Great Barrier Reef coral die-off reaches tragic, new record

Bleaching caused by warmer water is estimated to have killed about 67 percent of the coral in a previously pristine, 430-mile northern stretch of the reef.

Dan Peled, AAP Image via AP
Australian senator Pauline Hanson listens to marine scientist Alison Jones, left, as she displays a piece of coral on the Great Barrier Reef off Great Keppel Island, Queensland, Australia. Australian scientists say warming oceans year 2016 have caused the biggest die-off of corals ever recorded on Australia's Great Barrier Reef.

Rising water temperatures destroyed large swathes of the Great Barrier Reef in Australia this year, marking the largest annual die-off in history, according to a new study.

The Great Barrier Reef stretches along Australia’s coastline for more than 1,400 miles, making it the most extensive reef in the world and the largest ecosystem made entirely of living organisms on the planet. Researchers at the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies found that around 67 percent of corals in the reef’s hardest-hit northern section died, while only 6 percent or less suffered in the central and southern sections.

Still, experts warn that recovery on the reefs and protecting other segments could prove difficult, if not impossible, should climate change continue to cause water temperatures to rise.   

"We had bleaching here in 2002," Anne Hogget, a local researcher, told the BBC. "We thought this was bad at the time, but this has blown it completely out of the water."

The reef suffered from coral bleaching, a process in which hotter temperatures cause the coral to become distressed and dispel algae living on them, which creates the vibrant colors seen on the reef. In addition to drawing tourists from around the world, the reef also provides a habitat for underwater organisms and protects the shoreline from storms.

Because around 25 percent of the ocean's fish live in a coral reef during some stage of their lives, a declining reef habitat can cause major disruptions to the ecosystem and food chain, also impacting people who rely the sea for food and employment. "Coral reefs are therefore the most biologically diverse ecosystems of the planet, and provide a number of ecosystem services that hundreds of millions of people rely on," Greg Torda, of the Centre, told USA Today. "These include provisioning (fishing, other types of harvesting, for pharmaceuticals, for example), coastal protection, aesthetic and cultural values – to name a few. If corals are lost, so are all the services they provide to humans; and so are all the species that directly or indirectly rely on them."

Saving the reefs is likely to require officials to develop long-term sustainability plans, and the Australian government has already created a program to financially support research into the coral bleaching process. Canberra has also pledged to lower carbon emissions by 2050 and search for new ways to increase the reef’s resilience.

Still, say some climate experts, it’s important that researchers, officials, and civilians act now to prevent further damage, as procrastinating on the effort will only make the process more expensive and less effective.

Some Australian scientists say that the nation isn’t on track to meet its 2050 carbon emission goals. And researchers advocate other steps to protect the reefs such as reducing local water pollution, as Denmark and China have done, by altering land use for agriculture, which led to some local reef recovery.

Australia's reefs are "not going to disappear tomorrow, but the more we lose the harder it is to restore it," Chris Langdon, a marine biologist at the University of Miami, previously told The Christian Science Monitor. "Actions now will be less drastic than what could be required later."

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.