OT: Accidental discovery could save coral reefs
Ok, if it's not officially OT season strike me dead with a rusty hammer. Thought I'd share this amazing discovery that will have huge benefits for the health of the world's oceans.
December 6th, 2018 at 1:23 PM ^
Educated guess:
Improved ratio of surface area to volume. Would improve gas diffusion and nutrient access.
Not my field but I am an MD/PhD biochemist. It doesn't feel like a surprising finding at all. The surprise is our slowness of realizing it.
December 6th, 2018 at 1:30 PM ^
But that wouldn't explain why a coral that is the same size (and same surface area to volume ratio) as another coral could grow faster if it was microfragmented previously. Unless the "author" here is meaning coverage area when he says size instead of actual size.
Incidentally, looks like this work was published in 2014, so not exactly a new discovery.
December 6th, 2018 at 3:11 PM ^
As opposed to cool Mgoblog threads like "Reddit CFB Risk", "Draftageddon", and "Ann Arbor City Council Politics"...
December 6th, 2018 at 2:54 PM ^
This is probably close. Coral are actually colonies of microorganisms called zooxanthellae. These microorganisms are what produce the vivid colors and the calcium-based skeleton that we see and call coral. Thus, when you fragment the skeleton, you aren't actually damaging the organism at all. This is also why two fragments of the same species will fuse together when they touch.
It is surprising that this took so long to be used to re-populate natural reefs. "Fragging" as it's called has been used for decades to sustainably produce and share corals in the aquarium industry. Most aquarium suppliers have large farms set up to constantly generate small fragments to sell.
Despite being very resilient to propagation by fragging, the zooxanthella are very susceptible to even the smallest of changes in water chemistry, light conditions, flow, and temperature. It's easy to crash an entire aquarium with a small mistake.
Source: I went all-in and maintained a reef tank for a few years during grad school. It was a ton of work and required loads a research to maintain a balanced system, but was super rewarding.
December 10th, 2018 at 3:04 PM ^
Good response. I have kept reef aquariums for about 15 years and have seen this type of "behavior" firsthand (I've got a PhD but it's in fisheries management, not coral ecology/physiology). Fragging is an easy way to multiply coral colonies, share with other "reefers", and even make some money. I have often found that when you create a frag, the cut site on the original colony will not only heal quickly, but it will also promote additional growth. I don't know the molecular reason for this, but my assumption is that the rapid growth rate is due to the coral being in a state of "recovery" for an extended period of time. When the coral frags meet up with another it continues this recovery growth for a time. I've often found coral tips to "stagnate" and growth seems to cease. But when I click off the tips of those "stale" branches, I see an immediate growth response and often a number of branches will sprout from those cut sites. Anyhoo, this is a great finding even though it is surprising it hasn't been promoted for decades as one would think. Thanks to the OP for sharing!
December 6th, 2018 at 1:46 PM ^
I bet most scientists would have no clue how, since this borders on "spooky interaction".
But in the end, I'd put my money on a bioelectric field shared by supraorganisms, combined with each individual piece of coral containing a complete 300 years of knowledge on how to be a highly efficient coral.
December 6th, 2018 at 2:05 PM ^
What's crazy too is that when placed in proximity to one another the super-fragments "recognize" each other and fuse together.
December 6th, 2018 at 2:39 PM ^
No doubt it's amazing, and once you empirically prove the non "material" connection, we can get over the stalled dogma and get to a modern understanding of the Universe.
December 6th, 2018 at 1:13 PM ^
Oceans are so 20th century. The future is in space.
December 6th, 2018 at 1:15 PM ^
Perfect timing, because we have a Space Force Now.
Where are you on that, Putin?
December 6th, 2018 at 1:33 PM ^
We don't have the Space Force I believe you're referring to - the one Trump told the Joint Chiefs to start. That can't start until Congress tells the Pentagon to fire it up, and they're probably a good 5 years away from that.
There is a Space Command within each of the services, and a Joint Space Command that runs some warning centers. All of those would be put together in a brand new service called Space Force, to get whatever it was that Trump thought was cool at the time.
December 6th, 2018 at 1:49 PM ^
As far as I am concerned, until I have actual proof otherwise, I am convinced that we now have a Space Force with Podracers, Light Sabers, Spider Droids, etc. It's happening.
December 6th, 2018 at 5:53 PM ^
It sure sounds promising...
December 6th, 2018 at 1:56 PM ^
What's so ironic is the next 20 years will most likely show that Space Travel is actually 22nd Century at best; and, we'll probably need to understand the Ocean a lot better since it's the only thing that has protected life on earth from the levels of cosmic and gamma rays space travelers are sure to face.
December 6th, 2018 at 1:13 PM ^
Thanks for posting. Nice to see good news on this front for a change.
December 6th, 2018 at 1:23 PM ^
This is awesome, thanks
What do coral feed on? I know they excrete something to form the shell (if it's even called that). This is an amazing discovery, but that's a tremendous amount of growth they're talking about. Growth usually takes energy/resources, and that's going to take it from somewhere else. Maybe in the sense of vast oceans this doesn't matter, but hopefully they've thought that through.
IOW, if it takes 100 years for nature to do it, that's baked into the ecosystem. If these guys are now going to do that in a few years, that seems like a massive effect. But what the hell do I know.
December 6th, 2018 at 1:38 PM ^
It's discoveries like this that reinforce my opinion that climate change is not a big deal.
Regardless whether you believe humans are significant cause of climate change or not, and regardless of how dire predictions of the future are now, at the rate of human technological advancement within the next few hundred years we're going to have the means to not only stop detrimental climate change, but likely fully control it.
December 6th, 2018 at 1:43 PM ^
Only if those solutions are pursued. The pursuit of those solutions requires funding. Funding requires acknowledgment of the legitimate issue.
December 6th, 2018 at 1:58 PM ^
"Meh, we'll figure it out later" is seriously your answer on climate change? I don't mean to start an argument, but damn that's a hot take.
December 6th, 2018 at 2:05 PM ^
No pun intended? :-)
December 6th, 2018 at 2:45 PM ^
It will help if you debate him instead of the "make snarky comment, post lol" method you're using now.
He's obviously saying that 1) he doesn't see a serious problem for several hundred years (debatable, not laughable), and 2) he believes human technological advancement is occurring at an astonishing speed (true, not debatable), and 3) he believes that advancement will be able to solve the climate crisis before we need to worry (debatable).
I see one assumption up there that I agree with, another that's debatable, leading to a conclusion that's debatable. So make your arguments.
December 6th, 2018 at 5:56 PM ^
It's my understanding the sexy socialist is already on it.
December 6th, 2018 at 3:58 PM ^
Maybe the argument would be better received if the solution didn't always seem to involve restriction of freedoms or giving government greater power.
The accusation is thrown around that "climate change" (which a few years ago was global warming, and a few decades before that global cooling-make up your mind) is an excuse to take government in the direction of totalitarianism. Give us solutions that 1.) don't grow or expand government and 2.) don't tyrannize the individual, and maybe you'll get some better reception.
December 6th, 2018 at 2:00 PM ^
Within the next few hundred years reliance on fossil fuels will become negligible if not nonexistent, and that alone will forestall any future climate change and will help to repair the climate damage the fossil-fueled Industrial Revolution and its aftermath caused in the first place. Coal mines will shutter, fracking for oil will almost disappear, and natural gas will power electric utilities that will power everyone's EV. Zero emissions will benefit everyone and everything, including the coral reefs.
December 6th, 2018 at 2:06 PM ^
Oh, so we'll only have to deal with a few hundred years of climate change. Hopefully the effects we're seeing now don't get worse...
Also, natural gas is a fossil fuel.
December 6th, 2018 at 2:17 PM ^
Not to mention the fact that in many cases, harvesting natural gas requires fracking.....
December 6th, 2018 at 2:23 PM ^
- I don't trust the consensus view of scientists on climate change.
- I trust climate-adjacent scientists to satisfactorially solve this problem, the magnitude and time frames of which I'm not concerned with.
This is...not a compelling set of positions.
December 6th, 2018 at 4:49 PM ^
I remember in 1986 that people were saying we were all going to basically die from environmental destruction within ten years.
Time is the enemy of a false prophet.
December 6th, 2018 at 1:52 PM ^
All kidding aside it is a pretty important discovery
December 6th, 2018 at 1:57 PM ^
That is cool, life keeps on keeping on and always finds a better way.
December 6th, 2018 at 1:57 PM ^
Hmmmm. I'll be interested to see how these organisms hold up. One of the basic tenets of biology is that energy allocation requires tradeoffs. Organisms that allocate their energy to rapid growth and reproduction do so at the expense of durability (e.g. dandelions vs oak trees). If the 'natural' coral take 500 years to reach the size of a small car, what is the life expectancy of a coral that reaches the same size in 100 years? Are we planting a forest of coral that will be smashed the first time a Cat. 5 hurricane blows through?
December 7th, 2018 at 10:46 AM ^
Your point warrants further consideration, but I think your analogy is a bit off. It's more like we're taking the oak tree, taking cuttings of it, and planting those. The expense for the rapid growth is only the health of the original oak tree and also the rate of consumption of the environment's nutrients. However, the environment previously supported a higher population of coral, so in theory that could be fine.
December 6th, 2018 at 1:58 PM ^
Wtf does this have to do with U-M sports and why is this person allowed to create a post?
December 6th, 2018 at 2:07 PM ^
Well, he has been around for a long time and not everything has to be about Michigan sports once the season is over. Hence the "OT" which means off topic.
December 6th, 2018 at 2:10 PM ^
Because he didn't get negged into oblivion in his first year.
Got lube?
December 6th, 2018 at 2:09 PM ^
Climates change. They always have, they always will.
December 6th, 2018 at 2:12 PM ^
Rusty hammer. Is that anything like a rusty trombone?
December 6th, 2018 at 2:19 PM ^
Can coral reef beat OSU
December 6th, 2018 at 3:01 PM ^
Reefs help support some of the largest habitats on earth and the fetid buckeye is toxic to all life, ......so hell yeah!
December 6th, 2018 at 2:21 PM ^
Wish I could look at that but I'd have to sign up for Facebook, Bleah!
December 6th, 2018 at 2:23 PM ^
Dr. Vaughn- is that you???
December 6th, 2018 at 2:24 PM ^
This is amazing. Hope they can find strains that can survive the higher water temps and rebuild the Great Barrier as well.
December 6th, 2018 at 2:35 PM ^
FYI, the link no longer works. Had to watch the TED talk that someone else posted.
Sorry, this content isn't available right now
The link you followed may have expired, or the page may only be visible to an audience you're not in.
December 6th, 2018 at 3:14 PM ^
This is absolutely amazing!
December 6th, 2018 at 3:54 PM ^
I would probably be a whole lot more open to climate change arguments if the solution didn't always seem to involve more power and money being stolen from the individual and given to government.
As if there were an agenda...
BTW, not all scientists agree on the state of climate change: See Here
December 6th, 2018 at 4:13 PM ^
The Heartland Institute, the organization at the other end your link, took a similar stance on the health effects of secondhand smoke and actively lobbied for Big Tobacco. Skepticism is welcome in science, but Heartland engages in straight up denial.
Your first point is a better one, that the only solutions proposed to solve climate change are limits on individuals. But its a huge problem, global in scope, and individuals have clearly shown an inability to react (myself included... I sit in rush hour traffic every day, though I occasionally feel bad doing it). The incentives to change are so nebulous that they are hard to grasp... and so we find ourselves responding better to the stick than the carrot.
The large question is, how bad does it have to get for the carrot to be more engaging than the stick?
December 6th, 2018 at 4:31 PM ^
Even outside of the climate change argument, seems likely that a great deal of damage being done to these reefs is just due to all the fucking garbage being dumped into the oceans. I think everyone can agree that this is a disgrace and work to find solutions and prevention of pollution.
December 6th, 2018 at 4:46 PM ^
It's not just that they are "limits on individuals." It's that they are limits which expand the power of government, or benefit it or the people championing the belief of global warming.
Case in point: When Algore came out with his whole schtick about the climate, the first solution proposed was "carbon credits;" remember that? Are people aware that the purchase of carbon credits just "happened" to be a way to funnel some money into Algore's pocket?
Or that when he first started talking about the whole matter, that he was clamoring for alternative energy, and it was discovered that his own mansion did not have the alternative energy sources he demanded that everybody else had (he did so AFTER he was caught on the matter, but not before)?
It's like the whole argument for socialized medicine: if it's so great, why didn't the President or Congress forego their Cadillac health plans and get on Obamacare (which they did not)? Is government going to start carting statesmen about in electric cars or bicycles? Is the U.S.military going to switch to alternative fuels for its vehicles? If the situation is really that doomsday, shouldn't government practice what it preaches? Or is that just for the "common people down there"?
Or here's another one for you: how come countries like China (who put out FAR MORE alleged pollution than the U.S. ever did) are not asked to sign on to these fearmongering international environmental accords? Why is the U.S. always demanded to do so?
The funny thing is, there are actual ideas for alternative energy that I would be more than happy to consider. But when the solution is always bigger government and less freedom, that speaks to a motivation more akin to Marxist totalitarianism than it does real concern for the planet. It's like a man with a reputation for thievery always telling me to leave my doors unlocked and support gun control: the motivation seems to be something far more nefarious than what is being stated.