Caribbean fish thinning out

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


Fish in the Caribbean have declined significantly since 1995, suggesting that 30 years of steady coral loss in the region is taking its toll, new research shows.

The overall density of fish in the Caribbean thinned an average of 5 percent annually between 1996 and 2007, according to a study published in today's Current Biology. The findings are based on an analysis of 48 previous studies over half a century and included 273 fish species.


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.


We noted last month that the world's coral is dying at record rates because of pollution, disease and global warming. In the Caribbean, 80 percent of coral has died over the past three decades, at a rate of about 8 percent a year, says study co-author Michelle Paddack, a post-doc in biological sciences at Simon Fraser University in Canada. But the effect on fish there has only become apparent in the last dozen years.

"There might be a lag in the impact," Paddack tells ScientificAmerican.com. "It may be that when the corals first die, their structures are still intact and the fish can [still] use it as refuge and can eat on it." But, she says, if those corals aren’t replaced and are eroded by waves, sea urchins and sponges, their structure becomes less complex, reducing the number of places young fish can hide and find food.

Some fish are especially affected: herbivores such as parrot fish and surgeons, invertivores such as butterfly fish, and carnivores like grunt. Overfishing is responsible for some of the loss of species in the Caribbean, but "as their habitat is degrading, it's affecting all fish, whether they're fished or not," Paddack says.

"These fish are more vulnerable to this loss of coral cover than we thought," she adds. "It emphasizes that reef structure is quite important."

Surgeon fish by Clinton and Charles Robertson via Wikimedia Commons

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