[Coral-List] Is everything what built by corals is a coral reef?

Tue Nov 10 04:31:49 UTC 2020

Dear Bolan,

I don't know if it makes sense to write a response because my answer was in my previous message, and Doug and Alina also provided the same answer. But I will try one more time, may be this time I will make it better.

Coral reefs form in shallow water, that is how they are defined.  Meaning of word reef comes from medieval word rif (Scandinavian languages, German, Dutch, English riff), which meant rocky relief feature protruding from sea bottom close to water surface to be a danger for sailing. Indeed, with time, when Europeans started sailing in tropical seas, seamen learnt about reefs covered with corals, extremely dangerous for navigation, and the name "coral reef" appeared. Indeed, Polynesians and other early Pacific and Indian Ocean seafarers knew about them long before Europeans, I just don't know what they call them.

Cold- and deep-water coral banks, built by corals like mentioned by you Lophelia (accepted name of this genus is Desmophyllum) are known to fishermen in Europe before even coral reefs were discovered by Europeans. Nets and other fishing gear would bring these corals to the surface. These banks are densely distributed along Norway, western shores of Europe (Ireland, France, Spain, and Portugal). There is a map of such banks in S. Cairns and G. Stanley, 1982, however, since then many of such banks were discovered through the world, which I guess you are familiar, but others can find if interested in later publications of well-known specialist on ahermatypic corals S. Cairns.

So, when Carl Linnaeus started his famous work, he already knew about these corals, and named Desmophyllum = Lophelia pertusum as Madrepora pertusa Linnaeus, 1758.  Indeed, Charles Darwin knew about these banks, as well as one can find that he mentioned tropical coral banks, i.e. non-reefs, but with corals growing on them, in his famous The Structure and Distribution of Coral Reefs.

Several authors particularly mentioned importance to differentiate coral reefs from deep- and cold-water banks. I will refer to 1958 article by C. Teichert: "Cold- and Deep-Water Coral Banks". Nobody called these deep-water features built by azooxanthellate corals as coral reefs 50-60 years ago; it came relatively recent.  We already discussed the reason: it attracts more attention, sounds cool.

I think it is simply important to differentiate in this case two different relief features and ecosystems: one based on fast growing hermatypic corals in the realm of high hydrodynamics, frequent stress, and abundance of light, which is important for calcification of corals, and deep water coral assemblages, which are able to build relief features by slow growth in more stable environment of deep water.

I was lucky to meet David Stoddart, who very much supported me at the beginning of my scientific career.  It was just before our Coral Reefs magazine and International Society for Reef Studies were organized by his initiative. I recall our long conversation about what we should consider a coral reef, discussing article by C.J.R. Braithwaite: "Reefs: Just a Problem of Semantics?" (AAPG, 1973). Stoddart was very clear about what corals reefs are, and what coral banks are.

For the conclusion I would say that Robert's Bank sounds as honorable as Robert's Reef.  And the exploration of these banks has no more value if they would be called "coral reefs" instead of "coral banks".  But, as it was mentioned by Doug, nobody can mandate what to call it, and I am quite sure we would see again and again articles about "mesophotic reefs" and "deep water reefs".

With respect,

Vladimir Kosmynin

P.S. Completely agree with you that governmental organizations not always make definitions based on science and scientific knowledge; very often definitions are made rather by lawyers than scientists.

Message: 2

Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2020 19:31:17 +0000

From: Gregory Boland <g_boland at hotmail.com<mailto:g_boland at hotmail.com>>

To: "Kosmynin, Vladimir" <Vladimir.Kosmynin at FloridaDEP.gov<mailto:Vladimir.Kosmynin at FloridaDEP.gov>>

Cc: "coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov<mailto:coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov>" <coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov<mailto:coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov>>

Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Newly discovered reef (?) is taller than    a

               skyscraper

Message-ID:

<CY4PR16MB1560F8DAD5AE843CE73EE3B4FDED0 at CY4PR16MB1560.namprd16.prod.outlook.com<mailto:CY4PR16MB1560F8DAD5AE843CE73EE3B4FDED0 at CY4PR16MB1560.namprd16.prod.outlook.com>>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"

Dear Kosynin,

I would be interested to hear your opinion regarding your prior mention that "there are no deep-water coral reefs" in consideration of a deep-water Lophelia habitat that was studies during a BOEM/NOAA OER-funded study in the Gulf of Mexico called Lophelia II. One spectacular site was named Robert's Reef after the LSU professor who is also an author on the paper I will be referencing. BOEM provided supplemental funding to do a number of deep piston cores on the pinnacles of this feature (I'll refrain from calling it a reef). One core of over 50 ft found continuous Lophelia fragments to the bottom of the core representing growth back at least 300,000 years using associated fossils etc. There were periods of no-growth related to low sea stands (temperature related issues rather than water depth). Just curious what part of the definition of a coral reef this deep-water coral habitat does not meet.

newspaper summary: https://secure-web.cisco.com/1sJ5le4HPWaYiys01sA9H6nIZN2BU19y5dwo0qtDdDIFgPDja0V8LDBVz2AA6Oz4dqkHvbFM_yXWwFuofE1klAlSXCYcoPqTjhgm1_f0NjVHUDU6o3oTpaOMzOckwi16roUGbHSl59lclyGiNecVEvfQ-YxnV2K5jy-_uM8Szz4avwse3TMRCfin_G4uTtjhpSh8fr_z__0eQOqp_OoTLi0hULHUxzmZEWxoh22Dt4XYQqIH4UQisDeZBb_ozqLHXHwGi90Sm6CCsq6EEDUQppgcQQ2bA6rtIQw-Wyq7WUJcmd1PK1cis0jzv5_iYkH96eZhCMKtCbkuqSewlEmOkjw/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nola.com%2Fnews%2Fenvironment%2Farticle_43d1fd7a-1677-5a10-acfe-702895176119.html

Paper (abstract): https://secure-web.cisco.com/1jQPceqhUieqYRKo7knTXFnp5mhjigKt_C9Hx7bzcuSmX9iwGWGbrM8mqQny4wCuqA8WGuh_H4ktX1bbBuDmptDPGpzCtq_GUeWr_kS08RaPr8zfGTyxXMcMgCqFdk-iujr16E4ClnhhUg2iejFE7SSBJh38OF3YW7f1glXqeV71fQpi4y_2WxplKWBr9w36u52M_B_L8m4aPvlm-0wfAc9WvCu9QL-B6vXXTwOCrOSAUIWIYzZ5FAMytuRE4QRs3QaXOIofQ-sDbP_rfLOs8mB-sh8r6nx5CthDkkNEx4lOlmDr9WVFppVWxH-XEIP-27QtBhniqmaiDV1yvUoZ6bQ/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sciencedirect.com%2Fscience%2Farticle%2Fpii%2FS0967063717303916

Lophelia II BOEM final report:

https://secure-web.cisco.com/1P4Nxj3qyZPZOUGA7QzdUNWRiXzalqKi55VZ9mtmxIytmMd6Po46_ekwyjuQMezUtr_fZ1hT5avBiKQziZ-gODfxo8jMJNLQgVvM0g1ocDFW8wiLm7YXvKDEzhIAf2aVfSEjd25qIpMkrptINBDmLH4P98diiL0oLqKcujbjdlIbOFZmGH8kA10baYQOgIM6t0hekomORZ42Pm1OuHAvUjx_-5HmGuD9WGtFdJqvajabHZyYIaaJpUUX-p_n5HsGzJ3dEnX5T4BnQbwEPX9y3w_2UOW4o13y-MAjb9xbyutTaEJRl8v1QRhj_9UpdIhdB/https%3A%2F%2Fespis.boem.gov%2Ffinal%2520reports%2F5522.pdf

The coral reef definition is certainly complicated (and sometimes political) with one extreme that was pushed during some attempts to get the Coral Reef Conservation Act reauthorized that merely required "skeletal remains" of coral to define a "coral reef" and not even mentioning it had to be underwater allowing something like the walls of the Alamo to be described as a coral reef. The State of Florida currently has a similar definition where no living reef-building corals are required to be present to meet the definition of a "coral reef" in order to impose legal penalties for groundings etc.

Thanks for any consideration,

Greg Boland
retired BOEM Biological Oceanographer