Star marine ecologist committed misconduct, university says

[wareagle]

I cannot find in any of the reports where AIMS said it would take decades for recovery - do you have a link?

As reef keepers, we should not be surpised that some fast growing corals grow fast when other corals don't grow well or die. Reefing should also help us understand that corals can do well short term, but that negative impacts can erase all that 'doing well' over night.

It's on page 20, 5th paragraph of the 2018-2019 annual report.

https://www.aims.gov.au/sites/default/files/AIMS_Annual%20Report%202018-19_accessible.pdf

You can get all of the past annual reports from 1998 to now here

https://www.aims.gov.au/information-centre/corporate-publications/annual-reports

The fast growing coral is part of what we should be seeing in a healthy reef though.
We can't get Staghorn to grow in Florida, but it does fine in Belize and Honduras, it's supposedly also making a major come back in Puerto Rico.

 

[Thales]

It's on page 20, 5th paragraph of the 2018-2019 annual report.

https://www.aims.gov.au/sites/default/files/AIMS_Annual%20Report%202018-19_accessible.pdf

Thanks - what it actually says is important.
"AIMS researchers predict that for full recovery these reefs will require decades without recurrent disturbances". The new report doesn't say that any part of the GBR, nor the whole GBR is experiencing full recovery - far from it. It is trying to recover, and will continue to try to recover, but that decades prediction for full recovery is still in play. And, more disturbances are coming, which can easily erase the gains in this years report.

The fast growing coral is part of what we should be seeing in a healthy reef though.

It is part of what we should be seeing in a healthy reef, the other parts that are not doing well on the GBR that the report talks about are important.
We also see the fast growing corals, the pioneer species and such, doing well in what we would consider unhealthy reefs. That is kind of their role, to work the 'frontiers' and establish real estate and change local flow and conditions and grow until other corals can survive there as well.

We can't get Staghorn to grow in Florida, but it does fine in Belize and Honduras, it's supposedly also making a major come back in Puerto Rico.

It really doesn't do fine anymore, it does less bad. Even the Cuban reefs are messy. If you want to link the source for the idea that Atlantic reefs are doing fine or making major come backs, I would like to take a look at it.

 

[wareagle]

Thanks - what it actually says is important.
"AIMS researchers predict that for full recovery these reefs will require decades without recurrent disturbances". The new report doesn't say that any part of the GBR, nor the whole GBR is experiencing full recovery - far from it. It is trying to recover, and will continue to try to recover, but that decades prediction for full recovery is still in play. And, more disturbances are coming, which can easily erase the gains in this years report.

It is part of what we should be seeing in a healthy reef, the other parts that are not doing well on the GBR that the report talks about are important.
We also see the fast growing corals, the pioneer species and such, doing well in what we would consider unhealthy reefs. That is kind of their role, to work the 'frontiers' and establish real estate and change local flow and conditions and grow until other corals can survive there as well.

It really doesn't do fine anymore, it does less bad. Even the Cuban reefs are messy. If you want to link the source for the idea that Atlantic reefs are doing fine or making major come backs, I would like to take a look at it.

Why would any report need to state that full recovery has happened when AIMS has always recorded the hard coral cover of the reef? The standard of measure for AIMS has always been hard coral cover as stated in their own reports.
If AIMS wants to change the goalpost to better serve the GBR/Australia, I think that would be good, but they should state that they have changed them.

These annual reports also refuted some of what you said before in the other thread about the coral not reproducing, unless AIMS includes fragments as juvenile corals, but I've found zero evidence for that.



Here is the report on Staghorns in FL.

Survivorship and growth in staghorn coral (Acropora cervicornis) outplanting projects in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary

Significant population declines in Acropora cervicornis and A. palmata began in the 1970s and now exceed over 90%. The losses were caused by a combination of coral disease and bleaching, with possible contributions from other stressors, including pollution ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[Thales]

Why would any report need to state that full recovery has happened when AIMS has always recorded the hard coral cover of the reef? The standard of measure for AIMS has always been hard coral cover as stated in their own reports.
If AIMS wants to change the goalpost to better serve the GBR/Australia, I think that would be good, but they should state that they have changed them.

Because a full recovery is different than just coral cover. This isn't a change of goalposts, the full recovery quote is from the older 2019 report, not the 2022 report. The report is more complicated than one or two sentences.

Here is the report on Staghorns in FL.

Survivorship and growth in staghorn coral (Acropora cervicornis) outplanting projects in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary

Significant population declines in Acropora cervicornis and A. palmata began in the 1970s and now exceed over 90%. The losses were caused by a combination of coral disease and bleaching, with possible contributions from other stressors, including pollution ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Sorry, I wasn't asking about FL, I worked with the authors of that paper for 8 seasons. I was asking about acros making a comeback in other areas - you specifically mentioned PR. Thanks

 

[Thales]

@wareagle ,

I am not sure that the AIMS annual report is what we want to be looking at for information bout the GBR. The GBR reports are more specific

https://www.aims.gov.au/reef-monitoring/gbr-condition-summary-2018-2019

and here is the 2022 GBR report

https://www.aims.gov.au/monitoring-great-barrier-reef/gbr-condition-summary-2021-22

"There are many ways to measure the status of coral reefs. One of the most common is to use percent hard coral cover as an ‘indicator’ of reef condition because it describes the abundance of a critical ecosystem engineer on coral reefs. This measure describes the proportion of the seafloor that is covered in live hard coral. Percent hard coral cover is widely used by scientists worldwide and is a standard measure that applies to all locations. While it does not tell us anything about the diversity or composition of coral assemblages, it provides a simple and robust measure of reef health."