from Hacker News

North Atlantic warming over six decades drives decreases in krill abundance

by aseerdbnarng on 6/5/21, 12:49 PM with 63 comments

• by vegetablepotpie on 6/5/21, 2:12 PM

  The cause is further down in the abstract

  > Consequently the two temperatures defining the core of krill distribution (7–13 °C) were 8° of latitude apart 60 years ago but are presently only 4° apart.

  Krill lost 50% of their habitat in the last 60 years. This article has been added to my favorites because this is one piece of evidence that shows that climate change won’t just shift organisms north, but will result in reductions of species that will impact our ecosystems.

• by aseerdbnarng on 6/5/21, 12:53 PM

  I had casually assumed climate change would only really impact animals high up the food chain. But to see this amount of species loss in animals at the very bottom of the food chain frightens me

• by pvaldes on 6/5/21, 3:37 PM

  Dear Nature peer reviewers, maybe could I introduce you to the 112,000 jumpback whales or the 40,000 fin whales returning to the area after its chase was forbidden just 6 decades ago? It seems a fact that would merit to be discussed in the article at least. Several big populations of whales where at the brink of extinction then. Maybe the euphausiacean population was abnormally high before, and more normal now?.

  Finding preys to quit gradually the surface and search for deeper areas when its main predators gradually increase is not a strange outcome, or one that would need necessarily a climate change explanation as the main factor. The study toke samples of the first 10 meters of water only.

• by MattGaiser on 6/5/21, 2:07 PM

  I was assuming that outside of niche animals, upward/downward migration by animals would buy us time in dealing with climate change.

  Apparently not.

• by deepzn on 6/5/21, 2:35 PM

  What's interesting too is they could not find other instances of this happening in others, could perhaps be unique to Krill

  > Another important group of zooplankton, the appendicularians, have shown a dramatic increase, nearly quadrupling their abundance since the 1960s, suggesting that, while there has been an overall increase in phytoplankton biomass in this region, there could also be a trend towards a smaller size-fraction of phytoplankton. It is unclear why the euphausiids alone among the most dominant zooplankton taxa in this region have shown a particular decline since the 1990s.

• by thedogeye on 6/5/21, 2:38 PM

  Could the recovery of whale populations have a role in this?

• by trainsplanes on 6/5/21, 2:41 PM

  Talk to a person who spent a lot of time in nature 60 years ago and they'll tell you about water was overflowing with fish. Insects basically clouded the skies in summer. Forests and fields were full of animals and they'd regularly wake up to wild animals at their front door every morning.

  It sounds like tall tales to a large number of people today, but even in my short life of only 30 years, the change is huge. I remember being a kid and windshields being covered in insects after a 30 minute drive. I remember turning a light on outside at night and the sides of the house being swarmed luna moths, hordes of bats swooping by and grabbing everything they could, and possums scattering away from the porch. I'd walk around the lake and see snapping turtles lazing about in the sun. Fish splashing in the water. Walking in streams, there'd be so many crayfish that they'd slip inside my sandals and I'd accidentally crush them.

  Now I see nothing.

• by skinkestek on 6/5/21, 3:01 PM

  I recently learned that another problem is that whales used to bring minerals up from the deep ocean and poop it out which provided food for plankton on the surface.

• by gigatexal on 6/5/21, 2:34 PM

  I hope the whales and other sea life can adapt.

• by spodek on 6/5/21, 2:13 PM

  We can dance around our environmental issues all we want, we'll always reach overpopulation and overconsumption driven by cultural beliefs.

  Until we act on values other than growth, efficiency, comfort, convenience, extraction, and externalizing costs, we will continue this trend.

  Plenty of cultures have thrived with other values. We can too.

  People insist that individual actions don't matter and that only governments and corporations can make a difference. We accept this hogwash proven wrong by history over and over to mollify our indulgence. Acting in stewardship doesn't bring deprivation or sacrifice. It brings joy, fun, freedom, community, connection, meaning, and purpose.

  The greatest change we make is leading others, because it multiplies our effect, which requires leading ourselves.

  Still, logic, facts, and figures don't change behavior. We change when five people around us do, loosely speaking. In that spirit, I'll share that I've dropped my emissions over 90 percent with only improvements to my life. I take two years to fill a load of trash and haven't flown since March 2016, picking up litter daily since 2017, my last electrical bill $1.40 so nearly off-grid living in Manhattan, plus plenty more. All sources of joy, more time with family and friends, more control over my career, saving money, more gratitude from people with less resources who tell me their changes improve their lives and save them time, money, and the other resources they lack.

  The main Resistance (capitalized to refer to Steven Pressfield's relevant book The War of Art) comes from people with more resources than me, who say what I did before changing. Strangely, those with the most act like they can change the least. Resources that were supposed to improve our lives make us spoiled, entitled, needy, and dependent, the opposite of free and fun.

  To those who insist there's no point, you can argue against me, but now that you know someone who's done it, you're 20 percent there. Find another few who have changed and you'll change too.