Should coral fragging be banned?

[KrisReef]

That day may be centuries in the future and the reefs have survived much worse (eg, Bikini Atoll and historic abrupt climate change), but what we do know is that the GBR is in great condition and that AIMS and GBRMPA need to update their latest health report. An expedition of scientist 'truthers' has as recently as last week inspected Stanley Reef claimed 90% bleached ... the truth was, of course, very different ... https://jennifermarohasy.com/jenns-blog/

@Streetcred -Your moniker seems to fit. Thanks for the link.
Just go take a look at the pictures of the reef dying and being reborn in the same season of death? If you think the reefs are dying all over the world you may be listening to the wrong information channels?

Still, the last thing I want to be spending money on is a big reef out planting of frags onto this reef, or any wild reef by save the reef folks who have a plan to save/fix the environment. Peer reviewed documentation of their methods might change my mind if they can show how they plan to duplicate the random settlement of wild coral larvae without selection bias in their frag site location and attachment processes.

I support the reef by not meddling with it except to nip a few growing tips, or grab some natural frags from off the substrate when I find them. Same damage is caused by natural processes on a routine basis, ie "sustainable."

 

[kingoftheHiLLpeople]

Guess I’m confused by what I read or didn’t read? I won’t belabor the point but it seems unrelated to the hobby. I’m certainly no expert on the best route to take in regards to repairing reefs so I’ll leave that to smarter ppl. Very interesting read tho!

 

[Tamale]

It's not April 1st, is it? But if this is a serious question, I wonder how they've managed to survive in the wild where they are constantly fragged by nature... SMH

The article is specifically talking about methods used in relation to the wild and fears of genetic diversity and long term implications. So the question itself is flawed and not based on the article.

 

[Tamale]

Guess I’m confused by what I read or didn’t read? I won’t belabor the point but it seems unrelated to the hobby. I’m certainly no expert on the best route to take in regards to repairing reefs so I’ll leave that to smarter ppl. Very interesting read tho!

You didn’t miss anything. The question posed has nothing to do with the contents of the article as they are different issues entirely haha. I was confused too after reading the article.

 

[MaxTremors]

Every time a thread like this comes up, I’m always just blown away by how many people in the hobby, who should understand how and why ocean acidification and increased temperatures are bad for reefs, ‘don’t believe’ in man-made climate change or deny that reefs are bleaching and are, in general, in a horrible state.

 

[MnFish1]

Every time a thread like this comes up, I’m always just blown away by how many people in the hobby, who should understand how and why ocean acidification and increased temperatures are bad for reefs, ‘don’t believe’ in man-made climate change or deny that reefs are bleaching and are, in general, in a horrible state.

I'm curious - who on this thread (quote it if you want) - does not think climate change is occurring? IMHO - the vast majority of damage to reefs occurs due to pollution/run-off into the ocean (of course this is 'man-made'. What I find amazing is the number of people who want to use the term 'man-made' - but refuse to open their eyes as to which 'men' (i.e. countries) - are causing 99 percent of the problems. I.e. Let's compare San Diego's pollution - to 50 miles south.

 

[LeChatCommence]

The actual article isn't talking about fragging for reef tanks. It's talking about fragging coral and then placing the frags back on the reef to re-establish new coral reefs. Honestly the premise is sound. Genetic diversity is important in ecosystems and I can understand the author's concerns. This isn't talking about fragging coral and trading them between hobbyists.

 

[littlebigreef]

Sorta click-bait-y but I understand the need to get eyes on stuff. Author says immediately ‘ as fragging for the aquarium trade is seen as an entirely positive action.’

As to the larger (actual) question I’m not a marine biologist. That said, it would seem (regardless of genetic diversity) restoring coral coverage to areas of the ocean would be a net win.

 

[MiniGbr]

the vast majority of damage to reefs occurs due to pollution/run-off into the ocean

this is 100% true. The pollution I would also include in that is the CO2 build up in the atmosphere that leads to the acidification of our oceans. Making coral skeletal structure is more difficult for any marine animal. The acidification of the ocean was the main struggle the work we were doing in oyster farming of creating the spat (baby oysters). In the transition from larvae to spat, that initial shell structure of calcium carbonate couldn’t be built because of the lower ph of the ocean.

I think the crux of the article is really that really the only way to help the reef is have a larger degree of genetic variation. That was some of the same work we were doing in the oysters, trying to rear generations of spat faster than nature could do, so we could identify future generations that were able to survive in the more challenging acidified and polluted ocean water. It’s the same work that’s happening with proper reef restoration efforts. Finding varieties of corals that can survive our polluted oceans, and then supporting those generations to continue their spawning. Etc etc.

 

[MnFish1]

this is 100% true. The pollution I would also include in that is the CO2 build up in the atmosphere that leads to the acidification of our oceans. Making coral skeletal structure is more difficult for any marine animal. The acidification of the ocean was the main struggle the work we were doing in oyster farming of creating the spat (baby oysters). In the transition from larvae to spat, that initial shell structure of calcium carbonate couldn’t be built because of the lower ph of the ocean.

I think the crux of the article is really that really the only way to help the reef is have a larger degree of genetic variation. That was some of the same work we were doing in the oysters, trying to rear generations of spat faster than nature could do, so we could identify future generations that were able to survive in the more challenging acidified and polluted ocean water. It’s the same work that’s happening with proper reef restoration efforts. Finding varieties of corals that can survive our polluted oceans, and then supporting those generations to continue their spawning. Etc etc.

I have no disagreement with the fact that the amount of CO2 in the air affects the ocean to a degree.

 

[MaxTremors]

I'm curious - who on this thread (quote it if you want) - does not think climate change is occurring? IMHO - the vast majority of damage to reefs occurs due to pollution/run-off into the ocean (of course this is 'man-made'. What I find amazing is the number of people who want to use the term 'man-made' - but refuse to open their eyes as to which 'men' (i.e. countries) - are causing 99 percent of the problems. I.e. Let's compare San Diego's pollution - to 50 miles south.

I don’t want to call anyone out specifically, but there’s a few.

Also, the whole ‘other countries cause the vast majority of pollution’ argument is at best just incorrect, and at worst it’s gross western supremacy (that’s not even based in reality). The US (and Canada and Australia) has a per capita emissions rate that is twice that of China, India, Mexico, Brazil, and pretty much every country that people like to point fingers at when they make this kind of argument (Mexico isn’t even in the top fifty, and the only countries higher than the US are all the middle eastern countries that produce the world’s fossil fuels).

I’m also perplexed as to what the point of making such an argument is. Expecting poor, under developed countries to reduce carbon emissions at the same rate developed nations are (even though those developed nations emit substantially more per capita), and then saying some variation of either ‘well, if they’re not, why should we’ or ‘well, we’re not doing all we could, but it’s more than xyz country is doing, so it’s good enough’. The clock is ticking, someone needs to be the adult in the room, take the lead, and set an example.

 

[ReefJuice]

Fragging and the technical advances of the aquarium hobby are helping save coral species. By propagating them in captivity we can help restore the natural reefs and bring them back stronger and more resilient. Florida's pillar coral are almost extinct in the wild. They're in captivity right now and would have gone extinct if nothing had been done.

 

[MnFish1]

I don’t want to call anyone out specifically, but there’s a few.

Also, the whole ‘other countries cause the vast majority of pollution’ argument is at best just incorrect, and at worst it’s gross western supremacy (that’s not even based in reality). The US (and Canada and Australia) has a per capita emissions rate that is twice that of China, India, Mexico, Brazil, and pretty much every country that people like to point fingers at when they make this kind of argument (Mexico isn’t even in the top fifty, and the only countries higher than the US are all the middle eastern countries that produce the world’s fossil fuels).

I’m also perplexed as to what the point of making such an argument is. Expecting poor, under developed countries to reduce carbon emissions at the same rate developed nations are (even though those developed nations emit substantially more per capita), and then saying some variation of either ‘well, if they’re not, why should we’ or ‘well, we’re not doing all we could, but it’s more than xyz country is doing, so it’s good enough’. The clock is ticking, someone needs to be the adult in the room, take the lead, and set an example.

The reason that the focus should be on ALL countries (including the US) - is the amount of carbon produced in total. For example China produces - as a country - 29 percent of the worlds share of carbon emissions. USA is second - at 14 - India 7. So - who should we focus on in treaties, agreements, etc - China and the US - or the Netherlands? Per capita is a moot point - it's the amount of carbon in the atmosphere.

 

[MnFish1]

I don’t want to call anyone out specifically, but there’s a few.

Also, the whole ‘other countries cause the vast majority of pollution’ argument is at best just incorrect, and at worst it’s gross western supremacy (that’s not even based in reality). The US (and Canada and Australia) has a per capita emissions rate that is twice that of China, India, Mexico, Brazil, and pretty much every country that people like to point fingers at when they make this kind of argument (Mexico isn’t even in the top fifty, and the only countries higher than the US are all the middle eastern countries that produce the world’s fossil fuels).

I’m also perplexed as to what the point of making such an argument is. Expecting poor, under developed countries to reduce carbon emissions at the same rate developed nations are (even though those developed nations emit substantially more per capita), and then saying some variation of either ‘well, if they’re not, why should we’ or ‘well, we’re not doing all we could, but it’s more than xyz country is doing, so it’s good enough’. The clock is ticking, someone needs to be the adult in the room, take the lead, and set an example.

PS - here is a list of the countries - per capita - of CO2 emissions. The US is not in the top 10 per capita - showing what a misleading statistic that is.

#	Country	CO2 Emissions (tons, 2016)	1 Year Change	Population (2016)	Per capita	Share of world
40	Qatar	98,990,085	1.79%	2,654,374	37.29	0.28%
92	Montenegro	16,249,039	2.27%	627,264	25.90	0.05%
39	Kuwait	101,492,225	1.36%	3,956,875	25.65	0.28%
72	Trinidad and Tobago	34,974,263	-5.92%	1,377,560	25.39	0.10%
28	United Arab Emirates	218,788,684	4.43%	9,360,980	23.37	0.61%
42	Oman	87,835,773	2.09%	4,479,219	19.61	0.25%
7	Canada	675,918,610	-1.00%	36,382,944	18.58	1.89%
115	Brunei	7,672,127	3.54%	419,800	18.28	0.02%
99	Luxembourg	10,144,632	3.45%	579,264	17.51	0.03%
80	Bahrain	24,458,384	2.50%	1,425,792	17.15	0.07%
14	Australia	414,988,700	-0.98%	24,262,712	17.10	1.16%
83	Estonia	22,402,414	1.01%	1,316,510	17.02	0.06%
177	Gibraltar	572,708	3.53%	33,737	16.98	0.00%
202	Falkland Islands	48,568	1.51%	2,928	16.59	0.00%
11	Saudi Arabia	517,079,407	0.92%	32,443,447	15.94	1.45%
2	United States	5,011,686,600	-2.01%	323,015,995	15.52	14.02%
45	Turkmenistan	79,279,216	0.63%	5,662,368	14.00	0.22%
26	Kazakhstan	231,919,540	1.64%	17,830,901	13.01	0.65%
9	South Korea	604,043,830	0.45%	50,983,457	11.85	1.69%
137	Iceland	3,923,884	1.62%	332,206	11.81	0.01%
21	Taiwan	276,724,868	1.91%	23,618,200	11.72	0.77%
134	Bahamas	4,404,247	1.51%	377,930	11.65	0.01%
4	Russia	1,661,899,300	-2.13%	145,275,383	11.44	4.65%
37	Czech Republic (Czechia)	111,825,428	1.39%	10,618,857	10.53	0.31%
175	Bermuda	639,352	1.51%	63,362	10.09	0.00%
5	Japan	1,239,592,060	-1.21%	127,763,265	9.70	3.47%
33	Netherlands	163,419,285	1.63%	16,981,295	9.62	0.46%
6	Germany	775,752,190	1.28%	82,193,768	9.44	2.17%
57	Finland	51,183,960	3.62%	5,497,713	9.31	0.14%
23	Malaysia	266,251,542	6.54%	30,684,654	8.68	0.74%
61	Singapore	48,381,759	2.56%	5,653,634	8.56	0.14%
148	New Caledonia	2,338,717	7.22%	274,191	8.53	0.01%
49	Austria	73,764,112	1.54%	8,747,301	8.43	0.21%
41	Belgium	94,722,813	1.53%	11,354,420	8.34	0.26%
68	Ireland	39,086,565	5.09%	4,695,779	8.32	0.11%
64	Norway	43,456,012	0.85%	5,250,949	8.28	0.12%
56	Libya	52,696,075	1.52%	6,492,162	8.12	0.15%
8	Iran	642,560,030	2.22%	79,563,989	8.08	1.80%
51	Israel	65,201,588	-0.38%	8,108,985	8.04	0.18%
20	Poland	296,659,670	2.67%	37,989,220	7.81	0.83%
78	Bosnia and Herzegovina	25,674,120	0.86%	3,386,266	7.58	0.07%
1	China	10,432,751,400	-0.28%	1,414,049,351	7.38	29.18%
144	Martinique	2,715,477	1.72%	376,791	7.21	0.01%
74	New Zealand	33,276,202	-0.14%	4,659,265	7.14	0.09%
59	Bulgaria	50,872,910	-6.00%	7,151,953	7.11	0.14%
93	Slovenia	14,722,601	2.35%	2,074,210	7.10	0.04%
15	South Africa	390,557,850	-0.49%	56,207,646	6.95	1.09%
71	Slovakia	36,817,242	1.74%	5,442,003	6.77	0.10%
70	Denmark	38,007,645	5.23%	5,711,349	6.65	0.11%
52	Belarus	62,655,669	4.90%	9,445,643	6.63	0.18%
62	Hong Kong	47,066,386	1.23%	7,243,542	6.50	0.13%
183	Cayman Islands	406,057	1.52%	62,569	6.49	0.00%
50	Greece	67,840,662	-3.47%	10,615,185	6.39	0.19%
146	Guadeloupe	2,478,038	1.84%	399,763	6.20	0.01%
87	Mongolia	18,574,260	18.09%	3,056,364	6.08	0.05%
18	Italy	358,139,550	0.84%	60,663,060	5.90	1.00%
32	Venezuela	175,884,256	-1.90%	29,851,255	5.89	0.49%
117	Cyprus	6,872,427	3.73%	1,170,187	5.87	0.02%
17	United Kingdom	367,860,350	-6.38%	66,297,944	5.55	1.03%
162	French Guiana	1,473,719	1.73%	267,821	5.50	0.00%
180	Seychelles	519,693	2.62%	95,710	5.43	0.00%
24	Spain	251,892,320	-3.12%	46,634,140	5.40	0.70%
160	Barbados	1,541,447	1.88%	285,796	5.39	0.00%
58	Hungary	51,018,899	2.16%	9,752,975	5.23	0.14%
25	Ukraine	233,220,080	8.03%	44,713,702	5.22	0.65%
150	Malta	2,257,870	3.48%	436,097	5.18	0.01%
19	France	331,533,320	2.11%	64,667,596	5.13	0.93%
141	Macao	3,106,518	7.19%	612,836	5.07	0.01%
178	Grenada	554,848	1.51%	110,261	5.03	0.00%
60	Portugal	50,142,844	-2.36%	10,325,538	4.86	0.14%
95	Lithuania	13,685,264	2.66%	2,889,557	4.74	0.04%
67	Switzerland	39,666,930	-2.30%	8,379,917	4.73	0.11%
65	Serbia	41,168,059	2.27%	8,853,963	4.65	0.12%
182	Antigua and Barbuda	438,763	1.51%	94,527	4.64	0.00%
16	Turkey	368,122,740	5.25%	79,827,871	4.61	1.03%
30	Argentina	200,708,270	0.16%	43,508,460	4.61	0.56%
86	Croatia	19,408,194	3.02%	4,208,602	4.61	0.05%
63	Sweden	44,694,415	4.33%	9,836,007	4.54	0.13%
44	Chile	81,258,525	5.33%	18,209,068	4.46	0.23%
34	Iraq	162,646,160	1.22%	36,610,632	4.44	0.45%
108	North Macedonia	8,896,732	1.62%	2,080,743	4.28	0.02%
139	Guyana	3,253,057	1.61%	771,368	4.22	0.01%
113	Latvia	8,157,157	3.41%	1,974,266	4.13	0.02%
46	Romania	78,770,824	1.69%	19,796,285	3.98	0.22%
22	Thailand	271,040,160	1.55%	68,971,308	3.93	0.76%
192	Saint Kitts & Nevis	203,036	1.51%	51,625	3.93	0.00%
35	Algeria	156,220,560	0.17%	40,551,392	3.85	0.44%
152	Suriname	2,152,933	0.32%	564,888	3.81	0.01%
170	French Polynesia	1,003,249	7.18%	274,575	3.65	0.00%
13	Mexico	441,412,750	-2.13%	123,333,376	3.58	1.23%
38	Uzbekistan	109,347,340	1.60%	31,441,751	3.48	0.31%
73	Azerbaijan	33,614,235	-0.41%	9,736,043	3.45	0.09%
197	British Virgin Islands	99,762	1.51%	29,355	3.40	0.00%
176	Saint Lucia	608,182	1.51%	180,024	3.38	0.00%
184	St. Vincent & Grenadines	362,414	1.51%	109,459	3.31	0.00%
84	Lebanon	21,863,288	1.95%	6,714,281	3.26	0.06%
107	Jamaica	8,946,575	1.82%	2,906,236	3.08	0.03%
168	Belize	1,114,105	1.51%	368,400	3.02	0.00%
123	Botswana	6,438,429	-3.74%	2,159,927	2.98	0.02%
97	Panama	11,599,764	2.37%	4,037,078	2.87	0.03%
127	Gabon	5,694,208	1.12%	2,007,873	2.84	0.02%
188	Aruba	286,871	1.51%	104,872	2.74	0.00%
76	Cuba	30,389,116	1.65%	11,335,104	2.68	0.08%
193	Dominica	185,767	1.51%	71,307	2.61	0.00%
77	Tunisia	29,395,965	0.82%	11,303,945	2.60	0.08%
166	Maldives	1,233,015	7.19%	475,512	2.59	0.00%
140	Mauritius	3,192,307	0.00%	1,261,865	2.53	0.01%
190	Tonga	251,375	7.19%	101,133	2.49	0.00%
66	Ecuador	40,065,690	-4.85%	16,491,116	2.43	0.11%
82	Jordan	22,772,370	1.83%	9,554,286	2.38	0.06%
203	Palau	41,732	7.19%	17,725	2.35	0.00%
27	Egypt	219,377,350	4.72%	94,447,073	2.32	0.61%
53	North Korea	58,708,734	19.49%	25,307,665	2.32	0.16%
157	Bhutan	1,682,100	6.14%	736,708	2.28	0.00%
81	Dominican Republic	23,466,740	2.88%	10,397,741	2.26	0.07%
12	Brazil	462,994,920	-6.08%	206,163,053	2.25	1.29%
29	Vietnam	206,042,140	0.09%	93,640,422	2.20	0.58%
206	Saint Helena	13,128	2.62%	5,956	2.20	0.00%
69	Syria	38,054,696	1.78%	17,465,575	2.18	0.11%
109	Georgia	8,610,414	2.94%	4,015,450	2.14	0.02%
204	Cook Islands	37,354	7.19%	17,524	2.13	0.00%
205	Anguilla	30,262	1.52%	14,429	2.10	0.00%
10	Indonesia	530,035,650	6.41%	261,556,381	2.03	1.48%
111	Moldova	8,258,774	2.99%	4,066,009	2.03	0.02%
156	Fiji	1,703,193	7.28%	872,399	1.95	0.00%
3	India	2,533,638,100	4.71%	1,324,517,249	1.91	7.09%
121	Uruguay	6,508,013	1.91%	3,424,129	1.90	0.02%
55	Peru	57,692,879	8.16%	30,926,032	1.87	0.16%
130	Albania	5,208,319	4.45%	2,886,438	1.80	0.01%
199	Turks and Caicos	65,451	1.52%	36,559	1.79	0.00%
151	Equatorial Guinea	2,156,371	0.00%	1,215,180	1.77	0.01%
85	Bolivia	19,463,728	2.03%	11,031,814	1.76	0.05%
110	Costa Rica	8,328,890	2.16%	4,899,345	1.70	0.02%
138	Namibia	3,901,830	4.42%	2,358,044	1.65	0.01%
54	Morocco	57,694,464	0.54%	35,126,283	1.64	0.16%
161	Djibouti	1,508,851	2.97%	929,112	1.62	0.00%
47	Colombia	77,667,594	-0.84%	48,175,052	1.61	0.22%
132	Armenia	4,597,845	3.06%	2,936,143	1.57	0.01%
207	Saint Pierre & Miquelon	8,842	1.51%	5,934	1.49	0.00%
167	Réunion	1,132,331	3.55%	869,743	1.30	0.00%
36	Philippines	126,922,662	12.37%	103,663,816	1.22	0.35%
116	Kyrgyzstan	6,941,784	2.53%	6,074,330	1.14	0.02%
88	Guatemala	18,539,316	2.42%	16,583,076	1.12	0.05%
106	Papua New Guinea	9,086,988	7.09%	8,271,762	1.10	0.03%
118	El Salvador	6,853,766	0.45%	6,356,143	1.08	0.02%
75	Angola	30,566,933	3.13%	28,842,489	1.06	0.09%
129	Congo	5,212,302	1.63%	4,980,996	1.05	0.01%
105	Honduras	9,320,279	2.25%	9,270,795	1.01	0.03%
79	Yemen	25,647,990	1.62%	27,168,208	0.94	0.07%
125	Paraguay	5,998,469	1.97%	6,777,872	0.89	0.02%
89	Sri Lanka	18,454,691	8.55%	21,021,171	0.88	0.05%
31	Pakistan	178,013,820	9.13%	203,631,353	0.87	0.50%
194	Samoa	169,939	7.18%	194,535	0.87	0.00%
128	Nicaragua	5,325,447	1.86%	6,303,974	0.84	0.01%
100	Zimbabwe	10,062,628	-4.17%	14,030,331	0.72	0.03%
124	Tajikistan	6,049,757	3.37%	8,663,579	0.70	0.02%
133	Laos	4,531,276	7.92%	6,845,846	0.66	0.01%
145	Mauritania	2,564,345	3.32%	4,163,533	0.62	0.01%
120	Benin	6,563,709	4.13%	10,872,063	0.60	0.02%
174	Eswatini	657,572	2.61%	1,113,997	0.59	0.00%
112	Senegal	8,247,295	3.69%	14,993,519	0.55	0.02%
185	Solomon Islands	341,748	7.18%	619,438	0.55	0.00%
94	Ghana	14,469,986	3.54%	28,481,945	0.51	0.04%
195	Vanuatu	137,706	7.18%	278,330	0.49	0.00%
48	Bangladesh	74,476,230	4.50%	157,977,153	0.47	0.21%
201	Kiribati	52,818	7.18%	112,524	0.47	0.00%
43	Nigeria	82,634,214	0.70%	185,960,241	0.44	0.23%
101	Côte d'Ivoire	10,056,492	1.16%	23,822,714	0.42	0.03%
122	Cambodia	6,496,958	7.68%	15,766,292	0.41	0.02%
181	Timor-Leste	495,687	4.63%	1,219,288	0.41	0.00%
104	Cameroon	9,454,331	2.21%	23,926,551	0.40	0.03%
191	Western Sahara	207,592	2.61%	538,749	0.39	0.00%
136	South Sudan	4,038,496	4.18%	10,832,518	0.37	0.01%
91	Kenya	16,334,919	3.60%	49,051,534	0.33	0.05%
96	Sudan	13,294,106	4.18%	39,847,439	0.33	0.04%
90	Myanmar	16,701,776	5.61%	53,045,201	0.31	0.05%
149	Togo	2,321,546	5.47%	7,509,951	0.31	0.01%
114	Nepal	7,833,787	10.10%	27,263,433	0.29	0.02%
102	Afghanistan	9,900,004	7.13%	35,383,032	0.28	0.03%
142	Haiti	3,086,897	1.71%	10,839,970	0.28	0.01%
200	Sao Tome & Principe	56,185	2.60%	203,227	0.28	0.00%
135	Zambia	4,230,584	3.67%	16,363,458	0.26	0.01%
172	Puerto Rico	712,758	1.71%	3,283,125	0.22	0.00%
126	Mozambique	5,859,171	2.22%	27,829,938	0.21	0.02%
173	Eritrea	684,140	4.79%	3,376,557	0.20	0.00%
198	Cabo Verde	99,687	2.59%	531,146	0.19	0.00%
103	Tanzania	9,731,560	2.50%	53,049,230	0.18	0.03%
154	Guinea	2,071,798	3.20%	11,738,429	0.18	0.01%
171	Liberia	846,658	3.49%	4,586,787	0.18	0.00%
186	Guinea-Bissau	318,706	2.59%	1,782,438	0.18	0.00%
164	Sierra Leone	1,272,332	3.43%	7,328,834	0.17	0.00%
187	Lesotho	318,438	2.58%	2,075,030	0.15	0.00%
196	Comoros	108,422	2.58%	795,592	0.14	0.00%
131	Uganda	5,009,493	3.82%	39,649,166	0.13	0.01%
147	Burkina Faso	2,352,070	3.14%	18,646,357	0.13	0.01%
143	Madagascar	3,026,047	2.85%	24,894,370	0.12	0.01%
163	Rwanda	1,403,087	2.88%	11,668,827	0.12	0.00%
179	Central African Republic	543,229	2.57%	4,537,686	0.12	0.00%
189	Gambia	254,127	2.59%	2,149,136	0.12	0.00%
155	Malawi	1,815,598	3.26%	17,205,261	0.11	0.01%
158	Chad	1,670,941	2.14%	14,561,660	0.11	0.00%
98	Ethiopia	10,438,855	4.03%	103,603,462	0.10	0.03%
153	Niger	2,088,475	0.15%	20,788,798	0.10	0.01%
169	Burundi	1,093,618	2.81%	10,487,995	0.10	0.00%
159	Mali	1,606,421	2.57%	17,965,443	0.09	0.00%
165	Somalia	1,268,442	2.57%	14,185,636	0.09	0.00%
119	DR Congo	6,564,773	3.77%	78,789,127	0.08	0.02%
208	Faeroe Islands	1,953	0.60%	48,173	0.04	0.00%
209	Greenland	1,530	0.86%	56,412	0.03	0.00%

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Emissions by Country - Worldometer

Sources​

• Emission Database for Global Atmospheric Research (EDGAR)
• CO2 Emissions from Fuel Combustion - IEA
• World Population Prospects: The 2019 Revision - United Nations Population Division

 

[TangerineSpeedo]

This is a somewhat disingenuous title for the conversation since the article is based on real world attempts to rebuild reefs, versus what we do in the hobby.

A little background on me, I work in aquaculture and help with reef rebuilding efforts. And I agree with the article referenced, that fragging has little to no place in the restoration effort, except to experiment on testing changes in the environment to assess survivability. Essentially test the same genetic identical coral in different areas of the reef, or reefs, in order to determine if there are factors that affect their mortality (currents, acidification, disease pressure, etc.). The only true way to rebuild reefs is through genetic diversity. Which is what the organization I work with does. It’s a huge undertaking, and very difficult. And mostly entails lots of failure with some surviving coral. But that’s the only way to help build an ecosystem that continues to diversify against all of the continued pressure that we humans are placing in the ocean. Sexual propagation is the only true way to build diversity, survival of the fittest sort of thing. We just have to aid nature now because things are changing faster on the reef than ever before in the history of the ocean.

On the hobby side, we should absolutely be fragging. In fact, I would argue, we should only be buying and trading aquacultured coral at this point, and be working on aquacultured fish species as well. The more we take off the reef, the less that’s left for the reef to survive.

Ok, so over half way thru the posts so far and you are the only person that has a view point from the authors side. There is a terrible amount of as assumptions going on here, part of that is the author’s fault, part of that is the OP's fault. You touched on your reasoning and I can semi- understand it, but why can't you frag genetically diverse corals in the first place? I would imagine then they could grow into colonies create more diversity. This is a question I have.
Other things I would like to touch on are:
1) Most reefers have in their minds that WE are, and will be the saviors of the reefs/oceans. Is this a feasible concept.

2) On reef restoration, instead of using a few restoration centers, why doesn’t a group like Sea World for example, employ the thousands of aquarists across the country to help grow diverse and a diversity of corals?

3) Instead of using a more informative title, ie; like "The Proper Way To Restore Reef Habitat". The author decided to have a click bait title. By doing so, it delegitimized the authors point. Plus, as I am sure you have noticed, it created a knee jerk reaction in this forum. A controversial title will also give an opinion to people who have no ties to the aquarium industry or the reef restoration industry. In a negative way.

4) While I can understand that yours and the authors way, may be the best way on paper, we have an impending doom clock coming our way. I feel that we have the ability and the resources to recreate habitats where they have be decimated, in a timely fashion, if only we could be smart about it.

Something to think about...
-T

 

[MnFish1]

1) Most reefers have in their minds that WE are, and will be the saviors of the reefs/oceans. Is this a feasible concept.

Most reefers do not think this as fas as I know - and, in fact, in a weirdly perverse way - there are a lot of posters here on this site who blame other reefers for killing fish, coral, etc.

2) On reef restoration, instead of using a few restoration centers, why doesn’t a group like Sea World for example, employ the thousands of aquarists across the country to help grow diverse and a diversity of corals?

The problem is 'we' are not 'Mother Nature'. Whether it is Sea World, NOAA, etc - you cannot just transplant corals from area A - to B and assume that coral A is not going to upset/negatively impact the ecology of area B.

3) Instead of using a more informative title, ie; like "The Proper Way To Restore Reef Habitat". The author decided to have a click bait title. By doing so, it delegitimized the authors point. Plus, as I am sure you have noticed, it created a knee jerk reaction in this forum. A controversial title will also give an opinion to people who have no ties to the aquarium industry or the reef restoration industry. In a negative way.

Well I am not sure that there is a huge 'reef restoration industry' - and the OP is the owner of the site R2R - so I'm assuming he is trying to generate conversation

4) While I can understand that yours and the authors way, may be the best way on paper, we have an impending doom clock coming our way. I feel that we have the ability and the resources to recreate habitats where they have be decimated, in a timely fashion, if only we could be smart about it.

The majority of the research I have seen suggest that what you're suggesting is either impossible or ill-advised. For the reasons suggested above. Granted - wolves have been re-introduced into Yellowstone, etc - BUT - IMHO - unless the problems causing the reef's problems are addressed - trying to put other corals back - to me - does not make sense

 

[MiniGbr]

Ok, so over half way thru the posts so far and you are the only person that has a view point from the authors side. There is a terrible amount of as assumptions going on here, part of that is the author’s fault, part of that is the OP's fault. You touched on your reasoning and I can semi- understand it, but why can't you frag genetically diverse corals in the first place? I would imagine then they could grow into colonies create more diversity. This is a question I have.
Other things I would like to touch on are:
1) Most reefers have in their minds that WE are, and will be the saviors of the reefs/oceans. Is this a feasible concept.

2) On reef restoration, instead of using a few restoration centers, why doesn’t a group like Sea World for example, employ the thousands of aquarists across the country to help grow diverse and a diversity of corals?

3) Instead of using a more informative title, ie; like "The Proper Way To Restore Reef Habitat". The author decided to have a click bait title. By doing so, it delegitimized the authors point. Plus, as I am sure you have noticed, it created a knee jerk reaction in this forum. A controversial title will also give an opinion to people who have no ties to the aquarium industry or the reef restoration industry. In a negative way.

4) While I can understand that yours and the authors way, may be the best way on paper, we have an impending doom clock coming our way. I feel that we have the ability and the resources to recreate habitats where they have be decimated, in a timely fashion, if only we could be smart about it.

Something to think about...
-T

I’ll do my best to answer concisely, but already know I’ll fail. Haha.

Just fragging colonies and placing them on the same reef in the wild is ultimately just the same genetic material, so if certain areas of the reef are being bleached or dieing off due to disease or pest pressures, those frage will most likely succumb to the same problems the mother colony will. Not with 100% certainty, but most likely same outcomes. That is what the article is ultimately arguing, that the only way out of the reef die off is to have more genetic diversity. That happens through spawning, where we will potentially get a stronger coral with slightly different genetic code, a genetic code that can withstand a bleaching event, rasing temps, lowered salinity, high acidification, more disease pressure, or pest pressure. So frags Can’t be the answer there.

1. We can not be the ultimate savior, but we can be a small part of the solution. It was also mentioned earlier, but the Florida pillar example is a coral being helped to re-adapt to the Florida reefs. It is true that had human intervention not stepped in, it could very possibly have gone extinct. But really what restoration efforts are doing is to try and gene bank the pillar coral as a way to spawn new pillar coral to reintroduce to the wild. That is not the solution. We don’t have enough resources to do this for all coral. So while we can gene bank a lot of coral (which Sea world actually does do), this is just a way to maintain what’s out there, still dieing off and still bleaching. So wild restoration is still the goal. But gene banking has a place, especially if the gene banked coral can be spawned and create new genetic lines to reintroduce to the wild for potential survival.

2. This would be nice, and is definetly a unique idea. But this is just a further gene bank. Also, reefers tend to like the fancy colors and shapes, so I doubt many would be willing to have a browner or less interesting coral in their tanks. The corals, especially recently, have been picked for their vivid nature, and is not entirely representative of what’s out in nature. We humans tend to cherry pick .

3. totally agree. It was click bait for sure. And I bit. I typically don’t engage, but this is clearly a conversation I can speak intelligently on.

4. Resources is the key line here. Almost anything can be done with (lots of) money, but recreating or rebuilding natural habitats that took thousands of years to create, is difficult and takes time. Things only grow so fast. And creating genetic diversity is also time consuming. Maybe instead of heading to Mars or sending a few people in a ***** shaped rocket ship to near earth orbit, that money could help rebuild our crumbling reefs and oceans. So I agree. Resources and attention are key.

 

[Spare time]

that article is more focussed on fragging on natural reefs rather than in our tanks tho...

True but people don't like to read before they comment lol

 

[Unitylover]

Should we ban cutting off a leg because your cancer in your leg grew too much?
And fragging helps us create more corals.

 

[MiniGbr]

Should we ban cutting off a leg because your cancer in your leg grew too much?
And fragging helps us create more corals.

not sure I understand the cancer reference, but as for fragging in the hobby we create more coral, but not new genetic diversity. That’s ultimately what the OP’s article is about. We need diversity to get out of this mess.