Characterizing such delicate dynamics is a departure from how ecologists sometimes mannequin ecosystems, tending to write down off in-the-second determination-making as inconsequential to lengthy timescales. “Under this convention, we tend to treat wild animals as kind of dumb,” Gil says. “We’re really kind of bucking tradition. And we found that this convention could be way off.”
Using the info they’ve gathered from the reef, Gil and his colleagues have created mathematical simulations—extremely correct video video games, actually—to indicate how these seemingly inconsequential interactions actually have severe penalties for the well being of the reef over lengthy timescales. “You can play with that ecosystem like you would a game,” Gil says. “You can impose different human-driven pressures on it, and you can see how it responds. These ecosystem models are incredibly valuable, because they allow us to understand how these gigantic, complex ecosystems grow and change over really long timescales, from decades to centuries, even millennia.”
The outcomes are without delay troubling and promising. In their simulations, the researchers discovered that it’s not simply the magnitude of a risk like overfishing that damages a reef ecosystem, however the fee. When folks take away fish, they’re eradicating a useful controller of the algae that may get out of hand, blanketing corals and killing them. “But we’re also removing the social influence that those fish had on the other fish in their social network,” Gil says. “And so those fish are then left with less information about when it’s safe to go out and eat and control these algae. And this feedback has these ecosystem-level consequences.”
The researchers’ modeling finds that these penalties embody ecological collapse if overfishing occurs quickly. “On the other hand, you could approach that exact same target level, but slower—and in some cases even slightly slower—and you can actually preserve the entire system,” says Gil. “The whole system can be sustained for centuries, in the absence of other drivers like climate change. This whole phenomenon happens again because of simple individual decisionmaking by these fish.”
Simply put, there’s security in numbers. If you lose these numbers rapidly, you lose that security rapidly. “For herbivores, the more individuals there are, the bolder they get, and the more they feed,” says Luiz Rocha, curator of fish on the California Academy of Sciences, who studies reef ecosystems however wasn’t concerned on this analysis. “So if you remove a bunch of individuals—by fishing or anything else—the fish that are left will be more shy and feed less, eventually leading the ecosystem to collapse quicker than if we considered only population numbers.”
This new analysis, then, might assist create extra sustainable fisheries, which is sweet for everybody: If ecosystems are preserved, and so are the species that stay there, you don’t obliterate a vital supply of protein for many individuals all over the world. “In fisheries, one challenge is that our models make long-term assumptions about fish populations that aren’t well matched with the shorter timescales of management actions, or the many timescales of fish ecology and biology,” says Meredith Moore, director of fish conservation on the Ocean Conservancy, who wasn’t concerned on this new work. “This study brings shorter-term fish social behavior into models, which is an encouraging step forward toward better understanding how fish populations and the ecosystem respond to pressures like fishing, and could ultimately improve decisions about how to keep fish populations healthy.”
So Bruce the shark from Finding Nemo had it half proper: “Fish are friends, not food.” Fish are by necessity associates with one another—however solely to type a social community that protects them from sharks like Bruce. Keep these social networks intact, and we’d defend fish from people as nicely.
More Great WIRED Stories