[Coral-List] SCTLD in ballast water

Martin Moe martin_moe at yahoo.com
Tue Aug 9 16:10:32 UTC 2022 

 
On thepotential for bilge water spreading disease

It seems obviousthat the decline of coral reefs is not constrained to just corals. Coral reefdecline is a composite composed of coral diseases and unknown diseases andpollutants on unknown numbers of species that inhabit and compose coral reefenvironments. Life on Earth is now negatively affected by innumerable pollutantsfrom human sources that contribute to the decline of coral reefs in ways variableand unknown. Ecological declines of coral reefs can be rapid or painfully slowfor coral reefs and other ecosystems. To survive, humanity must restore what itcan, clean up what it must, learn what it needs to, and most importantly, realizethat the ecology of our entire planet is composed of many interactive ecosystems,some distant in biology and nature, but all are biologically related. Whetherwe can do this in the time that Earth has allotted to us to achieve this taskremains to be seen.

Bilge wateris a potential, and I stress the term potential, vehicle of transmission of bothdisease and toxic pollutants. Identification and understanding of the possiblepresence of this potential will require research and development of effectiveefforts to clean bilge water before discharge.

In the finalthroes of writing the account on developing the methods of large-scale culture(Diadema Culture Manual), we considered the possibility of the potential of bilgewater transferring disease over great distances. Since this may have significancein this thread, I’ll include a comment from the book. 

 

 “Diadema disease is not restricted tothe tropical western Atlantic Ocean. Extensive Diadema disease has occurredin the eastern Atlantic. It is not so well known that Diadema alsooccurs in the Pacific Ocean. A mass mortality of the sea urchin D. mexicanumoccurred in La Entrega at Bahias de Huatulco off the southwestern coast of Mexicoin the spring of 2009 (Benitez-Villalobos, et al. 2009) The Atlantic andPacific oceans are totally separated by the North American and South Americancontinents. This was the situation until the completion of the Panama Canal onOctober 10, 1913. Although there is no direct communication of sea water throughthe canal, ships carry bilge water through the canal. If the oil content of bilgewater is below 15 ppm the ships are allowed to void this water when the bilgeis cleaned. Thus, a possible pathway was created for the carriage of planktonicorganisms between oceans. The great Atlantic Diadema pandemic began nearthe entrance to the Panama Canal and there was a suspicion that the Diademapandemic may have originated from bilge water discharged from a ship. 

Interestingly,the mass mortality of Diadema africanum in the eastern Atlanticand the mass mortality of Diadema mexicanum on the Mexican coastnot far from the Pacific entrance to the Panama Canal occurred at about thesame time in 2009.”

 

This was anaside to the main purpose of the book but had possible connections to the spreadof Diadema and perhaps coral disease. The eastern Pacific disease eventwas earlier than the eastern Atlantic plague so It was possible, although notprobable, that these 2009 disease outbreaks were related. 

Both ofthese disease events are reported in the literature.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Underwater-pictures-showing-a-an-aggregation-of-Diadema-mexicanum-in-La-Entrega-and-b_fig1_257397693

and,

(PDF) Sea urchin Diadema africanum mass mortality in the subtropical Eastern Atlantic: role of waterborne bacteria in a warming ocean


| 
| 
| 
|  |  |

 |

 |
| 
|  | 
(PDF) Sea urchin Diadema africanum mass mortality in the subtropical Eas...

PDF | A widespread mass mortality event of the sea urchin Diadema africanum was detected in the subtropical east...
 |

 |

 |






Best Regards,Martin


    On Monday, August 8, 2022 at 09:07:12 AM EDT, Douglas Fenner via Coral-List <coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov> wrote:  
 
 Does anybody know of data on where ships that come through the Panama Canal
into the Pacific go??
    Wikipedia has a page called "Sea lanes."  On that page I found a map
of shipping routes.  Very interesting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_lane#/media/File:Shipping_routes_red_black.png

It appears that most shipping that goes through the Panama Canal going
westward goes through the Caribbean.  Hard to tell what portion actually
comes from ports in Florida or the Caribbean, as opposed to just passing
through.  Ballast water exchanges generally occur when the ship is leaving
or approaching ports that the ship has or will stop in.  In the Pacific,
the map shows most shipping through the Panama Canal goes to the west coast
of North America, most likely mostly US ports.  None of those ports have
tropical corals.  Some (the white areas) appear to go to east Asia or
Hawaii.  Only a very few go to the South Pacific.  In East Asia, my guesses
would be that most might go to Tokyo, Hong Kong or Singapore.  Tokyo itself
has few if any tropical corals, though there is an island with 80 species
of tropical corals not far offshore from Tokyo (I don't know how far, and
it surely won't have big ships that go through the Panama Canal stopping
there).  I would think that relatively few ships from the Panama Canal
would stop anywhere in the North Pacific that has coral other than in
Hawaii or east Asia.  But probably quite a few ships that go westward
through the Panama Canal go to ports in East Asia or Hawaii that have
corals nearby.
        All this just suggests what routes are most likely, but all that's
needed is one ship with lots of pathogens from that coral disease in the
ballast water to stop at a place with coral, for it to be introduced into
the Pacific.
        The probabilities of this happening would seem to be cumulative, to
add up over time.  If it doesn't happen soon, it is highly likely to happen
eventually, IF there is lots of the pathogens in the ballast water.  That's
a guess.
        I fully agree with Austin that this is a scary threat, should it
happen it could be a huge disaster.
        Wikipedia has articles on the Ballast Water Management Convention
and Ballast Water Regulation in the United States.  The international
convention requires ships to exchange ballast water at least 200 nautical
miles from shore.  Since 2017 they also have to have a sterilization system
that reduces marine life in the ballast water to a particular level.  They
also have to keep records of when and where the water was exchanged.
          I would think that port officials in the tropical Pacific should
be alerted to the danger and should take steps to enforce these
regulations, particularly on ships coming from Florida or the Caribbean.
          By the time this disease appears somewhere in the Indo-Pacific it
will be too late.

Cheers, Doug


On Fri, Aug 5, 2022 at 3:51 PM Austin Bowden-Kerby <abowdenkerby at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Thanks Steve and Doug,
>
> The issue of primary concern to the wider world (to all areas not yet
> impacted), is not what causes SCTLD, or how to treat it etc, but rather how
> it is spread.  All of these questions can and must be figured out
> later, but this horrific disease must be stopped from spreading right now.
> It may be too late for the Caribbean, but if it proves to be spread via
> ballast water, then we all should be extremely worried for the corals of
> the IndoPacific region.  If there is even a slight chance of that, then we
> need to take immediate and unified action, not get lost in disagreements
> that might lead to corporate and government inaction.
>
> Right now, shouldn't ports with coral reefs receiving ships from the
> affected region be alerted and governments informed of the potential risk?
> Shouldn't they be advised to take stringent measures to prevent ballast
> water release, even if that requires banning certain ships?  While I have
> no idea what sorts of biosecurity measures are already in place, I think
> they probably need to be urgently reviewed, especially in light of this
> disease and of the new findings on the ineffectiveness of UV sterilization.
> This is extremely urgent, but was lost in the earlier critique, which spun
> off and completely missed the most important finding of the paper- that the
> present sterilization systems of ballast water are not effective against
> stopping this (and other) diseases!
>
> For those reading this from Hawaii, how many ships arrive annually into
> your ports via the Panama Canal?  If (heaven forbid), there were an
> outbreak of SCTLD in Hawaii, would we finally assume that ballast water is
> to blame?  Or would we continue to use the precautionary principle of
> science in a non-precautionary manner, cite a lack of definitive proof, and
> continue the present inaction?  Would shipping continue as normal, ignoring
> the threat, like it did in the Caribbean?  Effective action dealing with a
> Hawaii outbreak would likely require the temporary closure of all
> inter-island shipping and international shipping from Hawaii to Japan,
> China, Australia, etc. Huge economic costs would be incurred, but nothing
> compared to the cost of coral reefs of the region getting this disease.
>
> It saddens me that the present adversarial, competitive, and overly
> critical nature of the scientific community has largely proven
> non-effective at protecting coral reefs and saving the planet in the face
> of climate change and other global threats.  We continue undermining each
> other publically when the very fate of the planet is at stake, and without
> considering the wider impacts and how our discussions and nay-saying might
> feed corporate and government inaction, and that is where we are right now.
>
> Regards to all,
>
> Austin
>
> Austin Bowden-Kerby, PhD
> Corals for Conservation
> P.O. Box 4649 Samabula, Fiji Islands
>
> https://www.corals4conservation.org
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIAkO-hN1SM
>
> https://www.globalgiving.org/projects/emergency-response-to-massive-coral-bleaching/
> <https://www.globalgiving.org/projects/emergency-response-to-massive-coral-bleaching/>
>
>
>
> Austin Bowden-Kerby, PhD
> Corals for Conservation
> P.O. Box 4649 Samabula, Fiji Islands
>
>
> https://www.corals4conservation.org
> https://www.facebook.com/C4Conservation
> TEDx talk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PRLJ8zDm0U
>
> https://www.globalgiving.org/projects/emergency-response-to-massive-coral-bleaching/
> <https://www.globalgiving.org/projects/emergency-response-to-massive-coral-bleaching/>
>
>
> Teitei Livelihoods Centre
> Km 20 Sigatoka Valley Road, Fiji Islands
> (679) 938-6437
> http:/www.
> <http://permacultureglobal.com/projects/1759-sustainable-environmental-livelihoods-farm-Fiji>
> teiteifiji.org
>
> http://permacultureglobal.com/projects/1759-sustainable-environmental-livelihoods-farm-Fiji
>
> https://www.globalgiving.org/projects/happy-chickens-for-food-security-and-environment-1/
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 6, 2022 at 2:59 AM Douglas Fenner <
> douglasfennertassi at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The precautionary principle seems to be invoked most often in fisheries,
>> where I believe it is interpreted as saying that when in doubt (which is
>> much of the time), we should protect the resource; because if we don't, we
>> could lose it.  That would seem applicable to coral reefs as well.  So if
>> it appears possible that the disease could be spread by ballast water and
>> it is highly lethal to many species, we should try to figure out ways to
>> make it so it couldn't be spread by ballast water.
>>        I'd add that if I remember, this new paper reports using
>> ultraviolet light as it is used with ballast water, to try to sterilize
>> water that diseased corals had been in.  In spite of that, the corals
>> caught the disease from the water. So it looks like UV sterilization ships
>> use wouldn't prevent spread by ballast water.
>>    Cheers, Doug
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 5, 2022 at 2:55 AM Steve Mussman via Coral-List <
>> coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Dear Austin,
>>>
>>> In the post-truth world of today, we would most likely not agree on the
>>> basic facts or the proper response even if it were a human pathogen. So, it
>>> comes as no surprise that SCTLD is provoking a discussion with some level
>>> of disagreement (which isn’t necessarily a bad thing). I don’t even believe
>>> that the rhetorical question you initially proposed regarding what is at
>>> stake can be regarded as a settled assumption. We may never be able to
>>> trace the exact origins of SCTLD or fully understand the dynamics of its
>>> transmission, but we could say unequivocally that this disease is piling on
>>> and increasing the overall coral reef crisis. We could also say that if we
>>> don’t change our ways coral reefs will continue their downward trend. We
>>> could explicitly pronounce that we now have a clear choice before us. We
>>> can embark on an attempt to take the necessary steps to restore the natural
>>> ecological balance or we can continue to squabble about the best ways to
>>> treat an ever-increasing list of incurable symptoms.
>>>
>>> I’m not sure, but do you think we could we at least agree on that?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Steve
>>>
>>> P.S. Does anyone have any thoughts on the efficacy of decontamination of
>>> scuba diving equipment in an attempt to slow or stop the spread of SCTLD? I
>>> have friends within the diving industry on Bonaire who are trying to
>>> determine if this makes any sense as disinfection techniques are both time
>>> consuming and intrusive and would have to be repeated on their boats
>>> between dives during surface intervals.
>>>
>>> On 8/1/22, 4:24 PM, Austin Bowden-Kerby <abowdenkerby at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> With SCTLD, it is clear that the very survival of multiple coral species
>>> in the Caribbean and potentially all global coral reef systems is at stake.
>>> Can we at least agree on that? Ballast water has been suspected in the
>>> introduction of all sorts of things, including the Indo Pacific coral
>>> Tubastraea micranthus into the Gulf of Mexico. If ballast water is indeed
>>> the vector for this disease, then coral reefs over the entire planet are
>>> now under an additional grave threat.
>>>
>>> I have always understood that in situations like this, the precautionary
>>> principle of science must be turned on its head. The precautionary thing to
>>> do right now is to assume that ballast water is the culprit until proven
>>> innocent. If this disease were a water borne human pathogen with close to
>>> 100% mortality, we certainly would be closing down shipping and inspecting
>>> ballast water and looking into the effectiveness of ballast water
>>> purification systems, etc.
>>>
>>> If we continue to follow the normal upright precautionary principle of
>>> science (innocent until proven guilty) with regards to this particular
>>> case, and to argue about how there is no definitive proof, then we are
>>> potentially putting coral reefs globally in grave danger. To have
>>> scientists arguing publicly and debunking the best study that is out there
>>> thus far- a study that adds important information about how the UV
>>> purification systems for ballast water may not be effective, completely
>>> dissipates the focus on finding solutions and answers. The large
>>> billionaire shipping and cruise line corporations just love these critical
>>> discussions! On the present trajectory, will transferring the disease to
>>> Hawaii or Australia be the only way we can finally accept the ballast water
>>> hypothesis?
>>>
>>> Austin
>>>
>>> Austin Bowden-Kerby, PhD
>>>
>>> Corals for Conservation
>>>
>>> https://www.corals4conservation.org (
>>> https://www.corals4conservation.org/)
>>>
>>> https://youtu.be/FIAkO-hN1SM
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.globalgiving.org/projects/emergency-response-to-massive-coral-bleaching/
>>> (
>>> https://www.globalgiving.org/projects/emergency-response-to-massive-coral-bleaching/
>>> )
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 2, 2022 at 4:37 AM Steve Mussman via Coral-List <
>>> coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov (mailto:coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov)>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I don’t believe anyone is claiming to have definitive proof that the
>>> pathogen associated with SCTLD is being spread directly by ballast water,
>>> although there appears to be solid justification for further research into
>>> that particular hypothesis and it is most certainly not based on political
>>> correctness. John Bruno recently made a compelling argument (as many others
>>> have) that climate change, although not suspected of being the primary
>>> cause of coral diseases, is also involved. “Higher than normal temperatures
>>> are thought to increase the occurrence and severity of disease outbreaks
>>> through several mechanisms, including increased pathogen virulence and
>>> weakened host immune systems owing to physiological stresses.” In his paper
>>> “The Coral Disease Triangle”, John makes note of the fact that it is still
>>> the subject of speculation that the unknown pathogenic bacterium associated
>>> with white-band disease may have been introduced into affected regions
>>> “perhaps via the Panama Canal or in ballast water carried by cargo ships”.
>>> Although a water-borne pathogen could be spread by currents alone, ballast
>>> water from ships might explain how it has spread to geographically and
>>> oceanographically isolated reefs.
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274312564_The_coral_disease_triangle
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Steve
>>>
>>> On 7/30/22, 3:46 PM, Eugene Shinn via Coral-List <
>>> coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov (mailto:coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov)>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I scanned the interesting research paper that blames coral disease is
>>>
>>> spread by ships ballast water. It is a reasonable hypothesis. However, I
>>>
>>> agree with Alina Szmant. I too have not seen the proof. She pointed out
>>>
>>> that the paper was not peer reviewed. The first thing I noticed in the
>>>
>>> papers title were the words, “simulated ballast water.” If I were a
>>>
>>> shipping company owner and that study was being used as proof my ballast
>>>
>>> water was the major spreader and cause of coral reef demise I would
>>>
>>> surely have my high paid lawyers go on the attack. They could quickly
>>>
>>> point out that the study of simulated ballast water does not prove my
>>>
>>> ballast water causes disease. That otherwise excellent study made me
>>>
>>> wonder why did the authors not sample water from actual ship ballast
>>>
>>> tanks? Why use simulated ballast water? At the same time I have to agree
>>>
>>> there is no evidence that real ballast water is not a carrier of coral
>>>
>>> disease. Ballast water may actually be spreading coral toxins from reef
>>>
>>> to reef. However, the real question is If there are disease organisms in
>>>
>>> ballast water, where did they come from in the first place. Clearly once
>>>
>>> these agents are in the water column they can easily be moved along with
>>>
>>> water currents. They do need ballast water for transport. The major
>>>
>>> current flow directions in the Caribbean are well known and the
>>>
>>> strongest of these currents flow past the Belize and Florida Keys reefs.
>>>
>>> As many list readers know I have been advocating since the 1980s that
>>>
>>> disease agents in the Caribbean were originally brought to the western
>>>
>>> Atlantic/Caribbean in dust clouds transported by the Tradewinds. Dust
>>>
>>> particles carrying disease causing agents are constantly dropping out as
>>>
>>> the dust clouds move along. Many even cross over into the Pacific. Once
>>>
>>> corals and other organisms including /Diadema/ and Seafan diseases
>>>
>>> become established they are easily transmitted down current to affect
>>>
>>> other marine organisms. I have often suggested the demise of the
>>>
>>> staghorn fields at San Salvador in 1983, was a starting point for such
>>>
>>> transport.
>>>
>>> Back when my USGS dust study team was active in the late 1990s they
>>>
>>> cultured and identified around 200 microbes and fungi that were being
>>>
>>> transmitted in African dust clouds. At the time we knew asthma was by
>>>
>>> rampant in children on those windward islands in the Bahamas. Even
>>>
>>> Puerto Rico is well known for its respiratory diseases. In those days it
>>>
>>> baffled me why so many competent scientists rejected the dust
>>>
>>> hypothesis. Later as I matured I realized it was all about politics and
>>>
>>> funding. I suppose blaming coral diseases on ballast water these days is
>>>
>>> politically correct. Gene
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>> Coral-List mailing list
>>>
>>> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov (mailto:Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov)
>>>
>>> https://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>> Coral-List mailing list
>>>
>>> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov (mailto:Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov)
>>>
>>> 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
>>
>>
_______________________________________________
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