31–40 of 154 posts
It's all the cardio. Fish do cardio 24-7 their whole life. Therefore older=better.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Selection bias ~= natural selection. If bigmouth buffalo procreate for more years because they live longer with stronger immune systems, then they will eventually make up the majority of the population.
So long as they remain capable of reproduction in those later years
(Not saying fish do this, though I wouldn’t be surprised if giant elder fish clear out predators. A lot of people forget this bit but it’s suspected of being a big factor in insect and lobster longevity, which both capable of recognizing their offspring and not being territorial to their presence.)
It's all the cardio. Fish do cardio 24-7 their whole life. Therefore older=better.
What's with the low effort, mediocre joke posts today?
But seriously, it's a subtle joke meant for esoteric perspectives. Intended for like 1%.
That's because they drink a lot of water, and everybody knows water is good for you. :)))
> Buffalofish can go decades between successful reproductions because they require very specific environmental conditions—most of which are still unknown—to procreate. That’s why the fish evolved to live so long: It’s an evolutionary adaptation to account for long periods without breeding, according to Lackmann. This reminds me of "The Fable of the Dragon-Tyrant" by Nick Bostrom [1]. Senescence is engraved in our bra…
> Buffalofish can go decades between successful reproductions because they require very specific environmental conditions—most of which are still unknown—to procreate. That’s why the fish evolved to live so long: It’s an evolutionary adaptation to account for long periods without breeding, according to Lackmann. This reminds me of "The Fable of the Dragon-Tyrant" by Nick Bostrom [1]. Senescence is engraved in our bra…
"The otolith analysis revealed that about 90 percent of Apache Lake’s buffalofishes were more than 85 years old". That sounds very fishy. Perhaps they just have some sort of genetic code that make them create those new layers of calcium carbonate structures more often than once a year.
It is important to validate any aging method, including otoliths, and there have been cases of system misaging. The fin ray and scale based ages used in West Coast ground fishery management in the 80s resulted in systemic under aging that contributed to the over fishing and collapse of multiple rockfish species, for example. But otoliths in temperate fish species are generally one of the most consistent and reliable…
Ha ha ha haaaa!!
Sorry, but that claim was hilarious. I had the (lets call it) "pleasure" to read otoliths in the past, and consistent and reliable is not how I would describe it. Not even close. For most species it just happens that nobody validated the system first. This means that everybody extrapolates, but nobody really knows how many rings are formed each year. But "oh, that fish lived for 800 years"... highly publishable
> Buffalofish can go decades between successful reproductions because they require very specific environmental conditions—most of which are still unknown—to procreate. That’s why the fish evolved to live so long: It’s an evolutionary adaptation to account for long periods without breeding, according to Lackmann. This reminds me of "The Fable of the Dragon-Tyrant" by Nick Bostrom [1]. Senescence is engraved in our bra…
What a wonderful fable. I enjoyed reading it and wish there was more research occuring in this field. Still, I'm impressed from what I hear in the news from time to time.
An amazing way to give a new perspective on life and death as we know it _today_ imho.
Strong emphasis on _today_ because life expectancy, healthy life expectancy and death are already really different from some time ago.