• Why not take a moment to introduce yourself to our members?

Mike King

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
From James Cervino,

Mary here's one for your Cyanide info web page....


For Immediate Release.

Contact: Kathryn Winiarski-Cervino, xxx.xxx.xxxx



CYANIDE FISHING PROVEN TO KILL CORAL REEFS

New published findings support a ban of the practice and a reform of the hobby aquarium trade



NEW YORK CITY, July 1 - The widespread practice of squirting cyanide into coral reefs to stun and capture ornamental fish causes the large-scale death of corals and anemones, according to a new study in the peer-reviewed journal Marine Pollution Bulletin.



Since the 1960s, fishermen have been using sodium cyanide to capture live reef fish and sell them to the hobbyist aquarium trade as well as to restaurants. The poison stuns the fish, slows their breathing and allows them to be more easily captured. While it has been known for some time that cyanide fishing results in extensive fish mortality, the effect on living coral animals had never been proven.



Lead author James M. Cervino and colleagues exposed eight coral species and one sea anemone species to varying concentrations of cyanide— substantially lesser amounts than used by fish collectors—over varying durations. The exposed coral animals immediately retracted their tentacles and discharged huge quantities of mucus. All of the exposed animals died, while control corals and anemones remained healthy. The mucus that is discharged is filled with zooxanthellae, the microscopic plants that reside within coral tissue and provide corals with brilliant color, a food source, and most of their ability to rapidly grow their limestone skeletons. Without zooxanthellae, corals can die.



Cervino said the findings should be a wake-up call for hobby aquariasts, who are in effect supporting the decimation of Indo-Pacific reefs by purchasing ornamental fish that were likely captured using lethal methods. Some reefs in the Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam and Papua New Guinea have been extensively damaged by cyanide-squirting fishermen.



"Given the state of the world's reefs, due to climate change and man-made pollution, it is immoral for us to exploit the last remaining healthy reefs on the planet today," Cervino said.



Those who still want to have gorgeous fish and reef tanks in their homes or offices can do so in an environmentally safe manner, Cervino said. "Consumers should make sure they're purchasing from stores that get their corals and fishes from farm-grown operations," he said.



Healthy and vibrant reefs have corals with lush kaleidoscopic colors and are replete with strikingly beautiful fish residents. But the reefs turn ghostly white and devoid of life after cyanide exposure. Those fish that do survive the cyanide exposure leave the degraded reefs, which are no longer viable food sources. Fishermen then move on to the next reef with cyanide-squirting bottles in hand, leaving countless dead zones in their wake.

Approximately 50 percent of cyanide-exposed aquarium fish die while still on the reef, research has shown. More than 80 percent of the remainder die before they're sold to retailers in North America and Europe, homes of the biggest hobby aquarium industries.



Corals have a symbiotic relationship with zooxanthellae, gaining food and color from these algal plants while providing a safe home within which zooxanthellae can live and photosynthesize. Acropora, the branching coral that is most heavily targeted by cyanide fishermen because it is a favored hiding spot of tiny ornamental fish, proved MOST susceptible to cyanide's lethal effects, Cervino’s research showed. It can take decades for reefs to again become hospitable homes for fish and for zooxanthellae to repopulate corals, he said.









Kathryn Cervino
Associate Director of Communications
The New York Academy of Medicine
1216 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10029
xxx.xxx.xxxx
www.nyam.org


--

*******************************************
James M. Cervino, Ph.D. Candidate
Coral Physiology & Pathology
Marine Sciences Department
University of South Carolina
Mobile: xxx.xxx.xxxx
[email protected]
*******************************************

Mike
 

clarionreef

Advanced Reefer
Location
San Francisco
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Dear Kathryn and James,
Thank you for the public sevice you have performed in conducting and bringing this research to light.
The science you bring forth is inconvenient to commercial realities and may attract criticism. I say 'may' because the worst offenders may not want to show their names but their apologists may do this in an effort to try and make a name. As genuine researchers you no doubt welcome criticism and are disposed to defend your work scientifically.
I only wish this reseach was available back in the day when PIJAC , THE Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council found 'little reason to believe that cyanide killed coral reefs' and defended the status quo with a great deal of effort.
Today, the only ones silly enough to defend the use of cyanide as benign are members of the exporters assn. of Indonesia.
Now, almost everyone in the industry is against the thing that they do every day...actively trade in cyanide collected fish.
Our primary apologists for this business opt for a slow phase in of reformed practices over a number of years ie. 5-10. Dealing in both netcaught fish and the'other kind'.
Will you comment futher on the trade with reference to your research and experience?
Sincerely, Steve Robinson
AMDA
 

dizzy

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Mike R King":3i83prji said:
Approximately 50 percent of cyanide-exposed aquarium fish die while still on the reef, research has shown. More than 80 percent of the remainder die before they're sold to retailers in North America and Europe, homes of the biggest hobby aquarium industries.

*******************************************
James M. Cervino, Ph.D. Candidate
Coral Physiology & Pathology
Marine Sciences Department
University of South Carolina
Mobile: 917.620.5287
[email protected]
*******************************************
Mike

Sounds like this "research" backs up the numbers Peter has been putting out. Who did the research?
 

mkirda

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
dizzy":20kvvwgz said:
Sounds like this "research" backs up the numbers Peter has been putting out. Who did the research?

From ArticleFirst:

Author(s): Cervino, J. M. ; Hayes, R. L. ; Honovich, M. ; Goreau, T. J. ; Jones, S. ; Rubec, P. J.
Title: Changes in zooxanthellae density, morphology, and mitotic index in hermatypic corals and anemones exposed to cyanide
Source: Marine pollution bulletin. 46, no. 5, (2003): 573-586

I believe this is the article that they are refering to.

Regards.
Mike Kirda
 

PeterIMA

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
You will note that I am one of the authors and the "research" on delayed mortality of fish comes from my previous papers. Cervino's wife might better have referred in the press release to the research on the effects of cyanide on corals, which is primarily what the paper in Marine Pollution Bulletin is about.
Peter Rubec
 

PeterIMA

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Jaime,
IMA provided a small grant to the Global Coral Reef Alliance to help fund the research by James Cervino. The paper acknowledges that "part of the research costs were covered by a grant from IMA (USA).

Peter Rubec
 

John_Brandt

Experienced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
"The mucus that is discharged is filled with zooxanthellae, the microscopic plants that reside within coral tissue and provide corals with brilliant color, a food source, and most of their ability to rapidly grow their limestone skeletons. Without zooxanthellae, corals can die."

I thought that the coral's own pigments give it the brilliant color, not the zooxanthellae.


"Approximately 50 percent of cyanide-exposed aquarium fish die while still on the reef, research has shown. More than 80 percent of the remainder die before they're sold to retailers in North America and Europe, homes of the biggest hobby aquarium industries."

Depending on who sees this press release this may totally stun people, and they may ask to be presented with conclusive evidence that these figures are realistic.


"It can take decades for reefs to again become hospitable homes for fish and for zooxanthellae to repopulate corals, he said."

Is Cervino suggesting that it can take decades for bleached coral to regain lost zooxanthellae? Wouldn't it die or be killed before then?
 

mkirda

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
John_Brandt":1nfx1wrh said:

Yup, yup, yup. Nearly as error-filled as some of the press releases I've seen out of one of our favorite NGO's... 8O

Not meant to tweak so much as to show how press release writers are often non-scientists and don't get things right.

At least here I knew what she meant. And while factually inaccurate, the statements as a whole are not wrong. These are nitpicks in the grand scheme.

Regards.
Mike Kirda
 

MaryHM

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
James Cervino sent this to me to post here
***************************************

MAC affiliate WROTE: "It can take decades for reefs to again become hospitable homes for fish and for zooxanthellae to repopulate corals, he said."

Is Cervino suggesting that it can take decades for bleached coral to regain lost zooxanthellae? Wouldn't it die or be killed before then?


John Brandt MASNA MAC CMAS-Chicago


CERVINO: The quote from the press release states: Cervino’s research showed. It can take decades for reefs to again become hospitable homes for fish and for zooxanthellae to repopulate corals, he said.


Cervino reply to quote: The quote I claimed is evident in many reefs of the Pacific. As you can see Mr Brandt, I said "It can" in the first sentence. My choice of lexicons was correct in that if corals are continually dosed with NaCN COUPLED with other anthropogenic stresses as I have seen ie. nutrient pollution and temperature related coral bleaching the reef framework and its living tissue is overgrown with macro alga thereby preventing the colonization of coral larvae from attaching to the substrate. I also want to make clear that even if there are no sources of pollution and temperature stress the reefs (IF CONTINUED TO BE DOSED WITH CN) will not remain healthy as this will inhibit repopulation of alga into host tissue. Now, I hope this debate does not force me to fly all around the Pacific again to visit damaged reefs, collect statistics, and samples of reefs damaged by collectors using CN and dynamite?? The reason I started this experiment was due to a defender of the importation of corals and fishes! Julian Sprungs comments on the coral list server claiming that there was no evidence that HCN kills corals and was actually defending his position claiming I had no evidence. This sparked a fury of e-mails from Journalists wanting to know if CN kills corals and that the trade business was justified in what they were doing (turning a blind eye). His comments, at the time forced me to obtain evidence and alliance to prove this person wrong as his comments are listened to by the Aquarium trade and hobby peoples. I regret killing the corals for that experiment due to this persons comments, however, it was conducted to show that the smallest doses of CN kill. I find it weird that the MAC keeps attacking and nit picking at this issue? I feel the MAC wants the CONTINUED revolving door going of collected fish and corals from natural reef in the tropics. I suggested that there be a temporary ban on the importation of WILD collected corals and fishes from the Pacific and allow only imports from farming and cyanide tested fishes. Did they back this ??? No way as this would hurt their interests. I suggest you take some of the MAC profits, pay for my ticket and I will take you to barren waste-lands of reefs that were exposed to CN. I will take you to villages and have peoples show you the never-again re-populated reefs due to decades of CN exposure. Unless the MAC wants to support a project dumping CN on a mile of reef for 2 years to see if re-population of symbiotic alga is harbored in dead tissue on barren limestone exposed corals....."are these "hospitable homes for fishes" ? Will this keep the MAC from having anything arguementitive to say about the use of HCN?


KIRDA WROTE:Yup, yup, yup. Nearly as error-filled as some of the press releases I've seen out of one of our favorite NGO's... Not meant to tweak so much as to show how press release writers are often non-scientists and don't get things right.
At least here I knew what she meant. And while factually inaccurate, the statements as a whole are not wrong. These are nitpicks in the grand scheme.


JAMES CERVINO WRITES: the journalist was factually accurate as this is what I said. The journalist has 2 masters degrees; one in Environmental science and the other in Politics (focused on chemical weapons use). The journalist is an award winning medical/science writer with a roller-dex of scientists willing to take their quotes due to her accuracy in reporting scientific data. Not too many science journalists have this option due to inaccurate data reported. The journalist also visited CN damaged reefs for 5 years in the Pacific and produced a Discovery Channel piece that aired internationally for ABC.


Lets stop the fighting and force the MAC to influence farm collected corals to be imported as well as MANDATORY CN testing facilities at every port. That is where their funds should be going.


Thanks, James Cervino
 

mkirda

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
There are two sentences that I feel were poorly worded.
I've sent James Cervino a private e-mail addressing those two sentences.

Regards.
Mike Kirda
 

wade1

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
After reading all of this, I think almost everyone here has lost sight of the science behind it all. Take a moment if you will and step back a little bit and think about this:

No scientific paper stands alone. No conclusions reached are done without the building blocks and approval of others in the field.

Take that information, integrate it back into the issues at hand and give it a good look. We can nitpick all day, but the reality of the situation is that this paper is one more step in the direction of reef protection (and I had assumed initially that was our collective goal although that seems lost on some...). The paper, in combination with other scientific research is a great step toward generating action at a higher level.

*these opinions are my own and not those of reefs.org*

Wade
 

mkirda

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
wade":2n63fch2 said:
No scientific paper stands alone.

Wade,

If there was ever anything that convinced me of the fact that cyanide kills corals, it was due to Eric Borneman dragging me into a conference back in Bali by this little-known (at least to me) PhD student by the name of James Cervino.

James had a series of slides showing cyanide collection in coral heads. He dove with collectors, taking pics of them collecting, then dove the following day in the same place to take pictures of the bleached coral heads. He then dove a week later to show the algal overgrowth on the bleached section.

Image after image, coral after coral. After seeing a tray worth of slides of this, you were ready to scream "Enough already".

The paper presented was probably the earliest version of the data set talked about in the Marine Pollution Bulletin paper. Seeing that data may have been enough to convince anyone, but it was the pictures that got me.

Regards.
Mike Kirda
 

wade1

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
No doubt it did, but I am not referring to a person who can see these things first hand. Pictures alone are not enough to satisfy scientists, even the best pictures. Having read Cervino's papers I agree, the evidence points at cyanide being evil in all ways. Being a toxicologist, however, I would still like the know the "why" of it.

In order for change to occur at a level which will be effective, there has to be scientifically validated (which means more than 1 person/lab and more than one time experiment and database evaluation). Without the why answered, regulation and widespread changes won't occur. Heck, even with the scientific validation, politics overrides it all.

My point here is that semantics are meaningless. Even bold misstatements (accidental or beyond the scope of the data) are lost in time and in the mass of scientific data needed to satisfy science.

The paper makes a very positive arguement for its case, I don't disagree nor see anything wrong with it. It can be used as one more foundation stone for future work, even while being validated by others.

Sorry to drag it out, just trying to make a point as a scientist.

Wade
 

mkirda

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Fair enough, Wade. I see your point.

Two followup questions for you:

1) What do you think it would take to 'convince science'?
2) What about Kalkbreath? :D

Regards.
Mike Kirda
 

PeterIMA

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I believe the research by Cervino et al. is already confirmed by earlier papers (4) published by Dr. Ross Jones of the University of Queensland in Australia. Read the paper for these and other citations.

I also believe the Cervino paper in unique because it looked a mechanisms like the rate of cell division (mitosis), protein synthisis (gel electrophoresis), and expulsion of zooxanthellae (with histology). Hence, it gives insight as to why the corals died (some as much as 2 months post exposure) following one dose of HCN.

Peter Rubec
If you want a copy of the paper email me at [email protected]
 

wade1

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
1) What do you think it would take to 'convince science'?

Time and more research in short. We need more papers just like this one to contribute to the body of literature so that we can eliminate doubt. Science, like almost everything else in this world, cannot be proven fundamentally... its all striving to eliminate as much doubt as possible. There are always what-ifs and variables that we cannot account for in our experiments.

I think keeping to laboratory conditions during experiments is key as well... eliminate variables we do have control over.

2) What about Kalkbreath?

I say we set up an Educate Kalkbreath fund. If we each contribute a penny or so, someday he (gender neutral he just in case) can go get a thorough education. Failing that we send him to the philipines to live a life of hookah rigs and cyanide in his cereal. :twisted: j/k.

Wade
 

PeterIMA

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Wade, I am a little perplexed by your comments (especially since you call yourself a toxicologist). How many studies are needed? Isn't five or six enough. Cervino et al. did both field work and laboratory work. Most of the actual experiments were done in the laboratory using test and control conditions.

I am certain that most of the scientific community is satisfied with the present study. The Marine Pollution Bulletin is a very prestigious journal. The paper underwent rigorous scientific peer review. So, the facts presented are scientifically defensible, and must be deemed scientifically credible.

Peter Rubec, Ph.D.
 

wade1

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Peter,

You actually miss my point entirely. I recognize the work that went into this one publication and am glad for it. But the point is that in order for this to gain more acceptance, MORE needs to be done. One paper in any field, no matter how good, is not the end-all-be-all of that discussion is it? Its more fuel for the fire, and the better the quality of the individual experiments/researcher, the hotter it burns, but the point is the same.

Would you, as a PhD, pick up a single paper on a given subject and base a dissertation on it?

Would you have members of your laboratory basing all of their future experiments on just those experiments done in a single publication?

I wasn't referring to all of the associated publications, just this one. Its great. But its not the end of the story, its not even the beginning of the story. Are there molecular mechanisms that underlie this 'death' of the coral? Absolutely. Can you tell me exactly how? I can probably draw out a fairly strong mechanism by which is occurs, but how do I know I am correct?

Enough of the questions, but I hope that brings home my point. Its a great paper, there are other great papers, and they do indeed indicate that cyanide is bad. Lets not now put blinders on to what else could be derived and understood to improve the chances (not only for effective halting, but what about remediary tactics?) of this data making even deeper breakthroughs.

Wade
 

Sponsor Reefs

We're a FREE website, and we exist because of hobbyists like YOU who help us run this community.

Click here to sponsor $10:


Top