Location: Rutgers University–Newark

A popular coral restoration technique is unlikely to protect coral reefs from climate change and is based on the assumption that local threats to reefs are managed effectively, according to a study co-authored by Rutgers, Coral Research Alliance and researchers at other institutions.

The research, published in the journal Ecological Applications, explored the response of coral reefs to restoration projects that propagate corals and outplant them into the wild. Additionally, researchers evaluated the effects of outplanting corals genetically adapted to warmer temperatures, sometimes called “super corals,” to reefs experiencing climate change as a way to build resilience to warming.

The study found neither approach was successful at preventing a decline in coral coverage in the next several hundred years because of climate change and that selectively breeding corals to be more heat tolerant only will lead to benefits if conducted at a very large scale over the course of centuries.

Even then, the researchers said, the benefits won’t be realized for 200 years.

Restoring areas with corals that haven’t been selected to be more heat tolerant was ineffective at helping corals survive climate change except at the largest supplementation levels.

“Our previous research shows that corals have the best chance of adapting to the effects of climate change, like warming ocean temperatures, if there is high genetic diversity and if habitat is protected from other local stressors.” said Lisa McManus, who co-led the research and conducted the work as a postdoctoral researcher at Rutgers University and is now faculty at the Hawai‘i Institute of Marine Biology. “Repopulating a coral reef with corals that have similar genetic makeups could reduce an area’s natural genetic diversity, and therefore make it harder for all corals to adapt to climate change.”

Coral reef restoration techniques are widely applied throughout the world as a way to repopulate degraded coral reef areas. Although the practice has some benefits, such as engaging and educating communities about reef ecosystems or replenishing a coral reef population after an area has been hit by a storm or suffered direct physical damage, more scientists are speaking up about the limitations of conservation approaches that focus solely on restoration.

The authors said focusing solely on coral restoration and genetically engineering corals to be more tolerant of high temperatures is risky. Understanding of the genes that determine heat resistance remains limited and focusing on reproducing just one single trait could undermine a coral’s resilience to other stressors or its natural ability to adapt, they said.

Restoration practices also carry a hefty price tag and require a lot of resources. The median cost of restoring just one hectare (or about 2.5 acres) of coral reef has been estimated at more than $350,000, which doesn’t factor in high mortality rates that often come with such projects and the cost of genetically modifying corals.

“Coral restoration can be an important tool for conserving coral reefs, but restoration is expensive and hard. We can’t use restoration to replace the basics, like improving water quality, avoiding overfishing, and addressing climate change,” said Malin Pinsky, an associate professor in the Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Natural Resources at Rutgers University–New Brunswick.

The study was co-authored by Rutgers professor Malin Pinsky, and researchers from Coral Reef Alliance, University of Washington, Stanford University, University of Queensland, University of Hawai’i and The Nature Conservancy. The research was funded by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation and The Nature Conservancy.

Story originally appeared in Rutgers Today.

Tap Into reports on the experiences of Rutgers student Eddie Malague in the Rutgers Summer Service Initiative (RSSI) program, which helps undergraduate students expand their knowledge, skills, and civic awareness by placing them in public service-oriented, non-profit organizations and direct-service government offices. “I think I’m getting better at interacting with a whole host of different people,” says Malague about working at Elijah’s Promise community food kitchen in New Brunswick. “It’s a very diverse group of clients. I feel I’ve learned much more about myself and where I come from and what I can offer to others.”
Tap Into New Brunswick | Through New Rutgers Initiative, Intern Brings Help, Hope to Elijah’s Promise

“If being pregnant can have consequences for women’s health, one priority needs to be ensuring that women have access to health care to make sure their pregnancies are safe,” writes Rutgers University–Newark professor Vanessa LoBue in Psychology Today. “Although Americans might never come to a middle ground on the abortion issue, perhaps we can work together on strategies that can help reduce the risks for mothers and children, and support strategies that are known to make abortion less common and policies that support pregnant women who decide to carry their fetuses to term.” LaBue also examines what has happened in other countries, such as Romania, when women’s reproductive rights suddenly disappear.
Psychology Today | On Being Pro-Family

Nick Kapur, associate professor of history at Rutgers University–Camden’s College of Arts and Sciences, appears in a New York Times story on the aftermath of the assassination of Japan’s former prime minister, Shinzo Abe. Kapur comments on prospects for the country’s current leader, Fumio Kishida, who owes much of his success to Abe. Kishida “has some popularity and he’s going to have a majority, but as we know, there are so many economic headwinds for everyone in the world—dealing with inflation and an emerging markets debt crisis and the war in Ukraine—and maybe that would damage any leader at some point,” says Kapur.
New York Times | Shinzo Abe’s Party Triumphs in Parliamentary Vote, Extending Legacy

The New York Post looks at predictions about the unthinkably dire effects of nuclear warfare, quoting School of Environmental and Biological Sciences professor Alan Robock, who has led several studies on the subject—including one recently published in the open-access journal AGU Advances. “World leaders have used our studies previously, as an impetus to end the nuclear arms race in the 1980s and five years ago to pass a treaty in the United Nations to ban nuclear weapons,” says Robock. “We hope that this new study will encourage more nations to ratify the ban treaty.”
New York Post | Nuclear war would create ‘dire’ worldwide hellscape: scientists