[Coral-List] NOAA plan to save coral reefs

[Steve Mussman]

Hi Steven,

I just don’t understand why the effort in Florida doesn’t have the following essential aspects of restoration front and center. 

From : Rodgers et al. (2017), Effectiveness of coral relocation as a mitigation strategy in 
Ka ̄ne‘ohe Bay, Hawai‘i. 

“Coral restoration projects are better designed and implemented today than decades ago, but they may take the focus off the underlying problems. We need to reduce pollution, prevent erosion, and reduce carbon emissions. Restoration efforts on reefs vulnerable to poor land management, pollution, and/or continued severe bleaching may render restoration efforts futile”.

“Effective translocation and management plans should include reduction or elimination of watershed stressors, establishment of marine reserves, development of integrated coastal management systems, and establishment and enforcement of regulations that protect coral reefs”.


 The idea that addressing major stressors is paramount to the long-term success of any such project appears to be based on sound science. Conversely, any large-scale project that does not put emphasis on the underlying problems is setting itself up for criticism to say nothing of increasing the odds of ultimate failure. Restoration is not inherently folly in any sense, but if it by design takes the focus off major stressors E.g. water quality and climate change, then it’s setting itself up for an inauspicious ending. 

There are reasons to support well-conceived restoration projects, but they should be framed as a tool, not a solution. If the hype surrounding these efforts even unintentionally delays action on addressing the major stressors one could certainly argue that they may be  doing more harm than good.

Regards,
Steve Mussman


Sent from my iPad

> On Dec 20, 2019, at 5:50 PM, Steven Miller via Coral-List <coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov> wrote:
> 
> A quick reply to counter the idea that restoration is folly, even though
> I'm a co-author on an older restoration paper with folly in the title. I
> changed my mind. I wonder how many people on the list have changed their
> minds, moving from one camp to another, or abandoned belief in a paradigm
> for something that they thought was better?  That would be an interesting
> thread, but I digress.
> 
> Why should anyone support coral restoration when all the stressors remain
> that got us to where we are now, and related to warming are only getting
> worse?
> 
> Simply, 1)  Large numbers (tens of thousands) of corals in offshore
> nurseries (mid Hawk Channel in Florida) grow fast and are generally in good
> shape after a year or two. 2) Corals in nurseries were derived from
> survivors. That is, from wild corals that survived multiple bleaching and
> disease events. 3) Nursery corals also represent a genetically diverse
> population, based on individuals collected across significant spatial
> scales and genetic analyses that confirm the diversity of corals in
> nurseries capture a significant portion of variability that exists in the
> wild. 5) Large numbers of nursery-raised corals can be outplanted to reefs
> and despite high mortality after 5-10 years, some corals survive.
> 
> So, a result of restoration work (not projects but large-scale programs)
> that can be sustained at the decadal scale is lots of corals (potentially
> thousands) on reefs where they were previously absent. Local ecological
> extinction is prevented. Even better, outplanted corals have sex and while
> the fate of their gametes is unknown, as more adults survive on the reef,
> perhaps recruitment will eventually result.
> 
> But challenges remain, such as how to get more corals out to reefs in a
> cost-efficient manner.  Some species present unique challenges, I know.
> And more.
> 
> The above summary is based on work from Florida, which perhaps represents
> the most challenging place to try and conduct this work. After all,
> historical baselines suggest that the best reefs were limited to only a
> small percentage of total available habitat, due to things like outflow
> from Florida Bay and the northern geographic limit of reef growth in the
> region being just south of Miami.
> 
> My intent with this post is to suggest that there are reasons to support
> restoration despite the criticism of why do it in the face of existing
> stressors.  If you don't think it will work, then, by all means, critiques
> are warranted that advance the science. But understand that successes have
> already occurred that suggest those who are working on restoration are not
> doing so in folly.
> 
> Finally, coral restoration science is in its infancy.  In my opinion, it's
> way too early to give up.
> 
> Best Regards
> 
> Steven Miller. PhD
> Halmos College of Natural Sciences and Oceanography
> Nova Southeastern University
> 
> On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 4:45 PM Risk, Michael via Coral-List <
> coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov> wrote:
> 
>> The entire article doesn't even mention LBSP. It's as though Brian
>> Lapointe's work had been airbrushed away...we never learn, do we?
>> ________________________________________
>>