Benefits of Twitter

I have watched too man episodes of Two and a Half Men so I thought that I would do something that had a bit of purpose.

So I was just on Twitter and saw an interesting tweet. In fact it drew my attention to this radio series with Gaia Vince called 'The Age We Made' that discusses The Anthropocene. Part 2 is particularly relevant to this blog and draws your attention to an acidifying ocean and the impact on coral within this new geological epoch. 

Things to note: 

1) Whilst there has been less total carbon emitted than the analogue of today, it has occurred only within a few decades rather than 5000 years. So concentrated emissions is key.

2) The show ends with the question of whether we can cope with the rate of change that we see around us that leads to a totally liveable Anthropocene climate. End fine, getting there difficult. 

So here's a post to ponder over whilst you are temporarily incapacitated by a food induced coma. 

Cya,

Seb

 

Biorock - Mineral Accretion Technology

HO HO HO,

It's time for another instalment of coral rejuvenation! And this is some cool stuff.

This video outlines everything you need to know about this bioengineering marvel. It focuses on an example in Gili Trawangan and I saw these for myself when I was there in 2011. Truly amazing. The video also expresses the value of coral reefs in monetary terms and ecosystem benefits. Seems like it is time to get serious. 

This article highlights the use of Biorock technology to form the Ihuru Island artificial reef system. Further, it highlights the advantages of this technology and provides a nice diagram to help you visualise what it looks like. 

I have found a powerpoint presentation on the Global Coral Reef Alliance website that illustrates a Biorock restoration project in Bali. It is the longest continuously run coral reef restoration project around and provides some amazing before and after shots as well some information that repeats both the video and the article. 

Happy Holidays,

Seb

The Story of Blue Ventures

Wagwan,

This post focuses on the role Blue Ventures, a World Challenge 2010 Finalist, has had on coral reef preservation in Madagascar. I found this example on the rareconservation.org blog. There are lots of other interesting bits and bobs so it is worth taking a look. 

So briefly, why are reefs here so special? Well the reef system is the 4th largest in the world and contains hundreds of endemic species whose healthy populations are critical in supporting pelagic species. Madagascar, like with many other islands, is home to a semi-nomadic tribespeople. The west coast of the island is home to the Vezo tribe, all 50,000 of them, who rely on the sea for the majority of their food and income as the land is not conducive to farming. This is an example of the close interaction between these two parties. More examples can be found in Kate Price's Blog. 

What are the issues? Apart from the usual problem of overfishing and invasive fishing practices, there are two major threats surrounding the ability to conserve the reef. The first being the absence of fishery management with little to no enforcement of the local fishery laws and the second being the staggering average birth rate of 6.8 that put huge strain on food supplies. 

The solution? Blue Ventures supported the creation of a local management body comprised of 25 Vezo fishing villages. They implemented reserves for specific species as well as encouraged alternative aquaculture of less commonly used organisms. Crucially, BVs introduced a population program to decrease the number of births. A lot of this was achieved using social marketing. I wonder if they used Twitter...

It is interesting for me to see a different kind of causal relationship and subsequently a different method of prevention and conservation. It is encouraging to see that the locals are understand what's going on but it is discouraging to read that those with power i.e. the government, seem to be hindering things.

Well that was nice and generalised,

Seb 

MPAs: Yay or Nay?

I ended the last blog with some key questions: 

1) Are MPAs actually any good at preventing coral loss? 
2) What can they realistically protect against?
3) Are MPAs being established in the right areas where they are needed the most?

Now they shall be answered. 

A paper by Selig and Bruno (2010) examining the global effectiveness of MPAs in preventing coral loss goes some way to answer the first question. Like with the information given in the previous post, this paper highlights that MPAs have been reasonably useful in the rehabilitation of fish and invertebrates that were overharvested. The idea of 'no-take' and what I have termed 'diminished-take' policy, has lead to optimism that reduced fishing has positive indirect effects on corals. This is primarily through the restoration of food webs that can prevent the outbreak of coral predators. Furthermore, more intact food webs limit the coverage of macroalgae due to greater numbers of the grazer population being present and incourages coral growth. A study by Mumby and Harborne (2010) corroborates this and focuses on the use of herbivorous fish species to restore coral reefs after impacts occur. The researchers found that reductions in algal cover due to an increase in the parrotfish population resulted in a faster rate of coral recovery than those areas where fishing was not prohibited. The study shows that the coral recovery was significantly greater inside a Bahamian reserve than outside over a two and half year period. Moreover, the beneficial role of an intact food web is highlighted by the significant negative correlation between algal cover and coral cover. This proves that MPAs in an indirect way can facilitate coral rehabilitation but the process must be an ecosystem-wide solution. 

The direct benefits of MPAs on coral reefs are all mechanical in nature. It prevents destructive fishing techniques, anchor damage and terrestrial runoff. This results in reduced sedimentation and nutrient pollution thereby decreasing the limiting factors that impact coral (these are mentioned earlier on in the blog). Selig and Bruno (2010) state that MPAs can be effective in preventing coral loss. They mention that no change in coral cover over 38 years occurred in reefs within MPAs versus those in unprotected areas which continued to decrease. A key point that needs to be raised from this study is that the effectiveness of MPAs is a function of time. In the Caribbean, the results show that things get worse (14 year decrease after implementation) before they get better indicating a natural lag which is understandable. After X amount of years of coral increase, rates stagnate and level off highlighting that the population recovery reached what they term "saturation point". The study also looked at Indo-Pacific MPAs and the results are different here. They had the same decline as the Caribbean reefs but then increased at 2% per year for 22 years. However, during 1998 there was a strong El Nino which devastated this coral cohort. Despite this, there is a positive message. In older MPAs coral cover change  returned to rates around zero. This highlights increased coral resilience which is extremely positive. 

Now to the second question. I have found that MPAs do not automatically result in positive effects on coral cover. It is safe to say that on a local scale MPAs have the greatest benefit and whilst the evidence above looks good, the sites used have some significant inconsistencies. Coral loss that is determined by regional or global stressors such as climate change or coral disease is unlikely to be protected by MPAs. due to MPAs having only so much control. They cannot prevent the flow of seawater or pathogens and the transfer of heat. This is shown above with the El Nino example and this quote from the BBC article reaffirms this idea...

"And a recent paper on the demise of the Barrier Reef demonstrates that declaring an area protected does not necessarily shield it from distant influences like over-nutrification."


As such, a little perspective is needed. MPAs whilst beneficial cannot protect against everything but they can, as seen above, help to build resilience so that the impact may be less severe next time round. 

Number 3. I get the impression from both academic literature (Selig and Bruno, 2010) and news reports such as the one from the BBC, that whilst MPAs are being introduced at a greater rate and into important areas for conservation, there are a lot of MPAs being declared in areas that do not need them. It almost seems like in some cases they are being implemented for the sake of reaching this target with little thought about where they should be placed. Obviously it is fair enough placing them in areas that have high biodiversity with a number of rare species, but they should also be placed where there are large human populations that have the potential to terminally destroy the reef ecosystem. Focus needs to turn to areas where a large population and high biodiversity exist. More thought and planning is needed by governments it seems as quotes like this from the BBC article are not the most encouraging..."I don't want to knock any of the MPAs but some appear to be easy wins, where you could stick a pin on a map and maybe send a patrol vessel. We need more than that.". 

I hope that these are sufficiently answered and you are able to weigh up the pros and cons of MPAs. It seems that their ability to achieve results must be understood correctly as well as where they should be placed and how they should be enforced. 

A change to the usual sign off!

Seb 

Marine Protected Areas: Part 1

Now that I have finished dazzling you with all those impacts on coral reefs, I am going to start to blog about ways that can reduce the impacts detailed in the previous posts. The first of which being Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). I have been aware of this BBC news article for some time but it is only now that I unleash it on you readers as it seems like the most appropriate moment. This report details that MPAs will increase to 10% of global ocean area by 2020 after a UN meeting in Hyderabad. The figure for MPAs currently stands at 2.3% but the article states that it is highly likely that the above target will be met.  The use of MPAs has become increasingly popular as a means to protect all organisms in a delineated area. For example, The Cook Islands and New Caledonia added 2.5 million sq km of MPAs, whilst Australia added 2.7 million sq km to existing protected areas.

What's the crack on MPAs?

I have found a two-part video that focusses on MPAs in the state of California. It is an extremely informative video that is not too long so please have a watch below. It covers what MPAs are, where they are in California, how they are devised and the issues surrounding them.

 

Below is a more recent video from The Nature Conservancy detailing the rules behind MPA creation.

These rules are generally not too dissimilar to those stated in the previous videos but are more specific in terms of numbers (for Kimbe Bay, Papua New Guinea). This video also speaks about the role of networks and how they are of benefit for the movement of species. It is encouraging to see that it did work despite the numerous repetition of "we had no idea what we were doing" and "we made it up as we went along".

Whilst this information is useful to know, are MPAs actually any good at preventing coral loss and what can they realistically protect against? Also, are MPAs being established in the right areas where they are needed the most? All will be revealed in good time!

Hang tight,

Seb

What's occurring Belize?

I realise that my examples have been particularly focussed on the Pacific region and more specifically the GBR. Alas, this is no more, and I have found a recent assessment from Belize, which in fact is home to the second largest uninterrupted reef; the first obviously being the GBR. The article states that the reef is near devastation but the damage is not yet terminal. Though, work needs to be done to save those critters.

You can find more up to date examples and stories at the bottom of the blog in the news feed. It's well handy.

Peace out A town down,

Seb

Disease and Crown of Thorns

Yesterday when I published my last post, I felt like I was on a roll. Thus, I am going to forget my other work and smash this one out. So today I am going to be introducing you to the impact of disease and a biological enemy on corals and how it will most likely pan out in the future.

Let's get down to it shall we!? Diseases in reef communities are normal. Reefs, like all organisms, are affected by disease but their susceptibility is increased (outbreaks increased) under the influence of other stressors such as bleaching and OA for example. 

A specific disease affected corals is white syndrome in the GBR. A study by Bruno et al. (2007) focused on the interaction between anomalously high ocean temperatures and extent of coral cover, highlighting the role of disease. The mechanism behind disease outbreaks and climate is complicated and if you are interested then please read this paper in detail by Sokolow (2009). Here, however, is a diagram illustrating the complexity from Sokolow (2009).

In a nutshell though, an increase in temperature causes pathogens to reproduce more quickly and as a consequence, disease spreads much faster. This has been seen to be the case in the summer months confirming this theory. In the table below taken from Solokow (2009) shows other climate drivers and their impact on disease. 

Anyway, Bruno et al. (2007) to construct their argument, they evaluated the relationship between occurrence of white syndrome and a) no. of weekly SST anomalies (>1degf against mean records) b) coral cover, and c) interaction between the two. From their statistical analysis, the third variable was deemed to be statistically significant with a strong correlation present. Therefore, temperature anomalies along with high coral cover equal a greater likelihood of white syndrome outbreaks. What of the future? Well, if global warming increases (which it will do), then warm temperature anomalies observed will increase resulting in ever increasing susceptibility and outbreaks, to and of white syndrome. This disease has the ability, if the impact is great enough, to completely transform a vibrant reef into a wasteland. Scary stuff!

It must be noted that in the thorough paper by Solokow (2009), the relationship between coral disease and climate has been difficult to reliably ascertain. The evidence in recent years has been largely poor and uncertainty still lingers. However, research in this area is moving in the right direction. What needs to be achieved next is the understanding of what causes disease emergence at large spatial and temporal scales. But to achieve this, researchers must overcome three hinderances outlined in the Solokow (2009) abstract. Whilst the evidence is in its early stages, it suggests that reducing climate change will reduce disease outbreaks. 

Now then, my focus is going to move towards an coral animal that is becoming a real trouble maker on the GBR. The Crown of Thorns Starfish (COTS) has been found to devastate the coral reefs.  They look like a menace.

Crown of Thorns Starfish (source: pacificislandparks.com)

Watch this from the BBC! The video briefly summarises the state of affairs in relation to the GBR. The study it refers to is this one by De'ath et al. (2012).  The statistics in the video are truly worrying and highlights the impact of both storms and the COTS. (This is also a good paper for the previous post on storms but alas I forgot!). Anyway, from this evidence , one cannot underestimate the COTS and like the video says, more must be done to regulate these biological hazards to ensure the integrity of the reef.  This will be difficult as the ability of the COTS to have a significant impact is also a function other environmental variables that need to be addressed also.

This post is the last one for the series of Climate Crimes stated a while ago. I haven't yet decided on what I am going to do next so I'll leave you with this astonishing and outrageous cliff hanger...lol?

Over and out peeps,

Seb 

Turbulent Times

Today, I am going to be talking about the impact of storms and rainfall on reef communities. To start, I am going to cover storms.  Gardner et al. (2005) states an interesting idea that storms, whether it be a hurricane or tropical storm, are the "most obvious and frequent natural disturbances" affecting coral reef communities. Initially, after reading this I thought that couldn't be true, especially after reviewing a whole load of other impacts that seem to be far more frequent and in my mind more obvious. However, from reading this paper through, I can see where Gardner et al. (2005) is coming from, and if anything, this impact is becoming far more important. The climate is warming and so is the sea. Increased warmth in our oceans causes increased storm events due to a greater rate of latent heat exchange amongst other factors (NOAA). The GBRMPA states that this will cause an increase in frequency and severity of these storms. However we don't really need to someone to state this is happening because we can see this with our very own eyes, especially most recently with Hurricane Sandy. The Wikipedia page for this storm is actually very good; more specifically the 'relation to global warming section'. I agree with the NCAR senior climatologist Kevin Trenberth who is quoted in this section, that global warming does not cause these storms to occur but it increases the likelihood that they can occur. Anyway, that's enough of that... but there is no denying that storm frequency and severity is increasing. Here is a graph to illustrate this...

Bars depict number of named systems (open/yellow),
hurricanes (hatched/green), and category 3 or greater (solid/red), 1886-2004 

Now that we know the frequency and severity of storms is increasing, I can address the impacts they have on reef communities. In a detailed paper by Fabricius et al. (2008), storms are described as the "most severe form of mechanical disturbance" for corals. They are right for saying this. There have been numerous papers detailing how storms act as determinants of reef structure and function through their impacts (references found in Gardner et al. 2005). Simply, the GBRMPA states three impacts: 1. Coral breakage 2. Dislocation 3. Degradation. Furthermore, it is noted that the effects of these storms can have legacies of up to centuries (Connell, 1999). Fabricius et al. (2008) provides are great case study on the impact of tropical cyclone Ingrid that hit the most Northern part of Queensland. This paper looked at the impact on inshore and offshore reefs and highlights the significant perturbations on marine ecosystems. The worst affected inshore reefs amounted to extensive rubble fields whilst the worst affected offshore reefs were stripped and only their solid substratum was left. Their are some statistics presented in this paper that are truly astonishing. For example, on a devastated inshore reef, the coral cover decreased by 800%, diversity 250% and density 30%. Fabricius et al. (2008) clearly illustrates with these figures the role of storms and their ability to break and dislodge corals. Interestingly, from large scale survey analysis, the key factor driving the devastation was the wind speed over a 10 minute average but storm duration was also another significant variable. 

So, thoughts for the future? Well, future projections are somewhat uncertain as they are linked to projections of ocean temperature increase. Sriver and Huber (2006) state that the potential increase in destructiveness could range from 0% to 60%, whilst Knutson and Tuleya (2004) predict an increase of 6-12% in maximum wind speeds by 2090 which equates to half a category on the Saffir Simpson Scale. Relating back to the Great Barrier Reef, a potential increase by half a category in terms of intensity would have dramatic consequences; consequences far greater than ever observed before.

Moving on to rainfall and corals, you may be thinking 'hmmmmmmmm what's going on here?'. Well I thought exactly the same thing, so don't you worry. With storms comes rain and usually these are heavy rainfall events that lead to fresh water inundation in the inshore reefs. The concept is pretty straightforward (and corals are thought to have a low tolerance to changes in salinity). The fresh water reduces the salinity of the coral environment leading to bleaching i.e. the loss of zooxanthellae (please see previous posts for information). A relatively old paper by Nyawira et al. (1987) explored the effects of salinity stress on a specific hermatypic coral. The paper found that this coral species was actually relatively tolerant to salinity change. Normal salinities in the coastal waters that this coral inhabits is no greater than 30% but it is able to acclimate to 42%. However, any change greater than 15% both up or down equalled decreases in respiratory and photosynthetic rates due to a respective decrease in chlorophyll pigments per algal cell and leads to coral demise. Despite this, this evidence (be it slightly old!) has a good point. It shows that corals can adapt and survive with a greater ability to resist prolonged or sudden changes in salinity. But, and this is a big BUT, the combination of other variables makes nothing certain. Therefore we cannot be overly confident and state that corals have a greater threshold than first thought. This would be of no benefit to corals. We as learned individuals have to, dare I say it, prepare for the worst, as modification of our climate is not going to suddenly cease and revert to how it was. 

Over and out,

Seb 

References:

Connell, J. H. 1997. Disturbance and recovery of coral assemblages. Coral Reefs 16 (Suppl): 101-113. Devantier, L., G. De'ath, T. Done, E. Turak, and K. Fabricius. 2006. Species richness and community structure of reef-building corals on the nearshore Great Barrier Reef. Coral Reefs 25: 329-340.

Knutson, T., and R. Tuleya. 2004. Impact of CO2-induced warming on simulated hurricane intensity and precipitation: sensitivity to the choice of climate model and convective parameterization. Journal of Climate 17: 3477-3495.

Sriver, R., and M. Huber. 2006. Low frequency variability in globally integrated tropical cyclone power dissipation. Geophysical Research Letters 33, L11705, doi:10.1029/2006GL026167.