I don't remember the source, but (IIRC) the problem with this is that the monitoring of the coral cover is conducted from boats at a height, and it doesn't take into account the biodiversity of the corals.
A few species may return and occupy a large area, but most do not. This has other ripple effects on the ecosystem.
The finding of high coral cover may signify a reef in good condition, and an increase in coral cover after disturbance may signify a recovering reef.
But in this instance, it’s more likely the reef is being dominated by only few species, as the report states that branching and plating Acropora species have driven the recovery of coral cover.
...
However, these same corals are often susceptible to wave damage, disease or coral bleaching and tend to go bust within a few years.
...
Inferring that a reef has recovered by a person being towed behind a boat to obtain a rapid visual estimate of coral cover is like flying in a helicopter and saying a bushfire-hit forest has recovered because the canopy has grown back.
It provides no information about diversity, or the abundance and health of other animals and plants that live in and among the trees, or coral.
...
Without more information at the level of individual species, it is impossible to understand how much of the Great Barrier Reef has been lost, or recovered, since the last mass bleaching event.
The reef is being dominated by a few species without lasting power to stay through turbulent ocean activity based on the report. This may not work out of the long term, and it's too soon to tell.
This has nothing to do with what's fair - you can't "both sides" something we have direct and increasing evidence of.
This isn't caused by some Jewish space lasers, experimental military weaponry, or whatever additional conspiracy you're implying.
7 comments
[ 1.8 ms ] story [ 29.2 ms ] threadA few species may return and occupy a large area, but most do not. This has other ripple effects on the ecosystem.
https://theconversation.com/record-coral-cover-doesnt-necess...
The finding of high coral cover may signify a reef in good condition, and an increase in coral cover after disturbance may signify a recovering reef.
But in this instance, it’s more likely the reef is being dominated by only few species, as the report states that branching and plating Acropora species have driven the recovery of coral cover.
...
However, these same corals are often susceptible to wave damage, disease or coral bleaching and tend to go bust within a few years.
...
Inferring that a reef has recovered by a person being towed behind a boat to obtain a rapid visual estimate of coral cover is like flying in a helicopter and saying a bushfire-hit forest has recovered because the canopy has grown back.
It provides no information about diversity, or the abundance and health of other animals and plants that live in and among the trees, or coral.
...
Without more information at the level of individual species, it is impossible to understand how much of the Great Barrier Reef has been lost, or recovered, since the last mass bleaching event.
This has nothing to do with what's fair - you can't "both sides" something we have direct and increasing evidence of.
This isn't caused by some Jewish space lasers, experimental military weaponry, or whatever additional conspiracy you're implying.
Whatever extent reef size is evidence of the extant of global warming, that works both ways.
It's either a reliable indicator or an unreliable indicator. Apparently, an unreliable indicator.