Macroalgae at the oceans surface has actually long served as a proxy for reef health, due to the fact that it is fairly quick and simple to measure. Because the 1970s, researchers have actually assumed that regional human impacts increase macroalgae while all at once destructive underlying reefs.
In both cases, a reef will suffer.
New research study has actually demonstrated that seaweed, long used as an indicator of coral reef health, might be providing misleading details. The research study, which evaluated data from over 1,200 oceanic sites, recommends that different species of macroalgae respond differently to contamination, potentially obscuring signs of reef stress and misdirecting conservation efforts.
Scientists have actually been utilizing seaweed as a sign of reef health for years.
But what if the seaweed was deceiving them?
New University of British Columbia research study reveals it was, and researchers require brand-new ways to figure out whether human activity is harming a specific reef.
” This is particularly critical today, considered that reefs internationally are threatened by climate-driven stressors,” said Dr. Sara Cannon, a postdoctoral fellow at the UBC Institute for the Oceans and Fisheries and the research studys lead author.
Local species act differently
Seaweed belongs to a group of organisms called macroalgae. Macroalgae at the oceans surface has long worked as a proxy for reef health, due to the fact that it is reasonably quick and simple to determine. Since the 1970s, scientists have actually assumed that local human impacts increase macroalgae while simultaneously destructive underlying reefs.
The study just published in Global Change Biology looked at data from over 1,200 sites in the Indian and Pacific Oceans over a 16-year duration and revealed that this approach is misleading and may even have concealed signs of reef stress.
Macroalgae coverage depends greatly on the types growing in a particular location. Sargassum is less most likely to grow in water contaminated by farming overflow, however Halimeda will prosper. In both cases, a reef will suffer.
The worldwide research study group concluded that using macroalgae protection as an indicator of local human effects can in fact obscure how much our actions are harming reefs, and cause researchers to misidentify the reefs most in requirement of intervention.
Reference: “Macroalgae display varied actions to human disruptions on reef” 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.
