Large ocean fish could be gone by 2050, study says

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


Overfishing large predators such as shark, tuna and cod in the past 40 years has left the oceans out of balance, and could result in the disappearance of these fishes by 2050, according to Villy Christensen of the University of British Columbia's Fisheries Center.

Christensen made this prediction at a panel, "2050: Will There Be Fish in the Ocean?" on February 19 at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Washington, D.C.

With the disappearance of these large fishes, populations of smaller, plankton-eating fishes such as sardines, anchovies and capelin have doubled, Christensen reported. His team studied data from more than 200 marine ecosystem models, which arrived at more than 68,000 estimates of fish biomass for years ranging from 1880 to 2007.


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.


Whereas the absence of predators allows tiny fish to thrive (Christensen likens it to "when the cats are away, the mice will play"), it also leaves them vulnerable to disease and boom-and-bust cycles. The resulting mass die-offs could lead to algae blooms or large pockets of bacteria that would deoxygenate the surrounding water, leaving large portions of the ocean as dead zones, unable to sustain life.

Smaller fishes such as sardines are not heavily consumed by humans these days. Instead, they are mostly ground into meal or used for fish oil. Christensen advised his audience to try to turn that around and eat the smaller species instead of the bigger, more valuable tuna and cod. "We should be encouraging people to eat more sardines and herrings—and less predator fish," he said.

Photo: . ViaWikipedia

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