After 80 pilot whales beached in Australia, marine mammal enthusiasts were feeling pretty grim. The small upside was that 10 were able to be released in a safe harbor. Well, now 9 of those 10 have re-beached, and are either dead or in such poor condition they have to be put down.

It just makes me so sad to see so many dead whales with no explanation. The death toll for that area is over 400 now for just a few months. There’s clearly something going on down there. I want to know what it is – is something scaring them towards shore? Are their internal systems getting damaged by offshore activities? Is there a Bermuda Triangle for whales lying somewhere off shore? Something is happening, and it’s happening a lot in that one area of the world. I hope that someone gets involved and finds the cause of these deaths. It’s just depressing to keep reading how more and more whales are lost without rhyme or reason.

Earlier in March, almost 200 pilot whales and a couple handfuls of dolphins stranded on a sandbar in Tasmania. In January, 48 sperm whales stranded on a different Tasmanian sandbar. Another 150 pilot whales stranded in November. Of those 400 odd animals, only 54 pilot whales and 5 dolphins survived. Now, another massive stranding has occurred, with over 80 long finned pilot whales and some dolphins on the beaches near Margaret River in Perth, Australia.

The most current estimates are that only 17 are still alive, and about 100 staff and volunteers are working furiously to save the few remaining whales. Another 10 whales are seen just offshore, and experts are concerned that they may share the same fate. No one knows yet what caused this mass stranding. Rough seas are making releases difficult at the moment but The Department of Environment and Conservation hopes the whales can be returned to the water tonight.

DEC spokesman Gred Mair said that the plan is to group the animals in Hamelin Bay until they can be transported by truck to Flinders Bay for release. By moving the animals before release, the DEC hopes to prevent the animals from re-stranding. However, there are risks involved with taking any marine animal out of the water, even for short periods of time. But the DEC is confident that this strategy is the safest way to ensure the most animals survive.

The cause of these massive strandings, now occurring at an alarming rate, is still unknown. Scientists are collecting samples from the dead to try to determine a cause.

You can see more heartbreaking photos at the PerthNow Photo Gallery.

A new study published online in Current Biology has analyzed the results from over 48 population studies in the Caribbean from 1955 – 2007, and the results aren’t pretty. Caribbean fish have been declining in a big way for at least the past decade, and the culprit isn’t commercial fishing.

The study used meta analysis to look for trends across trophic groups, locations, fishing status, and overall density at over 300 different reefs. What they found wasn’t good. Not only are species falling from fishing pressures, species which aren’t commercially fished are losing numbers, too, suggesting that habitat degradation is the main cause behind the decreasing populations.

Overall, reef fish density has been declining significantly for more than a decade, at rates ranging from 2.7% to 6.0% loss per year. This trend is across all subregions of the Caribbean basin and in three of six trophic groups. The authors suggest that dramatic drops in coral cover and recent changes in habitats are fueling this massive decline. As herbivores drop out of the population, algae takes over areas once covered with coral. Since the 1970s, there has been an 80% decline in coral cover in the Caribbean. Fishing might be partly to blame, as some commercial species are algae-eating herbivores.

After all, we can look at other studies to see how much damage our activities are doing to the fish populations. Just look at the size of fish: a study published in Conservation Biology looked at photos of fish catches to show how dramatically the size of fish off of Key West has dropped since the 1950s. The three images are Trophy fish caught on Key West charter boats in a) 1957, b) early 1980s and c) 2007. So is it any wonder that the populations are in decline?

One of the authors, Michelle Paddack, had this to say regarding the strong results of the meta analysis:

“If we want to have coral reefs in our future, we must ensure that we reduce damage to these ecosystems,” she said. “On a personal level, this may mean not buying wild-caught aquarium fish and corals, not eating reef fish species that are declining, taking care not to anchor on reefs, and reducing our carbon emissions to help control climate change. But importantly, we need to let lawmakers and resource managers know that we care about these ecosystems and we need to push for changes in how they are managed.” (from EurkeAlert)

Stepping forward, taking control of our own actions, and being responsible is the only way that species like these have a shot.

Paddack, M., Reynolds, J., Aguilar, C., Appeldoorn, R., Beets, J., Burkett, E., Chittaro, P., Clarke, K., Esteves, R., & Fonseca, A. (2009). Recent Region-wide Declines in Caribbean Reef Fish Abundance Current Biology DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2009.02.041

Sure, we thought we’d found Atlantis last time we played with Google. But Google Earth can be used to take a closer look at some really neat finds, like this ancient fishing trap:

c/o Daily Telegraph

This 260 m long v-shaped structure is thought to be around 1000 years old, making it the oldest known fishing trap in Britain. It was first spotted from a plane, but scientists used Google Earth to take a closer look at the odd shape before sending divers in to examine the site.

Archaeologists believe that the trap was built by many fishermen from local materials. Because of its size, it would have had to have been worked by a large group of people, who would have herded the fish in during high tide and scooped them out with nets as the water receded. At the time, the sea level was much lower, and the trap would have protruded from the water, not be drowned like it is now.

The find provides a rare glimpse into the lives and habits of ancient people. Traps like this were once common off the coasts of the British Isles, but few have survived the elements.

Google earth has also been utilized to explore a pristine rainforest and an ancient roman villa. However, its powers are not only used for good: a robber utilized it to find buildings covered with precious lead roofing tiles which he resold for over $140,000 before being caught.

Hee hee. I had to write about this just for the title. Moving on…

Black Tiger Prawns are an important commercial aquaculture species. However, researchers have noticed that they don’t seem to be as prolific if they’re bred in captivity. Specifically, they just don’t seem to want to screw each other nearly as much as they do in the wild. Changing around tank conditions, water conditions, etc just wasn’t working – so scientists needed a new method to figure out what’s wrong.

Here’s what’s strange – wild prawns, caught and put in the aquaculture system, breed like it’s their business. They get it on like donkey kong. But prawns raised in captivity just don’t feel the passion.

So, to figure out why, Gay Marsden, a postgraduate student researcher at Queensland University of Technology, spent two months filming prawnography to see what was different between the wild caught and captive bred prawns.

After hours of sex tapes, she noticed that the wild males tended to leap on their women just after the girls molted, when they were easiest to penetrate. The captive boys, however, seemed to have no interest in their soft-bodied femmes.

Marsden hypothesized that the girls aren’t giving off the same amount of pheromones to tell the guys to come and get some, and that the males, in turn, seem less sensitive even when the girls do produce the chemical cues. Why this is, however, she has no idea.

She’s now looking into nutrition and hormones (in studies like this one) to get the captive-bred prawns to act like the frisky crustaceans they should be. Something, she believes, is throwing off their endocrine system, and she’s determined to figure it out.

That means, of course, more sex and videotapes. More Prawnography.

I just want to know how I can get a job that utilizes something as cool sounding as that. And I’d like to note an incredible first: a sex tape not leaked to the media. Amazing.

A pink bottlenose dolphin has been spotted in Lake Calcasieu, an inland saltwater estuary in Louisiana. The animal has red eyes, indicating that its startling color is due to some form of albinism. So far, it doesn’t seem to be overly affected by its coloring, and is, as far as anyone can tell, a healthy, happy young dolphin who just happens to be bright pink.

The striking color might explain how Botos, the amazon river dolphins, ended up pink instead of the usual ranges of grey and blue that most dolphins are. Perhaps a genetic fluke, like this one, propagated through a smaller, restricted population.

The pink dolphin is a new favorite of tourists in the area and has been sighted at least 40 times, but conservationists and biologists warn to leave the creature be. Harassing marine mammals is against the law in the United States, and the dolphin, though exquisite to look at, is no exception.

“Sleep, and dream of large women…”

Westley might have been talking to a giant, but he could have said the same thing to the humpback whale population that spends every December to April in the “four-island” region off of the coast of Maui, Hawaii. Researchers from the Dolphin Institute in Honolulu have been monitoring, photographing, and recording information about humpbacks in the area for years. They wanted to better understand the mating behavior of these immense aquatic beasts.

Humpback whales are one of the largest whales in the ocean, but even still observing and recording data on mating strategies is difficult. Researchers had learned that they form what are called “competitive groups,” where a slew of males fight to have access to a single female. This is not always ideal for the women, who have to fend off lower quality males as best they can. My professor at Eckerd even tells a tale about how, while trying to conduct photo surveys of humpbacks, one female sought refuge under the boat. The persistent males were not deterred, and one even flopped his, * eh-em *, organ onto the deck and proceeded to fling it around in an attempt to find the female’s hidden sweet spot. Anyhow, some females garnish more attention than others – the poor women have as many as 20 suitors vying for them. So scientists wondered what made a female most attractive to their potential mates.

Using photo surveys, researchers looked at individual females and how many males courted them. They found that the larger a female was in terms of body length, the more men tried to sleep with her. So, for whales anyhow, size does matter, and bigger is better.

Why would whales prefer larger women? Because, like humans, whales put a lot of investment into their offspring. Bigger females are older, wiser, and fatter – therefore able to provide more nourishment to their young. Other data has shown that bigger females give birth to bigger babies, giving them the best chances at survival. Just like human men like big hips because they’re correlated with easier, complication-free births and big boobs that are all the better to feed babies with, whale men like large women because they’re more likely to produce healthy offspring which survive to continue the lineage.

Of course, the cost of trying for the best babe is that there’s more competition – and where’s there’s more competition, there’s more risk for injury as the larger males beat up on the smaller ones to get to the girl. So while the sexiest whales are the largest, smaller ones still get attention.

Research like this is helping us understand the seldom-witnessed interaction between these magnificent beasts. By better understanding their nature, we can better ensure their survival, so generations to come can enjoy the magic of seeing these immense giants firsthand.

Citation: Adam A. Pack, Louis M. Herman, Scott S. Spitz, Siri Hakala, Mark H. Deakos, Elia Y.K. Herman (2009). Male humpback whales in the Hawaiian breeding grounds preferentially associate with larger females Animal Behaviour, 77 (3), 653-662 DOI: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.11.015

Check out this image of the sea floor 600 miles off the coast of Africa and about 3.5 miles down:

A British aeronautical engineer, Bernie Bamford, spotted the odd lines, and claimed it looked like a man-made aerial map of a city. Of course, this got Atlantis seekers all excited about the possible discovery of the fabled city. About as large as Wales, the rectangular area would have had to be a really, really big city, but with the stories of Atlantis’ advanced technology, anything is possible. And given the early description by Plato, it’s in a location that fits.

Of course, Google had to go and pop the fun bubble. “What users are seeing is an artifact of the data collection process. Bathymetric (or sea-floor terrain) data is often collected from boats using sonar to take measurements of the sea-floor” a spokesman for Google explained.

Maybe it’s just me, but why aren’t there more of these “artifacts” if it’s really the fault of the collection method? Shouldn’t someone dive down there with a sub or a ROV and just check it out anyhow? Just in case? C’mon… it’s gotta be worth checking, don’t you think?

Anyhow, Google Earth is pretty cool, even if it didn’t reveal Atlantis. You can swim around the ocean, check out ship wrecks and sea floor topography, and even follow tagged animals as they navigate around the deep blue. On top of the marine fun, you can also do all kinds of cool stuff on land. People have found all kinds of things, from a previously-undiscovered ancient Roman villa to untouched forests. So if you’re bored, check it out.

Here’s a pet peeve moment, you’ll have to forgive me.

It just drives me nuts when big science news splashes all over the headlines and just about everyone who reports on it gets it wrong.

For example, a Dutch group recently published a lovely article about how a blood pressure drug, propanolol, removes the fear associated with bad memories. Participants who were trained to have a fear response to an image of a spider using electric shocks lost that fear when under the effects of the drug, though they had no trouble remembering being shocked, remembering the spider, and fully expected to be shocked again when they saw the spider. This effect persisted even after the drug was out of their system.

So how does this get reported?

Painful memory? Forget it. Take a pill, re-invoke a bad memory and it disappears. The Guardian
Blood Pressure Drug May Erase Fearful Memories, Web MD
Study Finds Blood Pressure Pill Could Erase Bad Memories, Fox News

What’s worse is these don’t even mention that it doesn’t actually erase the memory – if anything, they make it sound like the study did completely remove memories. “A blood pressure pill could help people forget bad memories” starts off the Fox News article. That’s not what happened – very specifically stated by the study, in fact. Is it really so hard for journalists to report on a study’s actual findings? Heck, Why pills to remove bad memories are the stuff of science fiction nightmares, from the Daily Mail, is a whole diatribe about how bad it if our memories are “obliterated from the mind” and how “a drug eradicating bad memories is one step away from taking a drug that makes us feel happy all the time.” I mean, HELLO, read the damned study!

Though the headlines are misleading, at least Heart pill to banish bad memories, from the BBC News, and Drug Erases Fearful Memories, from the MIT Tech Review, note that it doesn’t actually erase the memory itself.

Cheers to ABC News and Scientific American for actually getting it right – they’re few and far between.

Then, of course, since news agencies can’t seem to get it right, neither can the bloggers, for the most part – except the good ones, like Ed Yong, who actually read the published papers.

It just bugs me when reporting gets it so wrong…

Fish farms have fallen under criticism as sources for pollutants and disease which threaten the fish and ecosystems in areas where they are used. This is particularly true for saltwater species, whose water requirements generally mean farming them in the open water or near the sea.

What if we could farm saltwater fish miles inland, entirely in tanks, producing almost no waste? It sounds like a fish tale.

But US scientists are working towards doing just that. Research funded by the U.S.D.A’s Agricultural Research Service is working out the kinks on farming cobia and pompano, two sought-after seafood fish, hundreds of miles from the sea in massive tanks that are almost fresh water, at just 5 ppt salinity instead of 35 ppt of seawater. Their recent success in raising juveniles in these conditions is a huge step towards sustainable aquaculture for

The researchers used an aquaculture method called a "recirculating aquaculture system” (RAS) which has the potential not only to rear fish miles inland, but in a cost efficient and waste-reducing way. The system is closed, meaning it’s almost entirely self-sustaining, generating as little as 3% of less of the total water used every day as waste. This water could be treated for use on land, to water crops or artificial salt marshes. All the fish waste caught in the filtration system can be made into compost or even as source of biofuels, making the system one of the greenest fish farming practices to date.

But, it’s never been used successfully for saltwater species. The salt in the water makes the system horribly inefficient, and generally raises costs so much that it’s not worth the effort. ARS scientists, though, have successfully cultured two saltwater species in only 5 ppt salinity. If they can continue succeeding in their efforts, RASs might just allow us to raise any kind of fish anywhere we want, reducing our pressures on the oceans and allowing fish stocks to rebound.

A RAS system therefore solves the two worst problems with fish farming – the waste water pumped into the environment and the threat of spreading disease to local species. If research like this makes saltwater RAS systems efficient and successful, and if we can grow high-demand seafood products in these systems, we just might be able to have truly sustainable seafood without having to severely cut what we eat – which would be really, really good news to all us seafood lovers out there.

images c/o USDA