New analysis has demonstrated that seaweed, lengthy used as an indicator of coral reef well being, could also be offering deceptive info. The research, which analyzed knowledge from over 1,200 oceanic websites, means that totally different species of macroalgae react otherwise to contamination, probably obscuring indicators of reef stress and misdirecting conservation efforts.
Scientists have been utilizing seaweed as an indicator of coral reef well being for many years.
But what if the seaweed was deceptive them?
New University of British Columbia analysis reveals it was, and scientists want new methods to find out whether or not human exercise is harming a selected reef.
“This is especially critical today, given that reefs globally are threatened by climate-driven stressors,” stated Dr. Sara Cannon, a postdoctoral fellow on the UBC Institute for the Oceans and Fisheries and the research’s lead creator.
Local species behave otherwise
Seaweed belongs to a bunch of organisms referred to as macroalgae. Macroalgae on the ocean’s floor has lengthy served as a proxy for reef well being, as a result of it’s comparatively fast and straightforward to measure. Since the 1970s, scientists have assumed that native human impacts enhance macroalgae whereas concurrently damaging underlying reefs.
However, the research simply revealed in Global Change Biology checked out knowledge from over 1,200 websites within the Indian and Pacific Oceans over a 16-year interval and revealed that this strategy is deceptive and should even have hidden indicators of reef stress.
For instance, macroalgae protection relies upon closely on the species growing in a particular area. Sargassum is less likely to grow in water contaminated by agricultural runoff, but Halimeda will thrive. In both cases, a reef will suffer.
The global research team concluded that using macroalgae coverage as an indicator of local human impacts can actually obscure how much our actions are harming reefs, and cause scientists to misidentify the reefs most in need of intervention.
Reference: “Macroalgae exhibit diverse responses to human disturbances on coral reefs” by Sara E. Cannon, Simon D. Donner, Angela Liu, Pedro C. González Espinosa, Andrew H. Baird, Julia K. Baum, Andrew G. Bauman, Maria Beger, Cassandra E. Benkwitt, Matthew J. Birt, Yannick Chancerelle, Joshua E. Cinner, Nicole L. Crane, Vianney Denis, Martial Depczynski, Nur Fadli, Douglas Fenner, Christopher J. Fulton, Yimnang Golbuu, Nicholas A. J. Graham, James Guest, Hugo B. Harrison, Jean-Paul A. Hobbs, Andrew S. Hoey, Thomas H. Holmes, Peter Houk, Fraser A. Januchowski-Hartley, Jamaluddin Jompa, Chao-Yang Kuo, Gino Valentino Limmon, Yuting V. Lin, Timothy R. McClanahan, Dominic Muenzel, Michelle J. Paddack, Serge Planes, Morgan S. Pratchett, Ben Radford, James Davis Reimer, Zoe T. Richards, Claire L. Ross, John Rulmal Jr., Brigitte Sommer, Gareth J. Williams and Shaun K. Wilson, 5 April 2023, Global Change Biology.
DOI: 10.1111/gcb.16694
