[Coral-List] Coral bleaching and light levels
Thomas Goreau
goreau at bestweb.net
Fri Feb 13 14:28:47 EST 2009
On Feb 13, 2009, at 12:19 PM, Pam Hallock-Muller wrote:
> Tom:
>
> I happen to disagree that solar radiation is not involved in the
> increase in bleaching over the past 3-4 decades. The relationshop
> is complicated, but several studies have found that corals are
> showing photo-oxidative stress around the summer solstice, which is
> when the forams show their peak bleaching (the forams are much more
> tolerant of thermal stress).
>
> Pamela Hallock Muller, Ph.D., Professor
> College of Marine Science
> University of South Florida
> 140 Seventh Ave. S.
> St.Petersburg, FL 33701-5016
> Phone: 727-553-1567
> FAX: 727-553-1189
> e-mail: pmuller at marine.usf.edu
> Website: http://www.marine.usf.edu/reefslab
>
> <
> Hallocketal_Anuario_2006_1_108_128
> .pdf
> >
> <
> HALLOCKetal
> ._ICRS_2006.pdf><Hallock2000_micropal.pdf><TalgeHallock2003.pdf>
Dear Pam,
Thanks for sending these fascinating papers. I'm swamped now, but I'll
try to read them carefully and slowly later. I suspect that forams may
be much more susceptible to light than corals because they have lower
levels of screening pigments in their tissues?
I'm not at all saying that light is not a contributing factor to
bleaching, but that I think that increased temperatures, not increased
light is the key factor in global mass bleaching. We have been able to
predict the location, timing, and intensity of bleaching accurately
enough for nearly 20 years from SST data ALONE. Although it is
certainly true that light and temperature tend to covary. So when it
is sunny as well as hot, bleaching is faster. But there aren't ANY
examples of mass coral bleaching that I know of that took place when
temperatures were BELOW the thresholds, much less those that can be
explained by high light alone! We have plenty examples of bleaching
when SST was hot but while clouds were high and light was low. In the
1994 South Pacific bleaching we did carefully look at cloudiness data
as well as SST and found that while it was hot it was also cloudy and
rainy and low light conditions, so we rejected light as a factor. And
anyway it can't be argued that light levels are increasing in a way
that could explain this, unless some other unknown factor is
simultaneously reducing the tolerance of corals to light.
See my response to Dunne, below.
Best wishes,
Tom
Thomas J. Goreau, PhD
President, Global Coral Reef Alliance
Coordinator, United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development
Partnership in New Technologies for Small Island Developing States
37 Pleasant Street, Cambridge MA 02139
617-864-4226
goreau at bestweb.net
http://www.globalcoral.org
RESPONSE TO DUNNE:
It has been well known for about 50 years from direct experimentation
for at least that sudden changes in light level, both high and low,
can induce bleaching. I do not at all deny that high light exacerbates
the rate of bleaching at high temperatures, which I measured directly
20 years ago. But I do not think anyone can seriously claim that
increased light has caused the mass bleaching that we have seen in the
last three decades, although it was obvious that it was a contributing
factor from field evidence in the very first mass bleaching events,
but it plays a secondary role, not a primary one. You should not
confuse "blanching" (what happens to corals that are exposed to full
sunlight at extreme low tides) with "bleaching" sensu strictu as Brown
does.
The question is whether light levels have changed at the surface in a
way that could explain mass bleaching apart from changes in
temperature. Variations in cloudiness are not new, although they are
becoming more extreme. But there is a strong and clear tendency to
increased cloudiness over the oceans, so this is resulting in reduced
light stress, not more!
There is in fact a large literature on changes in global surface
irradiation, and the results have shown that solar output is
essentially unchanged but that changes in atmospheric transparency
have had a global impact. This was stimulated by the widespread
prediction that decreases in the ozone layer caused by increases in
atmospheric nitrous oxide and halocarbon gases should result in
increases in surface UV. But the long term data conclusively showed
the opposite, that UV had been decreasing for decades. The same turned
out also to be true for surface visible light, and also for total
irradiation as measured by global meteorological pan evaporation
rates. The explanation was global dimming caused by sulfur and
nitrogen aerosols generated from combustion. As industrial pollution
has begun to be controlled, global dimming has decreased, allowing a
slight increase in surface irradiation in recent years. This is a
double whammy because global dimming had masked an appreciable portion
of the global warming caused by CO2 in the short term, so that now
that these pollutants are reduced, global warming rates will greatly
accelerate. Increased pollution has been proposed by some as a devil's
bargain to geo-engineer against global warming, but this is a fool's
errand because the CO2 remains in the atmosphere absorbing heat for
centuries, but the aerosols are rained out in days to weeks (or a year
or so in the stratosphere) so you would need to pollute with aerosols
at exponentially increasing rates just to stay even. There are many
excellent papers on this, but Meinrat Andreae provides the clearest
recent explanation.
At any rate, light cannot explain the large scale spatio-temporal
bleaching patterns we see, although it clearly contributes to the
small-scale patterns. Juvenile corals, which prefer to settle in dark
undersides, are protected for that reason. Peter Glynn did excellent
work with various filters in which he showed that it was
photosynthetically active radiation was causing the increased rate of
bleaching in high light exposed corals above the bleaching threshold
temperature, and that UV increases made no difference. This is as
would be expected by the very high levels of UV screening pigments.
Charlie Mazel and I dived on severely bleached reefs at night in 1990
measuring UV absorbance and fluorescence of bleached corals, and we
found that even totally bleached corals were completely opaque to UV
light. So increased UV cannot be the cause of the large scale field
bleaching, even though it can be an experimental cause of bleaching.
I'm fully aware of the microphysical patterns you mention discussing
light attenuation and scattering. But the reason I do not think they
are relevant is because what I have seen is that waters in most reefs
are far more turbid than they used to be and light penetration is
greatly reduced. In many places I see large areas of deep reef 100-200
feet down that used to be healthy and are now dead because they are no
longer getting the light they used to, for example in Jamaica and
Panama. In places where as a boy I would watch my father diving 300
feet below from the surface, the waters that used to be clear and blue
are now dark and green. The whole reef light looks completely
different. So I am sure that increased light exposure is not the cause
of mass bleaching.
You may think that the changes global atmosphere patterns are
"simplistic" and not "scientific" with regard to microphysical water
measurements, but I can assure you that they are well documented in
the atmospheric literature (having degrees in Planetary Physics (MIT),
Planetary Astronomy (Caltech), and Atmospheric Biogeochemistry
(Harvard) and having worked on these issues from the top down as well
as the coral's bottom up view).
Thomas J. Goreau, PhD
President, Global Coral Reef Alliance
Coordinator, United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development
Partnership in New Technologies for Small Island Developing States
37 Pleasant Street, Cambridge MA 02139
617-864-4226
goreau at bestweb.net
http://www.globalcoral.org
On Feb 13, 2009, at 12:25 PM, Richard Dunne wrote:
> Tom
>
> It is wrong to state so unequivocally that light is "a secondary
> factor". It can be a primary factor as publications have shown (e.g
> Brown et al - plenty of pubs). It is much more scientific and
> accurate to say that it is an interplay between light and
> temperature - see the diagram and discussion in the Fitt et al.
> Review in Coral Reefs. Sometimes light is more important and
> sometimes temperature.
>
> It is also incorrect to say that "light levels are basically
> unchanged". Changes in regional meterology occur as a result of
> climate change which can lead to coral reefs being exposed to much
> higher seasonal irradiance which can tip the balance between corals
> bleaching or not. In addition, changes in sea level can be a very
> important factor, particularly for shallow reefs. The underwater
> light field is a lot more complicated, and affected by many physical
> parameters (e.g., cloud cover, water surface roughness, sediment
> levels, water depth, bottom type, zenith angle of the light field,
> differential spectral attentuation, etc). Your statement about
> surface light going down (evidence?) is far too simplistic to be
> accurate.
>
> I know this is just Coral List but please can we be a bit more
> scientific.
>
>
> Richard P Dunne
>
More information about the Coral-List
mailing list