The man on the land has the oceans in his hands

The fruits of the sea include our own health. lotus8/flickr

People who live far from the seashore still benefit from ecosystem services delivered by the oceans of our planet, and people who cannot see the sea still damage the oceans by impacting the water quality of rivers that flow to the sea.

A recent study by Glenn De’ath and colleagues has analysed the causes of the decline of coral in the Great Barrier Reef, and found that a large proportion of coral mortality is due to algal blooms that are caused by increased nutrient loads delivered by freshwater rivers and streams. This means that managing the health of the reef means convincing people who live on the land to take part.

What does the ocean do for you?

Some people believe that if they do not live on the coast, or spend time fishing, then conserving oceanic habitats or species has no benefits for them personally. But the oceans provide climate regulation by absorbing carbon dioxide, it produces oxygen for us to breathe, and seafood provides essential protein for a large proportion of people on our planet. These are things we will not miss until they are gone. We call them ecosystem services, and they are easy to take for granted.

A recent analysis by the Centre for Policy Development concludes that Australia’s marine estate provides over $25 billion worth of ecosystem services every year. That figure does not include the money produced from commercial fishing, boat building, marine tourism or offshore oil. The marine reserve network, which is widely undervalued, provides $2 billion of ecosystem services each year.

But putting aside areas of marine habitat is only one aspect of ensuring the health of our oceans. Much more needs to be done to protect ourselves from catastrophic consequences. And the Great Barrier Reef is only one component of our marine estate, but it is both visible and important, so recent research on the causes of decline in live coral is instructive.

Study of coral reef deaths

Based on 2,258 surveys from 214 reefs over 27 years, a study by Dr De’ath et al. quantified the mortality of coral across space and time within the Great Barrier Reef (GBR). They found a large decline in live coral across the GBR over this period, from 28% coverage in 1985 to only 13.8% coverage in 2012. But the damage is not evenly spread across the GBR: in the isolated north the impact is far less than in the developed southern end, where live coral coverage has fallen as low as 8.2%.

More interestingly, the researchers identified three causes of coral death: 1) bleaching, 2) tropical storms, and 3) crown of thorns starfish. At first glance it would appear that these are beyond human control, but on careful examination, all three may be linked to human activities.

Bleaching occurs when symbiotic algae that capture energy from the sun for their coral hosts are affected, causing the death of the coral itself. Bleaching is triggered by warm water events, which are increasing due to global warming. Tropical storms will always be with us, but the kinds of damaging cyclones that cause damage to reefs are also likely to increase in frequency with warming ocean temperatures. To manage either of these causes of coral death we need a global response to reduce greenhouse gases. In the past three decades, tropical storms and bleaching were responsible for about 58% of coral deaths in the Great Barrier Reef.

The third cause of coral decline is a starfish that can become super abundant. The crown of thorns starfish are voracious predators of coral, and 42% of coral mortality was caused by outbreaks of this single species. One way to reduce crown of thorns outbreaks is to ensure that their predators remain prevalent, and restrictions on fishing have had some impact on crown of thorns populations because fish eat starfish. But the outbreaks are not due to predator release, they are caused by prey abundance.

Crown of thorns starfish outbreaks are due to increased survival rates among baby starfish. Algal blooms provide superabundant food for the larval stage of starfish life, allowing populations to explode beyond the capacity of fish to clean them up. Algal blooms are the consequence of high nutrient and sediment loads from cleared, fertilised and urbanised catchments.

Nutrient loads are now five to nine times higher in rivers than before European settlement. The lesson is that the water quality of our freshwater systems directly affects the water quality of our marine environments. The same problems caused by nutrients in inland waters are caused by inland waters providing nutrients to the ocean: algal blooms fundamentally alter the food web. In this case, extra algae means more crown of thorns starfish, which means death for coral reefs.

Link between land and sea

The good news part of this story is the author’s prediction that if crown of thorns starfish are controlled, the Great Barrier Reef would be able to recover from the other two causes of coral death. This means that people who live on the land have both a responsibility and an opportunity to make a difference to global health.

Protecting marine habitats and environmental management of the Great Barrier Reef is not enough to save it. The ocean is not as distant from inland environments as most people think. You do not have to have an ocean view or be addicted to seafood to see the benefit of preserving our marine estate. Let me use myself as an example: my home is over a three hours drive from the ocean, I don’t eat fish at all (vegetarian for 33 years so far) and I am the first person to get seasick if I do get the opportunity to go boating. And yet I cannot ignore the plight of the reef that flanks our continent, or the waters that support life as we know it. As a thinking person I know that a healthy ocean directly impacts my family and my future.

People who live far from the ocean have the power to save or destroy this World Heritage Site. Saving our oceans starts on the land, in the home, in the factory and on the farm. What we pour down the drains or spray on our soil inevitably finds its way into our freshwater systems, and they deliver the bounty of our activities to the sea.

Better management of our rivers and streams will benefit the native fish and habitats close to our homes, as well as giving the reefs and seagrass beds and other marine habitats a fighting chance. The payback for us is those ecosystem services, at once invisible and indivisible from our own health and well being.

Unfortunately, ecosystem services, like fresh air and clean water and food security, are easy to take for granted. But we will miss them like mad when they are gone. Just remember that you are not powerless to make a difference, in fact, the truth is quite the opposite. Only you, and others like you (human beings, that is) have the power to protect planetary health. Caring for the world’s heritage begins at home, no matter how far you live from a World Heritage Site.

Join the conversation

13 Comments sorted by

  1. terry lockwood

    maths teacher

    Given that nutrient loads in rivers will be inorganic salts, and there is a fondness for building desal plants is there any potential to use them to produce fresh water and concentrated salt solutions that could be in turn dried off to be use as fertiliser. Would it be more effective to use slightly brackish waters as the input for desal plants rather than ocean waters? Help me out here.

    report
    1. Jon Brodie

      Research scientist

      In reply to terry lockwood

      The volumes of water which are carrying the nutrients from agriculture into the Great Barrier Reef and causing crown of thorns outbreaks are huge. In the 2010/2011 wet season more than 100 cubic kilometres of water loaded with sediment, nutrients and pesticides was discharged. There is no possibility of treating this at all including using wetlands or any other technological fix. The only solution is control at the source i.e. reduced erosion and better management of fertiliser and pesticide use. The joint Queensland and Australian governments' Reef Plan is achieving some success in doing this but it's a slow process and will take continued investment by government and farmers to achieve a real solution.

      report
    2. David Arthur

      n/a

      In reply to terry lockwood

      Terry, concentrated salt solutions (so-called "reject" streams from desalination plants) are not suitable for use as fertilisers, because of their salt content.

      However, the same membrane technology is used to extract high purity water (suitable for return to water reservoirs) from the already-treated discharge from urban waste water treatment plants. The remainder of that treated discharge contains nutrients such as nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium, which may be used into fertilisers.

      report
  2. John Knowles Stretch

    Arid Rangeland resident

    "We will miss them once they have gone."
    Never a truer word Susan Lawler, for already Australia's cassowary is close to gone and it appears that until the point of extinction is reached, there is little awareness.

    The health of ecosystem is like the health of individual species-populations in that once the size/scale becomes too impaired, survival is problematic.

    report
    1. Susan Lawler

      Head of Department, Department of Environmental Management & Ecology at La Trobe University

      In reply to John Knowles Stretch

      And close to gone is almost always too late. The extinction cycle is often pictured like a vortex, a great sucking black hole of despair. Once the habitat is damaged and the populations are small, other factors jump in like carrion feeders to finish the species off: genetic decline, disease, stochastic events.

      I know it is off topic, but I am sorry to hear about the cassowary.

      report
  3. David Arthur

    n/a

    Thanks for this article, Dr Lawler.

    You make the point that what happens on land affects downstream ecosystems, all the way to the receiving waters of the continental shelf.

    For Coral Sea catchments, all activities that adversely affect river water quality have their ultimate effect on the Reef. While efforts to increase marine reserve protection, beginning with the Howard Government's declaration of 'no-take' zones covering ~1/3 of the GBR are necessary, they are insufficient.

    It can…

    Read more
  4. Colin Creighton

    Chair, Climate adaptation, Marine Biodiversity and Fisheries

    Hi all - I would go a lot further. With the possible exception of such as indigenous take of dugongs virtually all Australian fisheries are now sustainable in terms of their catching component. Where they are NOT sustainable is their "farm" - in other words the fisheries habitat that generates their production. This is where agriculture and the excessive drainage of wetlands, levees, bunds plus of course export off farm of nutrients and sedimewnts have had a huge impact. Some examples - there…

    Read more
    1. John Knowles Stretch

      Arid Rangeland resident

      In reply to Colin Creighton

      Thanks Colin. An important reminder. Take the now twice-proposed Gulf Evaporative Salt enterprise on the east shore of Exmouth Gulf; for this is critical dugong habitat and the proponents appeared incapable of any recognition that extensive evaporative salt ponding banks (and the inevitably extensive system of supporting access roads) must inescapably disrupt the flood-event flows of the Yannarie River - through to the Gulf shores and the sandy bank seagrass habitat therein.

      Perhaps they simply relied on a road map atlas - for these usually show the Yannarie as simply "disappearing" far to the east of the coast!
      True: this level of ignorance is too often 'an understood in everyday life' but where extravagant proposals are developed on so-weak a foundation (potentially adversely impinging on our already sadly depleted natural heritage) the omission is entirely unacceptable.

      report
    2. Jon Brodie

      Research scientist

      In reply to Colin Creighton

      I'm in total agreement with Col as to the needs of flood plain wetland conservation and restoration. My comments of the inability of such wetlands to trap agricultural runoff from further up the catchment, while true, does not negate the critical function they play in the marine- freshwater productivity system. The lower Burdekin floodplain area adjacent to the Ramsar wetland is a case in point of serious pollutant loading into the site from cropping on the floodplain and no action by the Australian Government to do anything about this at all despite the Ramsar listing. So Col my nomination is for the lower Burdekin including the Ramsar site.

      report
  5. John Knowles Stretch

    Arid Rangeland resident

    Jon Brodie raises our awareness as he reminds that runoff-management is critical for all of Australia's near-shore marine areas. Not merely the barrier reef.

    Consider the Shark Bay World Heritage precinct for example. The potential adverse consequence of toxic/polluted runoff in this estate has been understood for many years. The December 2010 and February 2011 Wooramel River and Gascoyne River flood events were a wake up call. However insofar as the public record is concerned, the pace of research progress is alarmingly slow.

    report
  6. Dave Phillips

    logged in via Facebook

    This is my pet hate, the damage being done to our oceans, and the mindless obsession of the media and governments in the global warming scare campaign to institute a lucrative money making plan into the economy in the form of carbon taxes and carbon credits.
    All the hype on global warming pales into insignificance when put alongside the damage being done to our source of life on this planet (the other is off planet, in the sun).
    The rubbish and pollution is on a scale that boggles the mind, yet we do not see nor hear of it, until a "big" or "flashy" event like Deepwater Horizon, or Exxon Valdiz etc.
    Combined with the nuclear waste flowing in as we speak from Japan, the extinction level events are already under way, this planets inhabitants are killing the very thing needed to sustain us.

    report
    1. Susan Lawler

      Head of Department, Department of Environmental Management & Ecology at La Trobe University

      In reply to Dave Phillips

      Yes Dave, it does, it boggles the mind. And most people just can't get their head around the fact that those huge expanses of salt water are in desperate need of our help. Or that they are absolutely essential to life on earth.

      report
    2. Jon Brodie

      Research scientist

      In reply to Dave Phillips

      Dave we need management of BOTH climate change and pollution to save our marine environment (or at best maintain something of worth). Pitting the 2 necessities against each other just obscures the message. We are still worried on the Great Barrier Reef that all we do under programs like Reef Rescue will help but not enough to avert the final mess caused by climate change about which little is being done.

      report