Smith et al. 2020 Flashcards
(3 cards)
What is misconception 1 discussed in Smith et al. 2020 about deep sea mining? Evidence to support this?
The area disturbed by mining will be very small compared with the scales of deep-sea habitats. Thus, we can afford to lose the ‘miniscule proportion’ of the vast seabed that will be affected by mining.
Evidence 1: Permanent removal of nodule habitat which require 10^5-10^6 years to form –> extinction risk for biota
Evidence 2: Seamounts are home to long lived corals and sponges which create habitat for other species. Their fauna are fragile, considered vulnerable marine ecosystems. We really do not know a lot about their connectivity and biodiversity.
Evidence 3: Plume and associated ecotoxicological impacts could spread 10-100 km in pelagic ecosystems. There are very few, they are remarkably biodiverse and are vulnerable marine ecosystems. We know even less about the ecosystems at extinct vents.
What is misconception 2 discussed in Smith et al. 2020 about deep sea mining? Evidence to support this?
Polymetallic sulfide communities will recover rapidly from mining.
Evidence 1: Some active-vent communities are able to rapidly recover, however that may not be the case for communities that have less frequent volcanic eruptions.
Evidence 2: In the S. Pacific, communities on active sulfides exhibit stability over a decadal timescale, suggesting that recovery from mining in more stable vent ecosystems could be slower.
Evidence 3: We still don’t fully understand these communities, and how their ecosystem dynamics function in reference to timescales.
What is misconception 3 discussed in Smith et al. 2020 about deep sea mining? Evidence to support this?
The deep sea is not a pristine wilderness.
Evidence 1: Implies that conservation is not warranted just because the ecosystem is damaged. Well, we have been doing the damaging.
Evidence 2: Most hydrothermal vents and abyssal areas are some of the most intact ecosystems on the planet. They are the furthest from humans.
