Talk:Fish kill

Fishes Mid‑importance

	Fish portal This article is part of WikiProject Fishes, an attempt to organise a detailed guide to all topics related to Fish taxa. To participate, you can edit the attached article, or contribute further at WikiProject Fishes. This project is an offshoot of the WikiProject Tree of Life.FishesWikipedia:WikiProject FishesTemplate:WikiProject FishesFishes articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Fisheries and Fishing Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fisheries, aquaculture and fishing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fisheries and FishingWikipedia:WikiProject Fisheries and FishingTemplate:WikiProject Fisheries and FishingFishing articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Death Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Greater than symbol

...is messing up the sorting. Is there an alternative? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed them and added some covering text at the top of the table. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 10:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dates are ambiguous

2002 07 could be July 2002 or "2002 through 2007" better to stick to "2002 July" so it sorts and is unambiguous. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me. I guess it's the lesser of 2 evils. Now it will sort by year, and then alphasort by month. That's not so evil. :)

Now, what of that catty thing? That really throws a monkey wrench in the works. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Latest version

Something happened in the last revert that I can't figure out. The lead is missing the bold and is really long. Li'l help? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jlikes2Fish made some major and generally very good additions. There were some issues with copy violations, the removal of some text without explanation, perhaps accidentally, and the loss of some recent edits by other editors due to working on an older version of the article in a sandbox. I have engaged him on the copy violations and reinstated the missing edits and deleted text, including the original lead sentence. I don't think the lead is too long given this is now a fairly substantial article. Perhaps the reinstated section on "Causes" needs integrating with the main text, and the new text could be wikified and tightened in places. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect my recent changes to the article were coinciding with you recitation here; but I have now moved Prevention lower down the article and brought all the causes under consistent headings. A lot of the new material makes sense but is not well referenced. One of the big issues is that reluctance of regulatory bodies to publish information about fish kills in a way that we can rely on here. Regrettably companies causing industrial pollution almost never publish information so this is always going to be an uphill task. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 12:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I wasn't clear in my typing. I meant that the lead was longer than before the revert problem. I just thought it was unintentional. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes many of the references are not good, and it may be difficult to do much better. Also, far too many examples are from Florida, and the lead could now be expanded to give more of an overview. In other respects the article seems to be shaping up quite nicely. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC) There is also an overemphasis on inland fish kills in lakes and rivers, at the expense of marine fish kills. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re-structure causes

Now that there is some more meat on the bones I would like to re-structure causes into a few main headings with sub-headings and in a more logical order as indicated below in an illustrative example. Maybe it's the scientist in me, but I'm not very good with randomish lists and I prefer order but.....I am equally concious that Wikipedia is not designed specifically for fishery scientists and I am happy to be overruled to maintain readability. Views welcomed

Causes

Chemical

Inorganic

Oxygen

Ammonia

Chlorine

Cyanide

Organic

Organic Toxins

Oil

Physical

pH

Temperature

Low flow

Environmental

Algal bloom

Natural causes

Fishery Management

Overstocking

Disease and parasites

I'm off to kip now in the hope that American and Kiwi editors are more awake than me Velella ^{Velella Talk} 23:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes go for it Velella. Your heading look like a challenge to keep reader interest high, but something can be done about that once the main content has been entered. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blue green algal kills

The text implicates toxins produced by blue-green algae in fish kills. I know of several fish kills caused by oxygen sag following a blue green algal bloom but I personally know of none caused by algal toxins. Whilst acknowledging the potency of the many toxins they produce, I can't bring to mind any kill attributed to such toxins. Can anyone provide robust evidence ? If not I think the sentence should go. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 10:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. Toxic BGA blooms do not kill fish. Toxic Diatom and Dinoflagellate blooms may kill fish but not toxic BGA. BGA blooms only cause low DO and this kills fish.

On the other hand, Diatom, Dinoflagellate and Green Algae blooms do not cause low DO. --Bhaskarmv (talk) 06:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Blastfishing.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Blastfishing.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations

What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Blastfishing.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Controlled algal blooms

I have deleted a section on controlled algal blooms added by Bhaskarmv. The text was referenced by a blog and what appears to be a manufacturers puff piece but no reliable sources. The basis appears to be that by adding nano particles of silica and a range of micro-nutrients, Diatoms will be stimulated to grow and zoo plankton will eat the diatoms and fish will eat the zoo-plankton. In the meantime the diatoms will photosynthesis releasing oxygen and thus preventing fish kills. Sound quite plausible at first but the truth is that in any organically polluted pond or in any eutrophic lake there is never a shortage of algae and decaying algae are one of the possible causes of anoxic conditions. Diatoms are no exception. The two refs given were Nualgi Technology and Oilgae Blog. Unless there is some good science reporting behind these claims I have reverted them as unsourced. Any comments welcomed Velella ^{Velella Talk} 17:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Diatoms are the exception. That is the issue. Diatoms are consumed by zooplankton and fish, other algae are NOT consumed. Therefore Diatoms do not die and decompose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhaskarmv (talk • contribs) 08:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please search the web for images of Diatoms blooms, you will not find any, since Diatoms never accumulate in water for long time, since they are consumed rapidly.

Diatoms are like grass. http://nsbnews.net/content/405752-diatoms-are-grasses-oceans-bountiful-supply-food-host-creatures Cyanobacteria are like weeds.

All science need not be sourced only from peer reviewed papers. I can show you errors in many peer reviewed papers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhaskarmv (talk • contribs) 08:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Diatom algae prevent fish kills

Vellela has deleted my contribution that Diatoms prevent fish kills (and solve eutrophication and other problems).

This is based on sound science. Diatoms are consumed by Zooplankton and fish, hence do not die and decompose. Cyanobacteria / Blue Green Algae are not consumed by zooplankton and fish, hence they die and decompose.

Thus when diatoms bloom the nutrients go up the food chain and the water becomes clean.

When Cyanobacteria bloom the nutrients remain in the water and the dead cyanobacteria are decomposed by bacteria, these consume oxygen and hence the DO falls. The nutrients remain in water and cause larger and larger blooms of Cyano.

Ford Lake - Whole Lake Experiments by Prof Lehman of Unv of Michigan. http://www.cees.iupui.edu/Research/Water_Resources/CIWRP/Algae_Information/Presentations/2010-06-17-Symposium/2010-06-17_Lehman-Whole_Lake_Experiments.pdf Diatoms are called 'Heroes' and Cyanobacteria 'Villains'.

The possible importance of silicon in marine eutrophication http://www.int-res.com/articles/meps/3/m003p083.pdf

The possibility of adding silica and Diatom to sewage is discussed in this paper.

"ABSTRACT: Diatom phytoplankton populations are the usual food for zooplankton and filter feeding fishes and contribute in a direct way to the large fishable populations in coastal zones. Flagellates, on the other hand, are frequently poor foods for most grazers and can lead to undesirable eutrophication effects. Arguments are presented that silicon is often the controlling nutrient in altering a diatom to a flagellate community. The alteration is governed by the relative magnitudes of the natural fluxes of the nutrients nitrogen, phosphorus and silicon to the receiving water body and the recycled fluxes of nitrogen and phosphorus from zooplankton grazing and phytoplankton respiration and decomposition. Examples of such alterations are presented for oceanic, estuarine and inland water bodies."

A product made under US Patent # 7585898 'Composition for growth of Diatom Algae' makes growing Diatoms possible in any pond or lake.

It is rather unfortunate that my contribution is being deleted by Velella without discussion.

--Bhaskarmv (talk) 05:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may note that It is already discussed above - and rebutted. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 07:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We are actually using Diatoms to keep lakes clean since 2005, in Bangalore, India. This is confirmed by the blog posts by independent observers. Please rebut this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhaskarmv (talk • contribs) 08:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Diatoms and Fish

A few papers about Diatoms and fish. Diatoms are the best food for fish, that is why they prevent fish kills.

The Dependence of the Fishes on the Diatoms Albert Mann. Ecology, Vol. 2, No. 2 (Apr., 1921), pp. 79-83 Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1928919 “No diatoms, no hake”

"There is no better illustration in science of the practical value of ecology than is afforded by the diatoms. The economic importance they are now [1921] seen to have might have been understood fifty years earlier [i.e, 1871] and some use might have been made of their value during that period of time, if the inter-relation of these remarkable plants with other forms of aquatic life had been prominent in the minds of investigators. As it is, they remained for many years little more than the playthings of microscopists, prized and wondered over because of their astonishing beauty, collected at great expense by enthusiastic amateurs, and illustrated in costly books, which may be searched through in vain for any hint of their worth outside of that belonging to their symmetry of form and striking loveliness of design."

http://www.princeton.edu/~mhiscock/BarberHiscock2006.pdf A rising tide lifts all phytoplankton: Growth response of other phytoplankton taxa in diatom-dominated blooms. R. T. Barber and M. R. Hiscock

"4. Diatom Response

It has commanded much attention because of the well-established relationship between diatom blooms and fish production [Iverson, 1990], which led Bostwick Ketchum to revise Isaiah 40:6 this way,

‘‘All fish is diatom.’’

[Isaiah 40:6 - A voice says, "Cry out." And I said, "What shall I cry?" "All men are like grass, and all their glory is like the flowers of the field.]

http://bayviewcompass.com/archives/960 Flood of ‘08 served up feast for fish “Compared to other phytoplankton, diatoms are like juicy steaks,” said Aguilar, who has been studying Lake Michigan’s diatoms andother phytoplankton for over a decade.

http://www.smsi.org/publications/mn4803-5.shtml

One may almost say no diatoms , no oysters. Some curious observations have been made in this respect. Mr. Bartholomew reports that the Menhaden (a surface feedingfish of the herring family) is quite a consumer of diatoms. He writes as follows: "You will probably be astonished to know that a 200 millimeter beaker of Menhaden intestines will frequently yield, after cleaning 25 millimeter of diatoms. Years ago, I thought I was a collector but my hat is off to the Menhaden."

http://content.cdlib.org/view?docId=kt9c6006rh;NAAN=13030&doc.view=frames&chunk.id=d0e312&toc.depth=1&toc.id=&brand=calisphere Sardines above 100 mm. feed primarily on diatoms, though copepods are at times prevalent. Among the adult sardines of 200 mm. or longer the food is mainly diatoms, and occasionally dinoflagellates or schizopods occur in major numbers.

http://www.fbbva.es/TLFU/dat/02SMETACEKSEPARATA.pdf Dr Victor Smetacek, he was the Chief Scientific Officer of LOHAFEX, the 13th Iron Fertilization experiment conducted in 2009

Diatoms - Krill - Whales; "the food chain of the giants."

--Bhaskarmv (talk) 08:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some clarity would assist. Let us agree that in natural environments diatoms are a very important part of the food chain. No argument. In common with all other inhabitants of the aquatic environment, not all are eaten and those that are not eaten die and decompose. In palaeontological deposits they appear as Diatomaceous earth of which there are millions of tonnes in deposits in Europe, North America , Africa and elsewhere - clearly they do die and decompose. Diatoms also form blooms even on the coastline near me in Wales but see also here - and there are many other examples. The issue here however is much more fundamental - no reputable sources have been provided to demonstrate that your claims are true. Until such verifiable sources are produced it all remains unsourced. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If Diatoms are good, then increasing the Diatom biomass is good, this is the simple point I am making. I am unable to understand why you are not able to understand this. The paper by Officer and Ryther and the experiments by Prof Lehman confirm this, these are a very good verifiable source.

Diatomaceous Earth is the silica shell of Diatoms. Since Zooplankton and fish do not require silica, they excrete it, so the DE deposits do not necessarily represent dead diatoms. They also represent diatoms that have been consumed, i.e., the organic matter inside has been consumed and the shell has deposited.

The paper you cited proves my point. It does not mention - fish kill, hypoxia or any other negative development due to the massive Diatom blooms. Thus even massive diatom blooms are not harmful.

Unfortunately the paper also does not mention Dissolved Oxygen, did the massive Diatom bloom result in higher DO or lower DO? Did it result in a fish kill?

Unfortunately people do not read what is NOT written in papers, this often speaks more than what is written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhaskarmv (talk • contribs) 03:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is only a question of understanding the available sources. Many people are misinterpreting the data available.

Rabalais, N. N., R. E. Turner, B. K. Sen Gupta, E. Platon and M. L. Parsons. 2007. "Sediments tell the history of eutrophication and hypoxia in the northern Gulf of Mexico". Ecological Applications, 17(5): S129-S143.

Abstract - "The evidence for increased carbon production and accumulation comes from diatoms and their remnants, marine-origin carbon in the sediments, and phytoplankton pigments."

Fig. 7 - Fucoxanthin is found in Diatoms and Zeaxanthin in Cyanobacteria.

The graph on the left is for Fucoxanthin this shows that Fuco SEDIMENTATION has increased from about 1973. It was almost NIL up till then.

The graph on the right is for Zeaxanthin and this shows that Zea SEDIMENTATION has increased from 1950s.

The fact that Fuco sedimentation was almost ZERO from 1930 to 1973 is ignored in the paper. Does this mean there were no Diatoms in the Gulf? Absurd proposition. On the contrary, during this period the Gulf was healthy, there was no dead zone, there were plenty of fish.

Sedimentation does not indicate production. Higher sedimentation of fucoxanthin is not proof of higher production of diatoms, but may be proof of lower number of zooplankton and fish, resulting in lower consumption of diatoms, resulting in higher sedimentation.

--Bhaskarmv (talk) 02:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"fish mortality" synonym

I assume British usage of "fish mortality" means "fish kill" and not fish mortality so that is why I removed the link. Bold synonyms are never linked in the first sentence because they are supposed to be synonyms. It would create a circular link to the same page. As a compromise, I've removed it entirely until we figure out whether it really is a synonym.Bhny (talk) 21:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Fish kill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fish kill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100811091231/http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wat/wq/BCguidelines/do/do-02.htm to http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wat/wq/BCguidelines/do/do-02.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fish kill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added {{dead link}} tag to http://pubs.ext.vt.edu/420/420-252/420-252.pdf
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://pubs.ext.vt.edu/420/420-252/420-252.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110420005905/http://www.dnr.state.md.us/bay/cblife/algae/dino/pfiesteria/facts.html to http://www.dnr.state.md.us/bay/cblife/algae/dino/pfiesteria/facts.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:32, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Table Issue

There is something wrong with the table on this page. It doesn't display anything past about half of the first entry. And you can't scroll within it, either. Anyone know why? Shui Yuena (talk) 07:20, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shui Yuena: Can you try now? I only experienced the issue on mobile and removing the hardcoded height and width of 100 pixels seems to have fixed it for me. Also, in the future, please specify which version of the site you're experiencing issues on to make it easier for others to troubleshoot. Opencooper (talk) 14:49, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also pinging User:Anna Frodesiak who seemed to have originally added the table so that they're aware that the syntax could be causing errors and to maybe check any other articles they added tables to. Opencooper (talk) 14:52, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I cleaned up the table. Is it better now? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:05, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yes, it works now. Thanks! Shui Yuena (talk) 04:48, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fish kill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081120194631/http://www.sciencecases.org/fishkill/fishkill.asp to http://www.sciencecases.org/fishkill/fishkill.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:44, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]