And finally, Harris Dickinson, whose credits include Babygirl, The Iron Claw, and The King's Man: Gentlemen—the latter of which is a no-brainer of a transition. We'll see who Villeneuve goes with in the weeks to come. According to the Variety report, the pressure to make a choice is being fast-tracked. Amazon was described as 'looking at a 2028 release date for Bond 26' and with Villeneuve going into Dune: Messiah for a 2026 release, it's likely he'll be jumping straight into Bond as soon as that wraps. Amazon has yet to announce a writer, so that's also in the process of getting locked down. Stay tuned here at io9 for more breaking Bond news. Want more io9 news? Check out when to expect the latest Marvel, Star Wars, and Star Trek releases, what's next for the DC Universe on film and TV, and everything you need to know about the future of Doctor Who.

WHO expert group fails to find a definitive answer for how COVID-19 began
WHO expert group fails to find a definitive answer for how COVID-19 began

Washington Post

time8 hours ago

  • Washington Post

WHO expert group fails to find a definitive answer for how COVID-19 began

LONDON — An expert group charged by the World Health Organization to investigate how the COVID-19 pandemic started released its final report Friday, reaching an unsatisfying conclusion: Scientists still aren't sure how the worst health emergency in a century began. At a press briefing on Friday, Marietjie Venter, the group's chair, said that most scientific data supports the hypothesis that the new coronavirus jumped to humans from animals.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store