Losing the rainforest of the sea: Coral reef decline and loss of future ecosystem benefits and services

*This is a guest post by Karuna Sehgal - student in my 'Causes & Consequences of Biodiversity' course. 

The past three decades of human activity has altered the earth in more ways than one. The Earth is losing species, ecosystems and biodiversity because of warming climates, among other factors. Coral reefs, in particular, are greatly impacted by the rise of global surface temperatures.

Coral Reefs throughout tropical and sub-tropical oceans are under tremendous heat stress resulting in coral bleaching and mortality. Corals are animals that live in a symbiotic relationship with microscopic dinoflagellate algae that inhabit the coral tissues (Baker et al., 2008). Increased water temperatures result in corals expelling dinoflagellates living in their tissues, causing the coral to turn white, ending its symbiotic relationship (Heron et al., 2017). This does not necessarily mean death for the coral; however bleaching still adversely impacts corals by inhibiting growth and reproduction (Heron et al., 2017). This symbiotic relationship provides the coral with about 90% of the energy it needs to thrive, it also enables corals to construct limestone skeletons that form the three-dimensional structure of reefs, which provides habitat for over a million species (Heron et al., 2017. They are referred to as the Rainforests of the Sea because they are the most bio-diverse ecosystem in the ocean, comparable to rainforests on land. Species richness and the diversity found in these systems are phenomenal and breathtaking, and yet they are dying at an alarming rate.

Fig. 1: Examples of a healthy and a bleached coral reef (images modified from Wikipedia pages on coral reefs and reef degradation, respectively)

Coral Reefs provide a lot of ecological and economically important services; they gross an estimated value of over $1 trillion (USD) globally, because of their social, economic and cultural services (Heron et al., 2017). With that being said, reefs only account for less than 0.1% of the ocean floor, but host more than one-quarter of all marine fish species (Heron et al., 2017). Climate change alters the pristine attractiveness of coral reefs to tourists, which directly affects low-income coastal countries and small developing islands within coral reef regions (Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2007). Developing countries are not equipped to respond to climate change, and many rely on tourism for the majority of their economies (Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2007). But tourist visits are one form of valuation, coral reefs are also critical for supporting fisheries and protecting shorelines from erosion,  For the loss of reef ecosystem services it is going to cost the US about $500 billion per year by 2100 (Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2015).

This loss of economic value through bleaching is ultimately caused by our activities. Anthropogenic activity has resulted in rising temperatures and increases in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide; this has been the largest increase in global temperature since the pre-industrial times (Stocker et al., 2013). Widespread mass coral bleaching was first documented in 1983 at the time of an extremely strong El Nino (Cofroth et al., 1989). It is important to note that coral reefs have been around a long time and residing in oceans since at least the Triassic period over 200 million years ago, and are well adapted to specific environmental conditions and human activity has damaged them in a matter of 30 years. Therefore water temperatures of even 1-2^oC above the normal temperature would result in severe coral bleaching (Heron et al., 2017). It was estimated that coral reefs would take approximately 15- 25 years to recover from mass mortality, but if the frequency of mass mortality events increases to a point where the return time of mortality event is less than the time it takes to recover, the abundance of corals on reefs will decline (Heron et al., 2017).

Ocean acidification is another factor affecting coral reefs because it hinders the coral's ability to build their limestone skeletons and increases bio-erosion of reefs (Heron et al., 2017). With approximately 25% of the emitted CO₂ from anthropogenic sources entering the ocean and producing carbonic acid, which then dissociates to form bicarbonate ions and protons, reducing the availability of carbonate to biological systems (Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2007). These high CO₂ levels and ocean acidification are expected to cause coral reefs to erode. A number of studies have determined that the doubling of pre-industrial atmospheric CO₂ to 560 ppm decreases coral calcification and growth by up to 40% through the inhibition of aragonite formation as carbonate-ion concentrations decrease (Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2007). Studies have concluded that the corals will not thrive again until the atmospheric CO₂ has been reduced to 320-350 ppm (Heron et al., 2017).

Building the resilience of these reefs by reducing human impacts is now the main focus of organisations like the World Heritage Committee of UNESCO and the Reef Resilience Network. A World Heritage Committee analysis showed that nearly all of the 29 World Heritage coral reef sites were exposed to levels of heat stress that cause coral bleaching, more than twice per decade during the 1985-2013 period (Heron et al., 2017). Roughly 21 of the World Heritage reef properties have been exposed to repeated heat stress during the past three years (Heron et al., 2017), threatening the long-term persists of these unique and valuable places.

Fig. 2: Satellite image of coral bleaching alerts from  2014–2017 (image from NOAA Coral Reef Watch)

Bleaching and heat stress spread across tropical oceans and intensified during El Niño, and continued from La Niña and beyond (Heron et al., 2017). This period has included the three warmest years on record: 2014, 2015, and 2016 (Heron et al., 2017). Figure 2 shows that more than 70% of the global coral reef locations have experienced bleaching and most of these have experienced it twice or more, since June 2014 (Heron et al., 2017).

What is the future of these reefs? Will the next generation be able to see and explore them as we have or will they have to watch documentaries of what used to be? Coral Reefs are the most biologically diverse and economically important ecosystem on the planet, providing ecosystem services, essential to human societies and they are at danger (Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2007).

References

Baker AC, Glynn PW, Riegl B (2008) Climate change and coral reef bleaching: An ecological assessment of long-term impacts, recovery trends and future outlook. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 80:435-471.

Cofroth MA, Lasker HR, Oliver JK (1989) Coral mortality outside of the eastern Pacific during 1982-83: Relationship to El Niño. In: Global Ecological Consequences of the 1982-83 El Niño-Southern Oscillation. Glynn, PW. (ed.). Elsevier.

Heron et al. 2017. Impacts of Climate Change on World Heritage Coral Reefs : A First Global Scientific Assessment. Paris, UNESCO World Heritage Centre.

Hoegh-Guldberg O, et al. (2015) Reviving the Ocean Economy: the case for action - 2015. WWF International, Gland, Switzerland.Geneva, 60p.

O. Hoegh-Guldberg, P. J. Mumby, A. J. Hooten, R. S. Steneck. (2007). Coral Reefs Under Rapid Climate Change and Ocean Acidificaition. Science, 318, 1-7. Doi: 10.1126/science.1152509

Stocker TF, et al. (2013) Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group 1 (WG1) Contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 5th Assessment Report (AR5), Cambridge University Press. 
 

-->

Do the economics and logistics of field ecology bias our understanding of environmental problems?

Location of Antarctic field stations. Image from Wikipedia.

Field ecology is difficult, time-consuming and expensive. Ecologists need to make decisions about where to do research, and if research questions focus on remote locations, there are likely a lot of constraints limiting options. For example, if research requires work in the Antarctic, odds are you'll be working at one of a few locations on the coast which, depending on the nature of the research, could bias our understanding of ecological or geological processes operating there.

The research needed for some questions can literally occur almost anywhere without much worry about how local context biases findings. That's not to say that local context will not play a role in ecological dynamics, and we should always be mindful of how local conditions influence the processes we are interested in. However, some questions are sufficiently general that we could envisage running an experiment in our backyard. However, there are research questions that necessitate careful consideration of the geographical location of research.

This is especially true for questions that pertain to the consequences of environmental change on ecological systems. The drivers of environmental change, whether it be pollution, nutrient deposition, changing temperature, extreme weather events or changes in precipitation patterns, all vary across the Earth and their impacts are similarly unequal. We shouldn't expect that a 2 degree C increase in average temperature to have the same effect in the tropics as, say, the arctic.

Location of Nutrient Network sites used in Borer et al. 2014

For some research endeavors, the solution to ensuring geographical coverage has been to replicate studies around the world. Take for example studying the effects of nutrient deposition in grasslands. There is a long history of ecologists adding nitrogen, phosphorus, and other nutrients to grasslands at specific locations in short duration experiments. These studies can tell us about how plant dominance might change, but it is difficult to extend this research to other locations facing different nutrient change patterns or that are inherently structured differently. The solution to this shortcoming is best represented by the globally distributed Nutrient Network experiment. The global experiment includes dozens of sites around the world that all replicate a basic set of experimental applications of plant nutrients, which has resulted in some very influential papers about global change effects on grasslands (e.g., Adler et al. 2011, Borer et al. 2014, Seabbloom et al. 2015).

This issue of the geography of research biasing our understanding of the impacts of global change is especially true for understanding the consequences of climate change in the Arctic. This was highlighted superbly by Metcalfe and colleagues recently (Metcalfe et al. 2018). They showed that most of the terrestrial ecology research in the Arctic has occurred in just a few places. And while this work has been extremely impactful and important for understanding the ecology of Arctic systems, they are not located in places undergoing the most drastic changes in climate. Therefore, because of the geographical location of research, we might not have a very good understanding of the impacts of climate change on Arctic ecosystems.

Where research is being done in the Arctic. Panel 'a' shows where publications are coming from and 'b' shows the impact in terms of number of citations (from Metcalfe et al. 2018).

This shows where photosynthesis has changed the most, which does not correspond well to where the research has been done (from Metcalfe et al. 2018).

This type of mismatch in climate change and research requires that ecologists purposefully establish research sites in areas that are rapidly changing. Metcalfe and colleagues suggest that the governments of Arctic nations establish focused research funding to support and promote research in these regions. This of course requires government dedication. The reality is it is cheaper and more efficient to do more research in existing, well supplied, field stations. Arctic scientists and professional organizations need to lobby environment or research government departments, and this research gap is an opportunity for Arctic governments to cooperate and share research costs.

References
Adler, P. B., E. W. Seabloom, E. T. Borer, H. Hillebrand, Y. Hautier, A. Hector, W. S. Harpole, L. R. O’Halloran, J. B. Grace, T. M. Anderson, J. D. Bakker, L. A. Biederman, C. S. Brown, Y. M. Buckley, L. B. Calabrese, C.-J. Chu, E. E. Cleland, S. L. Collins, K. L. Cottingham, M. J. Crawley, E. I. Damschen, K. F. Davies, N. M. DeCrappeo, P. A. Fay, J. Firn, P. Frater, E. I. Gasarch, D. S. Gruner, N. Hagenah, J. Hille Ris Lambers, H. Humphries, V. L. Jin, A. D. Kay, K. P. Kirkman, J. A. Klein, J. M. H. Knops, K. J. La Pierre, J. G. Lambrinos, W. Li, A. S. MacDougall, R. L. McCulley, B. A. Melbourne, C. E. Mitchell, J. L. Moore, J. W. Morgan, B. Mortensen, J. L. Orrock, S. M. Prober, D. A. Pyke, A. C. Risch, M. Schuetz, M. D. Smith, C. J. Stevens, L. L. Sullivan, G. Wang, P. D. Wragg, J. P. Wright, and L. H. Yang. 2011. Productivity Is a Poor Predictor of Plant Species Richness. Science 333:1750-1753.

Borer, E. T., E. W. Seabloom, D. S. Gruner, W. S. Harpole, H. Hillebrand, E. M. Lind, P. B. Adler, J. Alberti, T. M. Anderson, J. D. Bakker, L. Biederman, D. Blumenthal, C. S. Brown, L. A. Brudvig, Y. M. Buckley, M. Cadotte, C. Chu, E. E. Cleland, M. J. Crawley, P. Daleo, E. I. Damschen, K. F. Davies, N. M. DeCrappeo, G. Du, J. Firn, Y. Hautier, R. W. Heckman, A. Hector, J. HilleRisLambers, O. Iribarne, J. A. Klein, J. M. H. Knops, K. J. La Pierre, A. D. B. Leakey, W. Li, A. S. MacDougall, R. L. McCulley, B. A. Melbourne, C. E. Mitchell, J. L. Moore, B. Mortensen, L. R. O'Halloran, J. L. Orrock, J. Pascual, S. M. Prober, D. A. Pyke, A. C. Risch, M. Schuetz, M. D. Smith, C. J. Stevens, L. L. Sullivan, R. J. Williams, P. D. Wragg, J. P. Wright, and L. H. Yang. 2014. Herbivores and nutrients control grassland plant diversity via light limitation. Nature 508:517-520.

Metcalfe, D. B., T. D. Hermans, J. Ahlstrand, M. Becker, M. Berggren, R. G. Björk, M. P. Björkman, D. Blok, N. Chaudhary, C. J. N. e. Chisholm, and evolution. 2018. Patchy field sampling biases understanding of climate change impacts across the Arctic. Nature Ecology & Evolution 2:1443.




Seabloom, E. W., E. T. Borer, Y. M. Buckley, E. E. Cleland, K. F. Davies, J. Firn, W. S. Harpole, Y. Hautier, E. M. Lind, A. S. MacDougall, J. L. Orrock, S. M. Prober, P. B. Adler, T. M. Anderson, J. D. Bakker, L. A. Biederman, D. M. Blumenthal, C. S. Brown, L. A. Brudvig, M. Cadotte, C. Chu, K. L. Cottingham, M. J. Crawley, E. I. Damschen, C. M. Dantonio, N. M. DeCrappeo, G. Du, P. A. Fay, P. Frater, D. S. Gruner, N. Hagenah, A. Hector, H. Hillebrand, K. S. Hofmockel, H. C. Humphries, V. L. Jin, A. Kay, K. P. Kirkman, J. A. Klein, J. M. H. Knops, K. J. La Pierre, L. Ladwig, J. G. Lambrinos, Q. Li, W. Li, R. Marushia, R. L. McCulley, B. A. Melbourne, C. E. Mitchell, J. L. Moore, J. Morgan, B. Mortensen, L. R. O'Halloran, D. A. Pyke, A. C. Risch, M. Sankaran, M. Schuetz, A. Simonsen, M. D. Smith, C. J. Stevens, L. Sullivan, E. Wolkovich, P. D. Wragg, J. Wright, and L. Yang. 2015. Plant species' origin predicts dominance and response to nutrient enrichment and herbivores in global grasslands. Nat Commun 6.

Frank the Fish made me an Environmental Scientist

Guest post by Neda Ejbari, MEnvSc

Children are intelligent, autonomous human beings, and although they lack experience in many things, that does not make their thoughts, feelings, and values invalid. Children are some of the most compassionate people you will meet and influencing them in a positive way early on in their development is crucial for the sake of a brighter future for humankind.

A lot of this positive influence must come from science. Understanding our planet’s functions and learning the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world is crucial to ensure that we can protect it. However, to do this, we as scientists need to be experts at communicating science. We need to pass down what we learn in a way that is understandable, not just for new-coming scientists, but for those without the background as well.

Science communication can be discouraging for many. The fear of “dumbing down” one’s work until it is no longer factual or legitimate is always a concern among scientists. In addition to this, many scientists simply do not have the background to effectively communicate their science. They might lack the training or the resources to do so. Just having the public’s attention long enough to get one’s point across can be extremely difficult to do. If someone told you there was going to be a talk about eutrophication in the Great Lakes, would you go? If you were scrolling down Twitter or Facebook, would you stop long enough to understand what that table or graph you were seeing meant?

Let’s do a little experiment. 

What graph is easier to understand?

Taken from Twitter to discuss climate change, a graph obtained from John O'Sullivan & Norm Kalmanovich’s news article: What Michael Mann’s ‘Hockey Stick’ Graph Gave To UN Climate Fraud, which was taken from Michael Mann’s 1999 paper showed a confusing analysis that is hard to interpret without some background knowledge in climate change.

Also taken from Twitter, an easy to understand tweet from Peter Gleick about climate change and what it means.

The issue with science communication is that it's a double-edged sword. You need to make your information enticing to the audience, but you need the resources and the proper training in order to do so. And the only way to get that support is through the interest and push from the public. It’s a vicious cycle; like a student being told they need experience for a job —but needing that job for the experience. The fact of the matter is; most scientists don’t have those resources or training to communicate their research to a wide audience, which makes it difficult to get the public to care for their cause and push for better science communication in the first place.

Now imagine taking that fear and doubling it as you try to communicate to children, the future of our planet’s well-being.

In a study completed by Andrea Bou - Vinals and Silvia Prock, scientists admitted to having many fears when trying to communicate with children. In Bou-Vinals and Proc’s study, scientists were made to run a workshop and roleplay with children ages 9 to 13 with the goal of engaging them in scientific activities. The consensus of this experiment was that scientists were afraid that they were boring the children or that they wouldn’t be able to get their scientific knowledge across. On the children’s end, their interpretation of the experiment was that the scientists were there to “please children, because children are the future” and “having fun with knowledge transfer.” It shows that children are aware of their importance, and the importance of learning from scientists.

So, what can we do?

We as scientists need to understand that proper, easily comprehensible communication is key to getting people to care. Scientific literature often sounds extremely unbiased and un-opinionated. The issue with this is that most people are not trained to read scientific literature. There is jargon and difficult words that many will not understand because they will never have the context for it. To communicate effectively a scientist, there must be a compromise in the language to get your point across. Sometimes, you must sacrifice the language entirely and use other means for communication, i.e., videos, infographics or applied/interactive experiments.

We as the public also need to understand that science is important. We need to improve our scientific literacy and look for answers to questions that might strike us on a day-to-day basis. We need to encourage ourselves to take the first step and seek knowledge, and in turn, pass that behaviour on to our children as well. We must expose our children to the knowledge we have, and trust that they can understand what is being presented to them. We as the public need to support our scientists and push for their information to become easily accessible and comprehensible to us, as it is the masses that often influence the choices of policy makers.

Children are important because they are easily impressionable. I speak from personal experience when I say that the most conservation-driven choices I make today stemmed from early education and youthful experience. For example, a habit that I formed when I was young was letting the tap water run while brushing my teeth. Although turning it off seems like the obvious thing to do, it was more convenient for me to let it run until I was finished. The implications behind why this was bad to do was not apparent until I watched a commercial from Sesame Street. It made the reason behind why I should conserve water very obvious and very clear to me at a young age, and I still think about it to this day.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtcZbN0Z08c

The video still holds impact. The animation is clear, the audio is crisp, and the message is still extremely relevant. What’s interesting is that the majority of the comments on the video reflected my exact thoughts and feelings. The video stuck with me after several years and is always the first thing that comes to mind when I think about conserving water, or conserving anything, for that matter. Even now, sitting in a graduate level Conservation Biology class, when we discuss the impact of human activity on the natural world, I automatically imagine Frank the Fish stuck in his dried-up pond. 

So why was this video so hard to forget? Why did it have such a clear impact on me and several others?

As a seven-year-old living on the 6^th floor of an apartment complex, I didn’t have a backyard to begin with, and yet the message was clear. Because I had seen a natural environment before, I understood that my actions were indirectly impacting that area of nature I had once seen. And because I was able to relate it to that, I was able to empathize with the commercial and change my behaviour as a result.

This video was an effective tool of science communication. As environmental scientists, we all know that running water does not directly drain a pond in your backyard. There’s a lot of complicated architect, engineering and science that goes behind how we get our clean water from the environment; and yet the public —and children especially— needed none of those small details to understand the big picture.

It was an effective tool of science communication because it showed me, and people like me, the direct impact of my behaviour in the grand scheme of things. The video influenced me as a child and encouraged me to pursue a field of biology and environmental science as a result. And now, this video will be passed down because it has been presented and saved in a form of media that can be spread and shared with a simple click of a button.

Our goal as members of the human race should be to constantly ask the question: do I understand this? Would I be able to explain this to my children so that they can understand it? Truthfully, we won’t always be able to. But if we support our scientists and give them the tools and support they need to effectively present their work to us, and trust that our children are clever enough to understand what they are being told, great things can happen.

To learn more about the importance of science communication, check out the following links:

What is Science Communication? - The EU Guide to Science Communication

English Communication for Scientists

Science Communication Breakdown

Young Scientist Series

References

Merzagora, M., & Jenkins, T. (2013). Listening and Empowering Children in Science Communication. Jcom Journal of Science Communication, 12(3).

Mann, M. E., Bradley, R. S., & Hughes, M. K. (1999). Northern hemisphere temperatures during the past millennium: Inferences, uncertainties, and limitations. Geophysical research letters, 26(6), 759-762.

Don't forget the details! Trait ecology and generality

The search for generality is perhaps the greatest driver of modern ecology and probably also the greatest source of ecological angst. Though ecological trends frequently reflect the newest, brightest hope for generality, the search for generality (perhaps by definition) encourages us to ignored details and complexities. Maybe this means that some areas of study won't develop fully until they've fallen out of fashion. And maybe this means that the most interesting science happens when the pressure to 'save community ecology' is gone. A great example of the kind of post-hype, thoughtful approach for trait-based ecology comes from Reynolds et al. (2017) in Tree Physiology. They do a really nice job of highlighting some of the details that must inform trait-based ecology. Here, Reynolds et al. take a broad comparative approach across species, but incorporate important details that have at times been overlooked - especially the role of the environment, recognizing and measuring both constitutive and plastic traits, captures that there are multiple paths (or trait combinations) that can result in similar functioning.

The authors look at four conspecific tree species (Brachychiton spp.) with different average positions along an observed moisture gradient (CMD or climate moisture deficit). Two species occupied drier areas of Australia ('xeric species'), while the other two were found in more moderate areas ('mesic species'). The authors assumed that the different distributions of these species reflect different hydraulic niches. Were species' hydraulic niches associate meaningfully with their traits, specifically those trait associated with drought stress responses. Though these species are closely related--and so huge divergences in form and function might not be expected--the costs and benefits of drought resistance should differ among the species. In dry environments, drought resistance strategies should be more important, and may select for particular traits or sets of traits. Trait states associated with drought conditions include "reduced leaf area, enhanced stomatal control, safer or more efficient xylem, increased tissue water capacitance...and/or deeper root systems " may all be selected for. On the other hand, investment in these traits when water is not limited is often costly, reducing growth and competition. This suggests a meaningful selective regime associated with the CMD gradient and trait values might exist.

One important, but oft-overlooked aspect of trait ecology is that trait values depend on both genes and the environment. Reynold et al. incorporate this fact this by manipulating water availability between drought and control treatments. They measured both constitutive components of trait values – those driven by genetics and expressed regardless of environments – and the plastic or environment-dependent components. For instance, in the presence of prolonged drought, trees might increase root production or change leaf characteristics. In addition to manipulating water availability between treatments, the authors measured nine traits related to morphology and allocation.

From Reynolds et al. 

Given the expectation that trait values reflect the complex interaction of genetics and the environment in different species, is it possible to even make simple predictions about trait-environment relationships? The authors find that "These complex relationships illustrate that assuming that individual traits (often measured on individuals under a single set of environmental conditions) reflect drought resistance is likely to be overly simplistic and may be erroneous for many species. However, our results do suggest that generalization may be possible, provided multiple traits are measured to explore specific integrated drought strategies."

Indeed, some results are relatively predictable relationships: under well-watered control conditions, the allocation of biomass matched the expectation: xeric species had higher investment in below-ground biomass and in transport tissues than the mesic species (both characteristic of a water-conserving species).

On the other hand, leaf traits such as SLA did not show any trend related to species' assumed drought tolerance, either for constitutive or plastic trait components. Sometimes traits associated with the leaf economic spectrum such as SLA are assumed to indicate stress tolerance, but this was not the case.

By far the most interesting result was the observation that the xeric species had the highest assimilation and stomatal conductance rate and the lowest water use efficiency under well-watered conditions. Only by also examining these species under drought conditions was it possible to observe that they are highly plastic with regards to water use efficiency. In fact, they show a feast or famine approach to water usage - "where high photosynthetic rates per unit leaf area and high investment in root and stem tissue even in well-watered conditions are achieved through profligate water use during rare periods of water availability, in order to establish a root system and stem storage tissues necessary to survive long periods of water stress." Under drought conditions, these species show reduced root tissue investment; in contrast, mesic species follow expected patterns and plastically increase root tissue investment.

This paper is a reminder that the details are also fascinating and informative. As humans, we may have a simplistic understanding of the realized environment sometimes. To us perhaps all water stress is similar, but for each species in this study, the long term selective pressures may be meaningfully different - in timing, duration, and life stage. This creates the potential for complex differences between species which may best be reflected via life history strategies involving multiple traits. That may still imply some degree of generality is possible, but it is multi-dimensional.

Works cited:
Victoria A Reynolds, Leander D L Anderegg, Xingwen Loy, Janneke HilleRisLambers, Margaret M Mayfield; Unexpected drought resistance strategies in seedlings of four Brachychiton species, Tree Physiology, https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/tpx143