Scientists Freeze Great Barrier Reef Coral in World-First Trial (reuters.com) 16
Scientists working on Australia's Great Barrier Reef have successfully trialled a new method for freezing and storing coral larvae they say could eventually help rewild reefs threatened by climate change. Reuters: Scientists are scrambling to protect coral reefs as rising ocean temperatures destabilise delicate ecosystems. The Great Barrier Reef has suffered four bleaching events in the last seven years including the first ever bleach during a La Nina phenomenon, which typically brings cooler temperatures. Cryogenically frozen coral can be stored and later reintroduced to the wild but the current process requires sophisticated equipment including lasers. Scientists say a new lightweight "cryomesh" can be manufactured cheaply and better preserves coral.
In a December lab trial, the world's first with Great Barrier Reef coral, scientists used the cryomesh to freeze coral larvae at the Australian Institute of Marine Sciences (AIMS). The coral had been collected from the reef for the trial, which coincided with the brief annual spawning window. "If we can secure the biodiversity of coral ... then we'll have tools for the future to really help restore the reefs and this technology for coral reefs in the future is a real game-changer," Mary Hagedorn, Senior Research Scientist at Smithsonian National Zoo and Conservation Biology Institute told Reuters from the AIMS lab.
In a December lab trial, the world's first with Great Barrier Reef coral, scientists used the cryomesh to freeze coral larvae at the Australian Institute of Marine Sciences (AIMS). The coral had been collected from the reef for the trial, which coincided with the brief annual spawning window. "If we can secure the biodiversity of coral ... then we'll have tools for the future to really help restore the reefs and this technology for coral reefs in the future is a real game-changer," Mary Hagedorn, Senior Research Scientist at Smithsonian National Zoo and Conservation Biology Institute told Reuters from the AIMS lab.
For several hundred years? (Score:4, Insightful)
that Great Barrier Reef? (Score:2)
The one where 2/3 of it actually shows the most coral cover ever in nearly 4 decades of measurement?
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/08/0... [cnbc.com]
Is that the one?
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, that's the one. The very one. Did you pause to wonder why this happened, or were you too busy molesting yourself over what you thought was a chance to discredit the effects of Global Warming?
For people with a bit more intelligence, here's part of the story arseStyopa, or whatever he calls himself, didn't see fit to pass on:
"The 2020 and 2022 bleaching events, while extensive, didn't reach the intensity of the 2016 and 2017 events and, as a result, we have seen less mortality," Australian Institute of
Re: (Score:1)
I believe that's called "goalpost shifting". Yes, organisms change according to the conditions around them. The paen of weeping for the benighted GBR hasn't been about which specific species was dying...I mean, until they had to find SOMETHING to complain about?
First, I assume people can read.
Second, I assume that people can also read between the lines. Just HOW MUCH BETTER must it be for an agency whose very existence depends on foretelling catastrophe to *grudgingly* admit, laden with caveats, exceptio
Re: (Score:2)
Not a bad defense for somebody caught with their hand in the cookie jar. Either you have no idea what the word "ecosystem" means, or you're just a plain, old garden variety liar. The latter, of course, is most likely. If you spent five minutes looking at what invasive species do when GW gives them a foothold in an ecosystem, you'd shut your yap about any alleged shifting of goalposts. I don't expect that, because I identified you pretty accurately in my original comment.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I just think the histrionics in regards the GBR are generally ridiculous.
Most of the local studies have shown that GBR damage has been the result of long term agricultural runoff to a vastly greater extent than rather trivial warming effects. Efforts to stop this have - provably - improved the conditions for the reef in relevant sections and are /just a better use of resources to materially benefit the reef/; just because "it's not the species of coral we LIKE" is now whinging.
Further, the wailing abou
Re: (Score:2)
Nice attempt to run away from getting caught telling half the story. It's a particularly pernicious form of lying. Your expertise leads me to believe you're well aware of this.
Re: (Score:2)
What? You're right, no, I didn't copy THE ENTIRETY OF THE TEXT OF THE ARTICLE into the slashdot post. That's what links are for?
I copied the relevant bits, not the funding-defending, ass-covering tap-dancing "but the reef could still die if a meteorite hit it!" silliness. Just because you buy into it (since you were primed to already) doesn't mean anyone else has to.
Yes, unsurprisingly, when conditions improve for an ecosystem, it's the most aggressive, fast growing species that are going to bounce back
Re: (Score:2)
You didn't just highlight, as you know perfectly well. It would be like me discussing you without mentioning that you're well practiced in deceit and, basically, a liar. These facts are relevant, as are the ones you left out.
But you know all this. You're just annoyed that you got caught.
Re: (Score:2)
You're funny; anyone who disagrees with you is apparently a "liar"?
Who are you trying to convince? Show me a single lie.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, what insight, you should tell the scientists who worked out that coral was around 500,000,000 years ago, but know nothing about the past.
Re: (Score:2)
If a creature went extinct this year, it too has had equal ancestral lineage and survival. Only a God can guarantee anything.
DNA sequence (Score:2)
Sequence the organism, telomere to telomere, you know what I'm saying? Store the DNA sequence, so even in the future and across planets you can computationally resurrect and synthesize everything else.