[Coral-List] A Swim Through Time on Carysfort Reef; EFFORT TO ASSEMBLE A LIST OF REMAINING HEALTHY CARIBBEAN CORAL REEFS
Charles Delbeek
cdelbeek at calacademy.org
Tue Aug 11 14:37:40 UTC 2020
Very sad to see the state of this reef. I dove Carysfort a few times in
1973 and 1974 out of Key Largo with American Diving Headquarters as a young
lad of 16, it was the longest trip of the reefs we dove to so we only went
a couple of times but still remember the fields of A. palmata all around
the lighthouse.
Best regards,
*J. Charles Delbeek, M.Sc.*Curator, Steinhart Aquarium
California Academy of Sciences
Desk: 415.379.5303
Fax: 415.379.5304
*cdelbeek at calacademy.org <cdelbeek at calacademy.org>*www.calacademy.org
55 Music Concourse Dr.
Golden Gate Park
San Francisco CA 94118
The mission of the California Academy
of Sciences is to explore, explain, and
sustain life. Learn more <https://www.calacademy.org/> about our work.
Facebook <http://www.facebook.com/calacademy> | Twitter
<https://twitter.com/calacademy> | Instagram
<https://www.instagram.com/calacademy/>
On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 6:52 AM Risk, Michael via Coral-List <
coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov> wrote:
> Doug:
>
>
> I'm not going down that rathole with you, because it's all been said.
> I'll dig my own hole.
>
>
> My opinion is that coral reef biologists bear at least some
> responsibility for the disastrous shape reefs are in now, because of
> their well-known inability to cooperate. We are in the middle of a
> pandemic. Those countries that have done relatively well have followed
> expert advice-and those experts, in the main, all said the same thing.
> Think where we would be now, if only...
>
>
> Brian Lapointe started warning about the impacts of nutrients on
> Florida reefs about 40 years ago. Instead of his supremely impressive
> body of work resulting in things like nominations for the Darwin Award,
> he has had to endure decades of character assassination. (I have seen
> some of the correspondence.) After publication of the two Ward-Paige
> papers (MPB 51; MEPS 296), the SECREMP results, and the Porter paper
> showing White Pox was a human fecal bacterium, I thought "OK, that's
> done and dusted. The Florida situation is pretty clear, and surely all
> our colleagues will join us in telling Florida to clean up the water."
>
>
> Never happened. There is a generation out there of mostly-US reef
> biologists who really believe that the reefs will come back if the
> grazers come back. They are impervious to anything not fitting that
> narrative (sound familiar?) and push back vigorously. When I was an
> advisor to SEFCRI, I was unable to get the committee even to consider
> setting water quality guidelines (they have since moved on this
> matter). There were papers suggesting nutrients had no effect on coral
> reefs. There were attempts to supress our Florida work (details on
> off-list request).
>
>
> Where and how did things go wrong?
>
>
> I am trained in biology and geology, have worked in several different
> fields. I am not deep, I am wide. (And, my wife says, getting wider.)
> Seems to me that the historical development of reef geology and reef
> biology followed different paths. Geologists are simple beings. For 200
> years their mantra has been "fossils, rocks, map the country, drink
> beer." There has been a unifying economic thread, and most countries
> have a geological survey. It is no accident that USGS has produced some
> of the most elegant, decisive reef work anywhere-Americans can be proud
> of them. Biology?
>
>
> In many universities, especially in the US, it is possible to obtain a
> PhD in "Ecology" without leaving the Biology Department. Reef research
> came to be funded largely through individual competitive grants, such
> as NSF. By its very nature, coral reef research attracted people with
> big egos. (Parasitologists are nice people.) Developers and
> pharmaceutical companies learned that supporting opinions could be
> rented. What could possibly go wrong?
>
>
> NSF now reports that reef biologists consistently rate the applications
> they receive to review one full grade below the NSF average. Either
> they are dumb or they are screwing each other in their belief in a
> zero-sum game. One full generation ago, 1977, Stearn and Scoffin showed
> us the overarching importance of bioerosion. Almost none of the zillion
> reef monitoring programs out there make any attempt to assess or even
> identify bioerosion (and of course these programs are all slightly
> different, because Heaven Forbid a researcher would simply adopt
> someone else's protocol-then they'd have to cite them).
>
>
> There is no better example of this dysfunctional process than the
> recent exchanges on this -list having to do with impacts of sunscreen.
> The research was electrifying, when it came out: miniscule amounts of
> oxybenzone were capable of shutting down coral reproduction. Safer
> alternatives were available. This should have been a no-brainer: coral
> biologists could have banded together, said "this is easy-ban the stuff
> so we can get on with other things." There has never been a reef
> stressor more easy to deal with.
>
>
> Never happened. Pharmaceutical companies threw up smokescreens and
> rented opinions from compliant scientists. Then there were the
> "zero-sum" people, those who evidently believe that a column-inch of
> coverage in NYT was a column-inch that they wouldn't get, and that a
> research dollar to someone else was a dollar denied to them. There were
> many comments basically saying "there are lots of threats to reefs, why
> focus on this one" when they really meant-"what I work on is way more
> important." Craig Downs has made some headway on Hawaii, working with
> local NGO's and a small coterie of colleagues, but he really should
> have had the full support of all 9,000-odd on this -list.
>
>
> Some of my best friends are reef biologists, to coin a phrase. I do not
> blame individuals (except those who have taken money from industry to
> fudge the truth). I do feel that the group, as a whole, fumbled the
> ball. We knew, in the early 1980's, all we needed to know: reefs were
> in decline, sewage and sediments were largely to blame. Then we-no,
> YOU-lost the next couple of decades. We will never know what would have
> happened back in, say, 1985, had every reef biologist in North America
> come together to say to Florida: "unless you get water quality under
> control, those reefs will die." We do know what DID happen: and now
> it's too late.
>
>
> Climate change? Sure, it's important. Smith et al. 1997 (Nature v.
> 386-yikes, 23 freakin years ago!) described how a meltwater event can
> shut down the Gulf Stream in 4 years, a process which seems to be under
> way now. If only people had listened...but, what do I know? I am just
> some old guy in the forest yelling at clouds. Or, as we say up here: a
> guy in the apartment over the meth lab.
>
>
> Mike
>
> On Aug 8, 2020, at 12:11 AM, Douglas Fenner
> <[1]douglasfennertassi at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Mike,
> It is also the case that there is a long laundry list of ways in
> which humans damage reefs. If scientists simply report the facts of
> which things are damaging the reefs that they work on, there will be
> lots of different messages. Surely scientists should report those
> facts. Anybody who says sediments and nutrients don't damage reefs and
> aren't two of the top threats isn't paying attention, most scientists
> agree they are. When there are heavy rains in Queensland, a huge plume
> of muddy water comes out of the Burdikin River, and smaller amounts out
> other rivers. Janice Lough led a group that documented an increase in
> sediment in coral skeletons on the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) at the time
> of European settlement. Before I left Australia and moved to American
> Samoa over 16 yrs ago, Queensland was the only state in Australia that
> still allowed land clearing without a permit (hopefully now that has
> changed). My impression is that sediment and nutrients along with
> crown-of-thorns and now mass coral bleaching, are the major causes of
> loss of corals on the GBR. Runoff nutrients fuel plankton growth that
> feeds starfish larvae, so nutrient runoff feeds the crown-of-thorns
> outbreaks that are one of the major contributors to loss of corals
> there. Reefs at Risk worked to evaluate and map the major local
> threats to coral reefs around the world, and found that nutrients and
> sediment from runoff were two of the greatest global threats, along
> with overfishing, if I remember. They didn't evaluate bleaching since
> they did not view it as a mappable local threat.
> It appears to me, since climate change is often regarded as the
> greatest single future threat to the world, and there is a continuous
> stream of stories about it getting worse, that people assume that it
> causes all damage to reefs or is the only threat of importance. Not
> so. Some have jumped to the conclusion that the loss of coral in
> Florida and the Caribbean was due to global warming and bleaching. My
> understanding is that the primary cause of much of the coral decline
> there was white band disease which killed most of two (elkhorn and
> staghorn) coral species out of three that commonly dominated reefs
> there, plus a growing number and prevalence of other diseases, plus a
> new disease that is now ravaging reefs there. In recent years the
> damage from bleaching has increased as well. The ultimate causes of
> the diseases is up for discussion, my understanding is that increased
> temperatures speeds some diseases but not others. Surely many other
> things including nutrients and sediments weaken corals and make them
> more vulnerable to disease. So I think you are right that it is way
> too easy to blame everything on bleaching and global warming. Though
> that might be understandable when the world's largest reef system (GBR)
> has a lot (though not all, thank heavens) of it turn white and die in
> front of your eyes, and predictions based on global warming are for
> much worse in the future.
> When there are so many things damaging reefs, I don't think it is
> surprising that scientists have not spoken with one voice. Which
> threat is greatest depends to some extent on where you are. We do need
> to attack them all, probably in proportion to how big a threat they are
> at each location. (I think many people are doing that) One size does
> not fit all, diversity rules. For the world as a whole, many people
> think, based on the published evidence, that climate-change driven
> heating and mass bleaching is the greatest future threat to corals, and
> one that if we don't tackle will kill most of what scraps of coral are
> left alive from all the other ways we abuse coral.
> Cheers, Doug
> On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 3:34 AM Risk, Michael <[2]riskmj at mcmaster.ca>
> wrote:
>
> Doug:
> tl/dr. The problem remains, coral reef biologists have consistently
> failed to speak with one voice. Reasons involve personal agendas and
> income streams: proponents usually use science selectively.
> You thank the media for coverage of damage. 90% of coverage (my
> estimate) of reef damage has involved climate change. I have a MS to
> review at the moment, in which this phrase catches my eye:
> "the ecology of the GBR region is suffering from the chronic effects of
> eutrophication brought about by the discharge of nutrients from the
> developed catchments."
> Mike
> __________________________________________________________________
>
> From: Coral-List <[3]coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov> on behalf
> of Douglas Fenner via Coral-List <[4]coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2020 4:07 PM
> To: [5]coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> <[6]coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov>
> Subject: Re: [Coral-List] A Swim Through Time on Carysfort Reef; EFFORT
> TO ASSEMBLE A LIST OF REMAINING HEALTHY CARIBBEAN CORAL REEFS
>
> Apologies, that post got sent before it was ready.
> So during rapid economic growth, such as the industrial revolution
> in
> the UK, Europe, and the US, pollution rapidly grew out of control, and
> people didn't realize the source of the problem. In London, "London
> fog"
> was really smog from burning coal in fireplaces to heat homes. At one
> point it killed about 2000 people. If you travel above ground sections
> of
> the subway there today, you see nearly endless rows of houses all with
> many
> smoke stacks. But zero smoke. You look around and the air looks
> clear.
> People aren't choking on it. There was a time, maybe in the 60's, when
> Tokyo's air was so bad there were coin operated machines on the
> sidewalk
> that dispensed oxygen for those who needed it. No more, like London,
> this
> gigantic urban area with something like 24 million people, has air that
> looks clear and people aren't choking and dying in the streets.
> Pittsburgh, in the US used to have blackened buildings from the soot
> from
> coal-fired steel mills. No more, the mills are gone, people have other
> jobs, the buildings were cleaned, the city gleams and competes for the
> best
> quality of life in the USA. Tell me those aren't success stories!!!!
> AI
> CAN and WILL be repeated, China and India know they have a terrible air
> pollution problem, and they are on it. They know about the huge health
> costs of caring for people sickened by it, lost work hours, lost lives.
> China is now the world's largest solar panel manufacturer. India has a
> plan for renewables that is so ambitious people doubt they can do it
> that
> fast. (No, the air is far from perfect, and the battle is not over.
> It
> will never be over, but real progress has been made and will be made.)
> There are huge constituencies for the environment, and politicians
> ignore that to their own peril. BUT, there are lots of things people
> consider benefits of doing things that end up damaging the environment,
> including coral reefs, and can come back to bite us. Coral reefs are
> major tourist attractions. They feed hundreds of millions of poor
> people
> along coasts, and they provide hundreds of millions of dollars worth of
> coastal protection.
> There is a story that someone came to US president FDR once and
> pleaded for action on something. FDR grinned and said "make me do
> it!" He
> wasn't mocking the person, he was saying he has to have support. Get
> your
> constituents and supporters to make a LOT of noise and DEMAND it, and I
> will do it gladly.
> Right now is the opposite of the ideal time given the pandemic
> emergency, but different issues are commonly addressed simultaneously.
> Environmental battles never end, there is no inevitability of either
> winning or losing. Persistence and determination and action and things
> that appeal to the public help win battles, sitting in the ivory tower
> and
> not speaking out don't. Nothing ventured, nothing gained, sticking
> your
> neck out is absolutely required to make progress. The squeaky wheel
> gets
> the grease. I have to say that the media have been an enormous help
> for
> us, the articles on the damage we do to the reefs and oceans and
> climate
> change has been nearly endless. The more people know that their income
> and
> health is threatened, the more outraged they are, and the more pressure
> they apply. Part of our problem is that the threats to humans from us
> degrading the reefs is not always obvious enough. We need to make it
> obvious and unavoidably obvious. But I think polls have shown an
> increasing concern about climate change and support for action. I
> sense
> the tide is shifting in our favor on this issue, and it is the biggest
> threat to the future of reefs.
> So this is a call to action. Action gets results, inaction
> doesn't.
> When people believe that it is in their own best interests to save the
> reefs, they WILL get saved. Not until then.
> Cheers, Doug
> On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 8:23 AM Douglas Fenner
> <[7]douglasfennertassi at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > I believe that everyone in this discussion is making good points.
> > I would like to add a hint of optimism. There are aspects of
> > environmental battles that provide solid grounds for optimism, as
> well as
> > for caution and pessimism. The grounds for optimism are that people
> don't
> > like things that threaten their health, or survival, or income, or
> > livelihoods. A few years ago in the US lead was discovered in the
> water
> > supply in Flint, Michigan. It was in the international news.
> Outrage
> > resulted. I haven't kept up with the story, but I bet it is being
> fixed,
> > because if it isn't, the outrage is a threat to the political careers
> of
> > elected officials. ]k= =-z>:"AA^%q
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 1:36 AM Steve via Coral-List <
> > [8]coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Mike Risk's perspective on the effects of coral scientists not
> speaking
> >> with a unified voice clearly resonates with me.
> >>
> >> While the point is well taken that people have shown that they care
> way
> >> more about other things, how can we expect this dynamic to ever
> change when
> >> the messaging they receive from the "experts" in the coral science
> >> community continues to be rife with ambiguity? Policy makers respond
> to
> >> monied interests, but public opinion matters too and there is every
> >> indication that interest in environmental issues is on the rise,
> especially
> >> with the younger generation.
> >>
> >> What would happen if the messaging put out about what we need to do
> to
> >> "save coral reefs" was done with more clarity, simplicity and
> conviction?
> >>
> >> Consider the paper cited
> ([9]https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0231817)
> >> on survivorship of the ongoing NRP (NOAA Recovery Plan) in the
> Florida Keys
> >> Marine Sanctuary. As I read it, the paper makes it clear that
> "reducing
> >> stressors is required before significant population growth and
> recovery
> >> will occur. Until then, outplanting protects against local
> extinction and
> >> helps maintain genetic diversity in the wild". Although this
> conclusion
> >> points to a significant role for restoration, it makes clear that
> reducing
> >> (both local and global) stressors is paramount.
> >>
> >> Why can't we make that point clear? What's so hard about selling the
> >> public on the idea that we must restore some semblance of the
> natural
> >> ecological balance? Clean up the water; promote sustainable
> fisheries and
> >> cut carbon emissions. That simple message has yet to resonate in the
> public
> >> domain. Instead, many have become convinced that the only viable
> strategy
> >> is to race to outplant supercorals designed to withstand an
> inevitable and
> >> mounting onslaught of stressors that are somehow beyond our control.
> >>
> >> I have listened to many gray-haired coral reef scientists and
> there's
> >> obviously more capitulation out there than optimism.
> >>
> >> So, does it even matter at this point if we change the messaging?
> Maybe
> >> not, but it may represent our best last chance to try.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Steve Mussman
> >>
> >> Sent from EarthLink Mobile mail
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Coral-List mailing list
> >> [10]Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> >> [11]https://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Coral-List mailing list
> [12]Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> [13]https://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
>
> References
>
> 1. mailto:douglasfennertassi at gmail.com
> 2. mailto:riskmj at mcmaster.ca
> 3. mailto:coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> 4. mailto:coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> 5. mailto:coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> 6. mailto:coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> 7. mailto:douglasfennertassi at gmail.com
> 8. mailto:coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> 9. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0231817
> 10. mailto:Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> 11. https://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
> 12. mailto:Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> 13. https://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
> _______________________________________________
> Coral-List mailing list
> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> https://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
>
More information about the Coral-List
mailing list