Can Invasive Fish Be Scared Off With a Menacing Robot Predator? (nytimes.com) 37
The mosquitofish threatens native fish populations in Australia — including two of the most criticially endangered, reports the New York Times. And in various parts of the world, "For decades scientists have been trying to figure out how to control it, without damaging the surrounding ecosystem.
But in a new lab experiment, "the mosquitofish may have finally met its match: A menacing fish-shaped robot." It's "their worst nightmare," said Giovanni Polverino, a behavioral ecologist at the University of Western Australia and the lead author of a paper published Thursday in iScience, in which scientists designed a simulacrum of the fish's natural predator, the largemouth bass, to strike at the mosquitofish, scaring it away from its prey. The robot not only freaked the mosquitofish out, but scarred them with such lasting anxiety that their reproduction rates dropped; evidence that could have long term implications for the species' viability, according to the paper. "You don't need to kill them," Dr. Polverino said. Instead, he said, "we can basically inject fear into the system, and the fear kills them slowly...."
[S]cientists say there is a long way to go before the robot could be released into the wild. "It's an important proof of concept," said Peter Klimley, a marine biologist and a recently retired professor from the University of California, Davis, who was not involved in the study. But he questioned the feasibility of introducing the creature into a real-world environment.
"This study won't be a solution to the problem," Dr. Polverino said, adding that the next phase of their project would involve testing the robots in a larger, outdoor, freshwater pool. He said the robot should be thought of as a tool that can reveal a pest's weaknesses. "We've built a sort of vulnerability profile," Dr. Polverino said, that could help biologists and others to reimagine how to control invasive species. "This fear," he added, "has a collateral effect."
Their robot fish uses a built-in camera to differentiate between mosquitofish and the native tadpoles it's trying to protect.
Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader fahrbot-bot for the link!
But in a new lab experiment, "the mosquitofish may have finally met its match: A menacing fish-shaped robot." It's "their worst nightmare," said Giovanni Polverino, a behavioral ecologist at the University of Western Australia and the lead author of a paper published Thursday in iScience, in which scientists designed a simulacrum of the fish's natural predator, the largemouth bass, to strike at the mosquitofish, scaring it away from its prey. The robot not only freaked the mosquitofish out, but scarred them with such lasting anxiety that their reproduction rates dropped; evidence that could have long term implications for the species' viability, according to the paper. "You don't need to kill them," Dr. Polverino said. Instead, he said, "we can basically inject fear into the system, and the fear kills them slowly...."
[S]cientists say there is a long way to go before the robot could be released into the wild. "It's an important proof of concept," said Peter Klimley, a marine biologist and a recently retired professor from the University of California, Davis, who was not involved in the study. But he questioned the feasibility of introducing the creature into a real-world environment.
"This study won't be a solution to the problem," Dr. Polverino said, adding that the next phase of their project would involve testing the robots in a larger, outdoor, freshwater pool. He said the robot should be thought of as a tool that can reveal a pest's weaknesses. "We've built a sort of vulnerability profile," Dr. Polverino said, that could help biologists and others to reimagine how to control invasive species. "This fear," he added, "has a collateral effect."
Their robot fish uses a built-in camera to differentiate between mosquitofish and the native tadpoles it's trying to protect.
Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader fahrbot-bot for the link!
Natural Selection (Score:3)
Would some fish not be so scared, and thus be chosen by natural selection to perpetuate fearless mosquitofish?
Re: (Score:3)
Would some fish not be so scared, and thus be chosen by natural selection to perpetuate fearless mosquitofish?
And then the fearless mosquitofish are all eaten by a real largemouth bass.
Solving the problem once and for all.
Re: Natural Selection (Score:2)
Yes, but then you need to import the Large Mouth Bass eating Gorillas
Re: Natural Selection (Score:2)
But I hear gorilla tastes great.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
According to US government https://www.fws.gov/fisheries/freshwater-fish-of-america/largemouth_bass.html [fws.gov], the Largemouth bass has been introduced in many countries including Australia for sports fishing. Wikipedia reports negative impacts on the local fauna in Namibia, Guatemala, Japan. No words about Australia so I assume it has not caused much trouble in Australia (yet).
Non-paywalled Link (Score:5, Informative)
Also an explanation of the problem:
Eastern mosquitofish, which are native to the eastern and southern United States, have been introduced all over the world to control mosquito populations. Ironically, their introduction in places like Australia has had the unintended consequence of making mosquito problems worse. That’s because instead of primarily eating mosquito larvae, they tend to eat the tadpoles and other native amphibians that evolved to eat mosquito larvae in the first place.
Re: (Score:1)
If only they were eating cane toad tadpoles - another "solution" introduced from Hawaii to control the cane beetle that ended up becoming worse than the original problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Australia introduced a species and it went horribly wrong? I'm Shocked!. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]. SHOCKED I TELL YOU https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
You have to love the Australians... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
What paywall? The link works perfectly fine for me. The problem must be on your end.
Re: Non-paywalled Link (Score:1)
The NYT is a well know hard-paywalled news site. They let you have a handful of free articles every month.
So either
1) you're using your free ones without realizing, or
2) you're well aware of this and are simply lying, probably because you're a paid astroturfer shill
Given that you've posted your "refutation" multiple times in this thread, I'm going with number 2.
Re: (Score:2)
He might be a complete genius, and maybe I *am* a moron. I'd never assert I'm smarter than anyone. ...Then again, if he's 'smart enough' to use a script blocker, you'd think he'd be 'smart enough' to remember he's doing it and that, yes, NYT is in fact paywalled. (The thing he's denying)
Duh?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I know this as well. There have been a long history of workarounds for the NYT paywall.
But of course, working around a paywall - even if it's low effort or skill - isn't the same thing as denying the paywall exists.
Fucking NY Times (Score:4, Informative)
Ars Article that doesn't require login: https://arstechnica.com/scienc... [arstechnica.com]
Fuck the NY Times, and Slashdot for supporting this locked away source over so much more freely available news on the internet.
Re: (Score:1)
No login required. Every link from the NY Times works for me. The problem must be on your end.
Re: (Score:2)
Given that it's widely known that the NY Times requires login to read free articles I suspect the problem is actually you don't give a shit about privacy and just let tracking cookies run wild on your system.
You're such a good product, I mean err citizen.
Frickin' lasers (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Are they tasty? (Score:2)
We're always looking for sustainable seafood you know. Some of these invasive species are pretty tasty fish to cook, making it ideal food fish to overfish and deplete the population of.
If it's a tasty fish, there's economic incentive to actually catch them, and if you make them freely available to catch with no limits, people will overfish them until it's no longer sustainable.
I don't know why articles don't actually tell us if it can be used. Usually the uglier the fish, the nicer it tasts.
I cite Betteridge’s Law (Score:2)
"Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no".
And next... (Score:1)
We'll have to find something to eat the robofish,
Re: (Score:2)
We'll have to find something to eat the robofish,
Gorillas [youtube.com]. But then, do winters in Australia get cold enough for gorillas to freeze to death?
No, obviously (Score:3)
Besides which, after a couple of generations, no doubt the fish that reproduced regardless would have evolved diminished fear response to these robots, rendering the whole thing kind of pointless.
Re: (Score:3)
Why not try real fish? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Menacing Robot Predator ... (Score:2)
Can an Invasive Fish Be Scared Off With a Menacing Robot Predator?
How about just laying off the over-fishing of natural apex predator and relying on them to take care of business?
What about the (so-called) Asian Carp? (Score:2)
Universal answer (Score:2)
Universal answer to all headlines that ask a question:
NO.
Please keep a copy of this answer for future reference.