Reef Ramblings

January 11th 2013

Harking back to recent coverage of the public aquarium ‘Big Fish Campaign’ in UltraMarine and on Reef Ramblings, here is a good example of the potential problems caused by fish that grow to a size too large for the average aquarium.

Back in late December spear fisherman, Greg Caterino, caught what was initially a mystery species of fish, off North Key Largo, Florida.

Greg Caterino with the humpback grouper that he speared off North Key Largo.
Image: Wayne Grammes / KeysNet.com

This image helps put into perspective the potential size of this species.

On closer examination the 6.8 kilo (15 pound), 0.7 metre (27 inch) long fish was identified as a specimen of Chromileptes altivelis. Common names for this fish include: Humpback Grouper, Panther Grouper, and in Australia the Barramundi Cod.

Juveniles of this species are often found in the UK aquarium trade sold under the name Panther Grouper. As juveniles, at length of around 10 cms, these fish are attractive to inexperienced aquarists owing to their striking colouration of black polka dots on a white background.  Unfortunately they don’t retain their distinctive appearance and, as they grow, so does their appetite with any tank mate that can fit into their mouth becoming a potential meal.

Image: Tim Hayes

Example of a ‘cute’ juvenile Panther Grouper.

Although not directly relevant to the UK because of our cooler climate, in addition to the ‘Big Fish’ issue, there is the secondary issue of invasive species to consider. This is an Indo-Pacific species, almost certainly released into the sea by an aquarist whose tank it had outgrown. According to Lad Akins, Project Director for the Reef Environmental Education Foundation,  “This is not the first time these have been sighted in Florida, there have been five or six reported as far back as the 1980s, but all from different parts of the state.”

With one Indo-Pacific species, the Lionfish, Pterois volitans, well on the way to being established in the region, the fear in this area of the US is of another foreign invader joining it to the detriment of the local marine ecosystem.

Click here to learn more about the the Big Fish Campaign.

Tim Hayes

Reef Ramblings

©2013

The International trade in live corals may help preserve wild  corals and coral reefs.

In the wake of the recent proposal by the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to list 66 species of coral under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Sea Shepherd adding the elimination of the aquarium hobby to its aims, it is heartening to see a study published this week showing that the reef aquarium trade may be having a positive influence on coral reefs.

The study, ‘Long-term trends of coral imports into the United States indicate future opportunities for ecosystem and societal benefits’ by Rhyne, Tlusty, and Kaufman, was published in the December issue of the journal Conservation Letters. The team of researchers from Roger Williams University, Boston University, Conservation International, and the New England Aquarium, suggest that the trade in live corals may help to preserve wild corals and coral reef ecosystems.

Whereas trade in corals was once primarily a trade of dried skeletons as curios, it is now concentrated on supplying live corals for the reef aquarium hobby in a trade that is continually evolving, with the introduction of species new to the hobby.

The authors analysed 21 years of US import data, finding that the coral trade had increased over 8% per year between 1990 until the mid-2000s, and has since reduced by 9% annually. The timing of the peak and decline varies between species, and is a result of the rising popularity of the reef aquarium hobby, global financial issues, and an increase in domestic aquaculture production, with the decrease mostly owing to the current economic climate.

The live coral trade is viewed by some critics as a threat to the high biodiversity ecosystems that make up the coral reefs, however, supplying the aquarium trade with locally cultivated corals offers opportunities for reef conservation, provides sustainable economic benefits to coastal communities, along with an incentive to protect the reefs from which the mother colonies are obtained.

Recent changes in the trade of live corals for the reef aquarium hobby are resulting in new opportunities for conservation. “The trade has moved from a wild harvest to mariculture production, a change sparked by long-term efforts to produce a sustainable income to small island countries such as the Solomon Islands and also by the government of Indonesia,” says Andrew Rhyne, lead-author and Roger Williams University assistant professor of marine biology and research scientist at the New England Aquarium. This shift from a wild fishery to a mariculture product poses new opportunities and challenges for conservationists.

The rapid evolution of the trade with new species waxing and waning in value makes effective management difficult. “New species in the live coral trade initially command high prices, but as they become common the price drops with feedback effects to the trade,” said Les Kaufman, Boston University professor of biology and research fellow at Conservation International.

“The live coral trade offers opportunities for coral reef ecosystem conservation and sustainable economic benefits to coastal communities,” says Rhyne. Michael Tlusty of the New England Aquarium, adding that “the realization of these externalities will require effective data tracking.”

Coral reefs are subject to numerous anthropogenic threats including the global threat of warming oceans that are becoming more acidic, and local threats such as improper land use resulting in increased nutrient loading, and over-fishing, which can trigger an ecological cascade resulting in blooms of seaweed that inhibit coral growth.

Trade can be a strong incentive for conservation, but this emerging local conservation tool may be at risk from well-intended restrictions to trade such as ESA listing, and similar prohibitions, intended to protect corals and coral reefs. Restrictions such as these may eliminate the benefits of the trade revealed by the study. These benefits include putting a value on intact coral reefs, and providing a greatly needed income for many in the island nations where hundreds of millions of people rely on the reef for subsistence. A more selective regulatory approach that allows local efforts to sensibly manage reef resources may be preferable.

Editorial comment

It is refreshing to see a study that emphasises the value of the reef aquarium hobby to those living in supply countries who rely on the reefs for their meagre livelihood. Putting greater value on the reefs locally would, hopefully, bring about a reduction in destructive fishing methods such as dynamite fishing and the use of cyanide

In recognising the value of the trade in corals as a positive tool for reef conservation it would seem appropriate if some way could be found for these mostly poor, subsistence fisherman to gain greater benefits from the aquarium trade, acknowledging their role in managing the reef environment.

As an aside, it’s interesting to see that the decline in trade varies species to species and the comments regarding new species, suggesting that species popularity may be subject to fashion and whim rather than an desire to recreate a realistic portrayal of the wild reef in the home aquarium.

Tim Hayes

Reef Ramblings

©2012

The recent appointment of Robert Wintner to the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society’s Board of Directors heralds a new threat to the reef aquarium industry and hobby.

Wintner, also known as ‘Snorkel Bob’, has been an outspoken opponent of the collection of fishes for the aquarium trade in Hawaii, campaigning for an outright ban on the collection and exportation of Hawaiian reef fishes. His description of the reef aquarium hobby is full of negative hyperbole and questionable facts, painting an over-the-top picture of the hobby as being tremendously destructive of reef life.

With his appointment to the board of Sea Shepherd he is extending his opposition to the reef aquarium trade to one of worldwide elimination.

Sea Shepherd

The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, initially named “Earth Force Society”, was formed in 1977, after its founder, Paul Watson, was expelled from the board of Greenpeace over disagreements about his direct action activism.

Over the years Sea Shepherd has engaged in various campaigns opposing Drift-netting, Seal hunting, Whaling, Shark-finning, and Dolphin hunting, these have often included direct action which has led to some critics describing their actions as piracy or terrorism.

For more about the organisation see: http://www.seashepherd.org/

See also the Wikepedia entry for Sea Shepherd, which details its history along with a record of the organisation’s various campaigns.

Sea Shepherd’s Position on the Aquarium Trade

Since his appointment Wintner has issued a statement on Sea Shepherd’s position on the aquarium trade, entitled, “Wildlife Species are a Public Trust, Not Disposable Trinkets”

“The aquarium trade serves a dark hobby, confining coral reef wildlife and destroying reefs around the world. Stripping reefs for an amusement industry is theoretically no different than capturing cetaceans for commercial shows. 98% of aquarium fish are wild caught. Many people may not reflect on the colorful fish in glass tanks used as furnishings for offices, bistros, waiting rooms, or homes—and some people may assume those fish are bred in captivity. The fact is that 2% of those fish are captive-bred and 98% are taken from the wild. This devastating practice results in severe mortality rates from the point of capture through handling, shipping, and acclimation. Coral damage is well documented and often witnessed with viewers observing anchors, chains, and nets in the coral and collectors breaking coral in pursuit of a few more bucks.

The aquarium trade is covered in verbiage, but trafficking in reef wildlife for the pet trade is not sustainable or “captive-bred whenever possible.” 40 million reef fish and invertebrates supply 1.5 million aquariums around the world, annually. Wildlife species are a public trust, not disposable trinkets. Marine reef systems are intricately balanced, with each species performing a role in reef maintenance and balance. Multiband Butterflyfish do not leave their reef by choice. Once stripped of Multiband Butterflies, the species is lost to that reef indefinitely. The Hawaiian cleaner wrasse is a charismatic, vital species endemic to Hawaii. They set up cleaning stations where many species gather for grooming in a social setting. Hawaiian cleaner wrasses die in thirty days of captivity without 30-40 other fish to clean, yet they ship out daily for retail sale. Many reefs in Hawaii are now vulnerable to parasite loading. Yellow tangs are herbivores, grazing on algae dawn to dusk to prevent reef suffocation, yet they ship out by the millions to enhance aquarium trade profits. Hawaii’s Director of Natural Resources should not be an aquarium collector. Nor should reef species be sacrificed to support any amusement industry, including sales of tanks, stands, lights, tickets, or decorative trinkets. Under pressure worldwide from acidification, climate change, and associated events—like crown of thorns starfish invasions triggered by warmer water—coral reef systems must maintain optimal immune systems with a full balance of species.The staggering death rate of captive reef wildlife occurs mostly in the 30-day span between capture and chemical error in a home aquarium. Many of these species live for decades in the wild, providing reef function and reef balance.

Hawaii is the third largest supplier of reef fish in the U.S. aquarium trade, accounting for empty reefs and vanishing reef species. Florida takes millions of reef individuals annually, even as society scapegoats the invasive lionfish, a voracious predator introduced by the aquarium trade to east coast and Caribbean reefs. Lionfish did not reach the Atlantic on their own.

Aquarium trade trafficking leaves reefs unbalanced, degraded, and depleted. No factor in reef decline can absolve any other factor- acidification, runoff, climate change, or any other negative impact on reef health cannot justify aquarium extraction. The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society seeks to stop global trafficking in live fish for hobby or display markets.”

What should the reef aquarium hobby do in response?

The reef aquarium hobby and industry needs to demonstrate that they are not wantonly destroying reef animals. Fishes and corals can, and do, live out their natural lifespan, in reef aquaria, free of the danger of predation. In the case of corals this can be a lifespan stretching into decades during which time many additional colonies may be created through asexual reproduction, which can in turn, be distributed back into the trade, reducing the quantities harvested from the wild.

The aquarium industry is an important source of income for some of the least well off peoples in the world who live in the supply countries. Increasingly corals are being maricultured for the trade in the supply countries, reducing the impact on the wild.

Indeed, as I try and point out whenever I can, the reef aquarium hobby has an important role in educating people about the dangers of climate change. Most people are never going to visit a tropical reef; by bringing a small slice of the reef into the home we can show non hobbyists the marvellous animals that we are in danger of losing to higher water temperature and acidification, helping to bring awareness of the realities of mankind’s affect on the planet

The aquarium hobby is not perfect but neither is it anywhere near as dark as Sea Shepherd would like to make out, if aquarium losses where anywhere near as high as suggested the hobby would have shut down long ago.  Doubtless we can improve the lives of the fishes, coral, and other invertebrates that are central to the hobby and prevent any unnecessary losses through education.

Organisations such as SAIA, the Sustainable Aquarium Industry Association, exist to help educate both the hobby and the trade by offering information on ‘Best Practises’ to ensure high standards of husbandry.

Do your bit for the hobby, show off your reef aquarium to as many non-hobbyists as possible, research potential new acquisitions before purchase, learn as much as possible about the reef animals that you keep to ensure their long-term survival, and support SAIA in its efforts to educate and inform.

Additional references:

Wintner’s statement on Sea Shepherd’s position on the aquarium trade.

Sea Shepard board of directors.

Tim Hayes

Reef Ramblings

©2012

US Proposes Listing 66 Stony Coral Species as Endangered

In response to a 2009 petition from the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) to list 83 coral species as threatened, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is proposing Endangered Species Act (ESA) listings for 66 stony coral species, 59 from the Pacific and seven from the Caribbean.

Indo-Pacific

In the Pacific seven coral species are listed as endangered:

A further 52 species are listed as threatened, including a number of popular reef aquarium corals:

Caribbean/Atlantic/Gulf

In the Caribbean/Atlantic/Gulf region, five species are listed as endangered and two as threatened, with two species already listed being reclassified from threatened to endangered.

All of the species proposed for listing are already protected under CITES – the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species.

What does this mean for the hobby?

Being listed as an endangered species prohibits the collection of the species along with the import, export, or any commercial activities dealing in the species. Prohibition is not automatic for species listed as threatened, but can be applied to them as well.

Effectively this will remove all of the species listed under the ESA from the US reef aquarium hobby except for existing captive stock.

It is unclear whether the prohibition would apply to the trade in frags of these species taken from existing captive stock. I would certainly hope not.

Does this ban affect the UK hobby?

The prohibition applies to the USA and its territories not to areas outside of US control so any ban may not directly affect the UK/EU hobby and trade. Indeed, there is the possibility of increased availability of some of these species given the loss of the US as a purchaser.

However, legislation such as this, should it go ahead, may increase the chances of other nations restricting the collection and sale of corals for the reef aquarium hobby.

What happens next?

There will be a 90-day public comment period during which NOAA will hold 18 public meetings on the proposed listing before making a final decision by December 2013.

To find out more about the proposed listing, see the NOAA website.

Further articles in connection with the Centre for Biological Diversity:

Possible ban on collecting clownfishes.

Center for Biological Diversity Seeks Endangered Species Act Protection for the Dwarf Seahorse.

The Beginning of the End for Stony Corals in the Reef Aquarium Hobby.

Tim Hayes

Reef Ramblings

©2012

Coral Gobies are those Goby species that live in association with stony corals, often branching Acropora species, in a relationship that up until now has been described as commensal.

New research from the Georgia Institute of Technology reveals that the relationship between coral gobies and their coral hosts is more complex than previously believed. Coral gobies are small fishes, around 2.5 centimetres long, that spend their entire life living amongst the branches and crevices of their coral host, protected from predators.

This paper, published in the latest issue of the journal Science, ‘Corals Chemically Cue Mutualistic Fishes to Remove Competing Seaweeds’, seems to demonstrate that the relationship between the fish and the coral is a mutualistic one, benefiting both parties. The researchers found evidence that coral gobies respond to chemical signals from the coral, generated when the coral was under threat from toxic algae, stimulating the fish to remove the invasive seaweed.

The study revolved around Acropora nasuta, as with other Acroporids, an important reef building coral, and 2 species of coral goby, Gobiodon histrio – a popular aquarium species, and Paragobiodon echinocephalus. G. histrio was shown to consume the invasive seaweed whilst P. echinocephalus removed it.

Gobiodon histrio

Coral-dwelling gobies in the genus Gobiodon posses toxic skin secretions believed to act as a chemical defence against predation by larger fishes, this study also showed that the gobies eating the toxic seaweed increased the toxicity of their skin secretions.

Commensalism versus Mutualism

Commensalism is defined as a class of relationship between two organisms where one organism benefits without affecting the other. In view of this new research it would seem that this relationship should be redefined as one of mutualism, a relationship in which both organisms benefit. Given that this relationship has been described for two species of coral goby it seem likely that most, if not all, of the small fishes in this group are engaged in a mutualistic relationship with their coral hosts and hence should be provided with a suitable coral species in captivity.

Which Coral Host?

FishBase lists 20 species under Gobiodon ranging from 2.1 to 6.6 cms total length (TL) and 5 species under Paragobiodon ranging from 3.0 to 3.5 cms TL. I’ve done a quick cross reference between information from FishBase and the book Reef Fishes of the East Indies by Gerald Allen and Mark Erdmann, and come up with a list showing which fish species coexist with which coral.

(GA) source = Reef Fishes of the East Indies

In the Reef Aquarium

In light of the research revealing coral gobies to be in a mutualistic relationship with their coral host I would propose that, from an aquarium point of view, these coral goby species should be kept with a branching coral host to replicate their natural association. Although it would be next to impossible to define the exact species required for each individual fish imported, the provision of something close to their natural habitat may go a long way to reducing stress levels and improving their quality of life in captivity.

In many ways coral gobies are the perfect fish for the reef aquarium. They have little requirement for swimming room so their small size and sedentary lifestyle puts little load on the filtration system. Fed appropriate foods, these small fishes should be able live in captivity in a manner that mirrors their natural existence, noticing little difference from their life in the wild.

It is interesting to reflect that for very small fish, coral gobies can have an unusually long lifespan, living up to ten years in captivity. By contrast, the slightly smaller gobies in genus Trimma may have a lifespan measured in weeks.

See also, ‘An Introduction to Gobies for the Nano Reef: Genus Gobiodon and Paragobiodon – Coral or Clown Gobies.‘

Tim Hayes

Reef Ramblings

©2012

14^th October 2012

The Seahorse Trust has managed to achieve a ban on the sale of seahorses on eBay by working with the multinational online shopping website.

eBay has prohibited the sale of seahorses on all of its EU sites and restricted the US to domestic sales only (although the Seahorse Trust is lobbying its US members with the aim of getting greater regulation there too.)

The Seahorse Trust, based near Honiton, Devon, was established in 1999 as an organisation to preserve and conserve the marine environment using seahorses as its flagship species. It is an eBay registered charity and receives donations via the online retailer.

Photo Courtesy of the Seahorse Trust

Neil Garrick-Maidment, director of the Seahorse Trust, said he had been alerted by supporters to the fact that dozens of eBay sellers were offering seahorses and seahorse curios. “All seahorses are legally protected and much of the eBay trafficking was illegal under EU and other international regulations. The sellers were based all round the world and were dealing in everything from living seahorses to seahorses entombed in paperweights and hideous baskets full of dried seahorses.” he said.

Mr Garrick-Maidment said the quantities were enough to concern him as the numbers of animals involved must have been in the region of half-a-million per annum.

Mike Carson of eBay said, “We are aligning our enforcement to reflect the regulations in the EU and US. We are therefore prohibiting the sales of real seahorses on our EU sites and only allowing the sale of these items on the US site with domestic shipping.”

Go to the Seahorse Trust to find out more about its conservation work.

Tim Hayes

Reef Ramblings

©2012

On September 13^th the Center for Biological Diversity filed a formal petition with the US National Marine Fisheries Service seeking Endangered Species Act protection for the Percula clownfish, Amphiprion percula, and seven similarly coral-dependent damselfish threatened by climate change, ocean acidification and the marine aquarium trade.

© G.R. Allen.

The eight Pomacentrid species covered by the petition are:

• Amphiprion percula, Orange or Percula clownfish.
• Chromis atripectoralis, Black-axil Chromis.
• Chromis viridis, Blue-green damselfish.
• Dascyllus albisella, Hawaiian damselfish.
• Dascyllus reticulates, Reticulate damselfish or Two-stripe damselfish.
• Microspathodon chrysurus, Yellowtail damselfish or Jewel damselfish.
• Plectroglyphidodon dickii, Blackbar devil or Dick’s damselfish.
• Plectroglyphidodon johnstonianus, Blue-eye damselfish.

Arguably only four of these species are desirable aquarium fish:

• Amphiprion percula, Orange or Percula clownfish.
• Chromis atripectoralis, Black-axil Chromis.
• Chromis viridis, Blue-green damselfish.
• Dascyllus reticulates, Reticulate damselfish or Two-stripe damselfish.

The other four species can be aggressive and, in the case of the two Plectroglyphidodon species, difficult to feed in the aquarium, having a coral based diet. None of these four fish feature to any extent in the UK hobby.

How threatened are these fishes?

An examination of the IUCN Red List revealed that none of these species has yet been evaluated. A search of FishBase revealed that with the exception of two of the species these fish are rated as having a high resilience and low vulnerability, with a minimum population doubling time of less than 15 months.

The exceptions were:

Plectroglyphidodon johnstonianus, which was rated as having a high resilience with a minimum population doubling time of less than 15 months, but a vulnerability of low to moderate

 and

Microspathodon chrysurus, rated as having a medium resilience with a minimum population doubling time of 1.4 – 4.4 years and vulnerability of low to moderate.

FishBase lists 385 species of Anemonefishes and Damselfishes in the family Pomacentridae. It is difficult to see why these eight species in particular have been picked for this petition when much of the reasoning behind them being considered endangered applies to the entire family.

To see the petition in full, Clownfish-and-damselfish-petition-2012.

To learn more about the Centre for Biological Diversity, click here.

If the petition were to be granted it would prevent collection of these eight species from US waters and would also prevent them from being traded in the US regardless of their geographical origin.

Captive breeding.

Of the eight listed species only Amphiprion percula, the Orange or Percula clownfish, has been successfully bred and commercially raised in captivity. It may be argued that if we can breed a species in captivity that it may no longer be appropriate to collect it from the wild.

Previous petitions affecting the reef aquarium hobby.

It’s worth noting that the Center for Biological Diversity has a history of seeking Endangered Species status for organisms trade in the reef aquarium industry.

In 2009 the Center petitioned to protect 83 species of stony corals in the Caribbean, Hawaii and the Indo-Pacific. The National Marine Fisheries Service determined that 56 of these corals are likely to go extinct by the end of the century, primarily because of ocean warming, ocean acidification and disease. The Service will decide whether these corals merit protection under the Endangered Species Act in December 2012. See, ‘The Beginning of the End for Stony Corals in the Reef Aquarium Hobby‘

In April 2011 the Centre also petitioned to list the Dwarf Seahorse, Hippocampus zosterae, as a threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. See, ‘Center for Biological Diversity Seeks Endangered Species Act Protection for the Dwarf Seahorse’

See also: US May Ban 66 Stony Coral Species.

Tim Hayes

Midland Reefs

©2012

The Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission (FWC) made several changes and clarifications to marine life management, defined as tropical ornamental species, at its September Commission meeting in Tampa on Wednesday, including a three-year ban on the collection of the giant Caribbean Sea anemone, Condylactis gigantea.

Photo Robin Hayes ©2012

The prohibition of the collection the giant Caribbean Sea anemone was at the request of the Florida Marine Life Association (FMLA), the organisation of collectors that supply fish and invertebrates to the aquarium industry, and has the aim of letting their dwindling population recover and rebuild. The FMLA said that the anemone has suffered a sharp decline in the past few years, possibly from excessive collecting and partly from the cold weather that blanketed southern Florida in 2010.

The ban takes effect on 1^st November. Up until now commercial divers have been able to take up to 200 anemones per trip, and recreational divers could take up to five per day but it has taken more effort for divers to reach these quotas over recent years. In the early 2000s Commercial divers noticed a decline in the number of anemones in the Middle and Upper Keys. Landings of the giant anemones dropped from 227,238 in 1994 to 28,656 in 2011.

The FWC will return to the issue within three years with a proposal for future management of this species.

Management is important given the central role of Condylactis gigantea in the local ecosystem, where it provides shelter to a variety of commensal species including fishes and Periclemenes species cleaner shrimp, and serves as fish cleaning stations. The decline in numbers of this anemone might have a knock-on affect adversely influencing many other species.

The ban will prohibit collection in Florida waters, but Condylactis anemones should still be available from other locations, as it has a wide distribution in the Caribbean Sea and the Western Atlantic Sea, ranging from southern Florida through the Florida Keys to as far south as Brazil and east as Bermuda.

Other changes and clarifications by the FWC include:

• Removal of unicorn filefish, sand perch and dwarf sand perch from what is considered marine life, which will allow these species to be harvested with traditional fishing gear, such as hook and line and cast net, and without the requirement that they be kept in an aerated live well. The recreational bag limit of five of each species per day will no longer apply.
• Clarifying that size limits for angelfish extend to any hybrid forms of the species.
• Clarifying that commercial size limits for angelfish and butterfly fish apply to all harvesters, including recreational.
• Clarifying that the reefs built by Sabellarid tubeworms are live rock and, therefore, cannot be harvested.
• Prohibiting the harvest of black corals, which are already prohibited from harvest in federal waters.
• Expanding the definition of snapping shrimp to include all marine life snapping shrimp species.

Further information:

Concern has been raised as early as 2001 about the status of Condylactis gigantea and its collection for the aquarium trade. see:

Chiappone M, Miller SL, Swanson DW (2001) Condylactis gigantea – A giant comes under pressure from the aquarium trade in Florida. Reef Encounters 30: 29–31.

More recent information on collection for the aquarium trade can be found here:

Crawling to Collapse: Ecologically Unsound Ornamental Invertebrate Fisheries

Tim Hayes

Midland Reefs

©2012

”

20 July 2012

Healthy coral.

The past week or so has seen an interesting discussion about the future of the reefs in the online pages of the New York Times.

It started off on July12th with an op-ed piece from Roger Bradbury, an ecologist doing research in resource management at Australian National University, entitled ‘A World Without Coral Reefs’ that painted a very bleak picture of the future of the reefs, a view with which, to a certain extent, I concur.

This was followed up by two articles in the ‘Dot Earth’ section of the online New York Times, on July 14^th ‘Reefs in the Anthropocene – Zombie Ecology?’ and on July 16^th ‘More on Coral Reefs and Resilience or Ruination’ both by Andrew C. Revkin.

These articles are well worth the attention of reefkeepers everywhere, laying out as they do, the future of the environment that forms the basis of our hobby, I urge you to read these articles.

Bleached coral

Earlier I said that, to a certain extent, I concur with Bradbury’s piece. Let me explain.

Firstly, it is the reef environment that we have known for the past couple of centuries that we are going to lose, there will still be some form of ‘reef’ system in years to come and it will be home to many wonderful creatures but it will be different to the reef environment we known. This is change, not loss.

Central to this change will be the eventual loss of the Scleractinians, the reef building stony corals. This will then lead to the loss of certain reef fishes, the fishes that rely on the reef structure for shelter and for food. Some fishes will adapt to a changed environment (after all, many fish species readily adapt to the reef aquarium environment) others won’t. It might be a question of nutrition – think obligate corallivores such as Butterflyfishes without their food source of coral polyps. It might be the question of habitat degradation and how the loss of the habitat previously provided by absent stony corals makes juvenile fish vulnerable to predators (coincidental to the discussion at the New York Times, research has been published this week illustrating how habitat loss can affect juvenile fishes see, ‘Lethal effects of habitat degradation on fishes through changing competitive advantage’ by Mark I. McCormick of James Cook University.

In the short term responsible reefkeepers should consider themselves ambassadors for the reefs, showing off the wonderful animals resident in their reef aquariums to those outside the hobby, showing them the organisms that we are at risk of losing through climate change. By doing this we can create a greater awareness of what we risk losing and, perhaps, help slow or reduce the expected losses.

We cannot conserve the reefs as we know them without some fantastic technical fix that can prevent further deterioration almost instantly. We cannot maintain the diversity of species that we have known without this technical fix going further and reversing conditions on the reef back to those before mankind’s negative influence.

Long term, hobbyists in years to come should still have access to many wonderful fishes and invertebrates; it’s just that they will be representatives of an ecosystem different to the one with which we are familiar.

If you fancy joining this discussion from a reefkeepers point of view, please send your comments to me here at Reef Ramblings.

31 July 2012

Further to this subject, see ‘Are Coral Reefs really doomed? on the Independent website.

Photos courtesy ICRS 2012

Tim Hayes

Midland Reefs

©2012

Up until now I’ve pretty much ignored stories about sharks, not seeing their relevance to coral reefs and reefkeeping, the core subjects of Reef Ramblings; but research presented at ICRS 2012 demonstrating how sharks are an integral part of coral reef communities, has caused me to reassess this view.

Declining shark populations owing to over fishing are having an adverse affect on reefs; the removal of the apex predator is allowing an increase in the populations of medium size predators such as emperors and snappers resulting in a corresponding decrease in the populations of smaller herbivores such as parrotfish and damselfish that are vital to coral growth because of their role in keeping algae under control.

Research by Dr Mark Meekan, principal research scientist at the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) shows that the parrotfish that tend coral reefs are in decline in regions where sharks have disappeared, proving the apex predators are vital to reef health. His research looked at reefs northwest of Western Australia where shark stocks have been devastated to meet the Chinese demand for shark fin soup.

“We’ve really ignored sharks as a component of reef communities,” he said, “they’re a key component of the system and even in the best managed places, such as the Great Barrier Reef, we have situations where stocks are declining.”

Shark populations need to be preserved as part of coral reef management, grey reef and white-tipped sharks populations on the Great Barrier Reef are dropping at an alarming rate, Dr Meek said the finding was a call to action to preserve shark populations and “If we’re going to ensure our reefs are around for generations to come, we need to start at the top and with the apex predators”.

Additional research from James Cook University’s Prof Sean Connolly shows that there can be up to 90 per cent fewer reef sharks in fished zones compared with no entry zones.

What can you do as a hobbyist?

One reason that I’ve tended to steer clear of writing about sharks is that I don’t advocate keeping any species of shark in a home aquarium unless you have the resources to provide a system equal to that of a public aquarium.

As a hobbyist the best thing you can do to help conserve sharks is to sign up to a pro-shark campaigns, particularly an anti-finning campaign. There are many organisations out there but as a starting point I’d suggest the Shark Trust, a UK charity for Shark Conservation.

The Shark Trust describes shark finning for the shark fin soup market as: “… the wasteful practice of removing shark fins at sea and discarding the carcass, often still alive, overboard. Tens of millions of sharks are caught each year for their fins. An upper estimate proposes that the fins of as many as 73 million sharks are traded annually. Finning is illegal in many parts of the world including Europe. Despite this in most countries it is still legal to buy and sell shark fins. However, weak legislation and ineffective enforcement often undermines shark-finning regulations. The high value of fins further encourages the exploitation of regulatory loopholes.”

Tim Hayes

Midland Reefs

©2012