Good news about coral reefs – they recovered from warming

Back in 1998, when we had the super El Niño, some of the warm water pooled east and west of Australia (seen in the 1998 image below) and damaged coral reefs there, setting off a cottage industry for noisy alarmy/worry types like Ove Hoegh-Guldberg that have turned the “save the coral reefs” issue into a career.

1998_super_el_nino
1998 Super El ñino – Image: NOAA/NESDIS – click to enlarge

Now it seems that mother nature has simply ignored his concerns and does what she does best – adapt and fill the void, and saved the reefs on her own. This must be devastating news for him.

From the Australian Institute of Marine Science:

Remote reefs can be tougher than they look

WA’s Scott Reef has recovered from mass bleaching in 1998

Isolated coral reefs can recover from catastrophic damage as effectively as those with nearby undisturbed neighbours, a long-term study by marine biologists from the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) and the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies (CoECRS) has shown.

Scott Reef, a remote coral system in the Indian Ocean, has largely recovered from a catastrophic mass bleaching event in 1998, according to the study published in Science today. 

The study challenges conventional wisdom that suggested isolated reefs were more vulnerable to disturbance, because they were thought to depend on recolonisation from other reefs. Instead, the scientists found that the isolation of reefs allowed surviving corals to rapidly grow and propagate in the absence of human interference.

Australia’s largest oceanic reef system, Scott Reef, is relatively isolated, sitting out in the Indian Ocean some 250 km from the remote coastline of north Western Australia (WA). Prospects for the reef looked gloomy when in 1998 it suffered catastrophic mass bleaching, losing around 80% of its coral cover. The study shows that it took just 12 years to recover.

Spanning 15 years, data collected and analysed by the researchers shows how after the 1998 mass bleaching the few remaining corals provided low numbers of recruits (new corals) for Scott Reef. On that basis recovery was projected to take decades, yet within 12 years the cover and diversity of corals had recovered to levels similar to those seen pre-bleaching.

“The initial projections for Scott Reef were not optimistic,” says Dr James Gilmour from AIMS, the lead author on the publication, “because, unlike reefs on the Great Barrier Reef, there were few if any reefs nearby capable of supplying new recruits to replenish the lost corals at Scott Reef.

“However, the few small corals that did settle at Scott Reef had excellent rates of survival and growth, whereas on many nearshore reefs high levels of algae and sediment, and poor water quality will often suppress this recovery.

“We know from other studies that the resilience of reefs can be improved by addressing human pressures such as water quality and overfishing,” says Dr Gilmour. “So it is likely that a key factor in the rapid recovery at Scott Reef was the high water clarity and quality in this remote and offshore location.”

Dr Andrew Heyward, Principal Research Scientist at AIMS, highlights another conclusion from their findings.

“Previously we’ve tended to factor proximity to other reefs as a key attribute when estimating the resilience of a reef following a major disturbance, but our data suggests that given the right conditions, reefs might do much of the recovery by themselves.”  This finding could have implications for the management of marine protected areas.

In their publication the team also draws attention to the important role played by climate change in the longer-term prospects for coral reefs, as Prof Morgan Pratchett of CoECRS explains.

“While it is encouraging to see such clear recovery, we need to be mindful of the fact that the coral recovery at Scott Reef still took over a decade. If, as the climate change trend suggests, we start to see coral bleaching and other related disturbances occurring more frequently, then reefs may experience a ratcheting down effect, never fully recovering before they suffer another major disturbance.

“By preventing illegal fishing and enhancing water quality on coral reefs in all regions we will give these reefs a greater capacity to recover from major disturbances.”

The highly detailed, long-term data set makes Scott Reef the best studied reef in Australia’s Indian Ocean territory. The study provides valuable new perspectives on ecosystem function and resilience of coral reefs situated in the northwest Australia, and in other contexts such as the Great Barrier Reef, and illustrates the importance of AIMS’ research collaborations with its industry partners.

The paper “Recovery of an isolated coral reef system following severe disturbance“, by J. P. Gilmour, L. D. Smith, A. J. Heyward, A. H. Baird and M. S. Pratchett will be published online at 5 am by the journal Science on Friday, 5th April, 2013.

==============================================================

h/t to Mark Duchamp. Note that even though the authors say this is good news, they can’t help but throw in standard “climate change” caveats as a nod to the warming gods.

Recovery of an Isolated Coral Reef System Following Severe Disturbance

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/340/6128/69.abstract

James P. Gilmour1,*, Luke D. Smith1,,Andrew J. Heyward1,Andrew H. Baird2,Morgan S. Pratchett2

Abstract

Coral reef recovery from major disturbance is hypothesized to depend on the arrival of propagules from nearby undisturbed reefs. Therefore, reefs isolated by distance or current patterns are thought to be highly vulnerable to catastrophic disturbance. We found that on an isolated reef system in north Western Australia, coral cover increased from 9% to 44% within 12 years of a coral bleaching event, despite a 94% reduction in larval supply for 6 years after the bleaching. The initial increase in coral cover was the result of high rates of growth and survival of remnant colonies, followed by a rapid increase in juvenile recruitment as colonies matured. We show that isolated reefs can recover from major disturbance, and that the benefits of their isolation from chronic anthropogenic pressures can outweigh the costs of limited connectivity.

Editor’s Summary:

Reef Repair

Coral reefs suffer mass mortality because of coral bleaching, disease, and tropical storms, but we know much more about when, where, and how rapidly these ecosystems have collapsed than we do about their recovery. Gilmour et al. (p. 69; see the Perspective by Polidoro and Carpenter) studied a highly isolated coral reef before and after a climate-induced mass mortality event that killed 70 to 90% of the reef corals. The initial recovery of coral cover involved growth and survival of remnant colonies, which was followed by increases in larval recruitment. Thus, in the absence of chronic disturbance, even isolated reefs can recover from catastrophic disturbance.

Related articles:

The reef that regenerated: Researchers find corals in Northern Australia healed themselves in just 12 years

Australian reef recovers from bleaching

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/australian-reef-recovers-from-bleaching/story-e6frf7kf-1226612928361

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

41 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Rhoda R
April 7, 2013 10:48 am

Bow in passing to global warming is noted but over fishing and clear, unpolluted water seem to be the key. Why are they wringing their hands that it too 12 years for the reef to recover – they should be thrilled that it did.

Robert of Ottawa
April 7, 2013 10:52 am

Good news for SCUBA divers everywhere 🙂

Marcos
April 7, 2013 11:03 am

its funny how Warmists never mention the coral bleaching off the coast of Florida due to extreme cold a few years ago…

Latitude
April 7, 2013 11:05 am

Coral reefs suffer mass mortality because of coral bleaching…
======
Bleaching does not kill corals…………
It’s just the way they change zoox……..

ferd berple
April 7, 2013 11:24 am

It has long been know to people that live on coral reefs that bleaching is an entirely normal process and that the reef quickly recovers. What has changed is that an entire industry has grown up around painting natural processes as signs of impending doom and disaster.
News Flash
In a desperate attempt to escape rapidly warming oceans and the toxic effects of ocean acidification, last year millions of Pacific Salmon left the oceans and swam up coastal rivers only to die in a vain attempt to escape the consequences of Mann Made Global Harming. Photos at 11.

Auto
April 7, 2013 11:40 am

So, Mother Nature can, indeed, help eco-systems to recover – here in fairly short order. Over-hunting, especially of K-strategy creatures, can take longer to recover from; see (possibly) passenger pigeon, and certainly the great whales, moa, and American buffalo.
But climate change – seen that, survived that.

ferdberple
April 7, 2013 12:01 pm

Rhoda R says:
April 7, 2013 at 10:48 am
Bow in passing to global warming is noted but over fishing and clear, unpolluted water seem to be the key.
=============
Reefs experience bleaching due to both warming and cooling, as the different polyp species are better adapted to different temperature ranges. It is a natural process. As one species dies off, another quickly colonizes the now available space. Rabbits have nothing on polyps.
Hard corals are typically found in warm water, soft corals in cold. While there are plenty of places in the oceans that are too cold to support coral reefs, there are few if any locations that are too warm. Thus, the alarm over global warming and coral bleaching is largely due to ignorance.
The health of the corals depends on the fish that harvest the algae that eat the corals. Remove the fish and algae kills the reef. You will typically find large populations of urchins on an algae infested reef – a sign that the reef is not healthy.
Sediment from logging and development kills reefs. Somewhat surprisingly, fresh water also kills reefs. Coral atolls often have a pass on the leeward side as a result, making them a convenient refuge for small boats on a large ocean.

Jimbo
April 7, 2013 12:02 pm

The cold kills corals too

Abstract
2004
Low temperatures cause coral bleaching
…………Heron Island (southern end of the Great Barrier Reef; Figs. 1, 2). Air temperatures dropped as low as 12C, with wet bulb temperatures decreasing even further during low tide. These unusually low temperatures in late July preceded widespread bleaching in August 5, 2003 of upper branches exposed in the intertidal areas of Heron Island. Inspection of nearby Wistari Reef and One Tree Island intertidal regions revealed similar pattern of bleaching of exposed coral colonies. This is the first report demonstrating that cold conditions can have an almost identical outcome to warm water bleaching in coral reefs.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00338-004-0401-2

It’s worse than we thought!

Abstract
2009
Doom and Boom on a Resilient Reef: Climate Change, Algal Overgrowth and Coral Recovery
Methodology/Principal Findings
In 2006, mass bleaching of corals on inshore reefs of the Great Barrier Reef caused high coral mortality. Here we show that this coral mortality was followed by an unprecedented bloom of a single species of unpalatable seaweed (Lobophora variegata), colonizing dead coral skeletons, but that corals on these reefs recovered dramatically, in less than a year. Unexpectedly, this rapid reversal did not involve reestablishment of corals by recruitment of coral larvae, as often assumed, but depended on several ecological mechanisms previously underestimated.
Conclusions/Significance
These mechanisms of ecological recovery included rapid regeneration rates of remnant coral tissue, very high competitive ability of the corals allowing them to out-compete the seaweed,….
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0005239
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0005239

Jimbo
April 7, 2013 12:09 pm

Below is an example of massive anthropogenic disturbance to delicate corals.

Abstract
Bikini Atoll coral biodiversity resilience five decades after nuclear testing
Five decades after a series of nuclear tests began, we provide evidence that 70% of the Bikini Atoll zooxanthellate coral assemblage is resilient to large-scale anthropogenic disturbance. Species composition in 2002 was assessed and compared to that seen prior to nuclear testing. A total of 183 scleractinian coral species was recorded, compared to 126 species recorded in the previous study (excluding synonomies, 148 including synonomies). We found that 42 coral species may be locally extinct at Bikini. Fourteen of these losses may be pseudo-losses due to inconsistent taxonomy between the two studies or insufficient sampling in the second study, however 28 species appear to represent genuine losses……….
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2007.11.018

I think corals will be here long after we are gone.

Mike Bromley the Canucklehead in Switzerland
April 7, 2013 12:28 pm

12 years. Out of Geological Time…..

Jimbo
April 7, 2013 12:31 pm

Aside from the heat and cold here are other causes of coral bleaching.
Solar radiation (including ultraviolet radiation) (pdf)
Herbicides
Cyanide fishing
Other causes…….

April 7, 2013 12:43 pm

In other news, coral will grow in areas that are suitable for coral growth (as evidenced by previous growths of coral).

April 7, 2013 12:45 pm

That nod to the warming gods came like a sigh at the end, as though reluctantly given. Probably a have-to from above (“Yes, yes, we put that in,”) or a case of watching their backs (“Of course, yes, we’re paying attention to all possibilities – and funding”).
That the urgency and/or enthusiasm has gone out of that nod might itself be a good sign. We’ll have to see more examples of it elsewhere, of course.
Great news for the coral – nature is grand – but personally, I’m quite interested in the aspect of that nod. Worth watching, in my humble opinion. Thanks, Anthony.

H.R.
April 7, 2013 1:16 pm

I wonder if periodic coral bleaching keeps coral reefs healthy over the long, long, long haul. I’m just throwing it out there, but perhaps coral reefs become… stagnant… inbred, so to speak and a change of occupants keeps all species viable over the eons. Any local environment will change as climate changes, and climate always changes, so a forced shift from where a coral species has successfully limited out is an opportunity for a fresh start in new, favorable digs. I’m thinking musical chairs for corals.
No surprise in any ecosystem that new tenants are quick to settle where old tenants have been forced to vacate. When a niche is voided, something always moves in to fill the void.
Eh… just some idle thoughts on a sunny, Sunday afternoon.

April 7, 2013 1:23 pm

Dr.Barry Ereeff,the great marine biologist says,
save a coral reef,eat more algae. (;
Alfred

Jeff
April 7, 2013 1:23 pm

Latitude says:
April 7, 2013 at 11:05 am
Coral reefs suffer mass mortality because of coral bleaching…
======
Bleaching does not kill corals…………
It’s just the way they change zoox……..
…..
Worst of all are the dreaded gym zoox
..they need the most bleach of all…

April 7, 2013 1:25 pm

Well, I’m only a geologist/engineer but this is not news to me. The world’s corals survived ice ages, 120 metre (400ft) undulations in sea level (drilling in the Bikini Atoll revealed coral limestone 120m thick -it kept pace – the SAME REEF COLONY for millions of years), hot sun, cool sun, high CO2, low CO2 (think of the ocean “acidification” caused by 4000ppm CO2), killer asteroid collisions, – apparently they may even have survived “snowball -earth”. I hope we are as tough as these suckers. Can biologists please write this down for future reference. It is long past time for biologists to either already know all this stuff, at least as well as every geologist knows it, or to get other employment.

Jeff
April 7, 2013 1:27 pm

KInd of hard to reconcile
“Australia’s largest oceanic reef system, Scott Reef, is relatively isolated, sitting out in the Indian Ocean some 250 km from the remote coastline of north Western Australia (WA).”
and
“By preventing illegal fishing and enhancing water quality on coral reefs in all regions we will give these reefs a greater capacity to recover from major disturbances.”
…..
forgive my ignorance on this, but would there be much fishing going on 250km away from the
nearest land???

April 7, 2013 1:45 pm

As usual, “Nature will find a way.”

Peter Miller
April 7, 2013 1:51 pm

The first clues the alarmists might have considered was that corals have been around for hundreds of millions of years and new corals constantly grow on old dead ones.
But I guess the models say something different.
So what do we now know?
1. The corals are in great shape.
2. The polar bears are in great shape.
3. The rate of change of ocean levels remains the same as it has for the past century
4. The Arctic ice cap is melting a little, but the Antarctic one is growing a little.
5. The number of big storms has stayed pretty constant over the last century.
6. The glaciers started melting around 1850, so not much has changed there over the past 150 years.
7. The little increase in temperature over the past century – circa 0.7 degrees C – is well within limits of natural climate change.
8. The global temperature has remained constant for the last 16-18 years.
No question about it, the Global Warming Industry was right all along, we have got to do something about it and do it now.
My suggestion for what we should do: i) make the production of climate models forecasting CAGW a serious felony, and ii) fire all the climate scientists and the huge, pointless, expensive, bureaucracies they have spawned. As for the politicians who supported this CAGW nonsense, vote them back into the obscurity they deserve.

Alpha Tango
April 7, 2013 2:04 pm

This is good, though unsurprising news.
I just checked Ove’s site – there’s no mention of this there – by the look of it I think I just increased his traffic by 97%

April 7, 2013 2:06 pm

O/T Is anyone connecting Jo Nova’s site?

Jeff
April 7, 2013 2:18 pm

When I see studies like this, I think it’s just a bunch of reef-er madness….
“Mother Nature” has done pretty well over the past millenia, so I think we’d
do well to back off a bit and let “her” have at it… (remember the commercial,
“It’s not nice to fool mother nature” [margarine???])…

Jeff
April 7, 2013 2:27 pm

“Peter Miller says:
April 7, 2013 at 1:51 pm
The first clues the alarmists might have considered was that corals have been around for hundreds of millions of years and new corals constantly grow on old dead ones.
But I guess the models say something different.
So what do we now know?
1. The corals are in great shape.
2. The polar bears are in great shape.”
…. (and following) …
agreed…
The only time I think we (or perhaps the polar bears) should be worried
is if the polar bears are on the corals…

April 7, 2013 2:36 pm

Anthony Watts says:
April 7, 2013 at 2:13 pm
A.D> Jo Nova is down for maintenance a few hours
*
Thanks, Anthony! 🙂