Online web seminars detail the future of coral reefs

As part of the International Year of the Reef, the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies has uploaded a series of online seminars from the the ‘Coral Reef Futures’ symposium (held in Canberra late last year) as a way to convey the pressing issues surrounding reefs today to the general public. See the full news brief here, and check out the links to the videos below on a wide range of topics, from climate change and anthropogenic threats to sustainable management and the economy of reefs. There really are some great presentations in here from some of the worlds leading scientists on coral reefs – I strongly urge you to explore some of these seminars.


Topic

  Climate change and coral reefs
  44.8 mb 24min Ten things you need to know about Climate Change and coral reefs Ove Hoegh-Guldberg
  42.8 mb 24min Ocean acidification and coral reefs Malcolm McCulloch
  46.5 mb 27min The risk of coral bleaching to coral reef biodiversity Morgan Pratchett
  44.6 mb 26min Can reefs respond quickly enough? Line Bay
  48.4 mb 28min Rising Plague: Diseases in marine organisms and climate change Bette Willis
  47.7 mb 26min What next? Managing the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park under climate change Laurence McCook
  New paradigms for ecosystem-based management of coral reefs  
  32.2 mb 18min How to kill a coral reef: Lessons from the Caribbean Bob Steneck
  46.4 mb 26min Anticipating ecological surprises: Managing reef resilience Terry Hughes
  37.6 mb 21min Blast from the Past: Messages for reef management from the fossil record John Pandolfi
  24.1 mb 14min A role for aquaculture in ecosystem restoration? Rocky de Nys
  28.6 mb 18min Coral reefs and the nascent economics of resilience John Quiggin
  Sustainable Reef Resources  
  40.7 mb 23min Marine protected areas: What they can and cannot do Geoff Jones
  33.2 mb 19min Marine protected areas: Will they provide resilience through reduced stress? Mark McCormick
  36.6 mb 21min Connectivity, climate change and the future for reef fishes Philip Munday
  41.7 mb 22min Power to the people: 25 years of reef management in the Philippines Garry Russ
  37.2 mb 22min Managing top predators: Reef shark fisheries Howard Choat
  Catchments to Reefs: Integrated planning, management and governance  
  84.6 mb 47min Australian coral reefs: Adaptive management of critical natural resources John Tanzer
  76 mb 42min Muddy Waters: Water quality and run-off Jon Brodie
  40.6 mb 22min Before and after the Asian tsunami: Lessons for coastal management Andrew Baird
  46.6 mb 26min Capacity building on our doorstep: Governance of near-shore marine systems in Melanesia Simon Foale
  33 mb 17min Conservation in a changing climate Josh Cinner

“Eritrean coral reefs provide hope for global marine future” – The Age

The Age, 16th April 2008

Silver bubbles pop to the surface as a snorkeler glides over a colourful coral reef, bright fish speeding to safety in its protective fronds. Experts say this small Horn of Africa nation has some of the most pristine coral reefs left anywhere worldwide, a “global hotspot” for marine diversity supporting thousands of species.

Known also as Green Island for its thick cover of mangroves, Sheikh Seid is only one of 354 largely uninhabited islands scattered along Eritrea’s southern Red Sea desert coast, many part of Eritrea’s Dahlak archipelago. The remote reefs are exciting scientists, who see in Eritrea’s waters a chance of hope amidst increasingly bleak predictions for the future of coral reefs — if sea temperatures rise as forecast due to global climate change.

Unlike the deeper, cooler waters elsewhere in the Red Sea, Eritrea’s large expanses of shallow — and therefore hotter — waters have created corals uniquely capable of coping with extremes of heat, scientists say.

“Eritrea has the most temperature tolerant corals in the world,”

Said marine expert Dr John ‘Charlie’ Veron, dubbed the “king of coral” for his discovery of more than a fifth of all coral species.

“That bodes well, for climate change is set to decimate coral reefs.”

Leading scientists warn that most reefs — vital for the massive levels of marine life that depend upon them and a crucial component of coastal economies — will be largely extinct by the end of the century unless greenhouse gas emissions are curbed.

They say many will be killed by mass “bleaching” and irreversible acidification of seawater caused by the absorption of carbon dioxide into surface waters, with at least 20 per cent of coral reefs worldwide already feared lost.

But with Eritrea’s surface water in summer an average bathwater temperature of 32.5 C (90.5 F) — reportedly peaking at a sweltering 37C (98.6 F) — corals here have evolved to survive in an environment that would kill others elsewhere in the world. (Read More)

New monitoring system for the Great Barrier Reef

Senator Kim Carr, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, will today announce the establishment of the Great Barrier Reef Ocean Observing System by the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) in Townsville (note – read here for more detailed information).

“The Observing System will apply a ‘digital skin’ of sensors, over the Great Barrier Reef, producing the highest resolution pictures ever produced,” Senator Carr said.

“It will be the most exciting development in coastal ocean observation in Australia since the launch of Earth-orbiting satellites, providing real-time data on current conditions throughout the region.

“This will help drive multi-scale ecological and physical models, making possible more accurate forecasting and improved understanding of the process sustaining the biodiversity of the Reef.

“This great collaborative project is led by AIMS on behalf of a consortium of agencies including AIMS, James Cook University, Great Barrier Reef Island Research Stations, University of Melbourne and CSIRO. The Great Barrier Reef marine tourism industry is participating in the Observing System by including ship board sensors on some of their vessels.

“The Observing System is a regional ocean observation network covering the eastern Coral Sea and the Great Barrier Reef. It will give researchers and managers more comprehensive and subtle understandings of the complexities of the Reef, particularly as threats from climate change loom.

“From the kilometre to the millimetre scale, diverse forms of Reef data gathered by multiple sensors will be integrated for the first time to produce detailed models reflecting real conditions on the Reef and enabling forecasts of future conditions.

“The Observing System will have an important role in future research into and management of one of Australia’s greatest natural assets, the Great Barrier Reef,” Senator Carr said.

“Dispute over climate sceptic uni grant”

The Institute for Public Affairs, Australia’s “leading free market think tank (and long known for its lack of objectivity), has decided to fund some PhD research using funds from climate skeptic and philanthropist Bryant Macfie. Whilst I’ve made my concern over the behaviour of the IPA and certain members clear in the past, I don’t see any problem with this generous gift as long as we “fiercely maintain our independence” as a university. This is one of the key litmus tests for accepting any funding – I think the Australian title “Dispute over climate sceptic uni grant” seems like a bit of a storm in a tea cup. Of course, the very fact that Mr Macafie wrote such a trite opinion piece in the Higher Education supplement this week, should raise our suspicions to a high level!

“Today we are faced with a newer religion known as environmental activism which has insinuated itself into some aspects of science. It shares some of the intolerance to new or challenging ideas with the old. Immolation at the stake is no longer fashionable but it has been replaced by pillory in the media.

The new faith makes it apostasy to question the proposition that our river systems are dying and that nothing like this has ever happened before. And it is the blackest heresy to suggest that the beatification of St Al and the Goronites may be a little premature.” (Read more)

Indeed. Jennifer Marohasy and the IPA have long been known for their advocacy for particular causes which strangely always seem to support particular sectors of industry (which provides clarity on this recent post). Here is what Source Watch has to say:

The IPA has heavily relied on funding from a small number of conservative corporations. Those funders disclosed by the IPA to journalists and media organisations include:

  • Major mining companies – BHP-Billiton and Western Mining Corporation;
  • Pesticides/Genetically modified organisms: Monsanto; and
  • A range of other companies including communications company Telstra, Clough Engineering, Visy, and News Limited;
  • Tobacco companies – Philip Morris (Nahan) and British American Tobacco [6]
  • Oil and gas companies: Caltex, Esso Australia (a subsidiary of Exxon) and Shell [www.ips.org] and Woodside Petroleum; and fifteen major companies in the electricity industry; (Nahan 2)
  • Forestry: Gunns, the largest logging company in Tasmania; (Nahan 3)
  • Murray Irrigation Ltd – a major irrigation company contributed $40,000.[7]

“Understanding and managing the threats to our Reef, Rainforest and Torres Strait environment”

MTSRF Annual Research Conference, 28th April

“Many of Australia’s leading environmental and social scientists will be joining industry leaders in Cairns for a four day conference on the environmental risks facing our Reef, Rainforest and
the Torres Strait.

The 2008 Marine and Tropical Science Research Facility (MTSRF) Conference is being held from Monday 28th April until Thursday 1st May 2008. The Conference will provide an opportunity to share information and explore solutions to the threats facing the unique natural systems of North Queensland.

Managing Director, Sheriden Morris, said “Over 300 of Australia’s best scientists are involved in the MTSRF program and are working on answering questions such as what can we do about climate change impacts on tropical rainforests and the reef? How do we fix up poor water quality? How do we deal with a rapidly increasing population in this region and what will the impact be on our surroundings? Will the Cassowary survive? How will recreational fishers respond to more people and less fish? What do we do about sea level rise for the low lying islands in the Torres Strait?”

“This Conference is an opportunity for scientists, government and industry leaders to hear about the latest research and to discuss solutions to the problems we are facing now and into the future.”

The Reef & Rainforest Research Centre represents the Australian Government’s Marine and Tropical Sciences Research Facility (MTSRF) and is part of the Commonwealth Environmental Research Facilities Program. The aim of MTSRF is to provide world class solution based science to ensure the future health of North Queensland’s public environmental assets.

The Australian Government has invested $40 million over four years into North Queensland to fund scientific research to support the conservation and sustainable use of our environment. The fund also aims to build capacity in the north to assist in the understanding and management of our environment.

“Industries such as tourism rely heavily on our environment to generate over $8 million annually and employ over 50,000 people so it is crucial that the scientific research generated through the MTSRF program delivers meaningful and useful solutions for both our region and Australia as a vital part of our natural heritage,” said Ms Morris”

Coral adaptation in the face of climate change – response by Hoegh-Guldberg et al

We certainly hope that Baird and Maynard are right and that in the coming years corals will exhibit an adaptive capability that they have not yet exhibited in situ or in the laboratory. At this point, however, it appears unlikely.
As Baird and Maynard point out, the coral genera Acropora and Pocillopora have generation times that are short (several years) relative to the generation times of other corals. The majority of coral generation times, however, are still long (decades) relative to the accelerating pace of climate change, throwing doubt on the scope of most coral species for rapid adaptation (1).

Corals, like other organisms, can also modify the risk of coral bleaching over the short term through physiological acclimation (2). Acclimation, however, as with any phenotypic change, is limited. In the same vein, corals that form symbioses with more than one variety of dinoflagellate can shift their populations so that they are dominated by their more thermally tolerant dinoflagellate genotypes during thermal stress. Unfortunately, these short-lived changes have not yet resulted in the novel host-symbiont combinations that will be required for survival in the challenging temperatures and acidities of future oceans under rising atmospheric carbon dioxide.

It is important not to confuse genetic adaptation with the increased average thermal tolerance observed for some coral communities over the past 25 years, which has occurred largely because thermally sensitive species have died out, leaving robust species behind (3). Equally important is the lack of evidence that corals have the capacity to either acclimate or adapt to falling aragonite saturation states. It seems unlikely that genetic adaptation will solve the problems of global change facing corals. Indeed, paleontological evidence indicates that calcifying marine organisms including corals suffered a protracted period of absence after large and rapid changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide associated with the Permian-riassic extinction event (4, 5). It took millions of years for these organisms and ecosystems to recover.

Continue reading

Coral adaptation in the face of climate change – Baird & Maynard

cover.gifIn their Review, “Coral reefs under rapid climate change and ocean acidification” (14 December 2007, p. 1737), O. Hoegh-Guldberg et al. present future reef scenarios that range from coral-dominated communities to rapidly eroding rubble banks. Notably, none of their scenarios considers the capacity for corals to adapt. The authors dismiss adaptation because “[r]eef-building corals have relatively long generation times and low genetic diversity, making for slow rates of adaptation [relative to rates of change].” We think the possibility of adaptation deserves a second look.
Many features of coral life histories, such as extended life spans, delayed maturation, and colony fission, do result in long generation times (1) [some between 33 and 37 years (2)]. However, other corals, such as many species of Acropora and Pocillopora, mature early, grow rapidly, and suffer whole-colony mortality, as opposed to colony fission, after mechanical disturbances (3) and thermal stress (4). The life histories of these ecologically important and abundant species suggest an underappreciated capacity to adapt rapidly to changing environments.

Repeated bleaching episodes in the same coral assemblages and the increasing scale and frequency of coral bleaching have been cited as evidence that corals have exhausted their genetic capacity to adapt to rising sea surface temperatures (5). However, comparisons of the rates of mortality within populations among bleaching events are not available. Without these data, it is not possible to assess whether the adaptive response has been exhausted. Indeed, the effects of temperature and acidification on even the most basic vital rates in corals, such as growth, mortality, and fecundity, are largely unknown, as are the physiological trade-offs among these traits. Consequently, the sensitivity of population growth to climate-induced changes in vital rates remains almost completely unexplored [but see (6)]. In the absence of long-term demographic studies to detect temporal trends in life history traits, predicting rates of adaptation, and whether they will be exceeded by rates of environmental change, is pure speculation. Indeed, where such data are available for terrestrial organisms they demonstrate that contemporary evolution in response to climate change is possible (7).

Continue reading

Microalgae as a biodiesel fuel source?

Every now and then an amazing idea comes along. Even though I graduated with a major in marine botany, I must say that I didn’t think of this one! Here is a company that is producing microalgae (which grow like the crackers) in sealed plastic bags that are hung in desert areas and in which, due to being contained, conserve water and allow enrichment with CO2. If it is a good as it appears, this could be a great step forward in creating oils from algae.

“U.S.-based Valcent Products Inc. and Canadian Global Green Solutions Inc. are set to build a pilot facility to produce algae for biodiesel production. The duo claimed to have made a breakthrough with their Vertigo system, which could be used to mass produce the biodiesel feedstock cheaply in any part of the world.
Unlike the ‘open pond’ methods studied by the government, the new system uses tall, clear plastic bags, hung in rows in a greenhouse to breed algae. The bags, which are pumped with carbon dioxide and exposed to the sun, help the algae speed along photosynthesis.

Glen Kertz, CEO of Valcent, told local media the microorganisms can reproduce up to six times every 24 hours in this setting, yielding 100,000 gallons of algae oil from just one acre of land each year. (Read more)”

Australian attitudes towards climate change: putting words into action.

The Climate Institute’s Climate of the Nation has released a report that shows that the attitudes of Australians has shifted from 5 years ago and that climate change is a primary concern. What is curious is that the Rudd government hasn’t convinced us that real and effective action will be possible..

"Australian attitudes towards climate change have crystallised into solid support for action, new research shows. But, equally, there is widespread scepticism about the ability of major political parties to deliver the necessary action. The Climate Institute’s Climate of the Nation report details the attitudes of Australians since the November federal election.

"In the aftermath of the world’s first climate change election, public concern and hunger for action remains high," the institute’s chief executive John Connor said.

"The majority of Australians (52 per cent) are unable to discern between the two major parties on climate change, meaning political brand ownership of climate leadership remains up for grabs." (Read more)

Meanwhile, federal environment minister Peter Garrett has decided against a national levy on plastic bags, despite Victoria introducing a levy, and South Australia banning plastic bags from 2009

"What we’ve decided today is that there will not be a national mandated charge on plastic bags in checkouts but we do want to see increased action to reduce plastic bag use in the community," Mr Garrett said.

"We’ve identified the need for an urgent working group to be established between government and industry to look at making sure retailers are exploring all the options that they have in front of them to increase the use of the green recycle bags and to lessen the use of plastic bags."

South Australian Environment Minister Gail Gago said she was "deeply disappointed" there had not been national agreement to phase out plastic bags or introduce a charge, but her state would push ahead with a ban regardless.

"After six years of the council, we’re still unable to come to a nationally consistent approach," Ms Gago said. (Read more)

Who’s putting the “political” in climate science, now? – a note from Philip Machanick

Below is a excellent response from a fellow blogger Philip Machanick over at Opinionations regarding the recent article in The Australian newspaper by Don Aitken (social scientist, retired Vice-Chancellor and President of University of Canberra, in addition to being one of Senator Inhofe’s “concerned scientists“) – why this recieved front page coverage in such a prominent newspaper is beyond me, and Philip does an great job of debunking the rhetoric:

“On 9 April, The Australian published an article titled “Good science isn’t about consensus” on its front page.The New York Times‘s masthead motto is “All the news that’s fit to print.” The Australian‘s might as well be “All the news that fits our prejudice.”

Don Aitkin is of course entitled to his opinion (though as the late Senator Moynihan reminded us, he is not entitled to his own facts). The paper could have run his piece as an op ed on the inner pages (though for what purpose, I don’t know). But by running it with the prominence they have, you have to wonder at their motivation. Don Aitkin is a political scientist, no doubt eminent in his field. But no one can pretend he is an authority on climate science. What’s more, his article contains nothing of any novelty. So what purpose can there be in not only publishing the article, but in giving it the prominence of a page 1 placement? All I can think of is that The Australian wishes to continue to stoke controversy — whether to generate circulation (which doesn’t work with me, I stopped buying the paper) or to pursue its own agenda on climate science.

However, since they have done this, and in addition, posted a lengthier paper (an address he gave to the Planning Institute of Australia), his views demand rebuttal. Here it is, based on the lengthier paper.

  • Arguing about “consensus” is silly. There was a consensus before Einstein’s time that Newton had the Laws of Physics stitched up. Einstein found a more general theory. “Consensus” in science is not a deep concept — just a way of expressing the fact that most scientists do not see the point in arguing over something that has been shown to be valid, and no one has successfully invalidated. There was a similar “consensus” about the link between tobacco and cancer, which the relevant industry attacked vigorously, using similar language to the anti-AGW movement. That consensus remains to be overturned, despite the fact that we still have a lot to learn about the mechanisms of cancer.
  • He claims that he is “presently agnostic about the central Anthropogenic Global Warming…proposition” but this is not borne out by his article, which dwells on arguments against AGW. To quote Monty Python, that’s not debate, it’s contradiction.
  • The “panicky media mood” he talks about is no reason to trash the science, rather to be skeptical about the quality of science journalism in popular media. There was a similarly panicky media mood about global cooling in the 1970s (he quotes Newsweek further on) but if you actually search the scientific literature, there was very little basis in science for this. I don’t think you will find a “panicky mood” if you read Science or Nature. A paper has been published showing that 7 papers in the 1970s predicted cooling, compared with 42 predicting warming. The cooling papers attracted only 12% of the citations counted. In other words, even in the 1970s, the evidence available at the time — Newsweek and other popular media notwithstanding — was that warming was more supportable than cooling.
  • Einstein and Feynman on refutation and uncertainty in science: the anti-AGW movement can be accused of a higher degree of certainty with considerably less evidence on their side. Read Bob Carter’s polemics. Is there a hint in any of his writing the he could be wrong? On the contrary, there is a bellicose certainty in his writing which I have not found in the scientific literature — which I find odd from a scientist of his experience (here’s a classic example).

(Read more)