#post06

There are a few ways we can counter-act the mass bleaching effect is by using restoration tools to help rebuild the reefs. In the article, “Artificial Reefs VS Coral Transplantation as Restoration Tools for Mitigating Coral Reef Deterioration: Benefits, Concerns, and Proposed Guidelines.” by Avigdor Abelson, two methods of restoration are proposed: artificial reefs and coral transplants. His solution to restore the reefs is to use a combination of both. Abelson went into depth with each kind of restoration tool so that his audience could have background knowledge before reading his argument. By that time they have already been reading through many of his hyperboles and alliterations. These rhetorical devices make Abelson's points more memorable in the long run which only makes his argument better.

The purpose of the article Abelson wrote was to inform readers on the two types of reef restoration, general guidelines to follow when implementing them, and what is good and bad about each one. Since the article was mostly factual and had little room for any humor or sarcasm, its clear to see that Abelson wanted to change the reader's way of thinking by telling them the truth. He included 5 tables of information for the guidelines of implementation of a restoration tool, possible restoration goals, artificial reef pros and cons, and coral transplantation pros and cons. These information tables create a good foundation for his readers so that they were not walking into the argument blind. Each one has a summary of key facts said in the paragraphs preceding. This makes sure that the reader has an easy place to go back and look at facts and better understand what they ad just previously read. This technique strengthens the readers amount of knowledge, making sure each point is retained in their long-term memory and not their short term.

Another way Abelson strengthens his arguments is through the use of hyperboles. He describes coral reefs as, “. . . the most complex and bio-diverse ecosystems on earth. . .” This exaggeration makes the reader believe that their deaths are even more crucial than they thought to begin with. Another example is what he says when describing the need for the restoration projects in paragraph 2, “. . . the numerous deteriorating reefs and wide areas of degraded reefs make the use of restoration approaches inevitable.” There are a number of words he could have strung together to show how important it was to use the artificial reefs or coral transplants but instead he chose numerous and inevitable. A few other words Abelson used that were specific were immense, conceived, tailored, remediation, and subsequent. Each has a simpler meaning that could have been used but he wanted those in particular to control the way his readers processed the information.

The last rhetorical device Abelson uses to refine his arguments about which restoration project should be used and how to implement them into the reefs is alliteration. The first use of alliteration appears in paragraph 3 when Abelson is talking about the restoration projects that are on-going despite the lack of scientific backing. “. . .it is of immense importance to illuminate concerns and guidelines. . .” Another can be found in paragraph 9 when Abelson says, “immediate increase,” and “instant increase,” when he is describing the potential benefits of coral transplantation.

In conclusion, Abelson had a clear end goal when he wrote this article. He wanted to inform his audience, give them two sides of the argument, present his own opinion, and let them decide for themselves what they wanted to back after reading the benefits and disadvantages of each restoration tool. Abelson's use of informative tables, hyperboles, and alliterations made sure his arguments were memorable and easy to recall when the information was needed. He sought out to inform the public of the dangers being inflicted on our coral reefs as well as what they could do to save them. The purpose of some writing is to get the reader to do or want something and Abelson was able to achieve this with ease in his article, “Artificial Reefs VS Coral Transplantation as Restoration Tools for Mitigating Coral Reef Deterioration: Benefits, Concerns, and Proposed Guidelines.”

The selection process for determining which is best, coral transplantation or artificial reefs, has come down to long-term monitoring. When deciding whether to start a restoration project, some elements must be taken into account. A few of these such things are restoration goals, degradation causes, current reef state, and present environmental conditions. If they are not accounted for, fail rate of the project increases dramatically. Poorly conceived projects can cause further adverse effects such as more stress on the coral or loss of control over the transplants or man-made reefs which can damage the ecosystem.

After going through the causes and state of the reef, the organizations funding the projects must look at restoration goals. Some possible restoration goals are rescue or promote a species; increase diversity, biomass, and live cover of sessile and or mobile organisms; change demography or age structure of a given population; increase genetic variability of a given population; re-modify the reef state following ecosystem shifts; return the reef community to a given state; and reverse habitat loss.

Once these have also been answered, it comes down to what project they should start; coral transplant or artificial reef. No matter which option the organization chooses, the state of the reef must be bio-monitored at various levels. The stress must be studied. Is the stress still present? What is causing it? Or has it stopped altogether? After finding the answers to these, the restoration project starts step-by-step. All of the planning and preparation that goes into this will ultimately decide the fate of the reef so they must chose wisely.

If a coral transplantation method is used, there are several benefits as well as disadvantages that go along with it. Some of those benefits are immediate increase in coral cover and diversity; increased recruitment of coral larvae; as well as increased survival rate of locally rare and threatened species where their primary habitat is destroyed. One of the main reasons coral transplantation are implemented is when the reef cannot naturally recover, which is usually indicated by an absence of coral recruitment. Some of the disadvantages can include loss of colonies from donor areas, reduced growth rates of transplanted corals, failure of attachment from transplants, and reduced fecundity or the ability to produce abundant healthy growth of transplants due to high stress levels.

Of all these drawbacks, most are technical and get easily overlooked. If they are overlooked, the reef can take a turn for the worst. Since coral transplantations are largely irreversible, the attempt of restoration can be counter-active. The unintended consequence of moving the coral larvae into the dying reef can put them into a high stress environment which can kill the transplants and the natural reef simultaneously.

Overall, the main appeal of coral transplantation as a restoration project is that it works quickly in converting a bare reef into a lively, healthy reef once again. Though the success of the coral transplant program seems effective, they are poorly supported by scientific knowledge. In many cases where the transplants were used, no control groups were established to provide a comparative perspective of the project's effectiveness.

If a coral transplant restoration project was not chosen, an artificial reef may have been. This project also has its ups and down, taking the lead over transplants in some areas and not in others. A few of the environment benefits that are expected when using these artificial reefs are the ability to divert human activity, provide nursery spaces for young fish, and help give endangered and threatened species a place to reside. While they are widely used and accepted by the general public, artificial reefs are not considered a promising restoration approach by coral reef ecologists. They are mainly put in by those with fishing interests, resource management, and those who want to increase tourism.

One thing that sets the artificial reef apart from the transplants is that, if needed, an artificial reef can be removed easily without damaging the natural reef. They also increase availability of substrate, structural complexity of the reef, and species diversity. By being a separate and connected at the same time, their presence connects the reef but doesn't damage them by being too close.

Once an artificial reef is put in, immigration of more diverse reef-dwelling species starts to increase. And since one of their benefits is to divert humans away from the natural reefs, while also providing tourism, the idea of an artificial reef has started to promote public awareness of the dying natural reefs. While all of these are good for the reef and other species alike, there are some notable drawbacks to having them.

Artificial reefs take a long time to develop and when they do, they are hard to control. Since there is still limited amounts of knowledge about this restoration project, it is hard to predict how the natural reef will react if it has never been introduced to one before. The presence of an artificial reef can also reduce the larval supply from natural reefs of the coral that is trying to expand. Sometimes they can also attract organisms from the natural reef instead of increase production from the natural reef. This can cause a common or dominant species to become more abundant. If that happens, any smaller or more threatened species will start to diminish even more.

Thus, each restoration project has its pros and cons. Each have been used and have their own success rates. Personally, I like the idea of a combination of both. It may get out of hand in the long run but at least there will be more lively looking and healthy natural reefs while tourists and divers alike can enjoy the artificial reef so that no more harm is done to the natural ones.