Are artificial reefs as productive as coral reefs?

[DavidPT40]

I was thinking about this earlier. Most fish that reside at coral reefs do not eat coral. In fact, it seems that coral is very succeptable to predation, and takes years upon years to recover. So almost all of the fish utilize coral reefs simply for the physical structure, and to eat the the non-coral organisms that live there.

So wouldn't a non-coral limestone reef be nearly as productive as a natural coral reef?

 

[Scram Bulleggs]

Yes1 2

 

[fmw625]

There is a good article in the April "Dive Training" magazine on this

 

[DavidPT40]

Well did the article agree or disagree with me?

 

[marku]

More biodiversity in a live reef. It's like a rainforest; do you think there would be just as much life in a rainforest if all the trees were dead?

Artificial reefs are good fish-aggregating devices though. Our house reef is made of old tires and we find lots of stuff there. You can't call it dead though because it's overgrown with hard & soft corals, sponges, anemones, tunicates, bryozoans, hydroids already.

Many fish prefer to live in live corals also even if they don't eat them. You'd have a hard time getting schools of anthias and chromis to live in dead corals.

 

[SkullDeformity]

How do you mean, productive? Productive from purely biological standpoint? Productive from a fishermans view? Biologically, a live reef is waaaay more productive than an artificial reef.

 

[CBulla]

What I do know of artificial reefs is they provide structure and habitat for food chains to exist and thrive. Most fish are drawn to structure like moths to flame. Sea plants and corals like a good place to set their feet down if you will, and grow. Since I live on the Gulf Coast of FL, I get to see more than the sunken relics as is so prolific in the Keys, namely the scientific research reefs such as the reef balls and tetrahedrons, boxes and old communications towers.. these structures are all teaming with life though it varies depending upon the amount of relief and size of the structre.

What I don't know is are they better. According to an article I read with National Geographic, Coral Reef Wilderness Revealed at Phoenix Islands, coral reefs are responisbile for creating a significant amount of the air we breathe. A show I watched on PBS also about Coral Reefs (are you seeing a theme to my viewing habits?) mentioned that amount produced to be roughly 60%.

In terms of better.. thats probably going to be debatable. I suppose if it could recreate what is being destroyed, then perhaps more need to be created.. but as of right now I haven't had the time to research out and learn for myself if that is the case.

 

[SkullDeformity]

One concern on artificial reefs, they don't actually create habitat. Some have proposed that fish are drawn to congregate in these areas, but that does not necessarily mean that breeding, recruitment, etc is taking place there. So artificial reefs just move fish around, not creating more fish. There are a lot of other questions and debates on this topic.

 

[CBulla]

It's a lot of food for thought.... It gives me something to look at and observe now while out on these little havens.

One thing for sure though, due to the nature of where I live, the fish breed and lay eggs, etc., up in the mangroves.. thats the HUGE portion of the ecosystems where everything starts (despite what developers think should be a flat sea wall).

 

[b1gcountry]

Actually, coral Reefs are very UN-Productive. Coral reefs require very specific conditions, specifically the ABSENCE of high nutrient levels, and plankton. From a productivity standpoint, coral reefs are actually close to zero sum games. There is a lot of competition on a coral reef for a very limited set of resources, and food.

The most productive places are near the arctic and antartic circles. That's why all the large pelagics like whales spend so much time up there, because there is so much more food.

Oh, and most reef life does depend on coral/reef/sponges for their sources of nutrients either directly or indirectly.