[Coral-List] what does this new analysis tell us???
Austin Bowden-Kerby
abowdenkerby at gmail.com
Tue Feb 8 14:01:48 UTC 2022
Doug this is rather disconcerting.
I assume that we all agree that coral reefs are under attack by climate
change? Yes?
I also assume that we all agree that coral reefs will be among the first of
the planet's ecosystems to collapse in the face of climate change? Right?
Assuming that we all agree, then can we also agree that reconnaissance
information is vital to knowing where we stand, to know how far the enemy
(climate change in this case) has advanced. This information might then
impact on how decisively we act, what course of action we take. If two
different spy planes came back with two very different stories from the
front lines, what would the generals do, advance, retreat, or send in the
bombers? Yes, I can understand your concern!
But my own concern is much, much more grave. Taking the war analogy
further, I see no war on climate change as it advances over the reefs, no
viable battle plans, no workable or proven strategies implemented to defeat
the advancing demise of coral reefs in the face of global heat waves-
virtually nothing to address mass coral bleaching and prevent the
associated coral death and predicted coral species extinctions. What I do
see is a failed main strategy, which continues to be pervasive, even though
it operates on a misproven myth: that no-take areas and clean waters will
somehow reverse or counteract the impact of the coming heat waves. Hasn't
that already been proven wrong? Surely it might soften the blow somewhat
or help reefs recover between volleys, but it will not prevent reef
collapse when condition two bleaching becomes an annual event in the coming
years, or when coral larval supplies are no longer so available. Lots of
money is being spent on this myth, but heck, clean dead reefs with lots of
fish are probably better than dead polluted and overfished reefs. To me,
the healthy reefs for resilience hypothesis is rather like defending
soldiers by improving their health- feeding and resting them well, yes it
might help them to a certain extent in battle, but no matter how good their
health, it won't stop the bullets and bombs for killing the soldiers!
Besides atttempting to increase coral reef health to stop mass bleaching
bullets and bombs, I see two other strategies, the 50 reefs initiative,
https://www.50reefs.org/ and the Coral Ark biobank,
https://www.thecoralarkinternational.org/ - both of which are good efforts
and of course needed, but I see each of these strategies, in essence as a
retreat, as they both abandon the front lines of coral reef collapse. In
any war, the front lines are where the major battles are waged, where the
lessons are learned, and where the enemy is pushed back, and where victory
is ultimately achieved.
More than any place on the planet, I feel that this front line is Kiribati-
all three island groups, where finally La Nina conditions have given a two
year respite, after 30 months of bleaching temperatures out of the previous
60 months prior to 2020. The few published reports about the condition of
Kiribati's reefs mostly have rather glowing or hopeful titles, reporting
resilience among the few corals that survive or coral cover returning, but
I see these reports as a sort of cover-up, as they fail to highlight the
horrific truth that a grave ecological tragedy has occurred- with numerous
coral species now locally extinct on most islands, or so rare as to be
functionally and reproductively extinct, and with the few examples of
recovery being an alternative steady-state condition, dominated by low
diversity populations of Portes corals that provide inferior habitat and
poorer ecological services than the former Acropora dominated reefs
provided. Ciguatera has become prevalent and widespread as a result of
coral demise, but the positive sounding reports in the international media
would confuse any government, and so what we see is absolutely no action in
response to the massive nation-wide death of apparently ~90% of all corals
on their reefs! Imagine if this had happened in Hawaii or Florida or
Australia, dwarfing anything that has happened thus far, and not just some
reefs, but all reefs of the nation.... a massive media response and public
outcry would be heard round the world! But instead the government has gone
on to nullify the large Phoenix Island Protected area! Shame on us all, as
not a single international conservation NGO has an office or a major (or
even minor?) project going on in Kiribati.
I have been to these front lines, have been poisoned by ciguatoxic reef
fish, and as a result of seven visits, have learned much about developing
strategies that are effective in battling pervasive mass bleaching, mass
coral die-off, and local species extinctions. Recently some of this was
published in the book, Active Reef Restoration, thanks to the hard
editorial and production work of Dr. David Vaughn. An earlier version of
our chapter on the Line Islands is available here:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351946151_Restoration_and_Natural_Recovery_of_Corals_after_Unprecedented_Mass_Bleaching_and_Coral_Death_in_the_Line_Islands_Kiribati_March_2020_Version
In conclusion, isn't it time that we waged a strategic and well planned war
- a coordinated and well planned strategic war on the impacts of climate
change on coral reefs globally? This would involve a major
scientific response at the front lines of the massive attack by the enemy
in Kiribati, Chagos, and on other heavily impacted reefs, looking for
lessons learned relevant to winning the war among all the devastation. An
effective war would also involve and support the impacted nations and
impacted communities, empowering them to fight back for their own survival
and for that of their nation, and to in time make lasting progress in
reversing the negative impacts.
Some coral reef scientists today seem to be operating in a bubble of
denial, and perhaps the thermal assaults have not impacted them so gravely
yet- they work with reefs that are still doing okay, or that have shown
some resilience, so they are more hopeful? Others focus on points of hope,
perhaps for their own mental health- on restoration or some other
technological innovation, hoping that what is currently in use is widely
scalable, in spite of the immensity of the problem? But do we continue to
plant trees in the face of an approaching firestorm, when our seedlings
will all be burned up? Wouldn't a more effective strategy be to rush
around and gather as much of the resistant genetic material as possible and
to keep it secure, much like the biobank, but on the local reefs
themselves, and protected long term by translocation from hot nearshore
waters at the limit of possible thermal tolerance to nearby cooler offshore
reefs? That is one of five adaptation strategies that we have learned and
are now actively carrying out in our Fiji sites. Experience has shown that
the corals found in the hottest reef areas are not secure, as these areas
presently filled with heat adapted corals will in time likely get so hot in
ocean heat waves that no corals could possibly survive there. For now, I
see what we are doing as just one of many scattered efforts to develop
weapons and ammunition for wider use in the coming battles.
Now that COP-26 has failed to deliver a thermal limit of 1.5C, so that even
if all nations do what they promised, 2.4C may be the best that we can hope
for. This has gravely serious implications to the survival of coral reefs,
and it is time to get very angry and concerned, and to up our game with
that anger and with a new and determined energy!
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-59220687
Just imagine the horrific tragedy that is coming.
This is why I ask everyone who has read this far:
Where are the comprehensive and coordinated battle plans and strategies
that include, in addition to securing our own homelands, the vital foreign
front lines as well?
Where are the decisive and charismatic generals? How can they best work
effectively together?
Where are the experienced sergeants?
Where are the skilled troops?
Where are the trained civilian soldiers?
Where are the effective weapons and ammunition?
As the enemy feeds on carbon, ultimately we must stop fossil fuel
production in order to starve and kill the enemy.
That is the ultimate solution. But we will lose our precious corals if we
do not wage war on coral species demise in the meantime.
Buying more time for the corals will be our victory.
Regards to all,
Austin
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 Mon, Feb 7, 2022 at 3:56 PM Douglas Fenner via Coral-List <
coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov> wrote:
> I just looked back at the original webpage. As Lauretta said, the
> problem of overlap of different parts of it has been resolved. Excellent,
> thank you to whoever did that. I had been unable to read the introductory
> text before the world graphs. Everything written in that introduction fits
> with the graph and looks accurate to me, with one exception I was
> surprised to see a statement that "Globally, it is likely that over half
> of the world’s reefs have already been severely damaged or lost
> <https://www.cell.com/one-earth/fulltext/S2590-3322(21)00474-7#%20>",
> because the graph below that statement doesn't support that statement, as
> far as I can see. The GCRMN curve starts at 32.5% and ends at about 29%.
> A 50% decline would be to 16%. The statement I quoted above has a link in
> it, to a paper that has its own analysis of a huge amount of data and
> produced a graph of coral cover trends for the world. I recommend taking a
> look at this paper.
> https://www.cell.com/one-earth/fulltext/S2590-3322(21)00474-7#%20 Open
> access. It indeed shows a huge decline, from about 70% to about 25%, so
> MORE than 50% loss. It shows the band of plus or minus 18% standard
> deviation of the observational estimates from the earlier Eddy study I
> referred to that surveyed people on their memories of coral cover. The
> beginning in time of the curve fits relatively well with those estimates of
> a mean of 58-59%.
> Amazing, both studies using large databases of reef monitoring
> data. It looks to me like they produced different curves in at least two
> ways, and one similarity. The similarity is that they came up with fairly
> similar estimates of coral cover (of about 30%) over the majority of the
> time span. The first difference is that this other study came up with some
> even older data, which pushed the oldest part of their curve much higher.
> The second difference is that this new data set does not show any of the
> more recent declines and recoveries that the GCRMN curve shows. If nothing
> changed in the future and we extrapolated this new curve, there would only
> be relatively slight and gradual decline in coral cover. (that is surely
> NOT going to occur. Coral cover is predicted by everybody to go off the
> cliff.) But it certainly doesn't support the view that there have been
> large recent losses in coral cover.
> This appears to be a paradox or conundrum. My first impulse is that
> they are using different data sets. Probably some of the points are the
> same, but others different. The GCRMN data set doesn't include those data
> points before 1978, and the second set has points going back to about
> 1958. The differences at the start of the two graphs appears to be due to
> those early points. They contain relatively few dive sites, though from
> the graph it is not clear how many but my guess is very few. I wonder if
> they might be from Tom Goreau in Jamaica? Yosi Loya reminded me of his
> pioneering paper surveying reefs in Eilat, Israel, on the Gulf of Aden, Red
> Sea. That data was taken in the 60's. The more recent parts of the graphs
> were based on large numbers of sites for both studies. They could still
> have differences in which sites and where that are in their databases.
> Another possibility might be how the data was treated. If I remember,
> GCRMN weighted the data from different areas based on the amount of coral
> reef area in the area the data came from. If this other study didn't do
> that, that could be part of the difference.
> Well, hopefully someday this difference will be ironed out.
> Meanwhile the curves suggest different things, and different conclusions
> could be reached, though each of the two curves casts doubt on the parts of
> the other graph that they differ on.
> Sigh. Well, hopefully it will be resolved at some point. The
> data from the few near-pristine present sites, from their earliest data,
> appears to me to provide more support for the view that coral cover
> originally wasn't so high, just as the survey of people's memories supports
> the high coral cover origin view. However, there are loads of different
> things to consider, among others that there are relatively few
> near-pristine areas and they are not distributed in anything close to a
> random or representative fashion, and that the graph showing high early
> cover is based on relatively little early data which may be
> unrepresentative locations.
> Anything else to throw into the mix? I do not know of any strong
> argument based on first principles of ecology that coral reef ecosystems
> must be heavily dominated by hard corals if they are only subject to
> natural disturbances. If somebody does, please let us all know.
> Meanwhile, take a look at this second paper.
> As a footnote, I'd point to the new Eddy paper's map of coral
> reef diversity. Almost all groups of organisms on reefs that have enough
> data (with the exception of algae) show peak diversity in the Coral
> Triangle area: Indonesia, the Philippines, New Guinea north coast, and the
> Solomon Is. This is widely known. Their map does not show this. It says
> it come from databases on fish and macroinvertebrates. It shows the
> highest diversity in Australia and the Philippines and Japan, second
> highest in the USA including Hawaii. Funny, they color in the whole map
> for the USA. There are no reef corals on the west coast of the US, and
> none north of North Carolina on the east coast. Both Hawaii and Florida
> have low diversity reefs on a global scale, the Marianas and American Samoa
> are US areas with higher reef diversity, but still well be below the Coral
> Triangle (maybe on the order of half that of the Coral Triangle). The
> problem is that for many groups of organisms on reefs, the number of
> species known is heavily influenced by the amount of search effort. Number
> of dives, number of expert taxonomists for different groups of organisms,
> number of unusual habitats searched, and so on. So heavily that Hawaii has
> more species of reef organisms known than almost any other place in the
> Pacific outside of the coral triangle, Australia, and New Caledonia. New
> Caledonia has the highest number of named species found so far anywhere,
> over 8000 species, due to more experts on more taxonomic groups having
> searched there than anywhere else (See Payri and Forges, 2006). A MINUTE
> fraction of all the species there and elsewhere on reefs has been
> recorded. They just say they got data from databases. I'm afraid that is
> a modern way of doing these studies. No mention of the effort thing, no
> mention of the publications that show the Coral Triangle as the area of
> greatest diversity. That's a major error in my view, no paper on the
> geographic pattern of coral reef diversity should be allowed to be
> published without referring to the rich literature on geographic patterns
> of coral reef diversity. No paper. Just searching databases blindly could
> blind the researchers to important things. Likely the people searching the
> database have never searched a coral reef for species. Most people who
> have, would know that effort is a powerful variable which can overwhelm
> other variables such as diversity gradients. Especially when your searches
> only find a fraction of all the species likely there. And if you don't get
> results that show the center of diversity is the coral triangle, something
> is wrong. Amazing that reviewers would not catch that and especially the
> lack of reference to the many existing publications documenting the coral
> reef diversity pattern, which differs radically from theirs. Even
> co-authors should have caught that. Maybe they did and said "let them
> publish it anyhow"??
> Cheers, Doug
>
> Eddy, T. D., Lam, V. W. Y., Raygondeau, G., Cisneros-Montemayor, A. M.,
> Greer, K., Palomares,
>
> M. L. D., Bruno, J. F., Ota, Y., Cheung, W. L. L. 2021. Global
> decline in capacity of coral reefs
>
> to provide ecosystem services. One Earth 4 1278-1285.
>
>
> Payri, C., E. and Richer de Forges, B. (Eds.), Compendium of Marine Species
> from New Caledonia. Documents Scientifiques et Techniques II7, Institute de
> recherche pour la Development, Noumea. 391 pp.
>
> On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 9:48 AM Douglas Fenner <
> douglasfennertassi at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Ryan,
> > Good points!! Thanks very much! Well, the way I read the graph,
> the
> > decline from the 1998 El Nino mass bleaching was followed by recovery
> > (probably driven by recovery in the Indian O and places like Palau).
> Then
> > another decline began. It might have bottomed out, there is an uptick at
> > the very end. Could well be a temporary uptick. My feeling is that any
> > recovery now is likely to be temporary, and that the massive decline we
> > have seen in the Caribbean and other individual places is about to begin
> in
> > earnest in the rest of the world, and within a 2-3 decades the whole
> > world's reefs will look like the Caribbean or worse. I don't think
> that's
> > optimism. The future is very unlikely to be like the past, given climate
> > change's enormous threat and the world's pitifully inadequate response.
> > But the major thing I read from the graph, which I think is
> > unavoidable, is that the world's reefs have NOT seen a drastic decline,
> > like to 10% or less coral cover, like Florida and the Caribbean. I count
> > that as good news. Good news that may already be on the way to going the
> > way of massive forest fires in the US west, crippling droughts in
> > Australia, areas around the Persian Gulf very close to becoming
> > uninhabitable outside of air conditioned spaces, and more human deaths
> from
> > global warming now than any other weather cause. A terrible future for
> > coral reefs seems inevitable. The fact that nor all reefs, in fact the
> > majority of the world's reefs have not been devastated yet, is totally
> > separate from the future, when that is highly likely to happen. Go see a
> > healthy reef while there are still some left!!
> >
> > 2. Well, as I understand it, the entire eastern third of the US used to
> > be dominated by forests dominated by chestnut trees. We even have a
> > Christmas carol about "chestnuts roasting on the open fire" (they were
> > edible and abundant, but are no more). But chestnut blight basically
> > killed them all, 100%. Stumps are able to put up shoots, but they don't
> > get far before the blight kills them. The eastern one third of the
> > continent does indeed have forests now, composed of other trees, so the
> > forests are back, but chestnut trees are not. (there are captive,
> > protected chestnut trees and efforts to breed resistance and the like)
> So
> > essentially a very good analogy, except the dominant species was
> > essentially extirpated by disease and has been more or less replaced.
> > I think I remember Terry Done long ago made the point that if most
> > of the corals on a reef are killed, the Acropora can recover quickly
> (weedy
> > species), but the big massive Porites colonies are hundreds of years old,
> > and cannot be replaced in our lifetimes, or perhaps the lifetimes of many
> > nations now existing (I just added that to what he said).
> > Point well taken. People have often said that coral cover isn't
> > everything, and that is right, might even be an understatement. So we
> > really need to take monitoring data that can reflect changes in species
> > composition. If we don't, we will miss this important aspect. I think
> it
> > is important. In the Caribbean and Hawaii, the diversity is low enough
> it
> > isn't hard to ID the common corals, and corals can be monitored at the
> > species level. They do that in Hawaii, I'm not sure if they do that in
> the
> > Caribbean, someone can fill us in on that. Much more difficult in the
> > Indo-Pacific. However, genera are much easier to ID than species, and it
> > is much easier to get a sample sufficient to see the trends of the more
> > common genera. That's all within the range of possibilities for the
> > Indo-Pacific, and we should gear up to do it, before the great
> devastation
> > of coral reefs starts happening to the many reefs that have not been
> badly
> > damaged yet. Because it is coming, as sure as the night follows the day.
> > We have enough time to get baselines, let's not blow it.
> > I rather doubt a large massive coral can re-sheet over most of the
> > colony, but maybe people with expertise on that can tell us. Would be
> > great if they could. I know that there is a literature on wound healing,
> > if I remember the larger the wound the slower the healing and the higher
> > chance it won't be complete, and most of that was done on wounds of
> several
> > cm sq, not meters sq.
> > Good point on the corals on the GBR. Death is permanent for the
> > individual involved. Point that I was making is that new colonies
> > obviously settled and grew, and coral cover has recovered on the GBR.
> > Something I've never read anybody rejoycing about. I think it is a good
> > thing. Thank heavens. But obviously, though they were resilient and
> > recovered coral cover, most likely the species composition has changed,
> the
> > species replacing are probably enriched in fast-growing weedy species
> that
> > are more vulnerable to bleaching and other disturbances. And in general,
> > the ability to recover is not unlimited. Bleaching events are coming
> more
> > and more often, and once they are close enough together, they will work
> as
> > a rachet (as Chuck Birkeland has often pointed out): massive mortality
> > followed by a few years of slow recovery beginning, not nearly recovered
> by
> > the time the next one hits, which takes it down further. Like going
> down a
> > set of stairs, and ending in near total loss of the ecosystem, algae beds
> > here we come, and many tears.
> > I'd add to your forest story: Nearly all chestnut trees in the US
> > east were killed, about 4 billion trees, within 40 years of the
> > 1904 accidental introduction of the fungus. A few trees survive, where
> > there are no other trees within 10 km or more, spores are wind blown.
> > Wikipedia has a good article on it. Almost all people in the US alive
> now
> > have never seen a chestnut tree, and society has forgotten about them.
> > Other trees have grown in their place. North America has a whole series
> of
> > introduced organisms, many insects, which attack trees, Dutch Elm
> disease,
> > bark beetles, ash beetles, I can't turn around without another one, they
> > continue to be introduced. Battle is on to find ways to control them,
> the
> > alternative is to have one tree species after another devastated. And we
> > do need trees. Sounds similar to the coral disease story in the
> Caribbean,
> > though there is no evidence I know of, of the Caribbean coral diseases
> > being introduced.
> > But a good, thought-provoking analogy.
> > Cheers, Doug
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 4:19 AM Ryan McMinds <mcmindsr at usf.edu> wrote:
> >
> >> Alina captures my general reaction to your post, Doug, but I'd like to
> >> add that:
> >>
> >> 1) I don't see stability in that graph like you do. As you acknowledge,
> >> there has been a fairly steady decline since 2009, and the other data in
> >> the report (regarding surface temperatures and acidity) suggest that the
> >> last decade's downward trend will continue, rather than the flatter
> >> multi-decadal trend.
> >>
> >> 2) As I replied to you personally: If a forest burns down, and grass
> >> grows over the ashes within months to produce 100% 'plant cover', has
> the
> >> forest recovered? I seem to remember some previous discussion on the
> list
> >> and literature about how the unprecedented die-offs of the last decade
> have
> >> led to extreme reductions in diversity, regardless of total hard coral
> >> cover. If all that has grown back is a variety of weedy Acropora
> species,
> >> these reefs are less functional, and are not likely to last. As the
> >> Caribbean illustrates depressingly, low-diversity coral systems are
> highly
> >> vulnerable to epidemics of disease and other stressors. In other words,
> >> that current downward trend in coral cover is likely to accelerate even
> >> more in the near future, regardless of how resilient the replacement
> >> species are to bleaching. And to the first point, in terms of
> diversity, it
> >> may be perfectly reasonable to say that more than 50% of the GBR is
> still
> >> dead. What's there now isn't the same as what was there before.
> >>
> >> As an aside: I've used the analogy of coral reefs to forests a number of
> >> times when talking to non-experts, and I'm curious what people think of
> how
> >> good of a comparison it really is. Corals have been diversifying for
> about
> >> as long as all flowering plants, and provide structure like trees, so
> I've
> >> tried to drive home the scale of the 2016 GBR bleaching to people by
> >> asking: what they would think if 50% of the trees and flowering plants
> from
> >> Washington DC to Maine died in a blink? Would society have completely
> >> forgotten about it a year later? But, perhaps it is not fair to compare
> the
> >> relationship between Acropora and P. lobata to that between grasses and
> >> oaks. An oak can't just quickly regrow a new skin over a dead trunk,
> >> whereas a large reef-building coral could potentially. Maybe corals are
> the
> >> best of both weeds and trees, and there really is some optimistic take
> on
> >> their resilience (relative to similarly-scaled destruction in our
> familiar
> >> terrestrial ecosystems).
> >> ___________________________
> >> Dr. Ryan McMinds
> >> Research Assistant Professor
> >> University of South Florida
> >>
> >> On Feb 3, 2022, at 10:35 AM, Alina Szmant via Coral-List <
> >> coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Doug:
> >>
> >> I commend your hopeful enthusiasm, but as you imply in later parts of
> >> uour long post, I feel that your optimism is a victim to the shifting
> >> baseline. Those of us old enough to remember coral reefs in the 69s and
> >> 70s when there was little coral cover measurements taking place can
> attest
> >> to many (not all) reefs have upwards of 60% coral cover. Thus persistent
> >> 28-30 % cover is still a loss of 50% compared to near 'pristine' levels
> >> back when. Likely the more sensitive species are gone replaced by more
> >> tolerant ones. By still much less coral building 3-d structure than
> decades
> >> ago. Sadly my observations for the Caribbean area from Curacao to
> Florida
> >> Keys leaves no room for optimism. Many reefs are doqn to below 15%
> cover.
> >> It would be great if the much larger Indo-Pacific region is doing
> better.
> >>
> >> Alina
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Dr. Alina M. Szmant, CEO
> >> CISME Instruments LLC
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -------- Original message --------
> >> From: Douglas Fenner via Coral-List <coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov>
> >> Date: 2/3/22 7:44 AM (GMT-05:00)
> >> To: Lauretta Burke <lb.was.here at gmail.com>
> >> Cc: coral list <coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov>
> >> Subject: [Coral-List] what does this new analysis tell us???
> >>
> >> I want to start out by thanking Lauretta and everyone involved in
> this
> >> for all the time and effort that went into this. This is fantastic. I
> >> see
> >> that the graphs on average world coral cover and algae cover are based
> on
> >> the latest report from GCRMN (Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network)
> which
> >> it has a link to. They did the work in the Herculean task of putting
> >> together the vast number of sources of data into regional reports and
> into
> >> the world report. We owe them a debt of gratitude. To my knowledge,
> this
> >> is the very first time that anyone has produced from hard data, a graph
> of
> >> the trends of coral cover for the whole world as well as regions in the
> >> world. This is indeed FANTASTIC in my view.
> >> To find the graph in the report, first click on the link Lauretta
> gave
> >> for "Global Coral Reef Profile." Go down just a little bit to the
> "Table
> >> of Contents" on the right, and click on "coral reef condition." Some
> pink
> >> bars will jump up. Move down just a little and find "Live hard coral
> >> cover" on the left, and "live algae cover" on the right. Scroll down
> just
> >> a bit to the graphs for these two things. Pink on the left for the
> coral,
> >> and green on the right for algae.
> >> Here is where I have to compliment Lauretta and the team there.
> >> Notice the axis on the left, down at the bottom is 0% cover. This is
> the
> >> way it should be graphed, because it allows the reader to see the
> relative
> >> magnitude of the changes. The original graph in the GCRMN Status
> report I
> >> found truncated that axis, the axis only goes down to 25%. That
> magnifies
> >> the variation in the graph. If you want to see the GCRMN report, just
> >> click the black disc with the exclamation point to the right of the
> title,
> >> and that opens an explanation, scroll down to the end and there is the
> >> link
> >> to the GCRMN report, and click on it and it will open up in a separate
> >> window. You have many sub-reports to choose from and browse through.
> >> Easiest to see the graph is to click on the executive report. The graph
> >> is
> >> on page 17.
> >> Now a question, what is the biggest, most general thing the graph
> >> shows?? I think that's best seen in the graph that is in the Resource
> >> Watch report Lauretta pointed to. What I see is stability!!! What???
> >> Aren't most of the world's coral reefs badly degraded or even dead???
> >> Shouldn't it show drastic decline??? Not according to this graph based
> on
> >> something like 12,000 data sets from all over the world. HUH??? Oh,
> >> there
> >> is some decline, indeed. But look at the size of the decline. Down
> from
> >> about 33.5% to 30% in the first decline, and 28% in the second. Does
> that
> >> fit with the impression we get from various published papers and the
> >> media?? How many media reports have said that half the coral on the
> Great
> >> Barrier Reef are dead??? I don't remember the exact terminology they
> >> used. If they said "have died," well that's true. Look at the AIMS
> >> monitoring data, the most recent version of it. I'll give the link
> below.
> >> Yes, half of the corals died, but amazingly, and contrary to all
> >> expectations I would suggest, coral cover completely recovered!!!
> (isn't
> >> that the definition of "resilient"?) I've pointed this out before, not
> a
> >> single person posted a response on coral-list and not a single person
> sent
> >> me an email about it. Not one. Huh???
> >> OK, now with a straight face, tell me that the world's coral reefs
> >> are dead or dying. Tell me that half the corals on the Great Barrier
> Reef
> >> are dead. They aren't any more!
> >> Please, tell me is this good news or bad??? Surely it is good
> news
> >> for coral reefs. So why aren't people celebrating??? Why aren't there
> >> "the corals aren't all dead" parties going on all over the world? Where
> >> is
> >> the confetti, the balloons, the silly hats and the noise makers?? Don't
> >> we
> >> want the reefs to survive? Surely it isn't because no one cares,
> >> scientists have been crying in their masks looking at dead reefs.
> >> Don't get me wrong, there is no evidence that all that mountain
> of
> >> reports and evidence of individual reefs being mostly dead and the
> >> Caribbean having had a huge decline in corals are wrong. None
> whatsoever.
> >> I trust every one of them. The El Nino in the Indian Ocean killed about
> >> half the coral there over the whole ocean. Some reefs like Chagos had
> >> about 90% of their corals killed. There are published pictures showing
> >> it. It is beyond discussion, it was real. But notice, some of those
> >> reefs
> >> recovered. When I got to go to Chagos in 2014 I think it was, there was
> >> lots of coral. If I didn't know the history, I would not have suspected
> >> that 90% of the corals had been killed. And of course the more recent
> >> bleaching years have done it again in Chagos. My fingers are crossed
> that
> >> the corals recover again. Maybe they will, maybe they won't. Scary!
> >> Anyone can ask, "how many times can they recover?" As these events
> happen
> >> more often as the world warms, when will they happen so often the corals
> >> can't recover? That time is coming whether we like it or not, and will
> be
> >> here sooner than any of us want. We're sitting on the railroad tracks
> as
> >> the train approaches going full blast.
> >> OK, there are lots more things to discuss and figure out. For
> one,
> >> is 35% cover "high" cover??? Not in my book. The Eddy et al paper
> >> reported that scientists who saw reefs before the decline began
> estimated
> >> from memory coral cover of 58 or 59%. That is a LOT higher than 35%. I
> >> notice that there is no hint of decline early on in this graph. So
> that's
> >> a puzzle. Some people have even thought that originally coral reefs had
> >> near 100% coral cover. 35% is a LONG ways from that.
> >> Coral monitoring data is NOT perfect. BUT, in the absence of any
> >> other hard data on coral cover in the past, isn't this the "best
> available
> >> scientific evidence?" The "best available scientific evidence" is often
> >> quoted as the best standard for management. Why?? Wouldn't "perfect"
> >> evidence be better?? Sure, everybody knows that. But we NEVER have
> that.
> >> If we wait for perfect evidence to manage anything, we will never manage
> >> anything, and we'll lose the resource. That's why it was adopted for
> >> fisheries management (though all too often probably not followed).
> >> Science
> >> is progress, rarely if ever perfection or final proof. Always subject
> to
> >> improvement in the future.
> >> So I will state that I think this graph is now the "best
> available
> >> scientific evidence" on the trends and status of coral reefs around the
> >> world. Anybody can take a shot at showing me wrong. Might be good if
> >> people did.
> >> For one thing, the methods used to get to such graphs are not
> very
> >> transparent to us average nobodys (I'm talking about myself!) who are
> not
> >> experts in statistics and methods for doing this sort of thing. I'll
> >> point
> >> out one major problem I've never seen addressed. And that is that coral
> >> reefs are famously "patchy." Stated differently, they have high spatial
> >> variation over a wide range of scales. If you want to detect change,
> you
> >> need to hold other variables constant, particularly ones that are
> powerful
> >> and could produce large artifacts. Spatial differences are one such
> >> variable for monitoring. If someone takes data on coral cover at one
> >> location one year and a different location at a later time, and claims
> >> that
> >> the corals have gone down or up, does the data support that
> conclusion???
> >> Well, strictly speaking, NO. Except during powerful disturbances, coral
> >> change over time tends to be gradual, growth is gradual and slow.
> Spatial
> >> difference can be huge. One spot has near 100% coral, another is nearly
> >> all sand, and on and on. Now for these big studies, they have to
> combine
> >> data from many different locations, and it is a good assumption that the
> >> different locations have different coral cover at the same time. By
> >> "locations" I mean everything from transect sites to islands or reefs to
> >> archipelagoes. It is common, even typical, for monitoring programs to
> >> start, run for a while, then stop, maybe restart. Combine lots of
> records
> >> from different places, when there are differences between locations, and
> >> there are gaps of missing data from particular sites in some years, and
> >> for
> >> reefs or islands or even archipelagos, all at different times. How do
> >> people doing these things balance those things out to minimize the
> >> artifacts due to spatial location and get only signal from changes in
> >> time??? Ideally, every location would have data for the entire time
> >> period. We KNOW that is NOT true, there is very little early data and
> >> mountains of late data. What if the locations for early and late are
> >> different?? They HAVE to be different. OK, I'm NOT saying that the
> >> analyses have no way to pull the temporal signal out and throw away the
> >> spatial signal. I just don't know how they do it, or even whether they
> do
> >> it at all. Often methods sections are very densely written and someone
> >> who
> >> isn't an expert on the exact thing the paper is about could never
> >> replicate
> >> the paper. All too often.
> >> So OK, I confess to raising a lot more issues than I can address,
> but
> >> maybe someone can do that for us.
> >> The bigger picture, however, is that there is a clear conflict
> >> between what this data shows, and what we have been saying. There is no
> >> conflict between what has been reported before, destruction of coral has
> >> surely occurred everywhere it has been reported. BUT, BUT, no one has
> >> seen
> >> all the world's reefs. Our monitoring sites are not chosen in a random
> >> fashion across archipelagoes, islands, or reefs, even if they are within
> >> reefs. It is too late to change that for data from the past. But at
> >> least
> >> shouldn't we acknowledge it? Our monitored reefs may be
> unrepresentative
> >> of the world's reefs. Maybe. The first report of a huge decline that I
> >> know of was Terry Hughes' report of the decline in Jamaica after
> Hurricane
> >> Allen and the die off of Diadema. As subsequent analyses were done, the
> >> decline in other Caribbean reefs was not so bad. Then analysis of the
> >> Pacific reported less decline than the Caribbean (so Jamaica decline was
> >> real, but not completely representative). The Indian O certainly got
> hit
> >> hard by the 1998 El Nino mass bleaching, but some recovered. Now this
> >> analysis reports an amazingly small amount of coral decline when you
> look
> >> at the world as a whole. That implies that there are a lot of reefs
> that
> >> have not declined.
> >> Shouldn't we be celebrating? I have to admit, that I'm very
> >> suspicious that people are disappointed that it doesn't show the death
> of
> >> the world's coral reefs. But notice, this has nothing to do with the
> >> predictions of the upcoming decimation of coral reefs, nor the many
> >> reports
> >> of many individual reefs having experienced mass mortalities. All those
> >> are real. There are just a lot of reefs that haven't yet had bad
> >> declines.
> >> I think this new graph is the "best available scientific
> evidence"
> >> now, until we get better. I think we need to change our tune, and
> >> celebrate a little (even though this does NOT mean that we humans saved
> >> the
> >> reefs, rather simply that we haven't killed them all YET.) We are
> blessed
> >> with more coral in the world than we thought we had. That's GOOD NEWS!
> >> (no denying it won't last, though!!)
> >>
> >> In summary, I'd like to paraphrase Mark Twain. When a newspaper
> reported
> >> he had died, he said "My death has been greatly exaggerated." Clever
> guy.
> >> Of course later he did pass away.
> >>
> >> So I'll paraphrase him: "The deaths of the world's coral reefs has been
> >> greatly exaggerated." Anybody care to argue otherwise?? (I actually
> >> would
> >> welcome that, I think it needs to be discussed and NOT IGNORED.)
> >>
> >> Personally, I think we need to make our statements, especially to the
> >> press, so that they fit with the actual "best available scientific
> >> evidence" the best we can. If we cry "wolf" too many times and there is
> >> no
> >> wolf, and then when there really is a wolf, nobody may come to help, and
> >> the reefs will be in even worse trouble. No??
> >>
> >> Cheers, Doug
> >>
> >> Eddy, T. D., Cheung, W. L., and Bruno, J. F. 2018. Historical baselines
> of
> >> coral cover on tropical reefs as estimated by expert opinion. PeerJ 6:
> >> e4308
> >>
> >>
> >> The AIMS most recent monitoring report:
> >>
> >> https://www.aims.gov.au/reef-monitoring/gbr-condition-summary-2020-2021
> >> Scroll way down for the graphs for the northern, central, and
> southern
> >> Great Barrier Reef. See the huge declines and the amazing recovery.
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 10:40 AM Lauretta Burke via Coral-List <
> >> coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov> wrote:
> >>
> >> The World Resources Institute
> >> <
> >>
> >>
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.wri.org%2F&data=04%7C01%7CLauretta.Burke%40wri.org%7C8ddf465f154a47ab0dae08d9e299a1d3%7C476bac1f36b24ad98699cda6bad1f862%7C0%7C0%7C637789971762899865%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=y6jbaqL74YGSqFtABvZ8%2BTXHvL4viuHMvOqcUzU15nA%3D&reserved=0
> >>
> >>
> >> and partners have developed a *Global Coral Reef Profile*
> >> <
> >>
> >>
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fresourcewatch.org%2Fdashboards%2Fcoral-reefs&data=04%7C01%7CLauretta.Burke%40wri.org%7C8ddf465f154a47ab0dae08d9e299a1d3%7C476bac1f36b24ad98699cda6bad1f862%7C0%7C0%7C637789971762899865%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=cqV65BjexngQp%2FQfpbPfGUfTqEdzS3rSifOaSidngGo%3D&reserved=0
> >>
> >>
> >> and ten regional dashboards
> >> <
> >>
> >>
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fresourcewatch.org%2Fdashboards%2Fcoral-reef-dashboards&data=04%7C01%7CLauretta.Burke%40wri.org%7C8ddf465f154a47ab0dae08d9e299a1d3%7C476bac1f36b24ad98699cda6bad1f862%7C0%7C0%7C637789971762899865%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=q8M2cAkxUkhTqPK51p4ph6NvLoM1Ur3h3Me%2BAIBlUZA%3D&reserved=0
> >>
> >>
> >> which provide an overview of the world’s coral reefs including
> >> consolidated, map-based information and indicators on the value of coral
> >> reefs, the threats they are facing, the factors which promote coral
> >> resilience, progress on protecting reefs, and what actions are needed to
> >> save them.
> >>
> >> The dashboards integrate information from the Global Coral Reef
> Monitoring
> >> Network, NOAA Coral Reef Watch, Mapping Ocean Wealth, UNEP, Global
> >> Mangrove
> >> Watch, Protect Planet / World Database on Protected Areas, MPAtlas, 50
> >> Reefs, and data on local threats to coral reefs, including water
> quality.
> >> The maps and indicators provide links to all the original data sources
> and
> >> data providers.
> >>
> >> See https://resourcewatch.org/dashboards/coral-reef-dashboards
> >> <
> >>
> >>
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fresourcewatch.org%2Fdashboards%2Fcoral-reef-dashboards&data=04%7C01%7CLauretta.Burke%40wri.org%7C8ddf465f154a47ab0dae08d9e299a1d3%7C476bac1f36b24ad98699cda6bad1f862%7C0%7C0%7C637789971762899865%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=q8M2cAkxUkhTqPK51p4ph6NvLoM1Ur3h3Me%2BAIBlUZA%3D&reserved=0
> >>
> >>
> >> for access to all.
> >>
> >> Please send me any comments.
> >>
> >> Best,
> >>
> >> Lauretta Burke (lauretta at wri.org)
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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