22 ms·

Explosive growth is generally speaking not stable. I will defer to the dictionary definition of stable. I'm just using words how they are defined. From an ecos

Explosive growth is generally speaking not stable. I will defer to the dictionary definition of stable. I'm just using words how they are defined. From an ecosystem perspective, simple "coral coverage" is not a good enough metric to indicate that the coral reef is healthy. We also need to understand the biodiversity, is one coral taking over because it is better adapted and creating a monoculture? It's not clear. I made a point to not jump to conclusions, simply stating that explosive growth does not indicate a healthy ecosystem.

theultdev 2y ago
Thank you for the clarification. Some may interpret "not stable" meaning that it could be detrimental to it's life, not just the textbook velocity definition. Could you answer the second part of my question: > "How does explosive growth fit with the predictions that the coral is dying?" To your statement: > "We also need to understand the biodiversity, is one coral taking over because it is better adapted and creating a monoculture" I'd say that we should not assume one way or another. It very may well be, or not. That data is probably out there and I'd be interested to know the answer. If the answer is yes, it's very healthy. I'd also like to know what species these scientists are breeding. If it's only a select few species, is that healthier than the species that have adapted naturally and are growing fine?
- momoschili 2y ago
  Explosive growth does not happen in a vacuum. Sometimes it's due to a pre-existing boom and bust cycle (eg lynx and hares, rabbits and wolves, etc). Sometimes it's due to the elimination of key species or ecological instability (eg hares in australia with no predators, boom of sea urchins in california, cuttlefish booming due to overfishing), or maybe it's something completely different altogether. Given that there is no history of a pre-existing boom and bust cycle in the data, I think we can rule that out. So clearly something is happening that wasn't happening before. The question you want answered is one-dimensional and ill-posed in this situation to allow you to better understand the dynamics at work.
  - theultdev 2y ago
    The GBR is not that old, and it experienced a major boom during it's creation, obviously. We really don't have enough data to rule anything out as we weren't tracking it that long relatively to say for sure. We also don't know all the variables.
mike_hearn 2y ago
They tried the "but what about biodiversity" argument back in 2020 when the regrowth started. It is automatically true that in an ecosystem that experiences a population decline, when the population starts growing again the subtypes that grow fastest will become more common than those which grow slower, and thus there will be a temporary decline in biodiversity. That doesn't indicate a problem of any kind. It's just the natural state of affairs.

theultdev 2y ago

Thank you for the clarification. Some may interpret "not stable" meaning that it could be detrimental to it's life, not just the textbook velocity definition. Could you answer the second part of my question: > "How does explosive growth fit with the predictions that the coral is dying?" To your statement: > "We also need to understand the biodiversity, is one coral taking over because it is better adapted and creating a monoculture" I'd say that we should not assume one way or another. It very may well be, or not. That data is probably out there and I'd be interested to know the answer. If the answer is yes, it's very healthy. I'd also like to know what species these scientists are breeding. If it's only a select few species, is that healthier than the species that have adapted naturally and are growing fine?

momoschili 2y ago
Explosive growth does not happen in a vacuum. Sometimes it's due to a pre-existing boom and bust cycle (eg lynx and hares, rabbits and wolves, etc). Sometimes it's due to the elimination of key species or ecological instability (eg hares in australia with no predators, boom of sea urchins in california, cuttlefish booming due to overfishing), or maybe it's something completely different altogether. Given that there is no history of a pre-existing boom and bust cycle in the data, I think we can rule that out. So clearly something is happening that wasn't happening before. The question you want answered is one-dimensional and ill-posed in this situation to allow you to better understand the dynamics at work.
- theultdev 2y ago
  The GBR is not that old, and it experienced a major boom during it's creation, obviously. We really don't have enough data to rule anything out as we weren't tracking it that long relatively to say for sure. We also don't know all the variables.

mike_hearn 2y ago

They tried the "but what about biodiversity" argument back in 2020 when the regrowth started. It is automatically true that in an ecosystem that experiences a population decline, when the population starts growing again the subtypes that grow fastest will become more common than those which grow slower, and thus there will be a temporary decline in biodiversity. That doesn't indicate a problem of any kind. It's just the natural state of affairs.