The study done by Ivan was conducted out of the need to create awareness about how we are changing the world we live in and how certain changes in our oceans can affect the inhabitants surrounding oceans. The study focuses on many aspects that are involved with carbon dioxide and various aquatic species. The meta-analysis methodology that attributes to most of the data comes from various articles, studies, and experiments tailored to their specific needs to find acidified ocean and temperature dependent study's.
The main goal of the study was to focus on various attributing carbon dioxide factors that effect a species. Using models that focus on ocean acidification, ocean warming and a combination of the two, various categories were implemented to further diversify the results. The data shows the increase of the metabolism of various animals, this increase effects other species that relies heavily to nourish it. This effects the ability to meet the demand for species with high metabolisms. Shown by mean effect size the foraging and metabolic rates are increasing as both acidification and temperature increase. Ocean acidification factors such as pH, effect calcifying and non-calcifying species (ex. Coral,sponges) showing a decrease in population. The data goes further with acidification, by agreeing that this is an apparent problem but is concerned with other aspects such as secondary production.
Figure 1 below presents a great summary of how each factor attributes to the growing impact of carbon dioxide. Each levels problems are summed up by either an increase or decrease and depending on the effect dictated by external factors. If this article went further in the analysis it would be valuable to see data about major fishing economies are going to be effected as time progresses. Fishing countries such as Japan would be devastated if there is barely any fishing occurring.
Figure 1.Conceptual diagram illustrating the main effects of ocean acidification, warming, and their combination on ecosystem processes and species groups, based on the metaanalysis results as shown in the various figures of our study. Circled arrows indicate the direction of change, and question marks (?) indicate less certain responses. The most likely feedback responses that exacerbate the direct effects of these two global stressors are indicated with white arrows. Two model
ecosystems are shown here (reefs and surface-ocean) to visually capture potential change [present day (Upper Left and Upper Right) vs. future (Lower Left and Lower Right)] in species abundance, species diversity, and community shifts, as revealed by our metaanalysis for ecosystems in general. The changes shown here for reefs and surface-ocean are not exact outcomes of future states but merely emphasize overall responses for (relative) abundance of species.The article presents a good representation of the study done and presents in a manner that is vital to the key argument. It highlights many of the problems that results from global warming. Attributing factors such as acidity and pH imbalance of oceans, further breakdown each process so the reader receives the full impact of what is happening. However, most of the time the article attempts to talk about too many ideas and switches topics, at times one can get lost about where certain topics are going. There is the lack of important figures that are left, these figures provide a better understanding of the magnitude of each system. The Guardian article includes majority of the attributing facts that are within the PNA article, in addition it also thinks about other research that is also effecting the oceans. By mentioning melting of Antarctic ice in the near future there is more depth to the understanding of what the article is trying to convey to the reader. What the article takes time to explain is taking each aspects problems and relating them to how certain species will change. By listing examples of oysters, fish, shrimp and a variety of other aquatic animals sets the conditions to make it relatable. Towards the end of the article it presents the problems that will occur if the ocean's ecosystem ceases to exist, but by thinking of how to reduce pollution and reducing the market for fishing we can alleviate the problem. Its thinking on both a local and global scale and countries that have a high market in the fishing industry are the ones that will suffer first.
There are certain complications associated with the Guardian Article. For example, when Milman mentions the topic of hypoxia he mentions the key information that the study provided but leaves much of the key details about how many species will be "challenged". This provides less of an impact on the reader and just leaves questions about how will the species survive and what can it expect to go through.
Overall the article provides relevant facts that are in line with the paper and provide general understanding of the effects of carbon dioxide on local and global scales and provides enough background information so the reader understands each aspect.
I think this article in The Guardian does a nice job connecting how ocean warming is impacting aquatic populations both now and the projected complications for the future. However, I think Milman could have concluded his summary of the study in a more cohesive manner. The incorporation of Nagelkerken's quote definitely characterizes ways in which we can begin to stop this reduction of aquatic species diversity, but there is a lot more to be done. I believe Milman should have expanded on this quote, providing his interpretation and concluding on how much more needs to be accomplished to allow for the species to better adapt to climate change.
ReplyDeleteThese are very interesting articles, both the PNAs and the Guardian's. The Guardian's article does a good job at "translating" the finding of the metaanalysis done in the PNAs article. I do think it reads a bit disjointed, like each paragraph is a fact and they don't have connectivity between each one, sometimes it doesn't even have an explanation as to what the impact of that can be. I would have also liked if they had taken more into consideration evolution and species resilience in the metaanalysis. It may have been that it was too much for them considering they already had ~600 studies in their analysis. I also agree that the figure summarizing all their findings would have been great to tie it all together at the end of the Guardian's article; would including figures from the paper be considered some type of plagiarism/copy right infringement or something of the sort?
ReplyDeleteI also thought that the Guardian article was very swift to change topics. The last quote by Nagelkerken seemed very oddly placed. It is as if the author intended to discuss overfishing further, but ended up running out of time. It seems that the Guardian article author may have been stretching the limits of what the journal article actually had said.
ReplyDeleteNice post Max. I also think the Guardian article did a nice job on writing about the article. Milman brought up many of the key points that were addressed in the PNAS article but I think analyzing a metaanalysis can be a tricky job to do.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the PNAS article states that they sifted through ~2,300 journal articles before deciding on the 632 experiments to focus their analysis on. I think this helps give merit to the conclusions that were drawn can hopefully bring a sense of urgency to this issue. Overall, the Guardian article brought this same sense of urgency.
The Guardian article was very concise and comprehensive of the data presented in the PNAS article, as well as the data in the Nature Geoscience article. The combination of the two articles does seem to sensationalize the problem, but I agree that the two topics work well together, and both problems need to be addressed.
ReplyDeleteThis study, being a large metastudy has many different factors and many different areas of analysis in it, and in an attempt to capture this the Guardian author did 'jump from topic to topic', as you described. The source article did a far better job of 'tying it all together' than the Guardian article.
ReplyDeleteThe Guardian article also uses language that implies a greater sense of urgency than the PNAS article. In general, the scientific publications are much more conservative in their language, and the layman's publications tend to dramatize more. What I wonder, is there value in this dramatization? Does creating a greater sense of urgency, although contradictory with the scientific findings, contribute to a greater public response?