The Fight to Save Coral (2017)(scienceline.org)
scienceline.org
The Fight to Save Coral (2017)
https://scienceline.org/2017/03/fight-save-coral/
58 comments
Live and work on the GBR, for a reef non-profit. Should be noted the mass bleachings were 16/17 and unprecendented in scale and frequency. We fortunately havent had any events of this magnitude since. Huge amount of work being done, but should be noted the only real solution involves tackling climate change. There are a whole bunch of interesting coral restoration projects happening on the GBR right now with some new ones (with unique methodologies) kicking off soon. We work with a bunch of them here @citizensGBR, including the 'larval restoration project' which is a collaboration between a number of universities and other conservation-focussed orgs. Interactive project-explainer: https://citizensgbr.org/p/larval-restoration-project/
Forum had a segment, "Bay Area Scientists Work to Grow Coral, Restore Imperiled Reefs", today.
https://www.kqed.org/forum/2010101870644/bay-area-scientists...
https://www.kqed.org/forum/2010101870644/bay-area-scientists...
How is this an accident?
The technique called “microfragmenting” works by essentially cutting living corals into 1-5 smaller polyps using a specialized saw.
The technique called “microfragmenting” works by essentially cutting living corals into 1-5 smaller polyps using a specialized saw.
This is something the reef tank community has been using for years, in fact there are whole businesses built around the practice of fragging and selling corals... to the point that there is already equipment made for this purpose.
From "frag tanks" built wide, long, and shallow to allow light to have an easier time reaching the corals, to "frag plugs" made from ceramics that allow people to glue coral frags to to slot into existing rock, egg crate, etc.
I think maybe the accidental discovery was that the researcher found that this very common procedure to cultivating aquarium corals ended up also promoting the growth speed too.
From "frag tanks" built wide, long, and shallow to allow light to have an easier time reaching the corals, to "frag plugs" made from ceramics that allow people to glue coral frags to to slot into existing rock, egg crate, etc.
I think maybe the accidental discovery was that the researcher found that this very common procedure to cultivating aquarium corals ended up also promoting the growth speed too.
Well dime size is generally smaller than most hobbyists frag. Obviously fragging coral is done rather often in the reef tank hobby, but usually for the purpose of trimming growth, aquaculture, and sharing colonies.
Plus, Ive been in the hobby for 8 years, and I’ve never heard of purposely placing frags from the same colony next to to each other so they fuse.
I’m unaware of anyone studying the impact of fragging specifically on growth rate in this way.
Edit: I’ve found some discussion of at least one reef hobbyist experimenting with the method based on this research. So yes this was somewhat novel.
https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/my-microfragging-sps-exper...
Plus, Ive been in the hobby for 8 years, and I’ve never heard of purposely placing frags from the same colony next to to each other so they fuse.
I’m unaware of anyone studying the impact of fragging specifically on growth rate in this way.
Edit: I’ve found some discussion of at least one reef hobbyist experimenting with the method based on this research. So yes this was somewhat novel.
https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/my-microfragging-sps-exper...
Ok, we've replaced that bit with the name of the technique above. Also, if someone can find a better article about this, we can change the URL. The current article is short on information and looks lifted from other sources.
It's from 2017, but this article is more informative and discusses the accident that led to the discovery:
https://scienceline.org/2017/03/fight-save-coral/
This article mentions that he accidentally discovered this in 2009... here's an article from 2006 mentioning fragging https://www.advancedaquarist.com/2006/3/aafeature3 that also mentions that folks were doing it in the 90's
I think the thing that isn't being covered in these articles is that it's the fusion of these fragments that are what is resulting in the explosive growth. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4614846/
It sounds like you can fragment a larger coral, put them close together, and as they grow they'll actually fuse together, instead of competing, and becoming sexually mature much sooner.
Typically speaking, and based off a very small amount of experience of my own keeping a nano coral tank years ago, coral of the same type (zoanthids of different colors in my case) would run into each other, compete for the same space, and sometimes kill or drive back the other.
I think the thing that isn't being covered in these articles is that it's the fusion of these fragments that are what is resulting in the explosive growth. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4614846/
It sounds like you can fragment a larger coral, put them close together, and as they grow they'll actually fuse together, instead of competing, and becoming sexually mature much sooner.
Typically speaking, and based off a very small amount of experience of my own keeping a nano coral tank years ago, coral of the same type (zoanthids of different colors in my case) would run into each other, compete for the same space, and sometimes kill or drive back the other.
Ok, we've changed to that from http://www.theoutliar.com/2019/01/19/marine-scientists-accid.... Thanks!
The accident is explained in the video: https://youtu.be/qHKpcnn5Tws?t=202 (starting 3:23)
Oceans are in fact largely great blue deserts. Occupying less than one percent of the ocean floor, coral reefs are home to more than twenty-five percent of marine life. And 90% of all ocean life is found in coastal waters.
To me this means that we should invest a focused effort in planting coral reefs in protected areas (and protecting additional areas for the same.) This would have the effect of creating more marine sanctuaries safe from human fishing pressure, which will seed surrounding fishery areas and become a win-win. New Zealand has done this to great effect (creating protected areas, not planting reefs.)
I think however the typically human reaction is see a coral reef that's dying and try to use re-planting to bring it back to life. Unless that's coupled with re-planting higher-temperature corals, that's neither going to work or be sustainable as the Oceans continue to warm for hundreds of years to come. I would rather see more resistant corals being planted, or coral reefs being planted in colder waters.
Lastly, while it is a great tragedy that the coral reefs are dying, it should be noted that the Earth has been here before and come back from it at the end of the last ice age when sea levels rapidly rose 400 feet and drowned all of Earth's reefs at the time. That doesn't make things any less tragic, or absolve us of the blame, but perhaps helps frame things by remembering that Earth is not a steady-state system but a rather a system of constant flux and adaptation.
I hope that in the same way humans have been having massive negative effects on nature and the climate, we can also pool together and create some equally impressive positive effects on the natural world.
To me this means that we should invest a focused effort in planting coral reefs in protected areas (and protecting additional areas for the same.) This would have the effect of creating more marine sanctuaries safe from human fishing pressure, which will seed surrounding fishery areas and become a win-win. New Zealand has done this to great effect (creating protected areas, not planting reefs.)
I think however the typically human reaction is see a coral reef that's dying and try to use re-planting to bring it back to life. Unless that's coupled with re-planting higher-temperature corals, that's neither going to work or be sustainable as the Oceans continue to warm for hundreds of years to come. I would rather see more resistant corals being planted, or coral reefs being planted in colder waters.
Lastly, while it is a great tragedy that the coral reefs are dying, it should be noted that the Earth has been here before and come back from it at the end of the last ice age when sea levels rapidly rose 400 feet and drowned all of Earth's reefs at the time. That doesn't make things any less tragic, or absolve us of the blame, but perhaps helps frame things by remembering that Earth is not a steady-state system but a rather a system of constant flux and adaptation.
I hope that in the same way humans have been having massive negative effects on nature and the climate, we can also pool together and create some equally impressive positive effects on the natural world.
> it should be noted that the Earth has been here before and come back from it
There weren't 7 billion humans back then. My big concern is that we're well above the pre-green-revolution carrying capacity of Earth and it wouldn't take all that much to put us in a position where we can't feed 3 billion people. It's possible that a greenhouse earth will give us more arable land to work with, and we'll be just fine. It's likely that things will become ugly during the transition, as formerly arable land becomes desert, the oceans stop providing food, and mass migration causes global unrest. A lot of people are going to starve.
There weren't 7 billion humans back then. My big concern is that we're well above the pre-green-revolution carrying capacity of Earth and it wouldn't take all that much to put us in a position where we can't feed 3 billion people. It's possible that a greenhouse earth will give us more arable land to work with, and we'll be just fine. It's likely that things will become ugly during the transition, as formerly arable land becomes desert, the oceans stop providing food, and mass migration causes global unrest. A lot of people are going to starve.
Well, the Earth doesn't care about humans, per se.
So the Earth will still come back from it. And even the human species will likely come back from it. But technological society? That's a lot more iffy.
So the Earth will still come back from it. And even the human species will likely come back from it. But technological society? That's a lot more iffy.
But a lot of people starving will probably help the coral reefs recover since there will be fewer people using energy and polluting.
I don't think many people are seriously thinking that starving is the next problem. These days it seems like war comes before people start starving to death.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/science/earth/study-links...
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/science/earth/study-links...
No-one studying coral reefs now thinks they have much chance of surviving beyond mid-century given already baked-in ocean heating.
For those that want to dive deeper it looks like this meta-analysis might be a good starting point for the human carrying capacity of the earth.
https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/54/3/195/223056
> When taking all studies into account, the best point estimate is 7.7 billion people; the lower and upper bounds, given current technology, are 0.65 billion and 98 billion people, respectively.
https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/54/3/195/223056
> When taking all studies into account, the best point estimate is 7.7 billion people; the lower and upper bounds, given current technology, are 0.65 billion and 98 billion people, respectively.
> the lower and upper bounds, given current technology, are 0.65 billion and 98 billion people, respectively.
The answer is "anywhere from a tenth of the people currently alive to 13.5 times as many as are currently alive." Absolutely useless. A range covering more than two orders of magnitude. May as well say, "We don't know."
The answer is "anywhere from a tenth of the people currently alive to 13.5 times as many as are currently alive." Absolutely useless. A range covering more than two orders of magnitude. May as well say, "We don't know."
> Absolutely useless
Not at all. To say "we don't know" might mean that we don't know the order of magnitude. Order of magnitude estimates to the first or second decimal place are oftentimes more than enough to hone in on a solution. In this case the two orders of magnitude set a clear bound (assuming the capacity estimate are accurate) for the near future at the high end and provide a warning sign for the present.
Not at all. To say "we don't know" might mean that we don't know the order of magnitude. Order of magnitude estimates to the first or second decimal place are oftentimes more than enough to hone in on a solution. In this case the two orders of magnitude set a clear bound (assuming the capacity estimate are accurate) for the near future at the high end and provide a warning sign for the present.
This is a meta-analysis. They reference many different papers. Many of them come to different conclusions. If you want more certainty you can get it by starting to read the papers the reference and deciding which ones you think are reasonable.
Seems like this calculation completely disregards the emotional effects of that many people in such close proximity.
Well if we have 98 billion people on earth - lets see how dense we get. This [site](http://www.zo.utexas.edu/courses/thoc/land.html) argues there's about 24,642,757 square miles of habitable land on Earth - this is discounting deserts and mountains, and of course oceans.
That puts about 6 people per acre in all the habitable spots on the globe.
To put that into perspective, Manhattan has about [27,000](https://www1.nyc.gov/site/planning/data-maps/nyc-population/...) residents per square mile - or 42 people per acre. There are other, denser cities out there as well. People-dense parts like this make other parts more people-sparse.
I'm sure by the time (if) we have 98B people - Manhattan will be much more people-dense, and many more cities will be similarly dense. So it may be that 50B people live in massive, dense cities, leaving the other 50B to be in more suburban-yet-still-dense zones.
However, this is the 'idea' case of all habitable land being used for habitation. There is also the need for farms and industrial land, and all manner of other places for human activity, and the vast things needed to support it. Ideas like vertical farming solve for some of these, but are not perfect.
That puts about 6 people per acre in all the habitable spots on the globe.
To put that into perspective, Manhattan has about [27,000](https://www1.nyc.gov/site/planning/data-maps/nyc-population/...) residents per square mile - or 42 people per acre. There are other, denser cities out there as well. People-dense parts like this make other parts more people-sparse.
I'm sure by the time (if) we have 98B people - Manhattan will be much more people-dense, and many more cities will be similarly dense. So it may be that 50B people live in massive, dense cities, leaving the other 50B to be in more suburban-yet-still-dense zones.
However, this is the 'idea' case of all habitable land being used for habitation. There is also the need for farms and industrial land, and all manner of other places for human activity, and the vast things needed to support it. Ideas like vertical farming solve for some of these, but are not perfect.
98B might be possible if we did everything perfectly efficiently and optimized every single part of the planet leaving absolutely nothing allocated for the bare essentials to keep people living. The reality is we would never get anywhere close to that level of efficiency and would destroy the planet much sooner.
At Dutch population density (1,312 people per square mile[1]) that would be 32 trillion people so even 100 billion people should leave plenty of space.
[1]http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/netherlands-po...
[1]http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/netherlands-po...
Would AR/VR help with this at all? I was thinking that with the earlier article about Japan's micro apartments, if having the walls covered with 3D screens (or even mirrors) would give a bigger sense of space and help with mental well being.
I can say from experience that VR absolutely helps dispel cabin fever. I once lived in a fairly small apartment in a dense city. Turning on a big box fan in my VR area and then going out to wide open spaces like the mountains in Skyrim VR made me feel better almost instantly.
Seems likely, if you decided to dive into the various papers they are pulling from I'd be really interested to hear about which ones consider sociological problems like emotional effects of over crowding!
It's pretty easy to turn energy into food, in large quantities in small areas, even in incredibly hostile environments. (AKA greenhouses). We don't do so only because food and arable land is so incredibly cheap that it's not worth it.
Farming is only 0.07% of the US economy. A small increase in food prices would vastly increase supply. Africa would probably be screwed, but that would have nothing to do with our ability to feed them and be solely due to economics not making it profitable.
Farming is only 0.07% of the US economy. A small increase in food prices would vastly increase supply. Africa would probably be screwed, but that would have nothing to do with our ability to feed them and be solely due to economics not making it profitable.
Is farming 0.07% of the US economy or of the US workforce? Those are totally different things. Its certainly not 0.07% of US arable land
There were bread and rice riots around the globe just 10 years ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007%E2%80%9308_world_food_pri...
There were bread and rice riots around the globe just 10 years ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007%E2%80%9308_world_food_pri...
> Is farming 0.07% of the US economy or of the US workforce?
0.07% of GDP. It's a higher percentage of workforce, but still under 1% directly employed. Land area is irrelevant to my argument -- greenhouses can feed a lot of people in a small area.
> There were bread and rice riots around the globe just 10 years ago.
All that says is that Capitalism does a really bad job of supplying stuff to people without any money.
0.07% of GDP. It's a higher percentage of workforce, but still under 1% directly employed. Land area is irrelevant to my argument -- greenhouses can feed a lot of people in a small area.
> There were bread and rice riots around the globe just 10 years ago.
All that says is that Capitalism does a really bad job of supplying stuff to people without any money.
[deleted]
And heading to 10 billion. On the back of unsustainable use of soil, water, fish, natural resources in general, antibiotics, antifungals, etc. That worries me too.
while it is a great tragedy that the coral reefs are dying, it should be noted that the Earth has been here before and come back from it
Nobody's worried the reefs will never come back. They are worried they won't be back anytime soon and we'll have to make do for the next hundred thousand years.
Nobody's worried the reefs will never come back. They are worried they won't be back anytime soon and we'll have to make do for the next hundred thousand years.
You're off by about two orders of magnitude there, judging from recent history.
But even then, that's a long time from a human perspective, I think we could re-plant reefs the same way we replant forests on timescales of a couple generations or less.
Edit: obviously it would be better if we didn't have to do that, but that ship has sailed.
But even then, that's a long time from a human perspective, I think we could re-plant reefs the same way we replant forests on timescales of a couple generations or less.
Edit: obviously it would be better if we didn't have to do that, but that ship has sailed.
To me this means that we should invest a focused effort in planting coral reefs in protected areas (and protecting additional areas for the same.)
I'm not a marine biologist, but from my understanding the big threat to coral reefs is ocean acidification. If this trend continues, we won't be able to do anything to save the reefs. There's no use in re-planting corals if the entire ocean is too acidic for them to survive in, coastal or otherwise.
I'm not a marine biologist, but from my understanding the big threat to coral reefs is ocean acidification. If this trend continues, we won't be able to do anything to save the reefs. There's no use in re-planting corals if the entire ocean is too acidic for them to survive in, coastal or otherwise.
It’s also temperature. Reefs bleach at a certain temperature. They can recover from this, but very slowly and not if they bleach again the next year and the year after that.
Apparently this is what happened the last two years. Also, apparently it’s never happened two years in a row before.
Source: Was at the Great Barrier Reef a month ago. The marine biologist on board was very informative.
Apparently this is what happened the last two years. Also, apparently it’s never happened two years in a row before.
Source: Was at the Great Barrier Reef a month ago. The marine biologist on board was very informative.
>Earth is not a steady-state system but a rather a system of constant flux and adaptation.
I just want to point out that the main mechanism of adaptation is that the creatures less suited to survival die out.
I just want to point out that the main mechanism of adaptation is that the creatures less suited to survival die out.
> Earth has been here before
The Earth may be effectively eternal (from a human standpoint), but human species is not. More likely, humans will be around, but modern human society would likely suffer an extinction event at some point with our trajectory.
I like your idea of higher-temp corals. Are you aware of efforts to repopulate corals based on varieties that are temperature resistant?
The Earth may be effectively eternal (from a human standpoint), but human species is not. More likely, humans will be around, but modern human society would likely suffer an extinction event at some point with our trajectory.
I like your idea of higher-temp corals. Are you aware of efforts to repopulate corals based on varieties that are temperature resistant?
Humans are not likely to go extinct anytime soon - anything that can wipe out the most adaptable and one of the most numerous and widely distributed species - would leave the Earth uninhabitable to pretty much all higher life forms.
That doesn't mean we can't trash the place or experience massive drops in population.
There does appear to be hope on the higher temperature corals, but I don't know of any plan to actually plant reefs like that. Australia, which benefits economically from tourism to the great barrier reef should take a serious look at it: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/the-coral-triangle/2...
That doesn't mean we can't trash the place or experience massive drops in population.
There does appear to be hope on the higher temperature corals, but I don't know of any plan to actually plant reefs like that. Australia, which benefits economically from tourism to the great barrier reef should take a serious look at it: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/the-coral-triangle/2...
> would leave the Earth uninhabitable to pretty much all higher life forms.
Why are you ruling that scenario out?
Why are you ruling that scenario out?
I don't see us doing that to ourselves. Climate change won't accomplish that, nuclear war won't accomplish that, biological warfare gone wrong wouldn't likely accomplish that.
I just don't see it happening. That doesn't mean it's impossible.
I just don't see it happening. That doesn't mean it's impossible.
Anything above around 7 degrees of warming puts the human species itself at risk. Above 3 degrees civilization falls apart. Both of these are within range of possibility in the lifespan of children born today. All it would take is a few more Trump-style presidencies.
I think the OPs point is even then there would still be enough humans around to keep the species going. They probably wouldn't have todays technological benefits, but a few thousand humans could probably survive.
> Anything above around 7 degrees of warming puts the human species itself at risk. Above 3 degrees civilization falls apart.
Could you elaborate/provide links on this? How/why would these happen?
Could you elaborate/provide links on this? How/why would these happen?
> All it would take is a few more Trump-style presidencies.
I agree with the first statement, but so far, Trump presidency was not exactly a bad thing for the climate.
Economic war with China and renationalisation have positive impacts on CO2 emissions.
Iran sanctions increased oil prices.
Coal subsidies haven't succeeded in reviving the coal industry.
Poor, uneducated families still die from drug overdoses and immigration has decreased, reducing the US population growth.
I know that not all of these things are glorious, but I just wanted to point out that the bigger picture is more complicated than that.
I agree with the first statement, but so far, Trump presidency was not exactly a bad thing for the climate.
Economic war with China and renationalisation have positive impacts on CO2 emissions.
Iran sanctions increased oil prices.
Coal subsidies haven't succeeded in reviving the coal industry.
Poor, uneducated families still die from drug overdoses and immigration has decreased, reducing the US population growth.
I know that not all of these things are glorious, but I just wanted to point out that the bigger picture is more complicated than that.
[deleted]
"...it should be noted that the Earth has been here before and come back from it at the end of the last ice age when sea levels rapidly rose 400 feet and drowned all of Earth's reefs at the time."
No one is seriously arguing that the earth is going to be literally destroyed, despite what anti-science Republicans would lead you to believe.
People are saying "the Earth that we know, love, have co-evolved with will be destroyed, and the assumptions that we built our cities, countries, and societies around will be turned on their heads. This will be replaced with a harsh world with wild extremes, natural disasters in places that aren't built for them, and more intense natural disasters in places that might be used to current, weaker ones.
Perpetuating this willful misinterpretation, even by acknowledging it, is a disservice to the future.
No one is seriously arguing that the earth is going to be literally destroyed, despite what anti-science Republicans would lead you to believe.
People are saying "the Earth that we know, love, have co-evolved with will be destroyed, and the assumptions that we built our cities, countries, and societies around will be turned on their heads. This will be replaced with a harsh world with wild extremes, natural disasters in places that aren't built for them, and more intense natural disasters in places that might be used to current, weaker ones.
Perpetuating this willful misinterpretation, even by acknowledging it, is a disservice to the future.
basetop(1)
Please don't take HN threads further into political flamewar. It only leads to predictable places and doesn't help.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html