[Coral-List] Guardian Article on Recent Studies by Bruno & Valdivia

Fri Aug 12 13:36:55 EDT 2016

I, too, felt distressed reading the Bruno and Valdivia paper noticed here a
few weeks ago, after having watched firsthand the degradation of the Keys
from the 1970s through the present - from the mangrove wetlands through the
reef tract. Scientists preach about the inter-related coral reef "ecosystem"
that must be managed and protected as one system to protect all the
inter-related habitats, including the reef.  If the B&V paper is correct
then logic would dictate that even if all the negative impacts from
shoreline development, destructive south FL and FL Bay water management and
water quality degradation, sewage and nutrification, overfishing, boating
impacts, diver impacts, trap fishing and trap damage, anchor damage,
historic dredging, marine life collecting, etc, etc were removed and never
happened that we wouldn't see a noticeable difference today in the health
and condition of the present day Keys reef tract.    I don't buy it at all
and believe the article and title should be reworded or edited to make more
sense.    

Curtis Kruer

-----Original Message-----
From: coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
[mailto:coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov] On Behalf Of Nicole Crane
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 10:46 AM
To: Avigdor Abelson <avigdor at tauex.tau.ac.il>
Cc: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Guardian Article on Recent Studies by Cinner et al
& Bruno & Valdivia

Thanks Avigdor,
I have to chime in, simplifying to density is just that. One important
aspect is of course activity not just population density. Few people fishing
in a destructive (albeit subtly) way is of course going to have a very
different outcome than a less destructive fishing.  Then of course there is
the abiotic variables such as currents and exposure... The devil is in the
details, of course...
I am going to confess I am in the field and have limited access so have not
read these links nor the coral list back and forth in detail, so please
forgive ignorance here....

Thanks again Avigdor!

Sent from my iPhone

> On Aug 10, 2016, at 12:42 AM, Avigdor Abelson <avigdor at tauex.tau.ac.il>
wrote:
> 
> Dear Johnny,
> I am writing in response to your Guardian article (link:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/the-coral-triangle/2016/aug/02/are-l
ocal-efforts-to-save-coral-reefs-bound-to-fail).  In addition to this quick
response, I have also written a response (to be submitted to Scientific
Reports) to Bruno and Valdivia (2016; B&V), in which I detailed what I see
as the scientific weaknesses and gaps of B&V's study (e.g. the use of a
single questionable proxy, disregard of diverse environmental and
anthropogenic drivers).  However, the main problem with their study is not
its shaky scientific basis, but rather its conclusions (statements), which
could lead to severe consequences for reefs worldwide, through the
misinterpretation of the statements, or their abuse, by local
decision-makers and stakeholders. 
> Unfortunately, your Guardian "layman's perspective" article demonstrates
my fears only too well. I believe that it paves the way for the legitimation
of B&V's unsafe statements. There is a theory, the 'Overton window' (mainly
in reference to political sciences), which explains how marginal ideas that
are in a state of being publically 'unacceptable' or 'radical', can become
'acceptable' and even 'sensible', by shifting the 'Overton window'. A
possible way for this to occur is through their comparison with other more
radical, or similar ideas.  I am afraid that your article has started such a
process by comparing the study by B&V with the seminal study by Cinner et
al.. (2016) and "grading both as right" (referring to their main
conclusions).
> As opposed to Cinner et al. (2016), B&V limit their analysis to a 
> single proxy of human impact, ignoring a series of anthropogenic and 
> environmental drivers. Furthermore, they do not examine any of the 
> potential global-scale drivers, and yet assert that their findings: 
> "...also highlight the truly global reach of anthropogenic warming and 
> the immediate need for drastic and sustained cuts in carbon 
> emissions".  Based solely on their missing analysis, they state about 
> their finding that it "...has important management implications: 
> fishing bans and reductions in coastal pollution, though desirable, 
> might not meaningfully reduce macroalgal abundance or restore corals 
> if the ultimate drivers are larger-scale and beyond the control of 
> local managers". Such a statement could thereby give local 
> stakeholders and decision-makers apparent justification  to pursue 
> their  injurious activities, which according to B&V are "antagonistic" 
> to the main threats - the global drivers ("Our resu

 lt
> s also suggest that the effects of local and global stressors are
antagonistic, rather than synergistic as widely assumed").  Even if their
study had been based on sound scientific grounds, they should have been more
cautious with the potentially harmful conclusions and statements.
> I hope that B&V statements will not affect numerous efforts being
conducted on local-regional scales in diverse locations worldwide to
countermeasure those stressors whose adverse effects have been clearly
proven.  I think that the ball is now in your court, as well as theirs, in
order to clarify this issue and avoid misunderstanding.
> Best wishes ~AV
> 
> References:
> Bruno, J. F. and Valdivia, A. 2016. Coral reef degradation is not 
> correlated with local human population density. Sci. Rep. 6, 29778; 
> doi: 10.1038/srep29778 Cinner, J.E. et al. 2016. Bright spots among 
> the world's coral reefs. Nature  535:416-419, doi:10.1038/nature18607
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov 
> [mailto:coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov] On Behalf Of johnny 
> langenheim
> Sent: Tuesday, August 2, 2016 2:19 PM
> To: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> Subject: [Coral-List] Guardian Article on Recent Studies by Cinner et 
> al & Bruno & Valdivia
> 
> Hi listers,
> 
> A little look at these two recent studies from a layperson's perspective
in The Guardian today.
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/environment/the-coral-triangle/2016/aug/02
> /are-local-efforts-to-save-coral-reefs-bound-to-fail
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Johnny
> 
> --
> Johnny Langenheim
> +44(0)7427 312 760  (UK)
> +62 (0) 8123 657 3757.  (INDONESIA)
> www.johnnylangenheim.com
> Skype: Johnny Langenheim
> _______________________________________________
> Coral-List mailing list
> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
> _______________________________________________
> Coral-List mailing list
> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list

_______________________________________________
Coral-List mailing list
Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list