Fish Smell Badly in More Acidic Oceans

Some fish living in waters with currently naturally high levels of CO2 lose their sense of smell, and with it their ability to perceive predators—a possible portent to a global situation in the near future. David Biello reports

 

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Rising levels of carbon dioxide are already souring the world's oceans. Globally, seawater has become 26 percent more acidic since the 19th century because of additional CO2.
 
That's bad news for organisms like coral and plankton that need to form structures made of calcium carbonate and other minerals, because there’s less carbonate in a more acidic ocean.  But it's also bad news for fish.
 
Previous lab experiments had shown that fish living in high-CO2 waters lost their sense of smell. That deficit caused them to lose their natural avoidance reaction to predators—an obvious challenge for survival.
 
So scientists looked at fish that live on coral reefs near spots where CO2 naturally bubbles out of the seafloor near Papua New Guinea.
 
The researchers found the same impaired smell—and risky behavior—in the wild fish on reefs near the CO2 seeps. But the same species of fish in regions with more normal acidity maintain a healthy fear of being eaten. The study is in the journal Nature Climate Change. [Philip L. Munday et al, Behavioural impairment in reef fishes caused by ocean acidification at CO2 seeps]
 
The research team is now examining whether fish can adapt to more acidic waters. Otherwise, our crazy environmental impacts may make them increasingly reckless.
 
—David Biello
 
[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]
 
[Scientific American is part of the Nature Publishing Group.]
 

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe