NR 1114 Reflection on Problem Solving
December 6, 2012
Alexander R. Pelletier
Reflection on Problem Solving
Prompt 1:
My topic of inquiry was looking at the invasion of the Asian silver carp in the
Mississippi. Specifically, I looked at ways that are currently being done to manage this
population. The problem is to reduce the population in humane ways that will not harm anything
else in the environment and also to make it economically cost-effective. To do this, I divided the
problem into four focuses – Biological properties of the carp, ecological contributions of the
carp, ethical controversies in silver carp management, and economic aspects of the management
situation.
Prompt 2:
With these four categories, I tried to use specific strategies to solve the problem. In the
biological category, I looked at two specific strategies: taking advantage of chemical responses
that are “species-specific” to Asian silver carp and looking at certain diseases that only affect
silver Asian carp. Hopefully utilizing these characteristics will unlock methods to reduce the
Asian carp population in the Mississippi. For the ecological aspect, we divided it into the trophic
status of these fish and their predator interactions. We need strategies that do not alter the
ecosystem of the Mississippi River System too much. For the ethical aspect, we tried to eliminate
methods of population reduction that would not be humane. We need strategies that will be
morally and socially acceptable.
Prompt 3:
To address the biological properties of this fish, I proposed introducing chemical
piscicides that would specifically target these silver carp without harming other fish or plants or
predators. Only two are 100% legal to use: rotetone and antimycin, but it is unclear how these
chemicals affect these fish and their environment still. The pros of this strategy would be that,
because all species have specific chemosenses, some chemical should be available to kill only
silver carp. The cons are that it would take hundreds (if not more) of gallons of these chemicals
to kill a sufficient portion of these fish, and they are not well studied. Another strategy would be
to introduce a disease. The pros would be that there are four documented species-specific
diseases that theoretically wouldn’t harm any other species. Introducing a small sample of the
disease would also replicate itself, reducing the physical labor that humans need to do. The cons
are that this disease introduction hasn’t been tried; it’s theoretical. The disease may also mutate
into other forms that may affect other species.
For the ecological situation, I specifically pointed out the proposed solutions of raising
the trophic level of the carp and introducing predators. Size and frequency distributions of silver
carp mostly depend on the trophic standing of the carp; the lower in the chain, the more the
ecosystem can support. If we introduce a species in between vegetation (food for the carp) and
the carp, their trophic status will raise and the size of the population will decrease. The cons of
this are that there is no clear solution as to which species will fit this trophic level, and it is
further unclear as to how other organisms would react. The pros are that the population would
decrease naturally without further assistance after initial introduction. The introduction of
predators would also be plausible but risky. The advantages are that predators would also do all
of the work after initial introduction. The results would be perfectly natural. The disadvantages
are that the effects of a predator interaction would not be predictable.
NR 1114 Reflection on Problem Solving
December 6, 2012
Alexander R. Pelletier
Two rather unethical proposals are to alter the carps’ sex ratio and to construct electric
barriers. The advantages of altering the sex ratio of these fish is that the population would give
birth to fewer offspring and thus reduce the population. The advantages of constructing an
electric barrier are that the fish would be stopped from spreading to a greater area, which would
allow for the population to grow in distribution. The disadvantages of both of these are that they
are frowned upon because they are not humane or effective.
The final category is the economic categories, where I propose to introduce carp into our
commercial fishing market, as well as analyze the possible cost of the abovementioned solutions.
The cons of commercially introducing silver carp into the diet of Americans is that we are unsure
if the public will accept it. Currently, carp represent less than 1% of our market, compared to
between 55%-70% of the market in Europe. The pros of this solution are that if Americans
accept silver carp into their diet, we will both effectively reduce the population and make money
off of it. As for the other solutions, The only economically feasible options would be possibly to
introduce a disease into some of the carp and reintroduce them or to install electric barriers.
The best solution is to either introduce species-specific piscicides that would only harm
silver carp or to introduce silver carp into our commercial market. The other options are simply
too impractical, unethical, or involve too much risk. Of the two best options, introducing these
fish into our commercial market would probably be our best bet. Americans would benefit
economically by bringing in money and jobs, and it is not unethical or impractical.