The current science behind attempting to save coral reefs

[User1]

One of the interesting things about this kind of restoration is that the corals grow great on the 'trees', but the survivorship of the outplants seems poor. In other words, despite 50,000 corals being outplanted, there seems to very little restoration occuring.

Not sure where my mind is today (clearly not work like my employer probably would like, but hey) but again reading your post triggered soething.

You said tree. Years back growing up we had the scare, concern, or something with regards to trees, the side effect of over harvesting, and the need to do something.

Plant, tree, coral... Seems we have lumber under control (maybe)? Or...we are just buying all the resources from the poorer countries who need to eat I guess. Just trying to see if there is something one can learn about how we maybe helped or changed the way we harvested wood. I'm pretty sure the need for cover hasn't changed and only increased.

 

[Thales]

I didn't know that. I had read, I think in their informational flier, that they had ~70% 1 year survival of outplants. I thought that was pretty darn good, but maybe there's more to the story.

They tend to last for 2-3 years and then poof. So the 70% 1st year is great, but that isn't the goal, they need to survive over time and spawn to restore the reef.

There is a big issue around reef restoration. If the corals could live there, they would. So I worry about out planting corals into areas where they no longer naturally live. The analogy I make is that if the orphanage is on fire, we should stop tossing babies back in to see if they survive. There is some work being done on more comprehensive site prep to possibly help the corals survive longer, but there is still the issue of the water being goofy.


[/quote]
Why do you think there's the difference in growth from the trees to the rocks?
[/QUOTE]

The trees are offshore so they aren't getting hit as bad with the local effects. I also think there are some boundary layer mitigation effects coming into play with the trees and may try to do a study next year.

 

[TexasReefer82]

They tend to last for 2-3 years and then poof. So the 70% 1st year is great, but that isn't the goal, they need to survive over time and spawn to restore the reef.

There is a big issue around reef restoration. If the corals could live there, they would. So I worry about out planting corals into areas where they no longer naturally live. The analogy I make is that if the orphanage is on fire, we should stop tossing babies back in to see if they survive. There is some work being done on more comprehensive site prep to possibly help the corals survive longer, but there is still the issue of the water being goofy.

Is there a recognized cause of death at the 2-3 year mark - that you're aware of?

Any thoughts on whether the missing Diadema plays a role?

I've seen outplants of staghorn coral in the keys while snorkeling and they looked beautifully healthy - bursting with new growth. A shame to hear that they likely won't make it long term.

A paper recently published pointed at phosphorus limitation resulting from nitrogen enrichment is stressing and killing corals in the keys. do you have any thoughts about this?

 

[LARedstickreefer]

Glad to see we are talking about corals again!

A lot of this discussion could truly apply to our own tanks and why some struggle while others can’t frag their corals enough.

We are going from anecdotal evidence to actual scientific study.

 

[Thales]

Is there a recognized cause of death at the 2-3 year mark - that you're aware of?

Nope. Seems to happen at lots of Caribbean restoration sites.

Any thoughts on whether the missing Diadema plays a role?

Prolly not in this. It does play a major roll in the shift from coral reefs to agal reefs.

I've seen outplants of staghorn coral in the keys while snorkeling and they looked beautifully healthy - bursting with new growth. A shame to hear that they likely won't make it long term.

I hope they do make it.

A paper recently published pointed at phosphorus limitation resulting from nitrogen enrichment is stressing and killing corals in the keys. do you have any thoughts about this?

If you link the paper, I'll read it. Thanks
That said, in addition to the global issues, the keys are a mess of localized factors that are not good for coral

 

[TexasReefer82]

If you link the paper, I'll read it. Thanks
That said, in addition to the global issues, the keys are a mess of localized factors that are not good for coral

An article talking about the paper:

Thirty years of unique data reveal what's really killing coral reefs

Coral reefs are considered one of the most threatened ecosystems on the planet and are dying at alarming rates around the world. Scientists attribute coral bleaching and ultimately massive coral death to a number of environmental stressors, in particular, warming water temperatures due to...

phys.org

...and a link to the actual publication:
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00227-019-3538-9.pdf

 

[MnFish1]

Washington Post interactive on what’s being done to save coral from climate change.

R2R, we really should have a dedicated sustainability forum with a hobby focus. Who gets to decide on that?

1. What are the issues harming coral reefs (in the wild) is it climate change, pollution, something else.
a. Its probably expedient on several levels to say 'climate change' - but IMO its pollution (and I think the evidence probably supports this). Others with more expertise will likely weigh in.

2. Is the aquarium trade (as compared to pollution and climate change) affecting sustainability?

3. Just curious - what evidence (if any) suggests that climate change is the issue as compared to pollution?

 

[MnFish1]

I am not sure how anyone excluded from that kind of discussion - anyone can read the papers, or read the articles aimed at the layperson. All the information you mention seems to exist. What am I missing about what you are asking for?

Part of the problem is in fact what people have said 30, 20, and 10 years ago. In fact - the various models that 'have not worked' - do tend to produce doubt (or at least they should)? To me - I totally believe that the climate is changing. What I'm not sure I agree with is 'how much is manmade?', 'how much carbon footprint (and other environmentally damaging factors) does it 'cost' to produce the varying forms of 'alternative energy?'

Not designed as a debate - but - even people who fully support that the majority of climate change is 'man-made' - must also ask - is it our gas engines causing the problem - or is it the third world deforesting vast areas in order to 'improve their lives to a western standard'. (Since trees obviously use Co2).

I just think its too bad that something that should be common sense (i.e. - do whats best for the planet) - has become politicized world-wide. Is the problem of carbon emissions really a 'US' problem? or is it 'worldwide'? (i.e. china, India, etc to make a couple examples)

 

[Brian1f1]

My dude, I’m getting so tired of answering the same questions... The answer is yes. It’s not just climate change. It’s many other human caused problems, and often their compounding interaction that’s killing coral. It does not have to be just one thing. Similarly, it’s not just “motors” inducing climate change, and all the things dumping copious amounts of carbon and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. This is happening globally, yes, and in many forms, yes, although we’ve (the U.S., the West) been responsible for an outsized share historically and we continue to be on a per capita basis. What’s produced doubt is oligarch funded disinformation campaigns that continue to this day in right wing media. It poisons the well and makes denial an extension of ones identity, which makes assimilating new facts or schemas all but impossible for many. One can see a similar effect in the current polarization of politics. There are some otherwise smart folks who have simply invested so much of there identify in a toxic, hollow, vapid, know nothing, charlatan that falsely channels their frustrations, that they simply cannot accommodate the gusher of countervailing information the world is drowning in. So, to maintain, to stave off the cognitive dissonance, they engage in confabulation, force the shoe to fit, and insist it’s never fit better, despite it crushing their foot. They attack straw men, make false equivalencies, engage in ad hominems, devalue anyone or a thing that would dare threaten to poke the bubble... The world’s become binary to these folks, for or against, and all the colors have to become black or white... and so on and so forth, ad nauseam. Exactly the same sad path that this thread has followed into the abyss.

 

[Sierra_Bravo]

My dude, I’m getting so tired of answering the same questions... The answer is yes. It’s not just climate change. It’s many other human caused problems, and often their compounding interaction that’s killing coral. It does not have to be just one thing. Similarly, it’s not just “motors” inducing climate change, and all the things dumping copious amounts of carbon and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. This is happening globally, yes, and in many forms, yes, although we’ve (the U.S., the West) been responsible for an outsized share historically and we continue to be on a per capita basis. What’s produced doubt is oligarch funded disinformation campaigns that continue to this day in right wing media. It poisons the well and makes denial an extension of ones identity, which makes assimilating new facts or schemas all but impossible for many. One can see a similar effect in the current polarization of politics. There are some otherwise smart folks who have simply invested so much of there identify in a toxic, hollow, vapid, know nothing, charlatan that falsely channels their frustrations, that they simply cannot accommodate the gusher of countervailing information the world is drowning in. So, to maintain, to stave off the cognitive dissonance, they engage in confabulation, force the shoe to fit, and insist it’s never fit better, despite it crushing their foot. They attack straw men, make false equivalencies, engage in ad hominems, devalue anyone or a thing that would dare threaten to poke the bubble... The world’s become binary to these folks, for or against, and all the colors have to become black or white... and so on and so forth, ad nauseam. Exactly the same sad path that this thread has followed into the abyss.

I have to say, I respect and appreciate the cordial and intelligent debate between commenters such as @Thales and @TexasReefer82, who while disagreeing, are very civil to one another and support their positions with facts and examples. Not once did I see either rely on emotional opinion or derogatory language. Their conversations engaged me.

Comments like those that you made above which come across as arrogant, elitist, condescending and frankly, insulting, are exactly why many people that may not have all the facts tend to be turned off to listening to those facts. This is the opposite extreme position, also containing more vehement opinion than substantive information, of one of the earlier posts that strongly did not believe in climate change and that you took issue with. I'll point out that in the world becoming binary to "these folks", as you mentioned, that you yourself are seeing the issue through the other side of the same filter.

I don't find this to be helpful in creating a positive change in those who are conflicted about where they stand on the issue and the importance of climate change. If our mentors, parents, friends, professors, and teachers had constantly belittled and berated us in order for us to learn, we would have quickly shut them out and been reluctant to listen to them as well.

 

[Brian1f1]

I have to say, I respect and appreciate the cordial and intelligent debate between commenters such as @Thales and @TexasReefer82, who while disagreeing, are very civil to one another and support their positions with facts and examples. Not once did I see either rely on emotional opinion or derogatory language. Their conversations engaged me.

Comments like those that you made above which come across as arrogant, elitist, condescending and frankly, insulting, are exactly why many people that may not have all the facts tend to be turned off to listening to those facts. This is the opposite extreme position, also containing more vehement opinion than substantive information, of one of the earlier posts that strongly did not believe in climate change and that you took issue with. I'll point out that in the world becoming binary to "these folks", as you mentioned, that you yourself are seeing the issue through the other side of the same filter.

I don't find this to be helpful in creating a positive change in those who are conflicted about where they stand on the issue and the importance of climate change. If our mentors, parents, friends, professors, and teachers had constantly belittled and berated us in order for us to learn, we would have quickly shut them out and been reluctant to listen to them as well.

Arrogant, elitist, condescending, insulting, perhaps true, but not incorrect... More likely though, this reaction is the result of cognitive dissonance. In other words, it’s more of the same, my view is threatening, well at least threatening in the sense that it doesn’t square with the mental gymnastics that have to be done to maintain the views that I addressed in multiple posts. If folks choose to hold on to empirically incorrect ideas, or choose to embrace philosophies and individuals that are objectively toxic they must be prepared and able to receive the inevitable backlash to their rigidity.

Indeed, I will not tone down my intellect, nor mask my knowledge, nor sugarcoat the damage done by clinging to falsehoods peddled by self-interested grifters just to facilitate the maintenance of these problematic beliefs. No, I’ll attach lead weights to those cognitive ankles to slow the backflipping, I will shine a spotlight on the dissonance, and I’ll make folks look at it all, like it or not.

 

[Sierra_Bravo]

Arrogant, elitist, condescending, insulting, perhaps true, but not incorrect... More likely though, this reaction is the result of cognitive dissonance. In other words, it’s more of the same, my view is threatening, well at least threatening in the sense that it doesn’t square with the mental gymnastics that have to be done to maintain the views that I addressed in multiple posts. If folks choose to hold on to empirically incorrect ideas, or choose to embrace philosophies and individuals that are objectively toxic they must be prepared and able to receive the inevitable backlash to their rigidity.

Indeed, I will not tone down my intellect, nor mask my knowledge, nor sugarcoat the damage done by clinging to falsehoods peddled by self-interested grifters just to facilitate the maintenance of these problematic beliefs. No, I’ll attach lead weights to those cognitive ankles to slow the backflipping, I will shine a spotlight on the dissonance, and I’ll make folks look at it all, like it or not.

You reinforce my point. Your words sound more like politics or cult religion than science. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against you personally, I, of course, do not know you. But your message loses substance because it sounds as if you have an emotional agenda or mission, and therefore I categorize it as being fringe, ironically no different than someone who emotionally claims that all climate scientists are in a vast conspiracy.

I am not a climate scientist and I strongly suspect neither are you, but I do support climate science and am very interested in the facts, data, and ongoing collection of knowledge of causes and potential solutions. I also am a conservative, and would be classified as "right wing" by the vast majority of people who share your passionate point of view. I agree with the original intent of your post and am glad to see a discussion on the science.

I will refrain from posting further comments because I feel I've overstepped a line in pointing out your particular approach and moved away from the subject of your original post. Thank you for bringing the topic up, and I agree that a sustainability forum would add value to the hobbyists who use this site.

 

[revhtree]

Friends this thread is causing us a lot of work behind the scenes and frankly it’s just causing hard feelings. At this point we feel it best to give it a fond farewell! Thanks for understanding.