Interesting article on deep-water "Artificial reefs"

[John Rawlings]

Just saw this one on the BBC -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12718251

As I read it I noted that it mentioned whelks and octopuses living on the container and I thought, "how cool!". However, the Scientist studying it felt that they were "invasive species" since they would normally not be found at that specific location. I have heard much the same talk from some PNW biologists.

This is one of the reasons why it is so hard to get artificial reefs in the PNW - differing viewpoints as to how "good" or "bad" the resulting marine life growth will be...since it would not have existed there until humans interfere and sink a ship....

- John

[whatevah]

Interesting article - thanks for the link John.

[lamont]

can't really see how that argument affects puget sound. there's some boring muddy terrain out there, but the water sloshes and mixes with the tides and there's enough natural reefs and hard walls that i doubt there's any species that once it gets into puget sound doesn't ultimately have access to the entire sound due solely to natural features.

[John Rawlings]

can't really see how that argument affects puget sound. there's some boring muddy terrain out there, but the water sloshes and mixes with the tides and there's enough natural reefs and hard walls that i doubt there's any species that once it gets into puget sound doesn't ultimately have access to the entire sound due solely to natural features.

I agree with you, and I'd love to see more artificial reefs put in place here in Puget Sound. However, I have had biologists argue with me using much the same points as the scientist does in the article - "muddy terrain" is habitat as well, and when humans insert something else into that habitat they alter it significantly and cause species that normally wouldn't be there to proliferate, thereby changing that habitat and not necessarily for the better. Their point is NOT that these species are truly "invasive", like the Green Crabs or the several species of invasive tunicates, but that they are invasive for that little part of the natural habitat where they would not normally thrive without an artificial base. An example that might be more clear is the Cloud Sponges on the Cape Breton - a ship deliberately sunk on a flat. The Cloud Sponges would not be there if the ship had not been placed there, giving them a solid "cliff-like" surface on which to take hold....I personally think that the Cloud Sponges being there is fantastic...but some others do not believe so as they would not "normally" be there.

Personally, I'd like to see all manner of artificial reefs in the Sound, but this is one of the primary points made by those opposing such projects within the scientific community. I posted this article so that everyone here could see an example of what this viewpoint is. I think that viewpoint is wrong, but I also know it to be a legitimate one.

- John

[LCF]

It would seem to me that that argument would be far more palatable, if muddy flat habitat were in scarce supply. Somehow, I don't see the Sound ever having any shortage of habitat for things that live in silt.

[Joshua Smith]

It would seem to me that that argument would be far more palatable, if muddy flat habitat were in scarce supply. Somehow, I don't see the Sound ever having any shortage of habitat for things that live in silt.

You beat me to it, Lynne. Good lord. There's never going to be a shortage of featureless mudflats in the Sound, for crying out loud.

[John Rawlings]

It would seem to me that that argument would be far more palatable, if muddy flat habitat were in scarce supply. Somehow, I don't see the Sound ever having any shortage of habitat for things that live in silt.

You beat me to it, Lynne. Good lord. There's never going to be a shortage of featureless mudflats in the Sound, for crying out loud.

Yeah....no kidding! However, "featureless" is definitely in the eye of the beholder. From some scientist's viewpoint the animals that dwell in mud are natural and just as viable in the overall scheme of things as Rockfish, anemones and encrusting sponges that are far more beautiful to the human eye. Placing an artificial reef on a mud flat would destroy that habitat to replace it with one that we humans would prefer to play in.

I guess that you could condense this view into one small sentence - never artificially alter a habitat as there are always consequences.

I posted this information so that at least part of the opposition to artificial reefs would be understood. If it's understood such viewpoints can be more readily debated....and even defeated.

- John

[Fishstiq]

The idea I get from the article isnt so much that a species will live in that one spot where the container is, but that over time, if enough containers fall on mud flats in shipping lanes, it will create basically an artificial bridge across ocean-sized expanses that could allow a species to colonize from one container to the next and so on until they cross oceans to new environments.

For instance, I can't cross a desert, but if you put a bar every mile I could make small jumps from one to the next and eventually I would end up someplace where I wasn't. See?

[John Rawlings]

The idea I get from the article isnt so much that a species will live in that one spot where the container is, but that over time, if enough containers fall on mud flats in shipping lanes, it will create basically an artificial bridge across ocean-sized expanses that could allow a species to colonize from one container to the next and so on until they cross oceans to new environments.

For instance, I can't cross a desert, but if you put a bar every mile I could make small jumps from one to the next and eventually I would end up someplace where I wasn't. See?

Yes, that certainly was the primary point of the article....and I could definitely see you doing just that!

[Tom Nic]

It would seem to me that that argument would be far more palatable, if muddy flat habitat were in scarce supply. Somehow, I don't see the Sound ever having any shortage of habitat for things that live in silt.

And the argument might have some validity if you were covering over all the mud flats in a particular area with artificial reefs, thus "destroying" that particular habitat.

Obviously that is not happening...

There is a perspective that makes "what is" somewhat sacrosanct... again, which I could see if you were "papering over" a particular habitat causing it not to exist at all in an area.

Natural events rearrange habitat rather frequently (see storms, volcanoes, earthquakes, tsunami, etc etc) - especially when you're talking geological time.

I think the thought process is flawed... but then of course I'm biased.

[CaptnJack]

Steding and I have commented on this so many times before I've lost track. Stop tackling the more and/or what types of critters live on reefs vs. mud. Its an unwinnable argument.

Revert to simple economics. Famous sunken ship = out of state money!

BTW if some ship where to be sunk in a low current, esay to dive mud flat it would be a boring lifeless dive. The Chaudiere was sunk in 1992(?) in Sechelt Inlet which is remarkably similar to much of Puget Sound and there are surprisingly few critters or fish on even now. http://www.vimeo.com/1923199

[dieseldude]

There are many requirements to establish an artificial reef & expect it to thrive. Generally a brisk current across said Reef is a must for providing nutrients to any potential inhabitants among other things. Water quality, ambient light, & the materials chosen for this purpose are a few others. I have seen 1st hand that there are substances that are more readily taken over by marine life than other. I've posted pics of a rope line & a chain put in at the same time run not 2 feet apart & the rope teams with life & the chain is lifeless. At the end of the day I personally believe vertical structure is king but I doubt we will ever see it here.
I like to think I understand both sides of this argument but end up feeling the government is a little hypocritical. How much enviromental consideration is taken when they need new ferry docks, shipping ports, naval military bases etc...It's ok when the need is justifiable to them. My position would be to replace what we take away with the not so sensitive things we do in the water. Admittedly divers would benefit from this. That said, divers also provide an otherwise free method of continued observation to keep track of the development of the reef.

By the way....if you put ME in the desert with a bar every mile I would eventually get drunk, lost, & probably pass out & not get anywhere. If we apply that theory, there is NO chance of invasion!

See-we are safe after all
MJ

[ArcticDiver]

There are many requirements to establish an artificial reef & expect it to thrive. Generally a brisk current across said Reef is a must for providing nutrients to any potential inhabitants among other things. Water quality, ambient light, & the materials chosen for this purpose are a few others. I have seen 1st hand that there are substances that are more readily taken over by marine life than other. I've posted pics of a rope line & a chain put in at the same time run not 2 feet apart & the rope teams with life & the chain is lifeless. At the end of the day I personally believe vertical structure is king but I doubt we will ever see it here.
I like to think I understand both sides of this argument but end up feeling the government is a little hypocritical. How much enviromental consideration is taken when they need new ferry docks, shipping ports, naval military bases etc...It's ok when the need is justifiable to them. My position would be to replace what we take away with the not so sensitive things we do in the water. Admittedly divers would benefit from this. That said, divers also provide an otherwise free method of continued observation to keep track of the development of the reef.

By the way....if you put ME in the desert with a bar every mile I would eventually get drunk, lost, & probably pass out & not get anywhere. If we apply that theory, there is NO chance of invasion!

See-we are safe after all
MJ

Don't know for sure but this reads like you aren't aquainted with current EIS requirements and timing.

[Fishstiq]

By the way....if you put ME in the desert with a bar every mile I would eventually get drunk, lost, & probably pass out & not get anywhere. If we apply that theory, there is NO chance of invasion!

See-we are safe after all
MJ

No worries, a lot of it is hereditary, you know, you get it from your parents. A lot of stuff is that way.

For instance, if your parents don't have kids, it's very likely you won't have kids either.

[ArcticDiver]

By the way....if you put ME in the desert with a bar every mile I would eventually get drunk, lost, & probably pass out & not get anywhere. If we apply that theory, there is NO chance of invasion!

See-we are safe after all
MJ

No worries, a lot of it is hereditary, you know, you get it from your parents. A lot of stuff is that way.

For instance, if your parents don't have kids, it's very likely you won't have kids either.

[Joshua Smith]

By the way....if you put ME in the desert with a bar every mile I would eventually get drunk, lost, & probably pass out & not get anywhere. If we apply that theory, there is NO chance of invasion!

See-we are safe after all
MJ

No worries, a lot of it is hereditary, you know, you get it from your parents. A lot of stuff is that way.

For instance, if your parents don't have kids, it's very likely you won't have kids either.

Can you show us some research that supports this statement?

I, for one, am sick of so-called "experts" spouting off their whack theories all over the place: "Gravity makes rocks heavy," "Cher is a human female," "Fire is hot, the sun is made out of fire, therefore the sun is hot" (I'm no fireologist, but I have YET to see ANY smoke coming out of the sun. Chew on THAT!). We need a return to common responsibility and personal sense, here, people. Others will tell you to think for yourself. I'll tell you to think for others.

[airsix]

Can you show us some research that supports this statement?

I, for one, am sick of so-called "experts" spouting off their whack theories all over the place: "Gravity makes rocks heavy," "Cher is a human female," "Fire is hot, the sun is made out of fire, therefore the sun is hot" (I'm no fireologist, but I have YET to see ANY smoke coming out of the sun. Chew on THAT!). We need a return to common responsibility and personal sense, here, people. Others will tell you to think for yourself. I'll tell you to think for others.

Josh, if a fire burns with sufficient heat there will be no smoke. You can prove this by a simple observation: the hottest chicks don't smoke. It's also why old people move South. It's because they're less hot. Personally I've never smoked either. Apparently I've been hot since birth, or perhaps I was never hot at all. I'm not sure I want to know the answer. Eric lives in a volcano. He probably knows a lot more about this stuff.

I'm going to dive in a lake tomorrow and look at stolen cars that were pushed off a cliff.

[ArcticDiver]

By the way....if you put ME in the desert with a bar every mile I would eventually get drunk, lost, & probably pass out & not get anywhere. If we apply that theory, there is NO chance of invasion!

See-we are safe after all
MJ

No worries, a lot of it is hereditary, you know, you get it from your parents. A lot of stuff is that way.

For instance, if your parents don't have kids, it's very likely you won't have kids either.

Can you show us some research that supports this statement?

I, for one, am sick of so-called "experts" spouting off their whack theories all over the place: "Gravity makes rocks heavy," "Cher is a human female," "Fire is hot, the sun is made out of fire, therefore the sun is hot" (I'm no fireologist, but I have YET to see ANY smoke coming out of the sun. Chew on THAT!). We need a return to common responsibility and personal sense, here, people. Others will tell you to think for yourself. I'll tell you to think for others.

Think for others? Hmmm, isn't that what the politicians and government experts want us to do? Let them think for us?

Yeah not only is the sun hot it makes other things hot too. Lots of examples on the beach and dive boats in Hawaii.

[Fishstiq]

By the way....if you put ME in the desert with a bar every mile I would eventually get drunk, lost, & probably pass out & not get anywhere. If we apply that theory, there is NO chance of invasion!

See-we are safe after all
MJ

No worries, a lot of it is hereditary, you know, you get it from your parents. A lot of stuff is that way.

For instance, if your parents don't have kids, it's very likely you won't have kids either.

Can you show us some research that supports this statement?

I, for one, am sick of so-called "experts" spouting off their whack theories all over the place: "Gravity makes rocks heavy," "Cher is a human female," "Fire is hot, the sun is made out of fire, therefore the sun is hot" (I'm no fireologist, but I have YET to see ANY smoke coming out of the sun. Chew on THAT!). We need a return to common responsibility and personal sense, here, people. Others will tell you to think for yourself. I'll tell you to think for others.

Of course I have research to back up my statement! Here, I'll post a couple links.



Not saying I agree with the "sun made of fire" people, but if it was, in zero gravity which way would the smoke go?

[Joshua Smith]

By the way....if you put ME in the desert with a bar every mile I would eventually get drunk, lost, & probably pass out & not get anywhere. If we apply that theory, there is NO chance of invasion!

See-we are safe after all
MJ

No worries, a lot of it is hereditary, you know, you get it from your parents. A lot of stuff is that way.

For instance, if your parents don't have kids, it's very likely you won't have kids either.

Can you show us some research that supports this statement?

I, for one, am sick of so-called "experts" spouting off their whack theories all over the place: "Gravity makes rocks heavy," "Cher is a human female," "Fire is hot, the sun is made out of fire, therefore the sun is hot" (I'm no fireologist, but I have YET to see ANY smoke coming out of the sun. Chew on THAT!). We need a return to common responsibility and personal sense, here, people. Others will tell you to think for yourself. I'll tell you to think for others.

Of course I have research to back up my statement! Here, I'll post a couple links.



Not saying I agree with the "sun made of fire" people, but if it was, in zero gravity which way would the smoke go?

Hmmm. Well, at first blush, I must say that your links appear to be solid. But I'm suspicious of this kind of internet nonsense.

And to answer your question- in zero "gravity", the "smoke" from the "fire" would probably end up running Sound Transit. Or overthrowing an African government.

[ArcticDiver]

Just saw this article on MSNBC:

www.ban.org


More info for edification.