[Coral-List] Cooling reefs to prevent bleaching

Mark Eakin Mark.Eakin at noaa.gov
Thu Jan 8 12:21:17 EST 2009


James,

I suggest you revisit the Muscatine et al. (1991) study and consider  
the rates of cool water and nutrient delivery and dilution before  
dismissing ideas such as these.  The waters are unlikely to be more  
than 10 degrees cooler than the surface waters and considering the  
potential rates of water deliver, are likely to be diluted by 10:1  
before reaching the corals.  Even if we assume only 5:1 dilution, and  
remember that such proposals are for times of severe thermal stress  
only, this will barely bring the temperatures below the maximum  
monthly mean temperatures the corals experience as well.  To quote  
Muscatine et al. (1991): "Above about 16 "C, and up to 28 "C, the  
response is similar to that of unshocked controls. "  All proposed  
mechanisms to cool reefal waters that I have seen are unlikely to  
lower temperatures to much below 28°C and would only maintain the  
water flow until seasonal change brings the temperatures back below  
critical levels.  Nutrients and acidification are certainly concerns.   
(Please note though, that Cox & Ward (2002) increased and maintained  
ammonium concentrations in microcosms levels exceeding 20X ambient  
concentrations for a year.)  Potential enrichment and  acidification  
and their potential impact on the coral-algal symbiosis need to be  
evaluated.  This is the purpose of feasibility studies that are needed  
to evaluate potential side effects such as nutrients and acidity  
during temporary cooling (or shading, etc.) and weigh them against the  
effects of inaction (bleaching, disease, mortality).  Our current  
bleaching outlook calls for a high potential of bleaching-level  
thermal stress in the GBR and nearby regions over the next two months (http://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/satellite/bleachingoutlook/index.html 
).  Protecting key reefs could be an important way to help corals  
survive and the hope is that tools and approaches to protect corals in  
times of high thermal stress will be available in the future.

I also do not recall ever putting up a slide that showed acidic  
conditions being more of a concern on the "coral killing pecking  
order" than high temperatures and bleaching.  I certainly did not do  
so in my Ocean Sciences presentation to which you referred.  That talk  
focused on the extent and magnitude of the bleaching, disease, and  
mortality caused by thermal stress in the Caribbean in 2005.  It did  
contain a table from the Kleypas and Eakin (2007 Bulletin of Marine  
Science 80: 419-436) paper that listed the top threats to coral reefs  
as determined by a survey of coral reef scientists and managers at the  
10th ICRS, which that ranked Climate Change / Bleaching at #9 (higher)  
and Ocean Acidification at #47 (lower) and discussed the importance of  
considering the two together based on our Hoegh-Guldberg et al. (2007  
Science 318:1737-1742) paper.  Bleaching certainly presents a more  
clear and immediate threat to coral reefs than acidification.   
However, the latter has the potential of more broad-reaching and long- 
lasting effects in marine ecosystems than the former, so both must be  
considered as important reasons why we need to get atmospheric CO2  
under control.

The key point in my original post was that the threat to coral reefs  
is too great to eliminate potential approaches out of hand without  
testing and evaluation, whether the approaches be assisted adaptation  
or local mitigation.  This is the process of science and it should be  
allowed to run its course.  We are going to need a wide range of tools  
at our disposal and should test ideas and submit the results to peer  
review before stating unequivocally that they cannot work or  
dismissing them as crazy.

Cheers,
Mark




On Jan 7, 2009, at 12:41 PM, James Cervino PhD. wrote:

> Hi Mark et al.,
>
> I will answer under your comments for easy view:
>
> Quoting Mark Eakin <Mark.Eakin at noaa.gov>:
>
> * James,
> *
> * You are absolutely right that ideas such as cooling of reefs brings
> * with them disadvantages.  So is your recommendation that we  
> instead do
> * nothing but watch?
>
> James: Of course my recommendation is not to watch! We need to remain
> scientifically logical and accurate in our solution. You seem to  
> miss what will
> happen if this illogical method of pumping up nutrient rich, low pH  
> water to the
> surface will do during the early stages of a hot-spot anomaly to the  
> sensitive
> and delicate biochemical balance between the coral host and its  
> symbioant.
> First, lets not forget this paper by Muscatine, L., Grossman, D. and  
> Doino, J.
> (1991). Release of symbiotic algae by tropical sea anemones and  
> corals after
> cold shock. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 77, 233–243.  The confounding  
> stresses
> associated with this approach cannot be tested based on the adverse  
> effects it
> will have on the corals. Its been known that the coral-algal  
> association is
> complex, and disfunction of the symbiosis results from eutrophication
> (Falkowski et al. 1993) and further tests have showed that elevated  
> nutrients
> have been known to have negative cellular effects or impairments and  
> disrupt
> reproduction in scleractinian corals....Evelyn F. Cox & S.  
> WardImpact of
> elevated ammonium on reproduction in two Hawaiian scleractinian  
> corals with
> different life history patterns: Marine Pollution Bulletin Volume  
> 44, Issue 11,
> November 2002, Pages 1230-1235.
> .
> *
> * In light of this, I think we have to consider things like this  
> "crazy
> * idea" to help save corals.  No, we would not want to have these  
> things
> * pumping all the time for the very reasons you suggested.  However,  
> to
> * have such options that we can turn on at times when bleaching is
> * imminent makes a great deal of sense.  Yes, the waters will have
> * higher nutrients and lower pH.  However, I seem to recall that you
> * told me at the Ocean Sciences meeting in Orlando that you thought
> * there was no sense even worrying about ocean acidification because
> * high temperatures were going to kill the corals first.  If that is
> * true, shouldn't we be doing everything we can to turn down the heat
> * when it is at its worst?
>
> James: I did not say “not to worry about acidification”, I just  
> wanted the
> scientific truth about thermal heat stress shown to be more of a  
> coral “killer”
> than ocean acidification which leads to slower growth rates  
> currently. When you
> put a slide up there that shows acidic conditions being more of a  
> concern on
> the “coral killer pecking order” that causes the press and policy  
> makers to
> delay and begin to fund and investigate which one is worse for  
> corals….and we
> know the answer.  Granted you are correct in saying to me that both  
> are bad for
> corals, however, not pointing out the “hear and now” severity  
> regarding
> increased CO2--&#8594; leads to heat trapping gasses lagging in the
> atmosphere----&#8594; leading to immediate thermal stress towards  
> coral death
> in a few months if not weeks. Acidification is bad for coral algal
> stabilization in situ, I agree with you and the science behind this  
> research,
> however, this causes delay in policy action that’s all I was saying.  
> Will you
> agree that thermal stress is worse for corals than acidic  
> conditions? Don’t you
> think that letting policy makers know the real biological facts  
> would a better
> point to address thereby allowing action to be immediate?
>
> I have no vested interest in cooling reefs, shading reefs, or swapping
> * strains of zooxanthellae. Ideas like this cooling system may be
> * exactly what we need when conditions are so bad that a bit of
> * nutrients and CO2 are the least of our worries.  Yes, it has some
> * downsides, but it may keep the corals alive if it is handled
> * properly.  Ditto for ideas of enhancing corals' abilities to  
> withstand
> * high temperatures.  "Crazy ideas" like these must be embarked on  
> with great
> care.  However, to throw them out and do nothing would be like  
> fiddling while
> Rome burns.  I'd rather grab a fire hose.
> *
> * Cheers,
> * Mark
> *
>
> James: Investigation symbiotic algae swapping/tolerance/adaptation  
> research for
> the sake of investigating coral-algal-symbiosis is very noble Mark  
> and worth
> challenging not to mention much less expensive than pumping up  
> nutrient rich
> waters to save little patches of corals. Swapping is not just about  
> swapping
> algal subtypes, its about having an appreciation and understanding  
> of how this
> endangered organism works and what species will be left in this  
> global warming
> world.
>
> Cool water pumping; why engage in a crazy idea that cannot work? If  
> you read the
> coral physiology papers as well as having an “appreciation” for  
> bottom up
> controls of the CORAL system you will understand why this is  
> illogical, even as
> a thought. However, I do appreciate your wanting to do something as  
> these are
> desperate times, however, I would rather grab the hose knowing that  
> the fire I
> put out has a chance to be extinguish the burning building. I would  
> never take
> federal funds and waste them on something that cannot work as I  
> would much
> rather maintain my “non-biostitute” status as a scientist and let  
> Rome burn!
> '
>
> Take care Mark, James
>
>
> *************************************
> Dr. James M. Cervino
> Pace University &
> Visiting Scientist
> Woods Hole Oceanographic Inst.
> Department of Marine Chemistry
> Woods Hole MA.
> NYC Address: 9-22 119st
> College Point NY NY 11356
> Cell: 917-620*5287
> ************************************
>
>
> Quoting Mark Eakin <Mark.Eakin at noaa.gov>:
>
> * James,
> *
> * You are absolutely right that ideas such as cooling of reefs brings
> * with them disadvantages.  So is your recommendation that we  
> instead do
> * nothing but watch?
> *
> * There is no doubt that we need to take two sets of action to deal  
> with
> * the increasing temperatures that are causing mass bleaching:
> * 1) Reduce CO2 emissions, and eventually atmospheric CO2
> * concentrations, to address the root cause of the problem.
> * 2) Take local actions to increase reef resilience in light of  
> thermal
> * stress that will happen before we can complete work on (1).
> *
> * The climate system is like a big ship -- slow to stop or turn  
> around.
> * The best estimates are that we will see another 1-2 degrees C of
> * temperature rise even if we all stop driving our cars, flying,  
> running
> * our computers, breathing, etc. -- right now.  For that reason (1) is
> * not enough by itself.  (2) is also not enough by itself as we have  
> to
> * address the root cause or we will just keep applying bandages  
> forever.
> *
> * In light of this, I think we have to consider things like this  
> "crazy
> * idea" to help save corals.  No, we would not want to have these  
> things
> * pumping all the time for the very reasons you suggested.  However,  
> to
> * have such options that we can turn on at times when bleaching is
> * imminent makes a great deal of sense.  Yes, the waters will have
> * higher nutrients and lower pH.  However, I seem to recall that you
> * told me at the Ocean Sciences meeting in Orlando that you thought
> * there was no sense even worrying about ocean acidification because
> * high temperatures were going to kill the corals first.  If that is
> * true, shouldn't we be doing everything we can to turn down the heat
> * when it is at its worst?
> *
> * I have no vested interest in cooling reefs, shading reefs, or  
> swapping
> * strains of zooxanthellae. Ideas like this cooling system may be
> * exactly what we need when conditions are so bad that a bit of
> * nutrients and CO2 are the least of our worries.  Yes, it has some
> * downsides, but it may keep the corals alive if it is handled
> * properly.  Ditto for ideas of enhancing corals' abilities to  
> withstand
> * high temperatures.  "Crazy ideas" like these must be embarked on  
> with
> * great care.  However, to throw them out and do nothing would be like
> * fiddling while Rome burns.  I'd rather grab a fire hose.
> *
> * Cheers,
> * Mark
> *
> *
> *
> * On Dec 21, 2008, at 10:12 AM, James Cervino PhD. wrote:
> *
> * > Dr Quenton- Brings up serious flaws in the way in which how
> * > information is
> * > interpreted by the masses. Here is another example of how  
> political
> * > leaders,
> * > journalists and the masses think that corals can be saved by a
> * > company thereby
> * > implementing a "cooling system" New Scientist" 2008, to protect  
> and
> * > save reefs!
> * >
> * > The Cooling System
> * > An idea by Atmocean Inc.  has developed a simple pumping system  
> for
> * > bringing
> * > cool, deep water up to the surface. They claim that we could use
> * > pumps could
> * > cool reefs by bringing up deep water, using only wave power.
> * >
> * > This is an example of the insanity, where they claim that it would
> * > be feasible
> * > to implement a pump that brings Cool Deep Nutrient Rich Waters to
> * > the surface
> * > thereby cooling reef off which will prevent them from overheating.
> * >
> * > What about the pH shifts?  This crazy idea would speed up the  
> acidic
> * > conditions
> * > and surely kill the corals and their symbioants. Corals do not  
> have
> * > the
> * > cellular mechanics or " on off switches" to deal with the above  
> water
> * > chemistry.
> * >
> * > This theory would bring up:
> * >
> * > Low pH (more acidic)
> * > Low O2
> * > High Hydrogen Sulfide
> * >
> * >
> * >
> * >
> * > *************************************
> * > Dr. James M. Cervino
> * > Pace University &
> * > Visiting Scientist
> * > Woods Hole Oceanographic Inst.
> * > Department of Marine Chemistry
> * > Woods Hole MA.
> * > NYC Address: 9-22 119st
> * > College Point NY NY 11356
> * > Cell: 917-620*5287
> * > ************************************
> *
> *
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> * C. Mark Eakin, Ph.D.
> * Coordinator, NOAA Coral Reef Watch
> * National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
> * Center for Satellite Applications and Research
> * Satellite Oceanography & Climate Division
> * e-mail: mark.eakin at noaa.gov
> * url: coralreefwatch.noaa.gov
> *
> * E/RA31, SSMC1, Room 5308
> * 1335 East West Hwy
> * Silver Spring, MD 20910-3226
> * 301-713-2857 x109                   Fax: 301-713-3136
> *
> * "Now is the time to confront [the climate change] challenge once and
> * for all. Delay is no longer an option.
> * Denial is no longer an acceptable response. The stakes are too high.
> * The consequences, too serious."
> * President-Elect Barack Obama, Nov. 18 2008
> *
> *
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Mark Eakin, Ph.D.
Coordinator, NOAA Coral Reef Watch
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Center for Satellite Applications and Research
Satellite Oceanography & Climate Division
e-mail: mark.eakin at noaa.gov
url: coralreefwatch.noaa.gov

E/RA31, SSMC1, Room 5308
1335 East West Hwy
Silver Spring, MD 20910-3226
301-713-2857 x109                   Fax: 301-713-3136

"Now is the time to confront [the climate change] challenge once and  
for all. Delay is no longer an option.
Denial is no longer an acceptable response. The stakes are too high.  
The consequences, too serious."
President-Elect Barack Obama, Nov. 18 2008




More information about the Coral-List mailing list