[Coral-List] Data of metals, HPA and PCB in mediolittoral oysters in the Indo-pacific for seasurface characteristics

Bernard-Armand THOMASSIN ba.thomassin at wanadoo.fr
Mon Feb 25 08:51:39 EST 2008


Dear All,

Finishing a screen survey upon the concentrations of metals, polyaromatic 
hydrocarbons (APH)and poly-chloro-biphenyls (PCB) in oysters living on rocky 
shores and mangal trunks, in the midlittoral stage, in relation  to the 
surface seawater characteristics in the coral reef complex of the 
high-islands of Mayotte (North Mozambique Channel), I need for comparisons 
data from midlittoral bivalves or other filter-feeder organisms.
Areas the best appreciated will be from the Eastern coasts of Africa, 
Mascarene Is. and Seychelles as well Malagasy, and other places in the 
Indo-pacific.
If you can help me pointing out references of papers or reports, as well 
data unpublished, I would greatly appreciate.
Thanking you, Best regards.

Bernard A. THOMASSIN (Dr. Sci.)
Directeur de recherches honoraire du CNRS / Centre d'Océanologie de 
Marseille
Président du G.I.S. "Lag-May" ("Environnement marin et littoral de l'île de 
Mayotte")
&
Attaché scientifique du Musée Barla d'Histoire naturelle de la Ville de Nice
tél. GSM (33) 06 63 14 91 78,
e-mai : ba.thomassin at wanadoo.fr

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <coral-list-request at coral.aoml.noaa.gov>
To: <coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov>
Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 5:57 PM
Subject: Coral-List Digest, Vol 56, Issue 33


> Send Coral-List mailing list submissions to
> coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> coral-list-request at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> coral-list-owner at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Coral-List digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1. Conservation versus restoration of coral reefs (Thomas Goreau)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 21:44:37 -0500
> From: Thomas Goreau <goreau at bestweb.net>
> Subject: [Coral-List] Conservation versus restoration of coral reefs
> To: coral-list coral-list <coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov>, William
> Allison <allison.billiam at gmail.com>
> Cc: Abdul Azeez Abdul Hakeem <abdul.azeez at banyantree.com>
> Message-ID: <E7563BF4-60CD-4CF4-9F46-C9CBD7EA72E5 at bestweb.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; delsp=yes;
> format=flowed
>
> Dear Bill,
>
> I'm not sure where the wrong information you have came from, as you
> could easily have asked those involved directly in the projects. For
> some curious reason there is flood of deliberate misinformation on
> these projects spread by those who have never seen them.
>
> The breakwater reef was built in 1997, the year before the bleaching,
> and had at least 500 to a thousand corals growing well on it before
> bleaching. Most survived, while almost none of the corals on the
> surrounding reef did. The breakwater reef was built in front of a
> severely eroding beach, and turned it into 50 feet (15 m) of new
> beach sand growth in a few years. The three small electrical reef
> structures were small enough (only 3 m or so high) that we did not
> bother to mention them.
>
> As mentioned earlier, we used the corals growing in the natural reef
> all around the island as controls, and filmed them extensively before
> and after bleaching. Mortality of the natural reef was around 95% on
> the outer slope, and around 99% on the reef flat, which got much
> hotter, we measured temperatures of 34 degrees C in this habitat
> (these are visual estimates, but exact numbers can be taken from my
> before and after digital video transects in Maldives and Seychelles).
> Prior to Wolf Hilbertz and myself starting the electrical trickle
> charge work in the Maldives with Azeez Hakeem, Azeez had cemented
> thousands of corals onto bare rock and cement blocks of various
> sizes. We also filmed them as controls. They all died.
>
> We had built uncharged steel reefs in Jamaica in the late 1980s, but
> they quickly rusted and collapsed, so we rescued the corals and put
> them on the electrical structures, because we found from time series
> photographs that the charged corals were growing 3-5 times record
> rates for those species (Porites porites and Acropora cervicornis,
> photographic data shown in my talk at the 1996 ICRS). We quickly
> realized that, as in a medical study were an experimental treatment
> is so clearly superior to the controls that it becomes immoral to
> continue the control treatment, the only ethical treatment is to
> treat all the patients you can with the best remedy in your arsenal.
> Nevertheless we do have uncharged reefs in several locations in
> Southeast Asia and the Caribbean, only to keep our student's advisors
> happy, and the differences are immediately clear compared to the
> identical charged reefs next to them.
>
> We are now way past the point where there is any justification for
> killing corals as controls, so it is annoying that so many people
> just want us to watch corals die to keep them happy for statistical
> reasons.  We only want to boost the growth of all we can, and see no
> point whatsoever in prolonging coral suffering.  The results of the
> spectacular growth of corals on our projects are visible on hundreds
> of projects we have done in some 20 countries, and dying coral reefs
> are visible in over 100 countries, to serve as controls. We now have
> some 6 independent studies backing our growth rate data presented at
> ICRS 12 years ago, and we find it astonishing to hear continued
> denial from people who seem to believe anything at all they see
> printed on paper, but won''t trust their own lying eyes to look at
> these projects for themselves.
>
> I saw two of the concrete road bed structures, not all 12, so I don't
> know which ones they were, but they were horrifically barren post-
> industrial concrete wastelands. We'd rather just grow  exceptionally
> fast-growing heat-resistant corals swarming with fish schools than
> waste time propagating these sorts of misguided efforts as controls,
> because anyone can see that they hardly work.
>
> I'll be in the field for a while, and unable to respond.
>
> Best wishes,
> Tom
>
> Thomas J. Goreau, PhD
> President
> Global Coral Reef Alliance
> 37 Pleasant Street, Cambridge MA 02139
> 617-864-4226
> goreau at bestweb.net
> http://www.globalcoral.org
>
> On Feb 19, 2008, at 12:35 PM, William Allison wrote:
>
>> Dear Tom,
>>
>> Thanks for that information. I had discounted the free-standing
>> breakwall because until you mentioned it, I had the impression that
>> it had not been entirely completed before the 1998 bleaching event.
>> I did not know of the three small cones and could not even find
>> them on your website. Despite that information gap, I don't think I
>> was completely incorrect ? see below.
>>
>> Btw: I'd be pleased to take up your invitation and visit your
>> artificial reefs sometime. Perhaps you would suggest it to Azeez.
>> The free-standing breakwall function is especially intriguing.
>>
>> Here is my response to your last. Please excuse me if this seems
>> elementary but I want to make sure I have got it right. An
>> experiment aims to control the effects of all variables other than
>> those under investigation. Whatever the other alleged attributes of
>> the technology you are employing might be, it seems that
>> stimulation of coral growth and resistance to bleaching mortality,
>> produced directly or indirectly by the electrical current, is the
>> main effect relevant to this discussion. To test this a sufficient
>> number of identical replicate and control structures should be
>> randomly dispersed on the reef and transplanted corals randomly
>> selected and affixed to the structures, all within a very short
>> time interval. If the requirement for identical replicate
>> structures and near simultaneous initiation is relaxed, we are
>> still stuck with no controls if the effect of electricity is to be
>> evaluated. I hope you will now tell me that such structures were in
>> place prior to and during 1998. The general point is that until an
>> accessible, clear, precise, description of your "experiment" is
>> available, complete with aims, falsifiable hypotheses and detailed
>> experimental design, the validity of your stated results cannot be
>> critically assessed. From another perspective, because you are
>> promoting this approach as a conservation superlative and
>> soliciting money that could otherwise be spent on other
>> conservation approaches, the onus is on you to provide satisfactory
>> evidence that can be critically reviewed. Until this is done it
>> will seem more like snake oil than science. Why hasn't it been set
>> out on your website or better still in a peer reviewed article?
>> With regard to this aspect, your mention of the artificial reef
>> tests on Galu Faru reef is apposite.
>>
>> Your description of an artificial reef project as "?a couple of
>> hundred meters of concrete superhighway roadbed?" seems to
>> approximate the one set up by Newcastle on Anchorage Reef. I know
>> of no other of that vintage. It comprised 12 randomly dispersed
>> units of which nine, each about 7-8 m long were vaguely like
>> roadbed and three were somewhat larger and made of one meter hollow
>> cubes. These three must have stood out from the rest as distinctly
>> unsuperhighway-like, even by SUV standards. That all 360 tons of
>> concrete and steel were imported from the UK is not the issue here.
>>
>> With respect to the above-mentioned reef, the assertion that
>> "Thousands of corals had been cemented to it, but virtually all of
>> them died BEFORE the bleaching." is questionable for several
>> reasons (I assume that the "it" is a typo and you meant "them").
>> 1). Over the years I have frequently looked in on the Anchorage
>> Reef site. Your assertion that most of the corals died before the
>> 1998 bleaching is astonishing, but not inexplicable if only a few
>> of the widely dispersed sites were visited. Although many units
>> supported flourishing coral carpets, some were impoverished,
>> particularly those with low topographic relief (and possibly
>> resembling "superhighway roadbed"). Perhaps you were exposed to
>> only such units? When, exactly, did you visit the site, or did
>> someone else provide you with the video ? not necessarily of all of
>> the units?
>> 2). Only three of the twelve units bore coral transplants and these
>> transplants totaled hundreds, not thousands. The rest of the
>> "thousands of corals" you mention seeing got there under their own
>> larval steam, implying that if one is compelled to built artificial
>> reefs of any sort, transplantation is not only unnecessary, but
>> with its financial and carbon costs and largely unquantified
>> effects on the donor reefs, undesirable.
>>
>> Details of the Newcastle project's aims, methods, research design,
>> and results are readily accessible (Clark & Edwards, 1994, 1999),
>> as is their largely negative assessment of the artificial reef and
>> transplant approach for reef rehabilitation (Clark & Edwards, 1999;
>> Edwards & Clark, 1999).
>>
>> References with abstracts appended.
>>
>> Best wishes to you too,
>> Bill
>>
>>
>> References:
>> Clark, S. and A. J. Edwards (1994). "Use of artificial reef
>> structures to rehabilitate reef flats degraded by coral mining in
>> the Maldives." Bulletin of Marine Science 55(2-3): 726-746.
>> Abstract
>> Three hundred and sixty tons of concrete reef structures have been
>> deployed over a 4-ha experimental site on a 1-2 m deep reef flat in
>> the Maldives which was mined for coral 20 years ago and still has
>> less than 2.5% live coral cover. Colonization of four sets of
>> three, approximately 50 m2, artificial reef structures of varying
>> topographic complexity and stabilizing effect, and one set of three
>> replicate 50 m2 mined control areas has been monitored. All
>> structures were rapidly colonized by fish.
>>
>> Clark, S. and A. J. Edwards (1999). "An evaluation of artificial
>> reef structures as tools for marine habitat rehabilitation in the
>> Maldives." Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 9
>> (1): 5-21.
>> Abstract
>> 1. In the Maldives, coral mining for the construction industry has
>> resulted in widespread degradation of shallow reef-flat areas. Due
>> to the loss of these coastal resources and the associated problems
>> of coastal erosion, there is an urgent need to find practical
>> methods for rehabilitating mined reefs.  2. The slow rates of
>> natural recovery of mined reefs has prompted interest in the
>> potential of artificial reef structures to rehabilitate these
>> degraded habitats. An experimental artificial reef programme was
>> initiated in 1990 to discover whether it is feasible to use a bio-
>> engineering approach to kick-start natural reef recovery.  3. The
>> main goals of the project were to restore the capacity of degraded
>> reefs for sea defense and their ability to harbour fish species.
>> Accordingly, 360 t of concrete structures of varying levels of
>> topographic complexity, stabilising effect and cost were deployed
>> on a heavily mined study site close to the capital island, Male.
>> 4. Within 1 year of deployment, the artificial reef structures had
>> similar or greater species richness and densities of reef fish than
>> did control pristine reef flats. However, the community structure
>> of the fish populations on the artificial reef structures was
>> significantly different to that on unmined reef flats.  5.
>> Preliminary results of a monitoring programme indicated that
>> substantial coral recruitment had occurred on the larger reef
>> structures which were each supporting ca. 500 colonies, some of
>> which were approaching 25 cm in diameter after 3.5 years.  An
>> evaluation of the effectiveness of the various artificial reef
>> structures is discussed in relation to their design features and
>> costs and in line with timescales for the recovery processes.
>>
>> Edwards, A. J. and S. Clark (1999). "Coral Transplantation: A
>> Useful Management Tool or Misguided Meddling?" Marine Pollution
>> Bulletin 37(08-12): 474-487.
>> Abstract
>> The primary objectives of coral transplantation are to improve reef
>> `quality' in terms of live coral cover, biodiversity and
>> topographic complexity. Stated reasons for transplanting corals
>> have been to: (1) accelerate reef recovery after ship groundings,
>> (2) replace corals killed by sewage, thermal effluents or other
>> pollutants, (3) save coral communities or locally rare species
>> threatened by pollution, land reclamation or pier construction, (4)
>> accelerate recovery of reefs after damage by Crown-of- thorns
>> starfish or red tides, (5) aid recovery of reefs following dynamite
>> fishing or coral quarrying, (6) mitigate damage caused by tourists
>> engaged in water-based recreational activities, and (7) enhance the
>> attractiveness of whether the receiving area is failing to recruit
>> naturally.
>> The potential benefits and dis-benefits of coral trans- plantation
>> are examined in the light of the results of re- search on both
>> coral transplantation and recruitment with particular reference to
>> a 4.5 year study in the Maldives. We suggest that in general,
>> unless receiving areas are failing to recruit juvenile corals,
>> natural recovery processes are likely to be sufficient in the
>> medium to long term and that transplantation should be viewed as a
>> tool of last resort. We argue that there has been too much focus on
>> transplanting fast-growing branching corals, which in general
>> naturally recruit well but tend to survive trans- plantation and re-
>> location relatively poorly, to create short-term increases in live
>> coral cover, at the expense of slow-growing massive corals, which
>> generally survive transplantation well but often recruit slowly. In
>> those cases where transplantation is justified, we advocate that a
>> reversed stance, which focuses on early addition of slowly
>> recruiting massive species to the recovering community, rather than
>> a short-term and sometimes short-lived increase in coral cover, may
>> be more appropriate in many cases.
>>
>> Edwards, A. J., S. Clark, et al. (2001). "Coral bleaching and
>> mortality on artificial and natural reefs in Maldives in 1998, sea
>> surface temperature anomalies and initial recovery." Marine
>> Pollution Bulletin 42(1): 7-15.
>> The bleaching and subsequent mortality of branching and massive
>> corals on artificial and natural reefs in the central atolls of
>> Maldives in 1998 are examined with respect to sea surface
>> temperature (SST) anomalies. SST normally peaks in April-May in
>> Maldives. The UK Meteorological Office's Global sea-Ice and SST
>> data set version 2.3b shows that in 1998 monthly mean SST was 1.2?4
>> S.D. above the 1950-1999 average during the warmest months (March-
>> June), with the greatest anomaly in May of +2.1?C. Bleaching was
>> first reported in mid-April and was severe from late April to mid-
>> May with some recovery evident by late-May. At least 98% of
>> branching corals (Acroporidae, Pocilloporidae) on artificial
>> structures deployed on a reef flat in 1990 died whereas the
>> majority of massive corals (Poritidae, Faviidae, Agariciidae)
>> survived the bleaching. The pre-bleaching coral community on the
>> artificial reefs in 1994 was 95% branching corals and 5% massives
>> (n = 1589); the post-bleaching community was 3% branching corals
>> and 97% massives (n = 248). Significant reductions in live coral
>> cover were seen at all natural reefs surveyed in the central
>> atolls, with average live coral cover decreasing from about 42% to
>> 2%, a 20-fold reduction from pre-bleaching levels. A survey of
>> recruitment of juvenile corals to the artificial structures 10
>> months after the bleaching event showed that 67% of recruits (>0.5
>> cm diameter) were acroporids and pocilloporids and 33% were from
>> massive families (n = 202) compared to 94% and 6%, respectively, in
>> 1990-1994 (n = 3136). Similar post-bleaching dominance of
>> recruitment by branching corals was seen on nearby natural reef
>> (78% acroporids and pocilloporids; 22% massives). A linear
>> regression of April mean monthly SST against year was highly
>> significant (p < 0:001) and suggests a rise of 0:16?C per decade.
>> If this trend continues, by 2030 mean April SST in the central
>> atolls will normally exceed the anomaly level at which corals
>> appear there are susceptible to mass bleaching.
>>
>>
>> On Feb 17, 2008 6:38 PM, Thomas Goreau <goreau at bestweb.net> wrote:
>> Dear Bill,
>>
>> Your statements about controls and replicates in our project are
>> completely incorrect. I guess you have not seen them yourself? One
>> electric reef structure (roughly 5 m high, 4 m wide at the base) on
>> the fore reef slope had about 16 times higher survival than
>> surrounding reefs, three more smaller projects (each about 3 m
>> high, and 2x2 meters base) in the same habitat had similar results,
>> and one structure on the reef flat (50 m long, 1.5 m high, about 5
>> m wide) had about 50 times higher survival than surrounding reefs.
>> The larger projects had many hundreds of corals on them, not just a
>> few.  Another large project was done after bleaching, and so has on
>> bearing on bleaching survival. For controls we compared thousands
>> of corals that had previously been cemented on to concrete blocks
>> and dead reef. Even though they were all doing well prior to
>> bleaching, every single one of the control coral transplanted using
>> conventional methods died, i.e. 100% mortality and 0% survival,
>> compared to around 1-5% survival of natural corals on the nearby
>> reef, and 50-80 percent survival on the electric reefs. We have
>> hundreds of photographs and around 50 hours of digital video
>> transects of the electric reefs, natural reefs, and control
>> transplants taken before and after bleaching that document these
>> results. Typical video of all three before during and after were
>> presented at ICRI.
>>
>> I'm not sure if the artificial reef project by the World Bank you
>> are referring to was done before or after the bleaching? If after
>> it has no bearing on survival from bleaching. The only other reef
>> restoration project I looked at in North Male Atoll, was where a
>> couple of hundred meters of concrete superhighway roadbed was laid
>> on a dead reef. Thousands of corals had been cemented to it, but
>> virtually all of them died BEFORE the bleaching. I have video
>> footage of the entire length of these projects, and the contrast
>> with our results on the electric reefs  couldn't possibly be more
>> dramatic. I have not had the money to get back to the Maldives for
>> the last 7 years, but since you live there in the same atoll as
>> both of these projects, you can easily contrast them yourself. I
>> think you will still find the difference extraordinary and look
>> forward to your personal observations of the coral and fish
>> abundance on our projects compared to the concrete planting projects.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>> Tom
>>
>>
>> On Feb 17, 2008, at 6:11 PM, William Allison wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Tom,
>>>
>>> In your message of Feb 2 (repeated Feb 13) you assert that the
>>> major funding agencies are neglecting your product because they
>>> have given up on coral reef restoration. Without condoning it, I
>>> can think of at least one artificial reef project in Maldives
>>> funded by an arm of the World Bank in recent years. Perhaps there
>>> is another explanation for your situation.
>>>
>>> Despite the extraordinary Maldives bleaching results presented in
>>> your message, interest may be low because the experimental design
>>> cannot sustain the conclusions. In this case there was one
>>> experimental unit (a dome made of steel rod grid to which corals
>>> were tied and the whole subjected to electrical input). There were
>>> no replicates, there were no controls. Proceeding from basic
>>> experimental design principles, valid inferences about an
>>> experimental effect are not possible from this setup. Perhaps you
>>> should work on that aspect.
>>>
>>> I refer specifically to this segment of your message:
>>> >> >> There is only one method known that can keep corals alive under
>>> >> >> high temperatures that would ordinarily kill them. In the
>>> Maldives
>>> >> >> in 1998 the corals we were growing with our electrical trickle
>>> >> >> charging method had 16 to 50 times higher survival than
>>> >> >> surrounding reefs (Please note that is TIMES higher
>>> survival, not
>>> >> >> PERCENT. See T. Goreau, W. Hilbertz, & A. Azeez Hakeem, 2000,
>>> >> >> Increased Coral and Fish Survival on Mineral Accretion Reef
>>> >> >> Structures in the Maldives after the 1998 Bleaching Event,
>>> >> >> International Coral Reef Symposium, abstracts p. 263). Our
>>> corals
>>> >> >> bleached too, because they were exposed to the same
>>> temperatures,
>>> >> >> but they did not die,
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Bill Allison
>>>
>>> On Feb 15, 2008 10:52 AM, Thomas Goreau <goreau at bestweb.net> wrote:
>>> > Dear Dee Von,
>>> >
>>> > The only thing that really works is to stop algae killing reefs is
>>> > to stop polluting the water with nutrients, then the weedy algae
>>> > die back very fast. In one bay in Jamaica that I got cleaned up of
>>> > nutrient sources 10 years ago the weedy algae have not come back,
>>> > and elkhorn is growing again! But we also have to cut out the
>>> > greenhouse gas emissions too and absorb the excess CO2 now in the
>>> > atmosphere.
>>> >
>>> > Best wishes,
>>> > Tom
>>> >
>>> > On Feb 15, 2008, at 10:46 AM, DeeVon Quirolo wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Well stated Tommy--and the current loss of corals to disease
>>> >> driven by pollution and poor water quality is under-estimated,
>>> >> with some managers actually mistaking white diseases for bleaching
>>> >> to compound the problem.  If we were to put available resources
>>> >> into cleaning up the water, coral reefs would be far more
>>> >> resilient than we ever imagined; above all coral reefs need is
>>> >> clear, clean, nutrient-free waters to thrive.  What a simple
>>> >> concept; yet millions are being spent looking for other answers
>>> >> while ignoring this obvious, to paraphrase it,  "whale in the
>>> room".
>>> >>
>>> >> All the best, DeeVon Quirolo,  Reef Relief
>>> >>
>>> >> On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 2:05 PM, Thomas Goreau
>>> >> <goreau at bestweb.net> wrote:
>>> >> >> From: Thomas Goreau <goreau at bestweb.net>
>>> >> >> Date: February 2, 2008 1:08:20 PM EST
>>> >> >> To: coral-list coral-list <coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov>
>>> >> >> Cc: miguel_castrence at fulbrightweb.org
>>> >> >> Subject: Conservation versus restoration of coral reefs
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Dear Miguel,
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Too true, as pointed out in the New York Times article you
>>> quote,
>>> >> >> just  letting reefs die as a lost cause is the effective
>>> result of
>>> >> >> the largely unspoken consensus of most of the big conservation
>>> >> >> groups,. governments, and funding agencies. At the UN Climate
>>> >> >> Change Conference in Bali, the future of coral reefs and low
>>> lying
>>> >> >> coasts was deliberately and knowingly sacrificed, by those who
>>> >> >> simply want to continue business as usual and the profits it
>>> >> >> brings them.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Since the models being used to project future temperature
>>> and sea
>>> >> >> level impacts have serious and systematic flaws that cause
>>> them to
>>> >> >> under-estimate future impacts of global warming, the
>>> situation is
>>> >> >> more dire than they realize. The predictions being made by the
>>> >> >> models for the impacts on coral reefs are mere guesses, not
>>> only
>>> >> >> do they underestimate the mean rates of increase shown by
>>> the data
>>> >> >> (which will certainly accelerate) but also they also ignore the
>>> >> >> variability of extreme events. An exceptionally hot year or
>>> a big
>>> >> >> storm will wipe these areas out LONG before mean temperature
>>> >> >> change and sea level rise does. No number of papers based on
>>> >> >> models in Science and Nature or wishful thinking from IYOR can
>>> >> >> reverse this.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> The bulk of the "managing resilience" fad now underway has
>>> nothing
>>> >> >> in fact to do with real resilience, in the sense of making
>>> corals
>>> >> >> more capable of withstanding thermal stress. It is instead a
>>> >> >> desperate search for those sites that had less stress to begin
>>> >> >> with, due to local weather or circulation patterns, or had
>>> already
>>> >> >> long lost the stress-sensitive species and therefore
>>> superficially
>>> >> >> seem to appear more stress-tolerant. As thermal stress
>>> increases,
>>> >> >> even those few areas lucky enough to have escaped its serious
>>> >> >> effects so far will succumb, sooner rather than later, for the
>>> >> >> reasons stated above. Nevertheless, after the Indian Ocean
>>> tsunami
>>> >> >> the World Bank Expert Group on Coral Reef Restoration and the
>>> >> >> International Coral Reef Initiative told the countries affected
>>> >> >> that restoration is "neither feasible nor prudent" and that
>>> they
>>> >> >> should do nothing at all, they should just wait and the
>>> resilient
>>> >> >> reefs would grow back all by themselves. But almost all of the
>>> >> >> reefs in these places were already long dead for one reason or
>>> >> >> another, and had failed to recover!
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> There is only one method known that can keep corals alive under
>>> >> >> high temperatures that would ordinarily kill them. In the
>>> Maldives
>>> >> >> in 1998 the corals we were growing with our electrical trickle
>>> >> >> charging method had 16 to 50 times higher survival than
>>> >> >> surrounding reefs (Please note that is TIMES higher
>>> survival, not
>>> >> >> PERCENT. See T. Goreau, W. Hilbertz, & A. Azeez Hakeem, 2000,
>>> >> >> Increased Coral and Fish Survival on Mineral Accretion Reef
>>> >> >> Structures in the Maldives after the 1998 Bleaching Event,
>>> >> >> International Coral Reef Symposium, abstracts p. 263). Our
>>> corals
>>> >> >> bleached too, because they were exposed to the same
>>> temperatures,
>>> >> >> but they did not die, because they had more metabolic energy to
>>> >> >> resist stress. Therefore there is a proven way to keep reefs
>>> alive
>>> >> >> where they would otherwise die, and in our Coral Arks in
>>> some 20
>>> >> >> countries we are now growing more than 80% of all the coral
>>> genera
>>> >> >> in the world, despite absolutely no funding whatsoever for
>>> serious
>>> >> >> coral reef restoration or adaptation work. This work is
>>> entirely
>>> >> >> being done with very small individual donations and in-kind
>>> >> >> funding from concerned locals in poor countries who just
>>> want to
>>> >> >> keep their corals and fish alive even though the international
>>> >> >> community and funding agencies have let them know in the most
>>> >> >> tangible possible way that they couldn't care less if they die.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Our work has been widely ridiculed as a futile waste of time by
>>> >> >> those tossing around the big bucks. They say: if you can't
>>> save it
>>> >> >> all, what's the point? Our response is: if we don't save all we
>>> >> >> possibly can, what will we have left? They say: it is very
>>> >> >> dangerous to tell people you can restore reefs because then you
>>> >> >> are encouraging them to go and destroy reefs! We respond:
>>> that is
>>> >> >> like accusing tree planters of causing rainforest destruction!
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> What we can't seem to get these folks to understand is very
>>> >> >> simple. We are already way past the point where conservation
>>> alone
>>> >> >> of what is left can maintain the ecosystem services of coral
>>> >> >> reefs. Every Marine Protected Area I've seen is full of dead
>>> and
>>> >> >> dying corals, and no matter how much money is spent setting
>>> them
>>> >> >> up and managing them, they are powerless to stop the
>>> decline, much
>>> >> >> less reverse it. If we don't start large scale restoration
>>> we can
>>> >> >> kiss our marine biodiversity, fisheries, tourism,beaches, and
>>> >> >> shore protection goodbye. Large scale restoration is now our
>>> only
>>> >> >> hope. But no decision makers or funders seem to get it. Nor
>>> will
>>> >> >> those who predictably respond to this message saying that
>>> marine
>>> >> >> protected areas and international campaigns to encourage
>>> >> >> resilience are the answer.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Best wishes,
>>> >> >> Tom
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Thomas J. Goreau, PhD
>>> >> >> President
>>> >> >> Global Coral Reef Alliance
>>> >> >> 37 Pleasant Street, Cambridge MA 02139
>>> >> >> 617-864-4226
>>> >> >> goreau at bestweb.net
>>> >> >> http://www.globalcoral.org
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> On Feb 2, 2008, at 12:00 PM, coral-list-
>>> >> >> request at coral.aoml.noaa.gov wrote:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>> Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2008 09:31:04 -1000
>>> >> >>> From: Miguel Castrence <miguel_castrence at fulbrightweb.org>
>>> >> >>> Subject: [Coral-List] The Preservation Predicament
>>> >> >>> To: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>> This recent NY Times article caught my attention,
>>> especially this
>>> >> >>> provocative statement:
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>> "Some conservationists advocate triage, accepting that some
>>> >> >>> ecosystems, like coral reefs, may not survive in a warmer
>>> >> world, and
>>> >> >>> putting their efforts elsewhere."
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>> I wonder if such statements could be damaging for our
>>> endeavors.
>>> >> >>> --
>>> >> >>> Miguel Castrence
>>> >> >>> PhD Student | UH-Manoa Geography | www.geography.hawaii.edu
>>> >> >>> Graduate Degree Fellow | East-West Center | eastwestcenter.org
>>> >> >>> Research Assistant | Hawai`i Institute of Marine Biology |
>>> >> >>> www.himb.hawaii.edu
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>> Coral-List mailing list
>>> >> >>> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
>>> >> >>> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>> End of Coral-List Digest, Vol 56, Issue 3
>>> >> >>> *****************************************
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Thomas J. Goreau, PhD
>>> >> > President
>>> >> > Global Coral Reef Alliance
>>> >> > 37 Pleasant Street, Cambridge MA 02139
>>> >> > 617-864-4226
>>> >> > goreau at bestweb.net
>>> >> > http://www.globalcoral.org
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> >> Thomas J. Goreau, PhD
>>> >> President
>>> >> Global Coral Reef Alliance
>>> >> 37 Pleasant Street, Cambridge MA 02139
>>> >> 617-864-4226
>>> >> goreau at bestweb.net
>>> >> http://www.globalcoral.org
>>> >>
>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> Coral-List mailing list
>>> >> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
>>> >> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> --
>>> >> DeeVon Quirolo, executive director, Reef Relief
>>> >>
>>> >> NOTE: This is a new email address; please change your records.
>>> >>
>>> >> Reef Relief, a global nonprofit organization dedicated to
>>> >> protecting coral reefs (305) 294-3100 fax (305 293-9515
>>> >> www.reefrelief.org Mailing address: Reef Relief, Post Office
>>> >> Box430, Key West, Florida 33041-0430. Key West Headquarters/
>>> >> Environmental Center, 631 Greene Street, Key West, Florida.
>>> >> Bahamas: Captain Roland Roberts House Environmental Center,
>>> >> Parliament Street, New Plymouth, Green Turtle Cay, Abaco, Bahamas
>>> >> tel/fax (242) 365-4014.
>>> >>
>>> >> Do you want to make a difference? With the stroke of your
>>> >> keyboard, you can. Join Reef Relief's free online community at
>>> >> www.reefrelief.org and begin receiving regular updates on coral
>>> >> reef news and opportunities to get involved and take action.
>>> >
>>> > Thomas J. Goreau, PhD
>>> > President
>>> > Global Coral Reef Alliance
>>> > 37 Pleasant Street, Cambridge MA 02139
>>> > 617-864-4226
>>> > goreau at bestweb.net
>>> > http://www.globalcoral.org
>>> >
>>>
>>> Thomas J. Goreau, PhD
>>> President
>>> Global Coral Reef Alliance
>>> 37 Pleasant Street, Cambridge MA 02139
>>> 617-864-4226
>>> goreau at bestweb.net
>>> http://www.globalcoral.org
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Coral-List mailing list
>>> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
>>> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
>>>
>>
>> Thomas J. Goreau, PhD
>> President
>> Global Coral Reef Alliance
>> 37 Pleasant Street, Cambridge MA 02139
>> 617-864-4226
>> goreau at bestweb.net
>> http://www.globalcoral.org
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Coral-List mailing list
> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
>
>
> End of Coral-List Digest, Vol 56, Issue 33
> ******************************************
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Orange vous informe que cet  e-mail a ete controle par l'anti-virus mail.
> Aucun virus connu a ce jour par nos services n'a ete detecte.
>
> 





More information about the Coral-List mailing list