[Coral-List] Mixed Messages

[Steve Mussman]

Hi Mike,

“Where would reefs be to-day if the worlds’ reef biologists had stood up on their hind legs 40 years ago and shouted with one voice” “Clean up the freakin water!” 

Where indeed?!   

If the coral science community’s failure to form and articulate a strong and unified message in years past is, to some extent responsible for the current state of affairs, doesn’t that same shortcoming still fully apply to the here and now?                                                                                                         

One thing is for sure, those of us who haven’t given up have got to figure out how to avoid the mistakes of the past.  Since most would likely agree that there are any number of egregious insults/stressors (and yes, “shiny objects” too) out there presently . . . what exactly should reef biologists and others involved be shouting out in unison today?

Regards,
Steve

Sent from my iPad

> On Aug 3, 2019, at 5:38 PM, Risk, Michael <riskmj at mcmaster.ca> wrote:
> 
> Hello Alina, and thank you for the response.
> 
>  I did not mis-attribute anything you wrote. I said, “We have been led to believe...” In your 2002 Estuaries paper, you state “The evidence that nutrient enrichment has widely impacted coral reefs is poor”, and “While nutrient enrichment may be the major factor in the decline of a few reefs, it appears to mostly play a secondary role…”
> 
>  In short, you led us to believe this-as I said.
> 
>  Science advances by consensus. There have not been many others papers denying the importance of nutrients on reefs. In my limited experience, I have seen your Estuaries paper cited by (a) your students, and (b) developers.
> 
>  I certainly accept that grazing is a major factor-I said some while back there has been little new in the field since Stephenson and Searles. There also is no question that global warming, if unchecked, will put the boots to the few reef remnants that still exist. Our 1997 paper still scares me (Smith et al., Nature 386: 818), because we suggest that “...the initiation of the Younger Dryas may have taken place over as few as 5 years”. The Younger Dryas, some believe, was a major reorganisation of Atlantic circulation, triggered by a meltwater event-of which we currently have sufficient. The final blows from climate change may therefore come more quickly than we already fear.
> 
>  What bothers me is the decades-long reluctance by many reef biologists to accept the importance of nutrients. Where would reefs be to-day if the worlds’ reef biologists had stood up on their hind legs 40 years ago and shouted with one voice “Clean up the freakin water!” but they were collectively unable to assemble their feces, and chased various shiny objects.
> 
>  There never should have been the slightest doubt about the importance of nutrients. In the late 1960’s and early 70’s, Colin Stearn and Terry Scoffin and their students produced an enormous study of the carbonate budget of a then-healthy reef, Barbados. They showed us, almost a half-century ago, that accumulation rates of even a healthy reef were within the error bars of destruction (bioerosion) rates. We all know the response of bioerosion, especially by algae and sponges, to increased nutrients. So by 1977, we knew that bioerosion was an extremely important aspect of reef health, quantitatively more important even than coral growth rate.
> 
>  Anyone who doubts the tendency of reef biologists to chase shiny objects, I invite them to tabulate papers in, say, Coral Reefs. By rights, half those papers should cover aspects of bioerosion. Hoo Boy. It is time to accept that, with a few notable champions, this subject has been sadly ignored. (Hi, Christine.)
> 
>  I appreciate that you “may change your mind” after you read Brian’s paper-which was, after all, the origin of this thread. I am well aware you do not believe eutrophication has been the cause of the decline in Florida’s reefs. If you have not been convinced by “Sewage-derived nitrogen sources have persisted at the Backcountry, Lower Keys and Middle Keys reef sites since the 1970s and there has been a marked increase in δ15N since ca. 1993, suggesting even greater insult to the reef ecosystem from land-based sources of pollution” (Ward-Paige et al, 2005a) or “Sanctuary wide, coral cover declined while Clionid sponge abundance increased from 1996 to 2001” and “Coral loss in the Florida Reef Tract is a result of land-based stress, rather than “global change” (Ward-Paige et al 2005b) then I don’t know what it would take.
> 
>  Mike
> 
> (ps-some may feel I have been hard on reef biologists. Suck it up. M Risk, PhD Biology.)
> 
>  
> 
> Ward-Paige, C.A., Risk, M.J., Sherwood, O.A., 2005a. Reconstruction of nitrogen
> 
> sources on coral reefs: d15N and d13C in gorgonians from the Florida Reef Tract.
> 
> Marine Ecology Progress Series 296, 155–163.
> 
>  
> 
> Ward-Paige, C.A., Risk, M.J., Sherwood, O.A., Jaap, W.C., 2005b. Clionid sponge
> 
> surveys on the Florida Reef Tract suggest land-based nutrient inputs. Marine
> 
> Pollution Bulletin 51, 570–579.
> 
>  
> 
> 
>