Small instances are "seeded" onto a bad spot with a stable base matrix like a scaffold, to develop and grow. The matrix either decays over time or is stable and not a problem left in place. My understanding is that beneficial fish and related species are needed for the full biome to "work" and the seeded early coloniser types help these animals come in from surrounding areas. Without this work, a more rapid colonisation by less beneficial types can happen.
Almost any remediation gets my upvote for trying, but at scale avoidance of the man made causes of coral death is much more important.
With few exceptions if you have a piece of coral in your tank and it dies, it's your fault. They're immortal otherwise when left undisturbed. Some common pet store coral like pulsing xenia, green star polyps or zooanthids will grow in spite of the worst conditions to the point where they become invasive. All you need is a single polyp and most coral specimens we're familiar with will eventually grow and spread as far as the ecosystem will allow.
Deep deep layered sand beds, areas of stagnant water and high flow water, macroalgae, various gas exchange areas, copepods, amphipods, all of it is part of a holistic picture that is needed for these bacteria to be happy. This process can take years of what I call 'strategic neglect' by not messing with the deeper darker anoxic layers of sand and algae. If those bacteria are happy the coral has no choice but to thrive.
I hope this new effort to get the coral to spawn without subdivision succeeds so that future generations can see the same things we once saw, and the life it creates below.
Australian uni Tank farmed corals have spawned in the same lunar phase as reefs for a while I believe, it's getting them to do it more frequently and doing the "IVF" like stuff, and implanting on scaffolding which is hard.
Not a coral scientist. I welcome corrections
Likely polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA), usually called acrylic, and possibly but less likely polyethylene terephthalate (PETE). Both are technically plastic, but plastic often correlates to cheap, and I doubt those tanks are cheap. Also possible but even less likely to be aluminium oxynitride (ALON), which is ceramic not platic, aka transparent aluminum, but I suspect it would be cost-prohibitive.
> ...they know what their doing... I welcome corrections
--> they're ;-)
--> they're ;-)
HEADSHOT
missed opportunity on my >< typo
No one is perfext. :P
https://www.aims.gov.au/about/facilities/national-sea-simula...
In the northeast, the forests we see are actually cultivated, and much that is deciduous would become pine forest with impassable underbrush without human intervention.
Prevention of wildfires requires human intervention and brush clearing. I believe this is a factor right now in California.
The Great Plains is largely cultivated, and without proper maintenance is shrinking.
Some people theorize that much of the lush vegetation European settlers saw in New England was actually human cultivation, that was left untended due to mass smallpox deaths.
Strategic neglect is a strategy, but when applied naively you may not end up with the ecosystem you wanted.
Prevention of all wildfires requires intervention, but the natural state is lots of small fires and that actually results in fewer huge fires, so “neglect” is a valid strategy. Unfortunately it’s hard to do proscribed burns to “catch up” to the natural state as they are unpopular.
Though coral may look like a colorful plant growing from roots in the seafloor, it is actually an animal.
Source: https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/coral
Wow.
And now put down that damn phone and enjoy the dive! :D
Are the causes of coral bleaching actually understood? Wikipedia lists a dozen potential factors. It seems more likely to me that it's something other than CO2/temperature considering the species' history.
On the other hand it could well be that during the times when the temperature was changing rapidly, most of the corals died off, leaving behind only the most resistant ones.
So yea massive changes over 50 years means mass die offs and even extinctions. Assuming we eventually stop introducing massive changes and in 5 million years aquatic ecosystems will be fine, but we care about the short term.
Breathing air is probably a superior system anyway, since mammalian fish utterly dominate gilled fish in nearly every respect. What gilled fish can dive like a sperm whale, acquire the bulk of a blue whale, or the agility of a dolphin?
The blue whale is more bulky and faster than a whale shark, but young whale sharks can simply dive too low to be at significant threat from Okra. So breathing has real disadvantages.
Okra packs have been observed attacking juvenile baleen whales on the other hand.
Even if the climate changes do not directly kill us off, it will stress our societies to a possible breaking point, with the risk of famine, war, and general societal breakdown.
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=jamie+craggs+co...
Light pollution is (yet another) a big deal problem for the reef.