Coral restoration and the benefits of challenged adaptation

Researchers from the University of Melbourne and James Cook University have called for an urgent rethink of the merits of coral reef restoration and adaptation, questioning whether the practice can significantly improve reef health.

In a new card Peru Nature’s climate change journal, Dr. Robert Streit, Professor Tiffany Morrison and Professor David Bellwood were unapologetic in their view of coral restoration, labeling the narrative behind it a “dangerous distraction.”

Coral restoration and adaptation can involve “outplanting”, where coral is transported from nurseries and secured onto reef habitats, selective breeding or minimizing coral stressors, such as providing shade or hunt natural predators.

Dr. Robert Streit of the University of Melbourne, a research fellow in Just Ocean Governance and lead author on the paper said: “Active interventions make us feel good, and we need to understand how to protect corals. But the problem begins when we confuse.” “help the corals” with “save the corals”.

“Coral bleaching attracts attention. It has a visual impact, and the concern about the impacts of climate change is incredibly valuable. But how we act now is critical. If scientists over-promise and under-deliver, we are at risk of losing the time, money and importantly, trust”.

While acknowledging the role of coral gardening in a small-scale context, James Cook University’s Professor Bellwood said large-scale coral restoration was “costly, premature and doomed to failure” unless the cause radical climate change has not been addressed by reducing carbon emissions.

“We need a fundamental rethink. Too much is at stake. At the moment, coral restoration is, at best, psychological relief and cosmetic conservation, and at worst, a dangerous distraction from climate action. I unhealthy reefs lose corals, but just adding corals doesn’t necessarily make reefs healthy.”

In the paper, the trio points to evidence from the northern Great Barrier Reef where recent major bleaching events have been followed by large natural coral growth. “Current and future heat waves will continue to kill these regrown corals, making this natural success short-lived,” the authors write.

The paper said: “To date, there is little evidence that the ecological dynamics that allowed this regrowth will cease to exist, or that active interventions – which have the stated aim of increasing the coverage of the same corals that are growing rapidly – can have an impact on the entire population.”

Professor Bellwood said there was “little, if any, scientific evidence to support the interventions”.

Professor Morrison of the University of Melbourne added: “More radical action does not involve experimental ‘solutions’ that solve the symptoms of climate change. Instead, we need systematic, evidence-based and financially independent science that can inform the decarbonized economy and how humanity can cope with change.

Despite their criticism, the authors insisted that preventing coral science “from developing into a pro- and anti-intervention partisanship” was critical to finding a workable long-term solution. from developing into a pro- and anti-intervention partisanship” was critical to finding a workable long-term solution.

“Coral reefs deserve more nuance,” they wrote. “We do not call for abandoning interventions that help coral. Coral species are worth saving and any avoided loss of coral cover is a boon for future socio-ecological systems.

“What is needed is broader evidence-based research that builds a knowledge base for more transformative solutions.”

The journal invited three groups of experts to write a comment paper on how to best deal with the loss of corals as oceans warm to canvass a variety of opinions.