From a University of Exeter press release, another inconvenient truth about our planet sure to be denounced by some who claim that global warming is irreparably damaging reef systems.
A study by the University of Exeter provides the first evidence that coral reefs can recover from the devastating effects of climate change. Published Monday 11 January in the journal PLOS One, the research shows for the first time that coral reefs located in marine reserves can recover from the impacts of global warming.
Scientists and environmentalists have warned that coral reefs may not be able to recover from the damage caused by climate change and that these unique environments could soon be lost forever. Now, this research adds weight to the argument that reducing levels of fishing is a viable way of protecting the world’s most delicate aquatic ecosystems.
Increases in ocean surface water temperatures subject coral reefs to stresses that lead quickly to mass bleaching. The problem is intensified by ocean acidification, which is also caused by increased CO2. This decreases the ability of corals to produce calcium carbonate (chalk), which is the material that reefs are made of.
Approximately 2% of the world’s coral reefs are located within marine reserves, areas of the sea that are protected against potentially-damaging human activity, like dredging and fishing.
The researchers conducted surveys of ten sites inside and outside marine reserves of the Bahamas over 2.5 years. These reefs have been severely damaged by bleaching and then by hurricane Frances in the summer of 2004. At the beginning of the study, the reefs had an average of 7% coral cover. By the end of the project, coral cover in marine protected areas had increased by an average of 19%, while reefs in non-reserve sites showed no recovery.
Professor Peter Mumby of the University of Exeter said: “Coral reefs are the largest living structures on Earth and are home to the highest biodiversity on the planet. As a result of climate change, the environment that has enabled coral reefs to thrive for hundreds of thousands of years is changing too quickly for reefs to adapt.
“In order to protect reefs in the long-term we need radical action to reduce CO2 emissions. However, our research shows that local action to reduce the effects of fishing can contribute meaningfully to the fate of reefs. The reserve allowed the number of parrotfishes to increase and because parrotfish eat seaweeds, the corals could grow freely without being swamped by weeds. As a result, reefs inside the park were showing recovery whereas those with more seaweed were not. This sort of evidence may help persuade governments to reduce the fishing of key herbivores like parrotfishes and help reefs cope with the inevitable threats posed by climate change”.
Professor Mumby’s research was funded by National Environment Research Council (NERC) and the Khaled bin Sultan Living Oceans Foundation.
Reef facts
- A coral reef is made up of thin layers of calcium carbonate (limestone) secreted over thousands of years by billions of tiny soft bodied animals called coral polyps.
- Coral reefs are the world’s most diverse marine ecosystems and are home to twenty-five percent of known marine species, including 4,000 species of fish, 700 species of coral and thousands of other plants and animals.
- Coral reefs have been on the planet for over 400 million years.
- The largest coral reef is the Great Barrier Reef, which stretches along the northeast coast of Australia, from the northern tip of Queensland, to just north of Bundaberg. At 2,300km long, it is the largest natural feature on Earth.
- Coral reefs occupy less than one quarter of one percent of the Earth’s marine environment, yet they are home to more than a quarter of all known fish species.
- As well as supporting huge tourist industries, coral reefs protect shorelines from erosion and storm damage.
To download high quality reef videos by Professor Peter Mumby: www.reefvid.org
The main funding for the research came from Khaled bin Sultan Living Oceans Foundation and the Natural Environment Research Council.
The Khaled bin Sultan Living Oceans Foundation (www.livingoceansfoundation.org) is dedicated to conservation and restoration of living oceans and pledges to champion their preservation through research, education and a commitment to Science Without Borders®.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Another tainted study paid for by fossil fuel funded disinformation companies.
During the last glaciation, the Great Barrier Reef was at least 200 feet above sea level and deader than a doornail. It recovered.
The story about the parrot fish and coral survival is old news.
Coral reefs have been on the planet for over 400 million years.
And now little ol’ mankind is the massive threat that can destroy them? We are so powerful that we can do what 400 million years of everything else couldn’t do?
First it’s the urchins, now it’s the parrot fish, with no mention of the urchins.
Then it’s fishing, with no mention of fish poop that corals eat, and no mention that parrot fish and other herbivores are not a target species.
Then the fact that marine reserves are the choice spots, no one makes a reserve out of a crappy area to begin with.
And no mention of all the studies that too many fish, poop too much, and can kill a coral reef. Without herbivores like urchins to eat it, the poop creates hot spots, cyano and algae take over and kill the reef.
and on and on and on
Just once I would like to see some “scientist” that actually knows what they are talking about, get funding.
Seemed to recover nicely from the mideviel warm period
“Coral reefs have been on the planet for over 400 million years.”
A little longer than that – about 500 million
Of course the climate has always been “normal” up until now.
Of and of course, “but it’s changing faster now”
Nope, it’s changed faster before, just ask a dinosaur
So, let me get this straight:
If we merely prevent fishing in the reefs, we can expect the reefs to recover from the damage of global warming?
This sounds a lot like, if we merely prevent hunting, we can expect the polar bear to recover from the damages imposed by global warming?
So, instead of imposing billions of dollars of taxes on the economies of the world, does it not make better sense to simply ban hunting and fishing in sensitive areas until things settle down?
Oh for sure, there will be the locals that suffer. Do you suppose they would accept payments equivalent to their entire income from hunting and fishing in
lieu of the hunting and fishing? Wouldn’t that be cheaper than shutting down all power plants in, say, North America?
“Coral reefs have been on the planet for over 400 million years.”
Wow, that’s almost as long as Robert Byrd has served in Congress!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_members_of_the_United_States_Congress_by_longevity_of_service
They made it through the Holocene, The Medieval, the LIA, so
sure, that can make it through the Gore effect.
OK finally something I know about and this is pure gibberish and just an anti fishing attempt. Parrotfish are not fished for or harvested, they EAT CORAL for gods sake -not bait. They excrete the coral as sand over the reef and are beneficial. I have seen and fished for 40 yrs in Florida and the Bahamas and not once have I ever seen or heard of anybody hooking a parrotfish. These guys should watch Discovery or National Geo. sometimes.
Woods Hole recently also did a paper on coral and shellfish and increased amounts of CO2 – they loved it and grew bigger shells until about 2800 ppm which I don’t think is an issue – good article but they still try and spin it at the end with effects at 2800 ppm. Not sure where I found it but I’m sure its available over there.
Still cold as hell in Florida – my Natural Variation of Scienctists Index poppped up big today as the first printed mention of “Mini Ice Age” is in Prof Latif’s article, thought it would take longer for big guy other than Antoney
Immagine that… warmer water might not be bad for tropical fish.
“OK finally something I know about and this is pure gibberish and just an anti fishing attempt.”
Of course it is Egg.
If you don’t touch it, fish on it, drive a boat over it, dive on it, look at it, or pee on it,
it will grow back.
Truth is, it will all grow back any way.
“During the last glaciation, the Great Barrier Reef was at least 200 feet above sea level and deader than a doornail. It recovered.”
Yep. Even more tellingly, the Great Pyramids are older than the Great Barrier Reef. Coral both grows at very high rates (6″ per year linearly for the principal reef builders) and propagate sexually sending spores long distances to establish new colonies. They’re largely immune to warming, all it would do is extend their ranges to higher latitudes.
When youare diving one of the most prominent noises under water is the constant scraping noise of parrot fish eating coral. I have never seen or heard of a parrot fish eating seaweed. They may scrape some algae with the polyps that they like. They are, however, netted quite frequently in the far Eastern world.
Bad CO2 bleaching the coral due to ocean acidification. What isn’t said is the fact that the ocean pH has HUGE daily swings due to photosynthesis in daylight and shut down at night that makes the CO2 portion nothing but background noise.
I don’t understand how researchers can ignore the daily pH variation and claim that CO2 is increasing the ocean pH dangerously.
“Alkalinity in the ocean depends substantially on the plankton balance in which the pH results from autotrophs (plants) using hydrogen ions and driving the pH up, while decomposers return hydrogen ions, thus driving the pH down. The daily rhythm can amount to 0.4pH units (250%), and the difference between estuaries and the open sea as much as 1-2 units (1000-10,000%). It is important to keep this in mind, as one can find healthy calcification in shells in these conditions. When seas become eutrophied (overnourished), they also become more acidic due to high levels of decomposing bacteria and their work. Particularly coastal seas show this.”
http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/acid.htm
Hardly the “first evidence” to show this. Same journal about 9 months ago:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0005239
“Doom and Boom on a Resilient Reef: Climate Change, Algal Overgrowth and Coral Recovery”
I would suspect an in depth review of the literature would turn up many more of these “firsts”.
Not sure what fishing apparatus is used by commercial fishing operations in the warm seas and oceans around coral reefs, but dragging gear and use of otter trawls does considerable damage to the banks fishing grounds off the eastern coast of Canada and North America, tearing up the bottoms and corals in their path. This paper does not give enough information as to what exactly is causing the tropical reef damage in fished areas, and there is a complete disconnect between the discussion of dissolved CO2 and marine protected areas or reserves. What a bunch of non-sequiturs: its like a press-release by someone with the attention span of a minnow. Or perhaps that’s how they gauge public understanding?
CO2 is part of an equilibrium which cannot affect itself by the free protons (acidity) that it produces. Just not happening! Further more, warmer water means lower solubility for calcium carbonate and more stable structures. This study is flawed as it ignores the reports from around the world that coral reefs have been growing at higher rate for the last 30 years and they love higher CO2 as it pushes the equilibrium towards calcium carbonate deposition.
Unfortunately this paper leans heavily towards accepting the idea of global warming, which is not happening, and acidification, which to date has not been significant in any way and within normal ranges. Photosynthesis during the day can take pH up to 10 in bays and estuaries and less so in reefs.
Much hogher CO2 is the norm for this planet – the Cliffs of Dover were not built under conditions of low CO2. COral reefs are currently effectively starving for CO2; this also says that acidification is a total non-issue with them.
What is completely ignored in these studies is that these organisms can adapt or be replaced by species more appropriate for the conditions, while the displaced species find places to survive in the mean time.
C Higley, Biochem/Marine Biol
Coral evolved back in a non-glacial epoch, with CO2 and tempratures significantly higher than thay are now.
The notion that regression back to that original environment would be bad for coral has always struck me as bogus.
The basic food supply of corals is sun light and CO2 as they are symbiots, plant and animal colonies. They also feed on plankton, plant and animal. They are not all calcium carbonate structured although reefs are accumulations of cemented coral debris and shells, mostly calcium carbonate. Living reefs are a biomass collection point in the sea and heavy harvest of shell fish, fish and coral as well material dredging can badly effect the total of life supporting biomass in the local area and cause die back of nearby untouched reef. Protected areas recolonize and regenerate quite quickly.
SEA RISE CLAIMS IN COPENHAHEN BOGUS – so says Britain’s Met Office
CLIMATE science faces a major new controversy after Britain’s Met Office denounced research from the Copenhagen summit that suggested global warming could raise sea levels by more than 1.8m by 2100.
The studies, led by Stefan Rahmstorf, professor of ocean physics at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, have caused growing concern among other experts. They say his methods are flawed and that the real increase in sea levels by 2100 is likely to be far lower than he predicts.
Jason Lowe, a leading Met Office climate researcher, said: “We think such a big rise by 2100 is actually incredibly unlikely. The mathematical approach used to calculate the rise is completely unsatisfactory.”
The new controversy dates back to January 2007 when Science magazine published a research paper by Professor Rahmstorf linking the 17cm rise in sea levels from 1881 to 2001 with a 0.6C rise in global temperature over the same period.
Professor Rahmstorf then parted company from colleagues by extrapolating the findings to 2100. Based on the 17cm increase that occurred from 1881 to 2001, Professor Rahmstorf calculated that a predicted 5C increase in global temperature would raise sea levels by up to 188cm.
Critic Simon Holgate, a sea-level expert at the Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory, Merseyside, has written to Science magazine, attacking Professor Rahmstorf’s work as “simplistic”.
“Rahmstorf’s real skill seems to be in publishing extreme papers just before big conferences like Copenhagen, when they are guaranteed attention,” Dr Holgate said.
Most of the 1881-2001 sea-level rise came from melting glaciers that will be gone by 2050, leaving the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets as contributors. But contributions of these sheets to date has been negligible and researchers say there is no evidence to show that will change in the way Professor Rahmstorf suggests.
Professor Rahmstorf said he accepted many of the criticisms. “I hope my critics are right because a rise of the kind my work predicts would be catastrophic,” he said.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/sea-level-theory-cuts-no-ice/story-e6frg6so-1225817853987
(It gets worse and worse)
Long ago in my youth I spent many hours studing and skindiving over the reefs of Luzon and Oahu.
Jack Simmons (17:19:57) :
So, let me get this straight:
If we merely prevent fishing in the reefs, we can expect the reefs to recover from the damage of global warming?
This sounds a lot like, if we merely prevent hunting, we can expect the polar bear to recover from the damages imposed by global warming?
So, instead of imposing billions of dollars of taxes on the economies of the world, does it not make better sense to simply ban hunting and fishing in sensitive areas until things settle down?
The premise is that damage to the reefs is due to global warming. However, if we protect the reefs from the effects of fishing the damage is reversed.
Call me crazy, but why hasn’t someone postulated that the reefs are getting sick due to the effects of fishing?
Mike Ramsey
I know! Isn’t this great news?! It made the headlines everywhere!