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

[rgulrich]

https://phys.org/news/2019-07-years-unique-reveal-coral-reefs.html

Randy, your call - I posted here as I thought this research interesting from a chemistry perspective. If you'd like to shuffle it somewhere else please do.

A good read and a lot of work.

I guess it's to be expected, but what are we/can we do in our captive environments to effectively mitigate? I know, good husbandry habits, etc. How about specific steps to address the specific problem - nitrogenous wastes (in all their stages?)?

In a similar vein, how do we encourage progress in the greater scheme of things?

Cheers,
Ray

 

[Dan_P]

Thanks Ray for the link.

Here is the link to the journal article that was summarized in your link. The article contents should be accessible to many of the forum members, though I will need to read it a couple times for all the points to sink in.

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00227-019-3538-9.pdf

 

[beaslbob]

sound like better sewage treatment and more use of plant life to remove the nitrogen are needed.

they said if was nitrogen increasing over phosphates. Wonder if adding phosphates would help?


my .02

 

[Cory]

So phosphorus limitation is making corals bleach because phosphate helps corals some how durring warmer temps.

Well, iirc new york dumps raw sewage directly into the sea. Or was it san Francisco? That can't be good. But im not scientist.

 

[Gareth elliott]

Does this play out in our home reefs?
@Cory Southern California uses wetland bio filtration instead of heavy chemical filtration.

Total reduction of the effluent is 85% of what entered the system. But this could also be decomposed plant material from the wetlands themselves. Which is inline with most standard waste treatment plants. The real issue is they use Biological O2 demand as the litmus test which does not really show a full picture of what enters the ocean or groundwater.

 

[bluprntguy]

So phosphorus limitation is making corals bleach because phosphate helps corals some how durring warmer temps.

Well, iirc new york dumps raw sewage directly into the sea. Or was it san Francisco? That can't be good. But im not scientist.

Almost all major cities dump some amount of sewage into the ocean. San Francisco's storm sewer is stupidly tied to the the sewer system, so in heavy storms our system can't process all the combined stormwater/sewage and some can be released into the ocean. That happens pretty rarely and the City is working to minimize it.

 

[Ozzi-reef]

Yeah, Naaah... sorry mate but unless the title is changed to “What might contributing to coral die-off in the USA” the thread is misleading. The planet does extend beyond US borders and while runoff might be a partial contribution for Florida reefs, along that heavily populated coast, those factors don’t apply to other parts of the world where devastating bleaching is getting worse every year. Here in Australia the Queensland coast along the entire 2000km long GBR has less than 200k population and strict waste and water control. The GBR is also 100km off the coast and the southern section and in the far north (the worst impacted) there are no towns and no agriculture for nitrogen runoff. Additionally, many of the reefs in the middle of the sparsely populated South Pacific (along with the North Pacific and Indian Oceans) have also been impacted.
So while we do understand that the actual cause of global coral bleaching and accelerating global reef decline is a blasphemous topic in Gilead, I think a better suggestion than Miami poop is needed.

 

[rgulrich]

Umm...not exactly sure of the accuracy of your assessment of the state of the GBR mitigation efforts...

Great Barrier Reef | WWF Australia

Great Barrier Reef | WWF Australia

www.wwf.org.au

"Farm pollution is one of the key drivers of the Reef’s decline. It smothers corals and seagrass beds and denies them sunlight, drives crown of thorn starfish and makes coral more vulnerable to bleaching. Nitrogen run-off from farms can also lead to algal blooms, which starfish larvae feed on, promoting population explosions. "

(Apologies for using newspaper articles for reference as well)

Clive Palmer's nickel refinery pumped toxic waste into Great Barrier Reef park

Company discharged toxic wastewater into world heritage area on several occasions despite being forbidden from doing so

www.theguardian.com

Clive Palmer's nickel refinery pumped toxic waste into Great Barrier Reef park

Managing and protecting the Great Barrier Reef - DAWE

Snorkelling on the Great Barrier Reef We all have a common goal—protecting and managing the Great Barrier Reef for current and future generations. The Australian and Queensland governments are jointly investing more than $4 billion in protecting the Reef.

www.environment.gov.au

What the Australian government is doing to mitigate nitrogenous wastes on the GBR

There's also some indications the South Pacific islands and their respective growing populations are having some problems addressing similar issues not only with deforestation along the coast line for farming (both vegetable and livestock) but also the use of non-centralized (read: septic tank) sewage treatment.

WHO Western Pacific | World Health Organization

Promote health. Save lives. Serve the vulnerable.

www.wpro.who.int

Environmental health/relationships - World Health Organization study
"... If not properly treated, wastewater discharges threaten precious water resources and ocean reefs that sustain both villages and tourism. Solid wastes – including harmful chemicals and health care wastes – also pose challenges for island nations with limited land and few disposal options. "

There's a handful of papers out there that detail the challenges faced by the islands of the South Pacific and how they're trying to address them.

Cheers,
Ray

 

[PatW]

I have scuba dived in quite a few places. In areas with sewage dumped out on the reefs, the corals really suffer often to being totally eliminated. But I dove the middle keys in 1972. The corals were pristine. I have not seen that anywhere. Currently, reefs can hit 86 or even 87 degrees. That has to stress the reefs. On top of that the water is getting more acidic. And large predators like sharks, grouper and snapper are being eliminated.

In the FL keys, you used to be able to see acres of pristine staghorn. Now seeing a small clump of heathy staghorn is a remarkable find.

 

[road_runner]

Love the article and thank you for sharing.
Yet another scientific data point about the nitrate and phosphorus in coral reef.

 

[road_runner]

Yeah, Naaah... sorry mate but unless the title is changed to “What might contributing to coral die-off in the USA” the thread is misleading. The planet does extend beyond US borders and while runoff might be a partial contribution for Florida reefs, along that heavily populated coast, those factors don’t apply to other parts of the world where devastating bleaching is getting worse every year. Here in Australia the Queensland coast along the entire 2000km long GBR has less than 200k population and strict waste and water control. The GBR is also 100km off the coast and the southern section and in the far north (the worst impacted) there are no towns and no agriculture for nitrogen runoff. Additionally, many of the reefs in the middle of the sparsely populated South Pacific (along with the North Pacific and Indian Oceans) have also been impacted.
So while we do understand that the actual cause of global coral bleaching and accelerating global reef decline is a blasphemous topic in Gilead, I think a better suggestion than Miami poop is needed.

Are you arguing that coral reef in usa have diffrent biology than the rest of the world?
This article speak of some specific reasons that is driving coral health depredation.
Yes there might be other reasons but it doesn't mean the article outlined factors are not correct...right?

 

[User1]

Guess I'm not sure what the talking point is. Who here doesn't acknowledge that population growth and the associated waste it provides doesn't impact planet Earth? On top of that the amount of energy used to feed said population so they don't go hungry and those countries who do have regulations and actually enforce them while others do not and then those hungry populations who just flat out ignore.

Oceans cover 70% of the Earths surface. Something like that anyway yet people have an impact. When humans think they know more than Mother Nature (see San Francisco Gate article with the mass poisoning idea being floated for the mice issue on the Farralons...).

Just saying. Yes population and humans effect the planet....so do stupid ideas.

 

[road_runner]

Guess I'm not sure what the talking point is. Who here doesn't acknowledge that population growth and the associated waste it provides doesn't impact planet Earth? On top of that the amount of energy used to feed said population so they don't go hungry and those countries who do have regulations and actually enforce them while others do not and then those hungry populations who just flat out ignore.

Oceans cover 70% of the Earths surface. Something like that anyway yet people have an impact. When humans think they know more than Mother Nature (see San Francisco Gate article with the mass poisoning idea being floated for the mice issue on the Farralons...).

Just saying. Yes population and humans effect the planet....so do stupid ideas.

But the article is not talking about population in such broad term. Article describes specific factors (yes related to population) that impacted the coral reef. Its scitifice data focusing n/p ratios.
These key findings are important and more of peeling the onion to just say population and waste is the reason.
Such data can drive more research in to reducing the impact of waste via post processing as an example..
Just like in carbon emission..it was important to understand the details in emission pollution that drove innovation in pollution post filtration as an example that were later enforced on factories and power plants...

 

[chefjpaul]

So lets argue about the causes, instead of working together toward all these problems combined with solutions. (Sounds human).

All these issues are a threat.

As far as poisoning the soil, EVERY COUNTRY does this and has issues, no matter how far the reef is from land. Even Australia.
Yes I dive there too.

Poisoning the soil as well as the atmosphere are both wreaking havoc on the ocean.

 

[road_runner]

So lets argue about the causes, instead of working together toward all these problems combined with solutions.

All these issues are a threat.

As far as poisoning the soil, EVERY COUNTRY does this and has issues, no matter how far the reef is from land. Even Australia.
Yes I dive there too.

Poisoning the soil as well as the atmosphere are both wreaking havoc on the ocean.

I agree with you, I just do not understand how do you expect we work on solutions without exactly understanding the causes... no one is arguing about the causes..
And when I say no one I am not talking about is here in R2R where everyone have an opinion. Am referring to the scientific community.
Clearly this study was calibrated and published in these communities...
Why are we not happy with the study exactly if I may ask?

 

[Gareth elliott]

I do not argue the effects of pollution. I argue this study seems overly simplistic.

Mind you i still am anxiously awaiting the long over due florida wetlands environmental project that is slated to undue to damage of the 1950’s civil engineering disaster they created.

Where a true wetlands is able to detoxify the chemicals that leave the agriculture and residential areas. I forget the name of it but there is an accidental recreation of this in mexico where over decades toxic water was made a wildlife habitat by cat tails. Where destroyed sea bird habitat is now relocated elsewhere.

But too say that nitrate is the single biggest contributor seems near sighted.

There are plenty of reefs in decline that are no where near a industrial or agricultural plant effluent.

 

[chefjpaul]

I do not argue the effects of pollution. I argue this study seems overly simplistic.

Mind you i still am anxiously awaiting the long over due florida wetlands environmental project that is slated to undue to damage of the 1950’s civil engineering disaster they created.

Where a true wetlands is able to detoxify the chemicals that leave the agriculture and residential areas. I forget the name of it but there is an accidental recreation of this in mexico where over decades toxic water was made a wildlife habitat by cat tails. Where destroyed sea bird habitat is now relocated elsewhere.

But too say that nitrate is the single biggest contributor seems near sighted.

There are plenty of reefs in decline that are no where near a industrial or agricultural plant effluent.

Definitely don't disagree.

 

[road_runner]

I do not argue the effects of pollution. I argue this study seems overly simplistic.

Mind you i still am anxiously awaiting the long over due florida wetlands environmental project that is slated to undue to damage of the 1950’s civil engineering disaster they created.

Where a true wetlands is able to detoxify the chemicals that leave the agriculture and residential areas. I forget the name of it but there is an accidental recreation of this in mexico where over decades toxic water was made a wildlife habitat by cat tails. Where destroyed sea bird habitat is now relocated elsewhere.

But too say that nitrate is the single biggest contributor seems near sighted.

There are plenty of reefs in decline that are no where near a industrial or agricultural plant effluent.

I see your point.
I did not take it from the study its saying nitrate is the only reason.
They took spesifc region and analyzed the pollution effect then isolated some factors..

 

[chefjpaul]

I agree with you, I just do not understand how do you expect we work on solutions without exactly understanding the causes... no one is arguing about the causes..
And when I say no one I am not talking about is here in R2R where everyone have an opinion. Am referring to the scientific community.
Clearly this study was calibrated and published in these communities...
Why are we not happy with the study exactly if I may ask?

I agree alot with the article the OP posted, but it's more than just a simple subject with MANY causes.

My post was really meant for everyone, not just a simple subject on a forum....rant.

Ive been pushing the documentary "symphony of soil" for years to push education, deaf ears.

United states started using nitrogen, leftover from bomb making to fertilize the land after WWll. FYI.

Ive seen first hand around this water filled rock our damage from the beaches to the bottom.

There are thousands of very knowledgeable aquarist around the globe with a large voice. Yes we sit behind the line not joining in ocean conservation. Majority.

Education, pushing knowledge, even environmental & oceanic documentaries to the public help.

We all, world wide, leave this to the scientific community to educate and then them to lean on our greedy governments to execute the solution.

This is the number one issue of our lifetime.
Our environment. Not any other these politicians yap about.

I look at it this way, even if one doesn't believe we have any effect on "ozone" we are still collectively polluting the ocean, soil and air.

Banning a straw or cup every couple years is a joke. This accomplishes absolutely nothing in terms of long term goals, not even real education, just makes someone feel good for a couple days.

We all talk and complain, who donates? Who does beach or dive clean ups? Who gets involved with conversation societies?
Who tries?
Very few.

 

[road_runner]

I agree alot with the article the OP posted, but it's more than just a simple subject with MANY causes.

My post was really meant for everyone, not just a simple subject on a forum....rant.

Ive been pushing the documentary "symphony of soil" for years to push education, deaf ears.

United states started using nitrogen, leftover from bomb making to fertilize the land after WWll. FYI.

Ive seen first hand around this water filled rock our damage from the beaches to the bottom.

There are thousands of very knowledgeable aquarist around the globe with a large voice. Yes we sit behind the line not joining in ocean conservation. Majority.

Education, pushing knowledge, even environmental & oceanic documentaries to the public help.

We all, world wide, leave this to the scientific community to educate and then them to lean on our greedy governments to execute the solution.

This is the number one issue of our lifetime.
Our environment. Not any other these politicians yap about.

I look at it this way, even if one doesn't believe we have any effect on "ozone" we are still collectively polluting the ocean, soil and air.

Banning a straw or cup every couple years is a joke. This accomplishes absolutely nothing in terms of long term goals, not even real education, just makes someone feel good for a couple days.

We all talk and complain, who donates? Who does beach or dive clean ups? Who gets involved with conversation societies?
Who tries?
Very few.

I could not respect your post and stand more..kudos!