welcome to the speaker for blue podcast session one hundred and fifty two. What's up everybody it's another ocean talk Friday and I am here with Nathan it's going to be a great show today we're going to talk about bio fluorescent cat sharks which is amazingly cool I haven't seen this before and we're going to talk about that we're going to talk about whether it's really a new time for a UN oceans treaty. We're going to look at some zombie crabs that is interesting to talk about I don't know what we're going to come up with that and then we're going to talk about how nature is disrupting coral reefs recycling and if we have some time we got a little bit of a bonus article that we're going to discuss but that's all on this episode of the speaker for blue podcast stay tuned. Welcome to the speak up for blue podcast helping you get involved in ocean conservation and now here's your host loves football so much I mean he really really likes it and ruin. Hey everybody welcome back to another exciting episode of the speaker for blue podcast your voice for the ocean I'm your host angelon founder speaker for blue dot com marine ecologist and self-proclaimed ocean poner and today is ocean talk Friday one of my favorite days of the week because I have my co host here Nathan Johnson Nathan how you doing. I'm doing well thanks for bringing me back all you bet you bet now we've got something special coming up next Wednesday for ocean talk Friday we just actually finished recording it I interviewed Nathan because I felt it was time we've talked about this for a while and I felt you know what it's time to put Nathan in the hot seat let's find out all about him his decisions he's made why he made them we may make fun of his decisions I don't know it's all up in the air but asking to come up next Wednesday so stay tuned if you want to know more about Nathan stay tuned. But we're gonna you hear him every Friday so is I figured it's time that you know you want more you know yeah he just said it's like this could be your greatest episode ever I think so I stand by the source of us let's show them it's it's the greatest episode and and download that episodes they'll be next Wednesday I think that's May 5th May 4th May 4th sorry it be made the fourth be with you we never did that we should have done that when we recorded that anyway. But anyway we're here we're here to not talk about Nate today we're here to take Nate's advice take Nate's opinions in my opinion see if we agree and we'll talk about four maybe five we got maybe a bonus one if there's time permits articles like we do every Friday and just give us give our opinions on it because we want you guys to know about these articles what we think of it and then we want to get your comments so if you want to give comments on these articles you can go to speak up for blue.com forward slash session 100. And 52 and you can actually access or just leave a comment on one of the stories or all the stories or whatever you feel hopefully it'll be nice and polite because that's what we appreciate. But anyway let's get started Nate let's go with the first story. Alright this first one is a publication in the journal scientific reports from David Gruber and colleagues on bio fluorescence in a couple different species of cat sharks so they look at the swell shark and the chain cat shark which I'm not a shark person so cool. And they so they researchers have found relatively recently within the last year I believe the evidence of bio fluorescence in sharks so they create these bio fluorescent patterns along their body along their skin. And I mean obviously the follow up question to that is why right so that's what this study tries to look at they compare the bio fluorescence in these sharks to the visual pigments that can be received or the colors that can be seen by sharks or by you know other deep water species that live in similar habitats to these they compare them to what humans can pick up. And then they look at the phylogeny of the last more breaks cartilaginous fishes in the air in this similar habitat to see if this type of pattern has evolved multiple times. And again to suggest you know what use is there could be with it so they you know when you go through the methods there's honestly a lot of stuff that I have no idea what it refers to it's a lot of research with spectral absorbance and photo reception but basically what they say is that humans cannot visualize this type of bio fluorescence without the use of special tools. But sharks seem to be able to detect this type of fluorescence and this type of fluorescent pattern has evolved multiple times in the last more breaks. So what they would suggest or what they suggest is that it's probably means that there's a reason for it because it's pretty unusual behavior and ability to have multiple times in the same family or group like a lasmo brings with there being no purpose for it. Their theory is that it could be used for individual recognition so individuals of particular species need to be able to recognize other individuals of the species at the very least so they can mate and have offspring. So you kind of take that for granted as a human because it's obvious to us you know what are males what are females what are humans versus like what are cats that sort of thing. I guess most of the time most of the time we're in a different time now sorry I had to put that depends on some factors a little common belief sorry. But so for animals in the ocean that don't always rely on vision there's some or don't rely on vision that we can see the same wavelength that we can see there's got to be something else so some of them may use chemical cues. Some may use in this case vision or wavelengths that cannot be detected by humans but can be detected under water in these deep habitats that typically are void of a lot of different types of light. So the take home is that there's still a lot that we can learn about bio fluorescence and sharks but these early theories and these early studies suggest that even though humans can't detect these fluorescent patterns other individual sharks can. They live in the deep ocean or dark dark parts of the ocean. So it would seem to make sense that they have some sort of recognition or mate recognition technique that can show up in these darker areas. This is amazing I mean there's so many questions that I have in terms of like what research that can be done on these species. It's interesting one the fact that there's 180 species that they've identified that have some some sort of glow or some sort of bioluminescence. Right. It can create and they range in like a wide variety of colors and patterns I think that's phenomenal. We had no idea this was happening up to a couple years ago and now this kind of makes sharks even cooler because one it highlights different sharks that we don't normally see. You know the catfish or the cat shark we don't normally focus on these on these animals because they're not big and scary and so forth and they don't have the potential to buy humans. Or less of a potential to buy humans so we don't really focus so this paper kind of allows these species to kind of come to the forefront and be like oh wow these things are cool. And then the other it kind of gives us a little insight on you know we never really thought sharks had good vision before. You know what I mean like we always said oh well they have poor vision it's all about sense of smell. It's all about the detecting the vibrations in your muscles and other fishes muscles and that's how they hunt and whatnot. Now we've seen a completely different property potentially that has to do with mating could be a way of avoiding predators could be a way of attracting prey. I don't know I mean you're looking at deep sea areas where there's not much light and that's where this bio fluorescence actually seems to be more prominent. You know you're looking it could be something like the angler fish where they're you know it looks like something different in the deep sea and then fish kind of go towards that light from far and then when they get close that's when it comes in. But chemical cues as well like who knows like maybe the patterns I can see different parts of the bio if you look at the picture we'll put in the we'll put in the in the show notes but if you look at the picture on this this cat shark or swells shark I guess is what it is. You'll see these little these little very bright dots on them almost like parents and I'm sure those markings are unique to every animal. I don't know the me that helps cue them in I don't like you the females are males in this was a female so maybe cues the males in to say hey you know I'm here and look at my patterns and you know come come chat with me. And then and then you know that's that's the way of of being more successful as a as a as an individual and to let the genetic material move on to the next generation. So I think it's yeah I just think this is amazing I think I really don't know what else to say about this because you go ahead before I so I can form four more thoughts but I think this is just phenomenal. Yeah I think I mean from a scientific perspective is really interesting because a lot of people seem to think that we know everything there is to know about sharks and I think this shows that we don't. And there's some very you know it's not just like tiny minutiae that we don't know about shark there's big things. And I mean I would agree that if this type of pattern is seen in multiple different species of sharks. You know bio fluorescence I don't think is something that's energetically cheap. So right probably cost energy to develop this right and you know create these patterns so yeah there's got to be a purpose whether it's for made recognition or like you mentioned whether it's to attract prey. Or a combination of both you know I think we're still trying to figure that out. But and then again from like a PR standpoint. I mean first of all you're studying sharks so you already have a pretty good PR system set up but I mean the photos that you can get from this sort of thing and I know that seems really trivial. But anyway you can get public the public roped into your science and get them excited about the work that you do as a researcher is big because it's not easy a lot of times. And so to have a study like this that comes out with so many great you know sound bites from it bio fluorescent sharks you know that sounds awesome as a headline you get these really photos of yeah right green patterns on sharks like that's that's really exciting to see. And hopefully this will go towards showing folks that there's a lot more to sharks than what people think of just attacking humans and killing and eating people. Well I think this is a great opportunity for shows like the Discovery Shark Week to take advantage of this and they could probably do with their special effects and their camera work I think they can really bring this out and show a very different side of sharks to the public. You know I think this is amazing on the other hand I got a question for you how how fast do you think glowing sharks are going to be tied to the nuclear spill in Fukushima. How fast how fast now now be incredible people. Well yeah it's the internet you know give it a week yeah yeah that's what I'm thinking and and I think this you know I think I think from a PR standpoint I think the conservation has to get out in front of it and be like no this is what they naturally make and there's a purpose for it. It's not just because they claim in contact or they came close to whatever if that even happens but no I think this is this is one of those these things that this is just us exploring the ocean and scientists finding some really cool stuff about the ocean and us getting it out there and I think I'm looking forward to the research in the future because it's like you said before this is not the first article we've come across that have you know bio fluorescence and sharks. And I think I think we're going to see more about this I think we're going to see more stuff from Dr. Sparks and I think you know we'll see we'll see more stuff from you know David Gruber and I think it'll be interesting I think we're really going to see some some interesting stuff come out from this research especially since it's not just one type of shark. It's a hundred and eight different types of species you know in their labs will bring so you're going to see you know you're going to see I don't know if it's a skate or a ray of some sort that's on this picture as well from the article we'll link the article in the show notes so you guys can see this as well. But and then there's a couple of other ones I don't know the Latin name for this one but looks like a wabagong or something like that shark but you know these are things that we can't see when we're underwater but but other other animals can and I think it's it'll be very interesting to see what comes out why they do this. There's a lot of speculation right now and I think there's a lot of questions that need to be answered and I think we're going to we're going to see those answers soon enough. So that's great okay let's go on to the next one. So this is an article in the Washington Post. Hi title do we really need a new UN oceans treaty yes and here's why okay so this talks about the negotiations and the talks that have gone on over the last few months at the UN to develop this treaty called agreement on conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction so basically creating a regulatory framework or in a overarching management and policy for the high seas areas outside of countries exclusive economic zones so the basic question is do we need this I mean the short answer is yes because a lot of the areas and the majority of the ocean is high seas by the way right so just from a spatial standpoint. There's a huge chunk of the ocean that is currently unprotected and unmanaged by a singular body. You know there's varying degrees of legislation that the UN has put out our international regulations for specific animals so like whaling whales or tuna are two things that are protected in the high seas in addition to in the economic zone but just preserving biodiversity as a whole we don't have a single treaty that is not a piece of legislation to do that. So this would create one this would hopefully clarify the rules for the high seas for country to country which goes a long way towards whether a country is going to follow these rules if they can just understand them and know what they are. So they as it stands now it's still in negotiations the development of this treaty but as it stands now there are four major issues that this would focus on it would. According to the Washington Post says it would create marine protected areas and marine reserves so spatially protect these habitats create no take areas things like that. Implementing environmental impact assessments for maritime activities because currently on the high seas there's no requirement to do any sort of environmental impact assessment for industrial activities. Improving technology transfer and capacity building for developing countries just that as these small island nations grow they have the ability to also take advantage of the technology and capability that's out there for managing high seas and other ocean habitats. And then similarly managing and distributing the benefits of marine genetic resources so one example they give is for developed countries that have a lot more money and capability to let's say mine the deep sea as an example right. And part of that mining is the development of a new pharmaceutical drug should that drug be accessible to everyone or should it just be should it belong to the developed country that had the funding to find it. And the initial argument this makes is that their negotiations are trying to find a way to spread that benefit to everyone hopefully incentivize everyone to manage these habitats well because everyone will get a piece of the pie if it is managed well. So you know it goes into the ins and outs of why this treaty is necessary but I mean basically I would argue that it is because it blows my mind that there's not something like a required environmental impact assessment for high seas. And I think while there's going to be a lot of difficulty in getting countries to agree on this and to adopt it and then there's even going to be some more difficulty finding ways to enforce this right about in the past. Sometimes if you just have a straight set of rules from a single governing body that goes along that that clarifies things for other people and so other countries may have a better time of developing their own high seas activities if they at least know okay. So this is the one treaty we have to go by. Yeah, no I don't I agree with you I do think we need something for the high seas, especially with all the stuff that we've learned recently and over the last you know 10 20 years even 50 years. There definitely needs to be something it is definitely you know the most you know it you know the exclusive economics is only a portion a small portion of the ocean that we need to protect. My problem or my skepticism in this is it's the UN. And yes the UN is supposed to be made up of a bunch of bodies that all agree together but that that's not the case. So I wonder is like do we really need a new UN ocean tree yes we do but can it really be implemented. You know and I I I'll be honest I'm going to vent a little bit because I get sick of hearing about all these treaties and about all these new things that need to be done because yes they do need to be done. But nobody ever obides by them or if they want to say you know what yeah yeah this is good well we're going to abide by it but then another country's like well I want to explore for oil here so I'm not going to abide by it. And a lot of times it's not just sort of like the quote unquote bad guy. You know it's developed countries who are just like oh we're just going to do whatever we want and it's not just an environment I mean you look at what happened with the Iraq war where the US government at the time was just like you know what screw the UN. We're just going to go in and we're going to do our thing because we think there are you know weapons of mass destruction and then look what happened. And I think that the problem is is the same thing is going to happen here is everybody's going to sign on to it and then all of a sudden people are like well what is the UN going to do. One it's the environment and it's not war so it's very it's handled very differently it's not as if a country says well if you go in there I'm going to go after you. It's you know well if you fish this species I'm going to go after you like I'm going to take over your country. No that's not going to happen there's no threat. There's no like you said enforcement there's there's really no what's the word I'm looking for. The consequence to not abiding by it and I think that's a big problem and I think before I mean these trees have to be put in place there's no doubt about it because we need to address the many many many problems that have been associated with the oceans for a very long time but we need to really address the consequences or the actions that are taken against a country who decides to go against it. Right if you think about it part of this plan will probably be protect marine mammals. What's Japan going to think about this they're part of the UN but what are they going to think about this they're probably just going to be like you know what forget it we're just going to go and do it anyway. You know they they worked under the whole new research or for research purposes only umbrella for a long time and then when a court says no actually you're not doing it for research we want you to stop and they're like yeah we're just going to keep doing it anyway. You know it's like how much do you keep up with putting up a live for through a loophole and then when that loophole is taken away you just like wow we're just going to do it anyway and I think that's what happens in the high seas and that is what we need to address. I don't know how that needs to be addressed I guess that's within its own country has to you know the people that country have to be like hey you know if my prime minister Trudeau if he decided to go against the UN treaty and go against the environment and drill for oil in a high sea situation then I'm going to put pressure on him as a Canadian citizen to be like no this is not what we need to be this is not Canada this is not what we do and and go from there. You know what I mean and I think that's what we need to do is the people of that country need to be need to hold them accountable. Now whether they can or not I don't know if China decides they want to do something will the people of China kind of rise up and be like no don't fish that. I don't think so right you know so yeah it really depends one thing I found interesting about this article and sorry I'm going on a little bit long about this is they were talking about a genetic material that's found in the high seas. I thought it was interesting how China was like well and and other and I think it was 77 other countries were like no I think you know if somebody finds something that should be shared. You know across the G said they call G 77 so across the G 77 as a common heritage of mankind. And so they go it's a principle of common heritage of mankind governs marine genetic resources so any benefits should be shared equitably. That makes sense and that really follows sort of that social and communism type of rule where it's like everybody gets it. If somebody discovers it well you got to share it because it could help and it could like it could be a health benefit and I think yeah I kind of think that's right. But then you got the deliberations and most notably the U.S. emphasizing that we'll know the basic doctrine of freedom of the high seas applies. So you know if wealthy nations have better technology it to exploit deep sea resources they have the right to reap the benefits of that ocean. And that's going like towards that capitalism effect. Yeah or is anyone surprised that the U.S. was the one projected to that. But it's I think it's interesting how it's like there's that's the big conflict where it's like well we should share it among nations and be like no well we found it so we'll decide what what needed to be done on it. And coming from almost what you would think should be the opposite kind of thing in terms of like good guy bad guy. I hate to say that but China has always made out to be the bad guy yet they want to share everything equally. Whereas the Americans who are often you know in the media poses the good guy like well you know if we find it and it's our money and it's our equipment we have the right to it. And I understand that point of view but it doesn't seem very shareable kind of thing you know. Yeah I mean no I agree I mean I think the one of the interesting things about this is just even going through the basics of what this treaty goes into. Before long you get the understanding that it's this is not a simple matter of like oh we need to prevent overfishing. I mean this raises pretty pretty legitimate questions that like you said you know should things be shared by everyone in the high seas should they be you know belong to the country that found them. How are we going to monitor these areas even if we do create these laws are they're going to have any accountability system in place. And I think you're right I think it all comes down to priorities at some level and so whether it's the nations people holding their elected officials accountable by not electing them or you know reelecting them. Or in a situation with the high seas it could just be international countries holding each other accountable so you could have a situation where enough countries and heads of state agree that. Yeah you know whaling is really bad to the point where if you do participate in whaling even though the UN can't have any real sanctions against you. Yeah we'll find a way to put sanctions against you or we'll withhold trade or something like that. Which at this point from from what I've read most of the major developed countries don't agree yet that that is that the oceans resources is something to prioritize over like free trade. I guess that's just as an example so yeah yeah yeah yeah we might get to a point either if new elected officials come into office or if the situation gets worse. That that might change and people might say no you know now the oceans are like top five on government priorities whereas now they're like 17. So I think it's got to get to that point but you know like you said that could also just come from internal elections it could be hey we only elect people who prioritize that so by the time they get to that international stage. Yeah they will prioritize these types of initiatives. And I think it's a bit of both too you look at what happened with climate change talks this year or I guess in 2015. Where all 190 some odd countries agreed to you know the climate change sort of agreement that they came to. And I think that's where it was a bit of you know for especially for Canada they got elected based the new government that was in power right before this meeting. Like literally right before this meeting was all about protecting environment let's invest in environment invest in Canada's future let's not depend solely on natural resources or fossil fuel burning kind of resources but you know we still need it but let's let's look at other alternatives you know you know really investing into the renewable energy market. And that was based on a vote you know we have we were sick of the other got the previous administration going in and saying we're just going to invest in oil and gas and mining and everything and now we're switching now we're paying economically we're paying the price for that now but hopefully in the future that'll change. But I think that's right it's it's the people elected this this administration in Canada and then look what happens it goes out and it's our prime minister seems pretty much common sense. He sees climate change as a major threat we need to do things to avoid climate change or reduce its consequences and eventually eliminates consequences so these are the steps that we are going to take. The first thing is the climate change talks we are going to go into there and we're going to agree to this stuff and and not only are we going to agree to it we're going to try and set. You know the lead in it to be a leader in this kind of thing and whether they do it or not I mean just the like I mean I hope they do it but they're going to be held accountable by the people if they're not. You know and there's a couple of articles that I've read where it's like oh they can't you know but even if they show the effort and and start off slowly it's better than what other governments are doing and. You know I think they need to do that so but it's all about the people and then on an international stage yes being like let's show by example that this is what we're going to do. Maybe the fact that sanctions aren't that like the way to go because it's such a negative connotation surrounding it and and the other country just gets defensive but what if you go the other road and be like hey we're actually going to do this. You know Canada is going to do this and then that competitive streams like well if Canada is doing this maybe we should do this right on if the US is doing this maybe we should do this. Because they they know what they're doing and they're investing a lot of money into it and it's actually worthwhile. I think that is a way to go about it but I mean it definitely requires a lot of people to say you know elect with their you know with with the environment in mind as a priority and really. Dictate that to the to the to the politicians. Yeah. So so yeah I think that I think that's the way to go anyway any last words on that one on that story. No I mean I I agree with a lot of what you said I think it's going to be a slow process. Yeah I don't personally I don't have high hopes for this treaty but hopefully it'll get us down a path of eventually getting a good plan work in place. Yeah no I completely agree. All right let's move on to some zombies. Yeah awesome. We all love zombies don't we? We all love invertebrates. That's what it really came down to isn't it? So this is a story about a parasitic barnacle part of I think it's pronounced succulina succulina genus that infects Alaskan king crabs. Or you know this story is about Alaskan king crabs I'm sure it's it may not be species specific. But so basically what this barnacle does is it injects its larva into an adult crab. And it injects these well it injects these cells into the crabs bloodstream and then these cells divide and form what looks sort of like a root structure. So they're very thin long strands inside the crab usually in the body cavity. They absorb nutrients from the crab and then eventually they replace the crab's own reproductive system with their own. So it turns all king crabs basically eliminates their gender or turns them all female and then it creates these eggs that are pretty similar to the crab's own eggs. So the crab then cares for these eggs on its abdomen it releases them into the water column and then the whole life cycle starts again. So they're calling these zombie crabs after the barnacle. The thing I like about this article is it sounds really weird unless you've heard of this type of thing before. And like this type of parasitic behavior is in a few other things. So I took a few notes when I was reading these this article but there's a fungus that basically turns ants into zombies. There are parasitic flies that turn bees into zombies essentially. There's the thing the isopod called the tongue eating louse that attaches to fish. So basically it swims in through their gills and it's this little like pill bug that eats away their tongue and then it becomes its new tongue. So you've got to find a Google image of it but it's just a fish with a little isopod thing sticking out of its mouth because that's basically its tongue now and so it takes food there. So I mean this is just parasitic behavior it's really cool. Unless it happens to you. Well yeah. Well that's a good transition. The article specifically mentioned that it's not this is not going to infect humans. First of all the chances of you eating a crab with infested barnacles is probably very slim because the barnacle parasites usually don't spread to like the crab legs or the parts where you normally eat it. Oh my god I just googled it. Yeah it's awesome. What I like most about this is it shows you how cool science is like there's so much cool stuff out there that we think of as like science fiction material for movies. But the more you actually like learn about wildlife and the different habitats and all the different tiny little especially invertebrates that we know nothing about the more you're like wait no this is actually real in some situations. Oh my so many situations. This is ridiculous. Oh it's kind of gross but kind of cool at the same time. Yeah you can't take your eyes off of it. No you can't. You can't but I mean what I find interesting is it's not specific to one fish. Right you see clown fish. I see. Oh my god so many other different types of fish. I can't even identify them. What is this one? Yeah I don't know. I don't know what some of these are but it seems like all sizes maybe some some snapper. It looks like so it just it cleans onto the gills of fish and it gets in there that way. Yeah I think so like I think the males going through the gills the females might go into the mouth or something but it works its way to the mouth. And then it basically detaches their tongue and serves as their new tongue. Wow. Yeah eats their tongue that's got to be painful. Yeah so for all the kids out there who thought science was boring. Yeah. Oh no. No no. You could study tongue eating parasites. Yeah and I mean this is a way of survival and I think this is interesting. I mean of course it's marketed very very very smartly. Right. I know where it's like zombie crabs and you know people you know animals who don't have control over their fate anymore because of these critters. But this is this is life in the ocean. It's not only in the ocean. You know these ones are but there's other parasitic animals that are online as well. You just don't think they're interesting enough because they're not in the ocean. I'm just kidding. I'm joking. But this is this is what happens and I think it's interesting to see a tiny animal take over an elastin king crab. And then and then ensure that that crab not only cares for the eggs but it looks similar to its own like to crab crabs eggs. They care for it and then it gets sent off and that becomes their success rate. That becomes their successful life cycle and I think that is just a true testament to the evolution of these animals. I mean holy cow. Like are you kidding me? This is amazing. You know even to the point where you have you know your tongue is eating out and then it becomes this this is so pod. The fact that it can actually stay in the body and still do this. This is just amazing. Well in this instance with the parasitic barnacle the interesting thing is I don't think they know exactly how it influences its behavior. They have outside its hormonal the person who's working on its PhD student so I think that's part of her dissertation. But yeah I think you know when you get down to just pass the sheer amazement of you know how unique this situation is. And you then because then logically your next question is well how do they do it. And yeah I mean it's always a scientific reason for it but whether it's hormonal whether you know it attaches to like the brain or something. Well it's tricking them somehow so it's got to be some kind of kind of way either like you said or more. Some physiological way that they trick them they inject some type of venom in and that allows them to think the way they want. Essentially gaining control of their body of their mind and of course you know you got crabs that are very they're not as complex as other animals so maybe it is easier to do that. It'd be interesting to see if they could do it in an octopus or something like that it's a little bit smarter. But yeah I think it's this is this is interesting stuff this is the stuff that you know gets you out of bed in the morning. And at night maybe I don't know and it keeps you in bed at night. Exactly exactly but yeah I think this is a great story thanks for sharing that and give me any time. Yeah yeah exactly. Alright let's move on to the next one how nature disrupts coral reefs recycling. Yeah so this article talks about a lot of the lesser known impacts of climate change on coral reefs. Or and not even necessarily climate change of just human activity. So everyone if you listen to this podcast or if you followed some of the Great Barrier Reef stuff in the news. It's people are pretty familiar with coral bleaching at least what it is. Yeah. And you know how significant of a threat that is for coral reefs. But one other thing that we tend not to focus on a lot is algal cover of coral reefs. Or you know just algal growth high amounts of growth that end up smothering these ecosystems. So basically there's a balance usually between algae and coral in these systems. Because they compete for the same space and they utilize similar resources. But in areas that have high amounts of especially human development or any other sort of high nutrient inflow into the water. Specifically like phosphorus or nitrogen that stimulates algal growth. So with more nutrients in the water you're going to get more algae. Which means eventually if that input of nutrients doesn't change you're probably going to get algae dominating the coral. So algae grow on all these corals they smother them they kill a lot of the reef. So you know that's something that as we've seen more development happen by the coast people are starting to worry about. The other thing that usually keeps the system in check are herbivorous fish that live on the coral reef and feed on algae. So it keeps the algae growth in check but with overfishing with the increased popularity of like hobby aquariums and other tropical fish. We're removing a lot of these from the system. Which means that not only is there greater resources available for algae growth but there's less of a check on that growth as well. So the interesting thing about this article is that it says ok so algal growth is damaging. But then algae this algal growth helps stimulate a lot more dissolved organic carbon in the system which feeds microbes. These microbes are typically ones that are harmful to coral reefs. And in addition to just being harmful they also take up a lot more of that dissolved organic carbon which would otherwise be available for small crustaceans, for coral, for fish. Things that are more indicative of healthy coral reef ecosystems. So you get more algae which means you get more microbes which means less oxygen and therefore you just kind of get this feedback loop. The other thing you mentioned is that evolution actually once you're in this new state of the ecosystem evolution seems to favor more algae because the more, let me see if I can get this right. So as you have more dissolved organic carbon being released by these algae you get more microbes that are in the system. Which suppresses coral growth? Which suppresses coral which means you're going to get more algae growth because there's more resources available, more space available. So it's sort of just an example of how a small shift in this case more nutrients into the water can cause a very impactful feedback loop that can significantly harm these reefs. Yeah and especially too if you look at other factors that are playing against the favor of corals where you have bleaching events so it's already at, the corals are already a state where they're not growing. And then you have algae come in through nutrients and phosphates and nitrates increases and so they just grow. And I'll tell you, our algae is a very opportunistic grower, you know, a hair algae, bubble algae, if you usually see it so from a person who's a hobby aquarist and saltwater aquarium, I just had an algae break out and it happened over a week. And now it's everywhere and it's taken over corals and it's actually killed corals, some of my corals where it's just like it's basically just suffocated them. And, you know, I'm in there picking it off every day as a way of doing that but that's usually the focus of a herbivore that's there. And that's what happens is it's kind of interesting because I've read, you know, there's some authors or some scientists who think that herbivores are what keep corals in check and then there's some things that it's like the habitat that keeps them in check and a lot of physical parent parameters and really a lot of people think that it's a little bit of column A, a little bit of column B, you know, that are playing in these forces. You see if you see a decrease of herbivores of herbivores fish that feed off algae that are on the corals, that are trying to grow over the corals. If you see a decrease in those, then you're going to see an increase in algae. There's no doubt about it because there's an equilibrium there. But on the other hand, if you see an increase in herbivores, you know, you won't see as much algae, but then you might see something else happen. You know, so there's definitely a balance that needs to be set and specific ranges that need to be adhered to, temperature range, pH range, things like that that will allow the corals to continue to grow and to continue to think. I find this is interesting, this article interesting because now we're talking about the DOC, the dissolved organic carbon, and the microbes that come along with that, or that are actually perpetuated because of that. And that just kind of continually puts into this positive feed, this positive loop that allows algae to continually grow. And this is probably what happens to their success by depending on these microbes that suppress coral growth. Right. Right. So, yeah, this is a cool article. What are your thoughts on this? I think it's kind of sobering just because corals are already have tough enough time. But I agree, I think you're right. It's a combination of, you know, whether you have, if you have a reef that's already experiencing some bleaching, it's going to be more susceptible to algal cover, where, you know, otherwise a healthy reef may normally be able to get rid of that algae or survive with a certain amount of algae, if it's been bleached or stressed in some other way, it's less likely to. So, I think, you know, one of the things that at least down in Galveston that we focus a lot on is trying to get people to use less fertilizer in their lawns, because that's especially in coastal communities, that's a huge source of nutrient input into the water. So, if you put a lot of fertilizer on your lawn, next time it rains, that's all going to run off eventually. Right. The other thing, too, is your soaps. The soaps that we use are usually high in phosphate. So, if you get either phosphate-free soap or a low phosphate soap, you can get a lot of the eco-soaps have it now that are just as good as the branded ones. But they tend to decrease or eliminate the amount of phosphase that go into the system. So, you've got to remember, you put detergent into your washer or in your washer, you know, that detergent goes somewhere. Once the water goes, it goes somewhere. It becomes gray water goes down in the sewer system and storm sewer system, and then it eventually gets into a lake or a river or a coast or an ocean, and it contributes to the problem. We have a population problem in the world, especially in developed countries where these soaps are used a lot in specific areas that are higher population than would normally be in a lower populated area. So, urban versus rural areas, you're going to see a lot more nutrients happening. You're going to see a lot more algae. And especially tropical areas where you're seeing coral reefs and they're being overgrown by algae, there's a reason. And so, if we all take that time to just say, "Hey, let's get phosphate-free soaps," then we are helping the ocean in so many ways. You know, it takes away that chronic, I keep talking about this in the last couple episodes, but it takes away that chronic effect of disturbance on a specific habitat, in this case coral reefs. If you take away that phosphate or take away that nitrates, then you can actually allow the corals to recover from climate change impacts. And that's what's happening in the Great Barrier Reef right now, is the length of this acute system that's coming through this climate change system that's coming through where you're getting a high temperatures that's allowing this zu enthalate that's in the corals to get out and the corals to eventually die. That length is getting longer and longer by the minute. And now it's about 93% plus that are bleached. So now we're like, "Okay, well, once this ends, what's going to happen? What's the recovery time going to be?" And we talked about this as an Ocean Talk Friday not long ago where we said in remote areas where there's no human influence, which means a lot less nutrients, these areas, these habitats, coral reefs, actually flourished. Law school is a fish and it was beautiful. So let's wake up. This is the time to wake up and this is the time to do something about it. So I think that's what this story is saying. There are systems in place in the environment for algae to grow and continue to grow and out grow corals. Let's stop them from growing and let's look at what really allows them to grow. So let's get on it, folks. Anyway, do you have any words, the last words? We'll do the fifth story. I think we have a little bit of time. No, I think, I agree with you. I think a lot of it is stuff that we can easily prevent. Right on. This last story too is the same thing. I want you to take us through it, but before we do, this is something that we can all do and get on it to help save the ocean. So let's talk about it. Yeah, so this, I mean, it's pretty straightforward story. It covers a oceanography professor at Penn State, Chris Morone, who's been offering extra credit to students in his course for basically collecting and donating or recycling old cell phones. So the money, a lot of the donation funds and the donations themselves go to cancer research, but he educates these students on how a lot of the chemicals and materials that are in these cell phones will eventually run off into the ocean if they're just thrown away. So recycling them is a great option because it therefore prevents a lot of this stuff from leaching into the ocean. And the extra credit part, I mean, I just think like students will do anything for extra credit. Absolutely. And they go through phones like crazy. Right. And I mean, this, it doesn't have to be their own phone. So you can like get phones from your family. And I think said these raised, how much, since 2004, they've raised more than $5,000. So I also think it's a really cool opportunity just to like partner between, you know, this ocean conservation initiative where you're, you know, trying to keep these things out of the ocean, but then also partner with the charity that does work like cancer research so that you can, you know, more bang for your buck. You can get a lot more resources by partnering with these types of organizations do more good. And yeah, I mean, it's such a simple idea. It's something that a lot of people either, at least from my understanding, either people don't know that you can recycle phones and, you know, how bad it is for the ocean, or they know, but they just don't know how to recycle them. They don't know where to go to do it. So where do they go? Well, you can go to some recycling centers, most have an electronics recycling capability, but you actually have to go to the physical center and then some, some carriers or phone stores will do it for you. If you ask them, sometimes you can bring in your old phone and say, you know, do you recycle these? And then sometimes they'll do it for you. So how is this professor making money off of this? Who does he sell them to? Does he sell them to the people who recycle it? No, I think they sell some of them at a discount to the cancer fund, I think, because I mean, these are still working phones, from what I understand, or some of them are. They sell them to a place that resells phones, essentially. For a less, yeah, at a discount. And the money goes towards a charity of... Correct. I mean, they could keep the money if they wanted to, but it goes to a different charity. That's interesting. I mean, you're getting the best bang for your buck. You're not only taking those systems away from going into the ocean and leaching out to the ocean, but you're also, you know, taking it and putting it into a different, you know, doubling your charitable act and putting it into another charity. I mean, that's pretty... this is Chris Morone guys, got it done, right? Yeah, so it says that, just to clarify, the phones are sent to companies like Ecophones or Gazelle, which either recondition them for reuse or remove them and refine the electrical components into raw materials. So then the money they make from reselling these basically, yeah, is all donated to cancer research. Interesting. Very interesting. I like this. And I think things like Ecophones can really, you know, really do some good, you know. Yeah. And it seems like there's a lot of different companies that can do it, just Google their name. It seems like there's a lot of different companies that are actually getting into this. I mean, if you think about it, I know one person who broke her phone three different times of one year. You know, these are smartphones. Oh, yeah. I have no idea how she's getting her money, but, you know, this is something where you can put it together. Selling it to Ecophones, and if you have a lot, and you can make a good amount of money and donate to a charity of your will, then I think that's amazing. You know, so I think that's a cool campaign to run, especially, you know, this professor being out with students. There's what could be between 50 to 450 people in this class, you know, and that's multiple classes per day. Over the week, over the month, you know, you're looking at some, that's a lot of buying power, you know, a lot of selling power in that in that case. And I think that's really cool to do that. What are your thoughts on this? I think it's a great idea. I think really all these types of things take as someone with the energy to organize it. Yeah. And then it kind of runs on its own, you know, like people are, if you make it easy for people to give you their old phones, and then you go through the work of actually distributing them. To places that they need to go and handling all that sort of stuff. It's so easy, I think. And it's good to have the incentive. So, you know, some people will be a lot more likely to do this if they know the money's going towards a charitable cause, like cancer research. Some students are more willing to do this if there's extra credit. Some people, it's probably both. So any time you can greater, more effectively incentivize people to protect the ocean. You know, as long as you're doing more good than harm to it, I think that's a great situation. Yeah, no, I completely agree. I think this is amazing. And I think it'd be cool for someone to put like a very big sort of effort into, you know, getting these phones to go to eco phones or another company like that to make some money for charities. Because it seems like this, I'm just on their site, the eco phone site, and it has like schools, corporations, churches, charities and community. And I think so there's ways to not only just get the money yourself, but to donate that money very easily to a set of people or organizations. So I think that's a really cool idea, especially, you know, for a professor to teach, you know, life lessons. And I mean, I remember universally, I would do almost anything for extra credit. Yeah. So I think this is just like an easy win. You know, when people have old phones, we all have old phones. So to recycle them, I think makes sense. So good find, good find on this article. Thank you. So that's it for today. That was for the five articles. I think there's some good action items in these types of articles. And especially the last two, we're looking at, you know, recycling your old phone. And what was the other thing we talked about? Oh, shoot. I almost forgot. Oh, yeah. Release fertilizer. Reduce part soap. Yeah. You know, reduce. These are products that we use as well. And I think it makes sense from a personal standpoint to do this. There's really no, they're available. You know, and there's really no reason why we shouldn't be doing that. You know, what's interesting too is you talk about. Soaps and products we find at the grocery store. And you look at how they're marketed and they're constructed. The products themselves, the containers themselves. And I remember speaking to a guy doing an interview for a podcast that I'm creating. Where they, he's rebranding, he's rebranding the eco-friendly packages to make them smaller. So like, so safe, for instance, your regular dis detergent, or not dis detergent, but laundry detergent. They come in these pretty big containers. And there's a lot of it. But it's actually watered down quite a bit. And the, when he sells the same thing, he says this, this bottle, he showed me, he says this bottle will provide the same as a specific amount of leaders of say something like laundry detergent. That's sort of in the grocery store. And I said, well, why? And he said, well, it's basically the difference. It's like, it's just a concentration. So they dilute it to make it look bigger, to make it look like it's more so they can sell it for a little bit more. Where we don't dilute it, we don't put extra packaging because it's extra plastic into the, into the, into the environment. So it's smart. Yeah, so you're looking at these eco products. And it's not just the fact that they're good for the environment in terms of the chemicals that are actually in it, or the lack thereof, but also the way it's packaged, the way it's marketed, and the way it's distributed. He was even talking about how like shelf life and how a lot of products just get taken off the shelf after a while to put them with new ones and, and whatnot, it was very interesting. So he's saying the fact that, you know, web based selling is actually better because they don't have to have stuff on the shelf for that as long, you know, makes, makes a difference. So I just think it's, you know, it's a very interesting kind of way of thinking of things which we don't think about, you know, like a products, we look at products that, you know, don't necessarily look like they should be that big. But we wouldn't buy a smaller bottle because it doesn't look like it's as efficient. So anyway, so very interesting. Thank you very much, Nathan, again, for joining us on another Ocean Talk Friday. And like I said before, next Wednesday, we're going to find out a little bit more about Nathan, his life, his decisions, who he works for during the day. But we always thank him for his contributions to speak up for blue because they're definitely, we can't, we can't do it without him. That's, that's really, it is my pleasure. And it really gives us a try like for both of us because we both have day jobs. It really gives us a chance to talk about ocean conservation, which we like to geek out on. This is what we like to do. We're doing this on our spare time at for me 10 30 at night for Nathan 9 30 at night to talk about this. And we've just spent two hours talking about the ocean because we recorded a previous one before this. So, you know, this is what we like to do. This is, this is us with the passion of ocean. So, so thank you, Nathan. I really appreciate it. And we will see you next week for, for the, the interview. And I'm looking forward to that. So that'll be a lot of fun. But thank you everybody for listening on. You can find all these articles and more on the, on our website. If you go to the show notes, speak up for blue.com forward slash session of 152. I can't believe we're already at session 152. This is awesome. And we're going strong. So keep downloading, keep subscribing, add a review on iTunes would be great. Share the podcast. This would be, you know, this is awesome. And this is what we do. We talk about ocean conservation. And we're going to continue to do that until we're told to stop because that's really why we're going to do it. So, so thank you very much. You've been listening to speak up for blue podcasts. I am your host, Andrew Lewin co hosting actually with Nathan Johnson, our other speaker for blue correspondent. And yeah, have a great Friday. Have a great, great, great weekend. Next week, I'm in Cuba. So you're going to hear some recording recorded podcasts, a little beforehand. But we're going to talk about on Monday, we're going to talk about speak up for blue and where it's going. Super excited about that. We've got interview with Nathan on Wednesday and a special ocean talk on Friday. Haven't decided why it's going to be special yet, but we're going to do something special. But anyway, thank you very much for listening. Have a great night. Have a great weekend. Happy conservation. [MUSIC] (upbeat music)
