Open Journal of Ecology: Community-Based Coral Reef Rehabilitation in a Changing Climate: Lessons Learned from Hurricanes, Extreme Rainfall, and Changing Land Use Impacts

http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=50930#.VE_CUWf61Rp
OJE> Vol.4 No.14, October 2014

Edwin A. Hernández-Delgado1,2,3*, Alex E. Mercado-Molina2,3, Pedro J. Alejandro-Camis3, Frances Candelas-Sánchez3, Jaime S. Fonseca-Miranda2,3, Carmen M. González-Ramos1,2,3, Roger Guzmán-Rodríguez3, Pascal Mège2, Alfredo A. Montañez-Acuña1,2,3, Iván Olivo Maldonado3, Abimarie Otaño-Cruz1,3,4, Samuel E. Suleimán-Ramos3

Affiliation(s)
1Center for Applied Tropical Ecology and Conservation, Coral Reef Research Group, University of Puerto Rico, San Juan, Puerto Rico.
2Department of Biology, University of Puerto Rico, San Juan, Puerto Rico.
3Sociedad Ambiente Marino, San Juan, Puerto Rico.
4Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Puerto Rico, San Juan, Puerto Rico.

ABSTRACT
Coral reefs have largely declined across multiple spatial scales due to a combination of local-scale anthropogenic impacts, and due to regional-global climate change. This has resulted in a significant loss of entire coral functional groups, including western Atlantic Staghorn coral (Acropora cervicornis) biotopes, and in a net decline of coral reef ecosystem resilience, ecological functions, services and benefits. Low-tech coral farming has become one of the most important tools to help restore depleted coral reefs across the Wider Caribbean Region. We tested a community-based, low-tech coral farming approach in Culebra Island, Puerto Rico, aimed at adapting to climate change-related impacts through a two-year project to propagate A. cervicornis under two contrasting fishing management conditions, in coastal areas experimenting significant land use changes. Extreme rainfall events and recurrent tropical storms and hurricanes had major site-and method-specific impacts on project outcome, particularly in areas adjacent to deforested lands and subjected to recurrent impacts from land-based source pollution (LBSP) and runoff. Overall, coral survival rate in “A frame” units improved from 73% during 2011-2012 to 81% during 2012-2013. Coral survival rate improved to 97% in horizontal line nurseries (HLN) incorporated during 2012-2013. Percent tissue cover ranged from 86% to 91% in “A frames”, but reached 98% in HLN. Mean coral skeletal extension was 27 cm/y in “A frames” and 40 cm/y in HLN. These growth rates were up to 545% to 857% faster than previous reports from coral farms from other parts of the Caribbean, and up to 438% faster than wild colonies. Branch production and branchiness index (no. harvestable branches > 6 cm) increased by several orders of magnitude in comparison to the original colonies at the beginning of the project. Coral mortality was associated to hurricane physical impacts and sediment-laden runoff impacts associated to extreme rainfall and deforestation of adjacent lands. This raises a challenging question regarding the impact of chronic high sea surface temperature (SST), in combination with recurrent high nutrient pulses, in fostering increased coral growth at the expense of coral physiological conditions which may compromise corals resistance to disturbance. Achieving successful local management of reefs and adjacent lands is vital to maintain the sustained net production in coral farms and of reef structure, and the provision of the important ecosystem services that they provide. These measures are vital for buying time for reefs while global action on climate change is implemented. Adaptive community-based strategies are critical to strengthen institutional management efforts. But government agencies need to transparently build local trust, empower local stakeholders, and foster co-management to be fully successful. Failing to achieve that could make community-based coral reef rehabilitation more challenging, and could potentially drive rapidly declining, transient coral reefs into the slippery slope to slime.

KEYWORDS
Acropora cervicornis, Climate Change, Coral Farming, Extreme Weather Events

Cite this paper
Hernández-Delgado, E. , Mercado-Molina, A. , Alejandro-Camis, P. , Candelas-Sánchez, F. , Fonseca-Miranda, J. , González-Ramos, C. , Guzmán-Rodríguez, R. , Mège, P. , Montañez-Acuña, A. , Maldonado, I. , Otaño-Cruz, A. and Suleimán-Ramos, S. (2014) Community-Based Coral Reef Rehabilitation in a Changing Climate: Lessons Learned from Hurricanes, Extreme Rainfall, and Changing Land Use Impacts. Open Journal of Ecology, 4, 918-944. doi: 10.4236/oje.2014.414077.

Coral-list–Center for Biologic Diversity: 20 Newly Listed Species via ESA

I’m a scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity and one of the
authors of the petition to list the 83 corals. I wanted to respond to some
of the issues that have been raised about the 20 corals that were recently
listed, including the Center’s role, what the listing means, and steps
forward.

The Center petitioned to list 83 corals in 2009 to provide added
conservation tools to help these corals survive and recover in the face of
the growing threats from ocean warming, ocean acidification, disease, and
the myriad of other stressors they face. The ESA will give these corals (1)
protection of essential habitat in US waters, (2) a comprehensive recovery
plan with actions to recover these species, such as reducing ocean warming
and acidification impacts, mitigating local stressors, and implementing
coral restoration and ecosystem conservation activities; (3) reduction of
harms from federal government activities including energy projects,
discharge of pollution from point sources, non-point source pollution,
dredging, pile-driving, setting of water quality standards, vessel traffic,
aquaculture facilities, military activities, and fisheries management
practices; and (4) increased public attention and research momentum at a
time when more conservation action, research, and awareness about the coral
crisis is urgently needed.

A number of people on this list have already suggested helpful ideas for
research priorities and recovery actions for these newly listed corals. We
look forward to working with coral scientists, NMFS, NGOs, and others
interested in coral conservation to discuss ideas for research and
conservation priorities to make ESA protection as meaningful as possible for
these corals.

Here are some responses to questions that have been raised on the listserve
about the Center’s role in the coral listing process and what the ESA
listings mean:

What is the Center for Biological Diversity?

For those of you who don’t know us, the Center is a non-profit conservation
organization dedicated to protecting endangered species and wild places
through science, policy, education and environmental law. Our organization
is made up of scientists, organizers, campaigners, policy analysts,
conservation advocates, communications staff, support staff, and
environmental lawyers who work to make sure our keystone environmental laws
are implemented and enforced. Everyone here is very dedicated to making
positive conservation change, and is very knowledgeable about the species
and ecosystems they work to protect.

Our Climate and Oceans programs worked together on this petition. Our
Climate program focuses on protecting species threatened with extinction
from climate change and limiting the carbon pollution that threatens them.
Our Oceans program works to protect marine species in US waters from a suite
a threats, and has long worked to reduce the threat of ocean acidification.

The Center has worked on coral conservation efforts in US waters for more
than a decade. We petitioned to list the elkhorn and staghorn corals in
2004, and went to court to make sure these corals got critical habitat
protection and a recovery plan when NMFS was overdue on issuing these
protections.

How did the Center select the 83 corals?

We selected the 83 corals based on (1) their designation as vulnerable,
endangered, or critically endangered by the IUCN based on the analysis by
Kent Carpenter and co-authors, summarized in their 2008 Science paper, (2)
their occurrence in US waters where ESA protections can provide the most
benefit, and (3) studies indicating that they are declining and/or
particularly vulnerable to threats. We wrote and submitted a 198-page
scientific petition in 2009 that cited more than 200 scientific studies.

We recognize that may be disagreement about the species that we petitioned
for and the species that NMFS ultimately listed. People may have wanted more
species, fewer species, or different species listed. We petitioned for the
83 corals based on the scientific evidence available in 2009. Coral
scientists and other citizens always have the option to petition NMFS to
designate additional corals for protection

How does the petition process work?

The ESA allows any citizen to submit a scientific petition to our wildlife
protection agencies, FWS or NMFS, requesting that the agency evaluate the
scientific evidence for protecting that species under the ESA as
“endangered” (in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range) or “threatened” (likely to become endangered in the
foreseeable future). NMFS and FWS can and should initiate the listing
process on their own, but this is uncommon. After receiving a petition, the
agency must determine whether the information in the petition and in the
agency’s possession is sufficient to show that the species may be threatened
or endangered. If so, the agency initiates a scientific status review of
that species to determine whether it merits listing, and then takes an
additional year to finalize a proposed listing.

In the case of the corals, NMFS determined that 82 of the 83 petitioned
species merited a scientific status review. Based on an extended status
review and public comment period, NMFS proposed 66 corals for listing as
threatened or endangered, and additionally proposed uplisting for elkhorn
and staghorn corals from threatened to endangered. After an additional
public comment period and review, NMFS finalized a threatened listing for 20
coral species.

What does the ESA listing mean for the 20 corals?

The ESA provides mandatory conservation tools to increase protections for
listed corals. These include:

(1) Protection of critical habitat in US waters.

(2) A science-based recovery plan with specific management and research
actions to help each listed species survive and recover.

(3) Protection from federal government activities that could harm the corals
and their habitat. US government agencies must consult with federal
biologists to ensure that their actions do not harm listed corals. Through
this consultation process, federal agencies whose activities could harm
corals and their habitat, for example through water pollution, dredging,
commercial fishing, and coastal construction, must analyze their impacts on
corals and take steps to reduce or eliminate them, thereby minimizing
stressors on coral reefs.

(4) Raising greater public awareness about threats to corals to mobilize
support for conservation action. The fact that 22 corals in US waters have
been identified as at risk of extinction primarily due to ocean warming,
ocean acidification, and disease sends a strong message on the need for
meaningful action to reduce carbon pollution at the national and
international level.

Studies have shown the ESA to be effective at preventing extinction and
recovering listed species. The ESA has prevented the extinction of 99% of
species that have been listed to date. One study estimated that 227 listed
plants and animals would have disappeared by 2006 if not for the ESA’s
protections. A recent analysis concluded that the ESA has been successful in
recovering listed species: 90 percent of sampled species are recovering at
the rate specified by their recovery plans

What has the ESA done to help the elkhorn and staghorn coral that were
listed in 2006?

The elkhorn and staghorn corals, which were listed as threatened in 2006,
have received a number of important ESA protections:

(1) The designation of almost 3,000 square miles of protected critical
habitat in US waters in 2008.

(2) The issuance of a draft recovery plan in 2014, which is now open for
public comment through October 20:

https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/09/05/2014-21154/endangered-an
d-threatened-species-draft-recovery-plan-for-staghorn-and-elkhorn-corals

(3) US federal agencies have been required to modify a wide range of
projects to reduce harms to these corals, including mitigation to harbor
construction projects, the laying of undersea cable, fisheries management
plans, and park management plans.

(4) ESA protection has allowed citizens to challenge government actions that
are harming corals. For example, the Center and allies challenged NMFS’s
authorization of targeted fishing for parrotfish and other algae-eating reef
fish that threatens the health of elkhorn and staghorn corals. In 2013, the
court determined that NMFS must do a better job monitoring the effects of
commercial fishing on elkhorn and staghorn coral in the U.S. Virgin Islands
and Puerto Rico.

How does ESA protection affect research activities?

ESA listing typically directs more research attention and funding to listed
species. The number of published studies on a species often increases
significantly following a listing. In addition, the scientific status review
during the ESA listing process and the recovery plan developed after listing
identify key research gaps and research priorities that can mobilize
research attention and funding.

Researchers do not need a permit from NMFS for research or enhancement
activities for the 20 newly listed corals:
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/corals.htm.

What are next steps forward for listed corals?

Several important next steps forward include:

(1) identifying research gaps and research priorities to better characterize
the natural history, population status and trends, threats, and conservation
priorities for these corals;

(2) identifying and designating critical habitat areas essential to help
these corals survive and recover, including occupied and unoccupied areas
and climate refugia;

(3) identifying and implementing the suite of recovery actions needed to
help each species survive and recover. For example, the 2014 draft recovery
plan for the elkhorn and staghorn corals includes (a) actions to address
ocean warming and acidification impacts on these species, (b) local threat
reductions and mitigation strategies, (c) in and ex situ conservation and
restoration such as population enhancement through restoration, restocking,
and active management, and (d) ecosystem-level actions to improve habitat
quality and restore keystone reef species and functional processes.

(4) raising public awareness about the coral crisis and what we can do to
help as scientists, policy makers, conservation practitioners, and concerned
citizens.

Thanks,

Shaye Wolf, Ph.D.

Climate Science Director

Center for Biological Diversity

swolf@biologicaldiversity.org

Coral Morphologic: Bad Year for Coral Bleaching & Sediment on Miami coral reefs

Coral Morphologic

12:09 PM (3 hours ago)

to coral-list
A combination of hot weather and sunny days in summer 2014 has resulted in
very a bad year for coral bleaching in South Florida. Recently, we surveyed
the natural reef (‘first reef tract’) just offshore Fisher Island here in
Miami. Unfortunately, the water has been kept exceptionally silty from the
Army Corps’ ongoing dredging of nearby Government Cut. The water is 10-15
feet deep here, and nearly all of the coral heads on the reef were
bleached. However, the most alarming thing we observed, was the prevalence
of black band disease infecting many of the brain corals. As evidenced from
the video, the dredge silt has settled on the corals, and seems a likely a
culprit in causing this disease outbreak. Prior to this summer, we have
never observed BBD as prevalently on Miami’s corals. Currently, the dredge
ships are operating just outside the mouth of Government Cut jetties,
resulting in plumes of silt that smother corals on the natural reefs in
every direction.

See the video of the bleached and diseased corals here:

Miami Coral Bleaching Report (September 7, 2014)

Fortunately, the water temperatures have steadily decreased since the start
of September, so we are hopeful that the bleached corals throughout South
Florida will begin to recover soon. However, up here in Miami with the Deep
Dredge ongoing, our corals may be too stressed out, diseased, or smothered
to survive. We will be monitoring the situation closely, and will continue
to update as necessary.

Cheers,
Colin Foord
Co-Founder Coral Morphologic
www.coralmorphologic.com
________________________

Huffington Post: 20 New Species Of Coral Listed As Threatened

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/27/coral-threatened_n_5724936.html?utm_hp_ref=email_share

The Center for Biologic Diversity deserves the credit for starting the process with NOAA to designate these corals. DeeVon

WASHINGTON (AP) — The federal government is protecting 20 types of colorful coral by putting them on the list of threatened species, partly because of climate change.

As with the polar bear, much of the threat to the coral species is because of future expected problems due to global warming, said David Bernhart, an endangered-species official at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. These coral species are already being hurt by climate change “but not to the point that they are endangered yet,” he said.

Climate change is making the oceans warmer, more acidic and helping with coral diseases like bleaching — and those “are the major threats” explaining why the species were put on the threatened list, Bernhart said in a Wednesday conference call.

Other threats include overfishing, runoff from the land, and some coastal construction, but those are lesser, Bernhart said.

Five species can be found off the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts of Florida, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. They include pillar coral, rough cactus coral and three species of star coral. The other 15 are in the Pacific Ocean area near Guam and American Samoa, but not Hawaii.

The agency looked at listing 66 species, but Wednesday listed only 20 for various reasons. All are called threatened, not endangered. Two coral species were already listed.

Coral reefs, which are in trouble worldwide, are important fish habitats.

The agency did not create any new rules yet that would prevent coral from being harvested or damaged.

“There is a growing body of expert scientists talking about a risk of mass extinction in the sea and on land,” said Elliott Norse, founder and chief scientist of the Marine Conservation Institute of Seattle. Coral “are organisms on the front line of anything that humans do.”

“I hope this wakes people up and we don’t have to lose more coral,” Norse said.

__

Online:

NOAA: http://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/stories/2014/08/corals_listing.html

E&E: Marine protected areas alone unlikely to save degraded reefs — study

Joshua Learn, E&E reporter

Published: Friday, August 22, 2014

Coral larvae and fish looking for new homes are able to sniff out and
avoid areas degraded by overfishing, pollution or other problems,
according to research published yesterday in the journal Science.

Danielle Dixson, a biology professor at the Georgia Institute of
Technology in Atlanta and the lead author, said the study suggests that
designating protected marine areas may not always lead to healthier
reefs nearby.

Further intervention may be needed, she said, to help degraded areas
recover.

Researchers started by testing 15 fish species and three coral species
in the lab for their ability to smell healthy reef locations ripe for
colonizing based on seawater they injected into the water.

“We were really wondering what chemical cues makes them decide where to
go,” Dixson said in a telephone interview, adding that the species
showed “a very strong preference for water taken from the healthy reef
areas.”

The scientists then took tests out to waters in Fiji that have very
healthy and well-protected reef areas next to spots that have suffered
hugely from overfishing or other human-related activities.

“Coral are pretty much a living rock, they can’t move once they’ve
settled,” Dixson said.

Larvae, she said, will often scout settlement areas out before choosing
to lay down their roots and begin forming coral. But in Fiji they
tended to avoid areas plagued with too much algae.

In Fiji, she said, “degraded reefs are pretty much algal parking lots.”

The discovery is troubling, she said, because marine protected acres
(MPAs) are supposed to act as recovery points for wider areas, as fish
and other species don’t stick within their borders.

“The point of a marine protected area is not only to protect what’s
inside its area,” she said.

But in Fiji it’s not happening in some areas because larvae and the
fish that follow them once the coral has developed probably don’t ever
recognize that some algae-covered areas are habitat anymore.

“When two areas are too different from one another, the MPA might not
be working in the way that we think it should be working,” she said.
“That feedback loop is just not going to occur.”

Joana Figueiredo, a marine larval ecologist at the Oceanographic Center
at Nova Southeastern University in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., said the
study’s findings seem reasonable.

“Just by the scent of the water, the larva decided the water wasn’t
good,” she said, adding that the study is in agreement with things that
have been published before.

Both Figueiredo and Dixson said that as a result, conservationists need
to think about wider strategies than just demarcating protected zones.

“What she’s showing is that you cannot just protect a little small area
and not worry about the condition of all the rest. The overall quality
of the area needs to be high,” Figueiredo said. “It’s not just by
protecting one area that you will be able to save a reef.”

Dixson said ways to do this could include clearing the algae from areas
that would otherwise be appropriate for coral settlement, or even
learning more about the kinds of scents that different coral favor in
settlement, as some species will put up with a smellier home than
others.

It’s an important area of study, Dixson said, because once reefs go
past a certain point, we don’t know what we can do to help them.

She’s currently working on related studies testing the chemical
preferences of Caribbean coral species off the coast of Belize.