[Coral-List] The myth of 100% coral cover

David M. Lawrence dave at fuzzo.com
Wed Mar 28 11:27:38 EDT 2012

Actually, Gene, you have been working long enough to know that sometimes 
the correct answer depends on the time scale you're looking at, no?  
Conditions considered normal at one time scale may not be applicable to 
other time scales.  At long enough time scales, the existence of 
vertebrates seems an anomaly not worth preserving, but at other time 
scales -- such as "now" -- their existence (at least my existence) seem 
an important component of the web of life on this planet.



On 3/28/2012 10:41 AM, Eugene Shinn wrote:
> Dear Listers, Thanks to all of you that responded to my rants re 100%
> coral cover and geologic evidence. Here are two papers that discuss
> the exposed Holocene coral reef in the Dominican Republic.
> H. Lesdnsky, B. Titus, and D. Hubbard, 2012, Live coral cover in the
> fossil record: an example from Holocene reefs of the Dominican
> Republic. DOI 10.1007/s00338-011-0863-y (in press CORAL REEFS)
> Greer, L., Jackson, J., Curran, H.A., Guilderson, T., and Teneva, L.,
> 2009, How vulnerable is Acropora cervicornis to environmental change?
> Lessons from the early to mid-Holocene. Geology, v. 37, p. 263-266
> We can conclude that based on geological observations 100% remains a
> myth. What you see looking straight down on a live reefs is not the
> same as what is preserved for the fossil record. Gene

  David M. Lawrence        | Home:  (804) 559-9786
  7471 Brook Way Court     | Fax:   (804) 559-9787
  Mechanicsville, VA 23111 | Email: dave at fuzzo.com
  USA                      | http:  http://fuzzo.com

"All drains lead to the ocean."  -- Gill, Finding Nemo

"We have met the enemy and he is us."  -- Pogo

"No trespassing
  4/17 of a haiku"  --  Richard Brautigan

More information about the Coral-List mailing list