The article divides the cause of the loss as follows, in one of the first paragraphs: 48% due to storms, 42% due to starfish, and 10% due to bleaching. Of thes

The article divides the cause of the loss as follows, in one of the first paragraphs: 48% due to storms, 42% due to starfish, and 10% due to bleaching. Of these, only the bleaching is a mostly direct cause of civilization. But reading the last paragraph, apparently coastal pollution increases the starfish growth: > "But is there really any hope of slowing the Crown-of-thorns? While the adult Crown-of-thorn feeds on coral polyps, its larvae feed on phytoplankton. Phytoplankton, in turn, multiply in the presence of fertilizers and other man-made pollutants commonly found in coastal runoff. Simply by decreasing pollution in these areas would benefit coral growth." Apparently, removing the starfish would have a recovering effect on the reef: > "The study shows that in the absence of Crown-of-thorns, coral cover would increase at 0.89 percent per year, so even with losses due to cyclones and bleaching there should be slow recovery" We should take care not to kill off one species to save another, though. The starfish are very widely spread than the reef, but any intervention should still be carefully considered.