Effects of Seasonality and Upwelling on Coral Reef Functioning in Tayrona National Natural Park, Colombian Caribbean

The Tayrona National Natural Park (TNNP) is located at the Northeast coast of Colombia and belongs to the biodiversity hotspots in the Colombian Caribbean. Especially the effects of alternating rainy and dry seasons, going along with seasonal upwelling on the reef ecosystem are unknown. This dissertation therefore deals with the seasonal effects on local coral reefs addressing each component of the reef ecosystem: water column, marine sediments and benthic communities. Global (e.g. temperature-induced coral bleaching) and local threats (e.g. water quality decline and lionfish invasion) for TNNP coral reefs were investigated. Results suggest that while threats of global warming may be counteracted by the presence of seasonal upwelling coinciding with highest heat stress, the effects of local threats may only be avoided by improved management actions and conservation. The dissertation highlights that TNNP is a unique environment in which coral reefs, naturally exposed to harsh seasonal changes, likely have developed an increased local resilience to climate change and anthropogenic disturbances

Bleaching susceptibility and recovery of Colombian Caribbean corals in response to water current exposure and seasonal upwelling

Coral bleaching events are globally occurring more frequently and with higher intensity, mainly caused by increases in seawater temperature. In Tayrona National Natural Park (TNNP) in the Colombian Caribbean, local coral communities are subjected to seasonal wind-triggered upwelling events coinciding with stronger water currents depending on location. This natural phenomenon offers the unique opportunity to study potential water current-induced mitigation mechanisms of coral bleaching in an upwelling influenced region. Therefore, coral bleaching susceptibility and recovery patterns were compared during a moderate and a mild bleaching event in December 2010 and 2011, and at the end of the subsequent upwelling periods at a water current-exposed and -sheltered site of an exemplary bay using permanent transect and labeling tools. This was accompanied by parallel monitoring of key environmental variables. Findings revealed that in 2010 overall coral bleaching before upwelling was significantly higher at the sheltered (34%) compared to the exposed site (8%). Whereas 97% of all previously bleached corals at the water current-exposed site had recovered from bleaching by April 2011, only 77% recovered at the sheltered site, but 12% had died there. In December 2011, only mild bleaching

Spatial and temporal variability of seagrass at Lizard Island, Great Barrier Reef

Increasing threats to natural ecosystems from local and global stressors are reinforcing the need for baseline data on the distribution and abundance of organisms. We quantified spatial and/or temporal patterns of seagrass distribution, shoot density, leaf area index, biomass, productivity, and sediment carbon content in shallow water (0-5 m) at Lizard Island, Great Barrier Reef, Australia, in field surveys conducted in December 2011 and October 2012. Seagrass meadows were mapped using satellite imagery and field validation. A total of 18.3 ha of seagrass, composed primarily of Thalassia hemprichii and Halodule uninervis, was mapped in shallow water. This was 46% less than the area of seagrass in the same region reported in 1995, although variations in mapping methods may have influenced the magnitude of change detected. There was inter-annual variability in shoot density and length, with values for both higher in 2011 than in 2012. Seagrass properties and sediment carbon content were representative of shallow-water seagrass meadows on a mid-shelf Great Barrier Reef island. The data can be used to evaluate change, to parameterize models of the impact of anthropogenic or environmental variability on seagrass distribution and abundance, and to assess the success of management actions

Coral restoration in a changing world - a global synthesis of methods and techniques

Coral reef ecosystems have suffered an unprecedented loss of habitat-forming hard corals in recent decades, due to increased nutrient outputs from agriculture, elevated levels of suspended sediment caused by deforestation and development, destructive fishing practices, over-harvesting of reef species, outbreaks of corallivorous crown-of-thorns starfish (COTS, Acanthaster planci), coral disease and tropical storms. However, in recent years climate change has emerged as the primary threat to coral reefs. While reefs have a natural capacity for recovery, recurring events like mass coral bleaching and extreme weather events is increasing in frequency, intensity and severity, and are eroding the time for recovery between catastrophic events. Marine conservation has primarily focused on passive habitat protection over active restoration, in contrast to terrestrial ecosystems where active restoration is common practice. Further, active restoration is well accepted for wetlands and shellfish reefs however coral reef restoration has remained controversial both in academia and amongst marine managers. This is despite recent research suggesting that optimal conservation outcomes include both habitat protection and restoration. Critics often argue that coral restoration detracts focus from mitigating climate change and other threats to the marine environment, while proponents of coral restoration counter that interventions can serve to protect coral biodiversity and endangered species in the short-term, while mitigation of large-scale threats such as climate change and water quality take effect. Despite this disconnect between coral restoration practitioners, coral reef managers and scientists, active coral restoration is increasingly used as a tool to attempt to restore coral populations. The field has largely developed through independent work of isolated groups, and has fallen victim to ‘growing pains’ associated with ecological restoration in many other ecosystems. Partly this is due to a reluctance to share outcomes of projects, and in some cases a lack of monitoring or appropriate reporting of project outcomes. To mitigate this, we aimed to synthesise the available knowledge in a comprehensive global review of coral restoration methods, incorporating data from a traditional literature search of the scientific literature, complemented with information gathered from online sources and through a survey of coral restoration practitioners. We identified 329 case studies on coral restoration, of which 195 were from the scientific literature, 79 were sourced from the grey literature (i.e. reports and online descriptions), and 55 were responses to our survey of restoration practitioners. We identified ten coral restoration intervention types: coral gardening - transplantation phase (23% of records), direct transplantation (21%), artificial reefs (19%), coral gardening - nursery phase (17%), coral gardening (both phases, 7%), substrate enhancement with electricity (4%), substrate stabilisation (4%), algae removal (2%), larval enhancement (1%) and microfragmentation (<1%). The majority of interventions involve coral fragmentation or transplantation of coral fragments (70%). While 52 countries are represented in the dataset, the majority of projects were conducted in the USA, Philippines, Thailand and Indonesia (together representing 40% of projects). Coral restoration case studies are dominated by short-term projects, with 66% of all projects reporting less than 18 months of monitoring of the restored sites. Overall, the median length of projects was 12 months. Similarly, most projects are relatively small in spatial scale, with a median size of restored area of 500 m2. A diverse range of species are represented in the dataset, with 221 different species from 89 coral genera. Overall, coral restoration projects focused primarily (65% of studies) on fast-growing branching corals. Among all the published documents, the top five species (22% of studies) were Acropora cervicornis, Pocillopora damicornis, Stylophora pistillata, Porites cylindrica and Acropora palmata. Over a quarter of projects (26%) involved the coral genus Acropora, while 9% of studies included a single species - Acropora cervicornis. Much of the focus on Acropora cervicornis and Acropora palmata is likely to have resulted from these important reef-forming species being listed as threatened on the United States Endangered Species List and as Endangered on the International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List of Endangered Species (IUCN 2018). We have dedicated a section to each intervention type covered in this review, and describe the potential and limitations of each intervention type in detail there. However, collating this information has highlighted the following main points which apply to coral restoration in general. 1. On average, survival in restored corals is relatively high. All coral genera with sufficient replication from which to draw conclusions (>10 studies listing that genus) report an average survival between 60-70%. 2. Differences in survival and growth are largely species and/or location specific, so the selection of specific methods should be tailored to the local conditions, costs, availability of materials, and to the specific objectives of each project. 3. Projects are overall small and short, however substantial scaling up is required for restoration to be a useful tool in supporting the persistence of reefs in the future. While there is ample evidence detailing how to successfully grow corals at smaller scales, few interventions demonstrate a capacity to be scaled up much beyond one hectare. Notable exceptions include methods which propagate sexually derived coral larvae. 4. To date, coral restoration has been plagued by the same common problems as ecological restoration in other ecosystems. Mitigating these will be crucial to successfully scale up projects, and to retain public trust in restoration as a tool for resilience based management. a. Lack of clear objectives - There is a clear mismatch between the stated objectives of projects, and the design of projects and monitoring of outcomes. Poorly articulated or overinflated objectives risk alienating the general public and scientists, by over-promising and under-delivering. Social and economic objectives have inherent value and do not need to be disguised with ecological objectives. b. Lack of appropriate monitoring - A large proportion of projects do not monitor metrics relevant to their stated objectives, or do not continue monitoring for long enough to provide meaningful estimates of success. Further, there is a clear need for standardisation in the metrics that are used, to allow comparisons between projects. c. Lack of appropriate reporting - The outcomes of a large proportion of projects are not documented, which restricts knowledge-sharing and adaptive learning. While we attempted to access some of the unreported projects through our survey, it is clear we have only scratched the surface of existing knowledge. d. Poorly designed projects - An effect of inadequate monitoring and reporting is that projects are poorly suited to their specific area and conditions. Improved knowledge-sharing and development of best practice coral restoration guidelines aims to mitigate this problem

Coral restoration – a systematic review of current methods, successes, failures and future directions

Coral reef ecosystems have suffered an unprecedented loss of habitat-forming hard corals in recent decades. While marine conservation has historically focused on passive habitat protection, demand for and interest in active restoration has been growing in recent decades. However, a disconnect between coral restoration practitioners, coral reef managers and scientists has resulted in a disjointed field where it is difficult to gain an overview of existing knowledge. To address this, we aimed to synthesise the available knowledge in a comprehensive global review of coral restoration methods, incorporating data from the peer-reviewed scientific literature, complemented with grey literature and through a survey of coral restoration practitioners. We found that coral restoration case studies are dominated by short-term projects, with 60% of all projects reporting less than 18 months of monitoring of the restored sites. Similarly, most projects are relatively small in spatial scale, with a median size of restored area of 100 m2. A diverse range of species are represented in the dataset, with 229 different species from 72 coral genera. Overall, coral restoration projects focused primarily on fast-growing branching corals (59% of studies), and report survival between 60 and 70%. To date, the relatively young field of coral restoration has been plagued by similar 'growing pains' as ecological restoration in other ecosystems. These include 1) a lack of clear and achievable objectives, 2) a lack of appropriate and standardised monitoring and reporting and, 3) poorly designed projects in relation to stated objectives. Mitigating these will be crucial to successfully scale up projects, and to retain public trust in restoration as a tool for resilience based management. Finally, while it is clear that practitioners have developed effective methods to successfully grow corals at small scales, it is critical not to view restoration as a replacement for meaningful action on climate change

Do big unstructured biodiversity data mean more knowledge?

Conserving species biodiversity demands decisive and effective action. Effective action requires an understanding of species population dynamics. Therefore, robust measures which track temporal changes in species populations are needed. This need, however, must be balanced against the scale at which population change is being assessed. Advances in citizen science and remote sensing technology have heralded an era of “big unstructured data” for biodiversity conservation. However, the value of big unstructured data for assessing changes in species populations, and effectively guiding conservation management has not been rigorously assessed. This can be achieved only by benchmarking big unstructured data against high-quality structured datasets, and ensuring the latter are not lost through an over-emphasis on “big data.” Here, we illustrate the current trend to disproportionately prioritize data quantity over data quality and highlight the discrepancy in global availability between both data types. We propose a research agenda to test whether this trend will result in a net decrease of useful knowledge for biodiversity conservation. We exemplify this by examining the availability of big unstructured data vs. standardized data using data from global repositories on birds as an example. We share experiences from the data collation exercise needed to develop the Australian Threatened Species Index. We argue there is an urgent need to validate and enhance the utility of big unstructured data by: (1) maintaining existing well-designed, standardized long-term species population studies; (2) strengthening data quality control, management, and curation of any type of dataset; and (3) developing purpose-specific rankings to assess data quality

A global biodiversity observing system to unite monitoring and guide action

The rate and extent of global biodiversity change is surpassing our ability to measure, monitor and forecast trends. We propose an interconnected worldwide system of observation networks — a global biodiversity observing system (GBiOS) — to coordinate monitoring worldwide and inform action to reach international biodiversity targets.acceptedVersio