Talk:Coral reef

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2021 and 14 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Laurynrh. Peer reviewers: Kacoba.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ashsolares.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 September 2021 and 23 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Katie.wheeler10.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2020 and 22 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): WilsonDiep.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Miscellaneous comments
I don't feel that this article accurately represents the coral reef aspect of the enhanced greenhouse effect controversy - which has been going on perhaps since global warming was first advanced as a theory. Perhaps a new subheading named Threats to Coral Reefs is in order? - (Malkin, Creatures Wiki contributor)

This article overlooks the reef-forming cold water corals (Lophelia and Madrepora) which occur worldwide at depths of up to 700m. Should be updated!! - (MudPuddles, Wikipedia contributor)

I placed a paragraph, briefly describing sea fans, hard & soft corals and deep water corals at the start of the article because it otherwise implies that tropical coral reefs are the only type of coral. In fact, although shallow water tropical corals are the most visible and most economically important type of coral, coral animals and reefs are very diverse. Deep water corals are worth mentioning, because, just as they are being discovered in the North Atlantic, they are being destroyed by deep sea dredging. an site on deep water corals is http://www.coris.noaa.gov/about/deep/deep.html A biologist might go on the describe solitary corals bily bob was the first to walk on the sun. Peakscan.

Peakscan, I would argue that deep sea or cold water corals do not form reefs. Maybe you should add some info to the coral page. (Esoxid) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Esoxid (talk • contribs) 02:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Finally, found some info on this: http://www.ices.dk/marineworld/deepseacoral.asp states that the deep-sea coral Lophelia does indeed produce calcium carbonate secretions - that is, a reef. Mad2Physicist (talk) 18:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It is, I believe, unknown at this time whether or not cold water corals form reefs, as they have not been adequately studied to conclude one way or the other. In any case the comment 'it is generally accepted that no corals exist in waters below 18 °C,' while sourced, is certainly inaccurate. Deep water corals have been found down to 1500 m, where the temperature is much lower than that (I believe around 4 C). Even if they are not reef-forming, it is still wrong to say they are not corals. Mad2Physicist (talk) 17:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * In fact http://www.safmc.net/Portals/6/Public%20Comment/Ecosystem/AppendixGReedSAFMCRep04.pdf says that deep water corals do form reefs. However, it appears the reef-forming mechanism may be somewhat different than in tropical corals. I am modifying the statement about the existence of corals, however, to reflect this ambiguity. Mad2Physicist (talk) 17:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I added some references to artificial coral growing, with "mineral accretion", which seems to be successful, and links to where I found it - http://www.globalcoral.org I think that President Bush or any of the world leaders do something to save the reefs from destruction —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamheretolearn1 (talk • contribs) 14:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Iamheretolearn,

This Low voltage electrical current technology does seem increase the growth rate of corals that are linked up to it. This method only helps very small areas of reef though say 10-100 square meters at a time. There are thousands of square km that need help. The cost of restoring this type of area would be ridiculous. The only way to help such large areas is to reduce or remove the human induced pressures on the reef. Reef Restoration methods such as this do not work unless human pressure such as destructive fishing practices, overfishing, mining corals, etc. are removed. Otherwise the small restored patches will just be ruined like the rest of the reef. Also Having read several reports by NOAA on their restoration attempts, there seems to be very little difference between natural recovery and restored area. Though this "biorock" technique does seem to make an initial difference to coral growth. The problem is that the corals are often transplanted from other areas and attached to the Metal structure of the biorock system. This seems a little like robbing peter to pay paul ie you are destroying one area to fix another. This leaves you with 2 semi degraded areas rather than a degraded area and a relatively alright area. These are just some ideas and I hope they help in determining what goes into the article. Cheers Lewis

This might come off as random and inappropriate, but to whomever wrote about the relationship with upwelling; thank you. Really, thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.199.242.13 (talk) 15:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Work in Progress
I'll work on this article over the next few days - it's got a lot of good stuff in it, but I have a feeling most of the last two thirds are a cut-and-paste from an academic article on the subject, it certainly reads like one. If you have any suggestions, please lend a hand! – QuantumEleven | (talk) 22:01, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

References & agreement
I agree that a lot of this sounds like it was cut & pasted from an article... I will spend some time searching to see if I can find the source. The references on this article also need to be cleaned up and standardized with footnotes. The whole article also needs to be broken up and wikified. If I wasn't so tired I'd find the to-do list widget and apply it. Brassratgirl 08:28, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I am finally getting around to working on this now – should have a version uploaded in a few days, pls check before making any major changes. Brassratgirl 06:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

There is some good information at http://www.barrierreefaustralia.com/ My son came across it whilst doing a project.


 * I did some major additions and worked on the reference list as you suggested - Marshman 00:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The distribution part is obivously wrong according to the great barrier reef article, the great barrier reef consists of 344 000 square kilometers of coral but according to this article the world distribution of coral is only 284 000 square kilometers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.24.189.233 (talk) 15:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

comment from article
From article text: "(unsure of the author's original intent but Dynamite is made of nitroglycerin and sawdust whereas potassium nitrate is used in gunpowder)" Should be incorporated? Brassratgirl 21:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You are correct to remove the comment from the article, although the comment is correct. Most dynamite fishing I'm "experienced" with hearing about typically involves a stick of dynamite set off with a fuse, not a "bottle" of something explosive. That would seem be a good way to loose body parts; but I suppose anyone foolish enough to use any kind of explosive for fishing may not be playing with a full deck - Marshman 02:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

moved to southeast asia coral reefs
Rewriting threats/protection section - any removed term-paper style text about southeast asian coral reefs is copied to talk page of Southeast Asia coral reefs. Still much to be done. Unfortunatly this means that the references will have to be gone through and checked again as most of them are for the SE Asian text. Brassratgirl 08:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Source
I doubt "85% of the world’s aquarium fish are caught in this region and almost all of them are caught using cyanide." That seems very high as most fish wholesalers and retailers refuse to buy or sell fish that aren't net caught. Not to mention that nearly, if not every, indo-pacific country has outlawed the practice. Even if I am incorrect (I have been wrong before), I would like some sort of citation. Dark jedi requiem 02:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

90% mortality rate
Adding to the part about 85% of aquarium fish are caught using cyanide technique: What does the author mean by fish caught using the cyanide method have a 90% mortality rate? Everything dies eventually..... Do they mean that 90% of the time when cyanide is used to stun the fish, it kills it instead of stunning it?

I believe that 90% of the fish caught using Cyanide die either immediately or within a two weeks from the effects of Cyanide. Usually I think there liver is destroyed. I don't have references for this at the moment though. Lewis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.219.43.245 (talk) 03:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Threats to Reefs
Certainly a separate heading of "Threats to Reefs" is in order, and should be kept separate from a discussion of coral reef ecosystems generally. The basic concepts, which are complex enough, should be presented in one swallow, so-to-speak, before delving into the threats. Threats include: eutrophication/nutrification, ocean acidification, bleaching, disease, invasive species, overfishing, excessive marine aquarium organism harvesting, enforcement issues, etc.

Maximum depth
Is it 30m or 50m? References? – Beland 02:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

the information is all good, but there's nothin about what type of ecosystem it is, or any info that goes about the ecosystem subject, and thats what i need.

The information you are referring to is explaining two different things. The first one, 30m, refers to how deep most reef-building corals exist, and the second one, 50m, refers to the depth of the photic zone, which can also vary in depth. It does need a reference. As for the ecosystem type, I'm fairly certain it's marine reef ecosystem, but I can't cite any sources for that. Esoxid (talk) 16:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Accuracy
The types of reef part of the article is not very accurate as i look on other sites with more desriptive definitions of the same types of reefs.

It is still very informative. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.105.250.7 (talk) 21:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

Yes, I agree, and in fact i would go further by saying that they are totally inaccurate and based on an off-topic reference. Blanchon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.248.121.201 (talk) 18:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Try Blanchon, P. (2011) Geomorphic Zonation. In: Hopley, D. (Ed), Encyclopedia of Modern Coral Reefs: Structure, form and process. Springer-Verlag Earth Science Series, p. 469-486. DOI 10.1007/978-90-481-2639-2 Here: http://unam.academia.edu/PaulBlanchon/Papers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.248.121.201 (talk) 18:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Editing on Wikipedia is open to all. Anyone can edit this article, why not add the information yourself?  Better yet, sign up for an account and your IP address will be kept private, plus you'll have editing tools that IP-editors do not have.  Shearonink (talk) 20:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * PS - FYI...you were responding to a post from 2007.


 * The initial comment above in this section applied to the article as it was over four years ago. The current section on reef types merely lists some common, and not so common, reef types. What do you mean when you say the reef types are "totally inaccurate"? That is a very heavy statement. Please explain. All the terms mentioned are used in the scholarly literature, as checks on Google Scholar will show. The section does not attempt a systematic summary analysis of coral reef geomorphology, though it might be a good idea if it did.


 * The reference you give is to an "about to be published work" by Paul Blanchon, who is on the faculty at the Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico. You seem to be suggesting that Paul Blanchon is currently a leading authority in this field, and that Wikipedia should be following his lead. Google Scholar lists 5,590 article which mention "coral reef" and "geomorphology", but only 4 of those articles have "P Blanchon" or "Paul Blanchon" as an author. The most cited of those four papers had 56 citations. This does not, on the face of it, suggest Paul Blanchon is a leading authority in the field. On the other hand, the new book you mention, Encyclopedia of Modern Coral Reefs, seems like a useful book, and perhaps supports Paul Blanchon as a leading authority. But the book is still in the press.


 * Finally, your IP is located at the Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, where Paul Blanchon works. This suggests that you might have a conflict of interest when it comes to promoting publications by Paul Blanchon. However, your continuing input is welcome, and could result in a better article. Why not create an account, as was suggested above. If you have a conflict of interest, and particularly if you are Paul Blanchon, it would be good to declare that, either here or on your account user page. But we can still work with that. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Information added
This sections has been added:

Organisations as Coral Cay, Counterpart and the Foundation of the peoples of the South Pacific are currently undertaking coral reef/atol restoration projects. They are doing so using simple methods of plant propogation. Other organisations as Practical Action have released informational documents on how to set-up coral reef restauration to the main public.

Hope it qualifies, if not improve and re-add to article. Thanks.

KVDP (talk) 12:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Reef Restoration
To user 137.219.43.245, I feel like the section is valid since to my knowledge not just a single company is responsible for this technology. The patent for the process was filed in 1981, and is expired since 20 years have passed. If you are talking about a specific process, then that may be newer, I'm not sure. You said there are problems with the technology, so please add those to the article instead of deleting the entire section. From my own reading of an article by Sabater and Yap (2004), significant advantages are associated with mineral accretion when using transplanted corals. It also inhibits the growth of filamentous and fleshy algae that would compete with coral for space. Corals do return to a normal growth rate after the flow of electricity stops. I'll add a little more to that section, but I disagree with you that it sounds like an advertisement. It's a technology that exists, and that to my knowledge is not proprietary. I am aware that the founding technology was called Electrolytic Mineral Accretion Technology, or by the company name Biorock. Feel free to add problems about the technology, I would if I could find any articles about it. Esox id t 14:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Just found this newer patent from 1996 that applies to the process, so it looks like that specific process is proprietary. I honestly don't like that since conservation isn't about making money, but it doesn't invalidate that the technology exists. So feel free to clean it up to make it more neutral. Esox  id t 14:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey Esoxid

Sorry I was a little brief in my description. I feel that the Reef restoration section only mentions one type of restoration technique. I should include all of the various types of reef restoration that are out there. This section should also mention that there is little evidence that they restore ecological function to the reef. This Low voltage electrical current technology does seem increase the growth rate of corals that are linked up to it. This method only helps very small areas of reef though say 10-100 square meters at a time. There are thousands of square km that need help. The cost of restoring this type of area would be ridiculous. The only way to help such large areas is to reduce or remove the human induced pressures on the reef.

This low voltage technology is championed by Thomas J Goreau as the president of the Global Coral Reef Alliance and the head of Biorock Inc. This from the global coral reef alliance website "The Biorock Process is owned by Biorock, Inc.". If the claims of the website are correct the this is a propriety process and this section amounts to an advertisement for the biorock process owned by the biorock company.

I agree that rather than deleting it should be made more neutral. Include other restoration ideas and include problems with each idea. This is my opinion though and rather than go with it as I have previously I thought I'd put it up here first.

Cheers Lewis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.219.43.245 (talk) 03:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The current section for reef restoration doesn't make a lot of sense. I don't know if someone deleted something but it could definitely be edited for clarity. Thanks =) JimmyOrangeSeed (talk) 00:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Barrier reef
Should "Barrier reef" automatically redirect here, or should it be a disambiguation which includes the possibility of the Great Barrier Reef? PatGallacher (talk) 00:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

coral reef fish
coral reef fish are close to exstingsion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.108.155.130 (talk) 17:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Can I touch coral?
This may sound like a very stupid question, but: Can I touch coral reefs? Are they harmful to humans? --71.7.175.115 (talk) 03:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Some corals are harmful to humans. Most, if not all, have structures called nematocysts similar to what jellyfish have to capture prey and deter predators. Some have more of an adverse affect than others. The main reason that I would suggest that you don't touch corals is that it's more harmful to them. It will most often die afterwards. So please look but don't touch when you are diving around coral, and be mindful of your flippers. Esox  id t 02:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

coral reefs are an indangerd species —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.243.191.42 (talk) 20:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

By Brianna Deavers
coral reefs

Coral reefs are indangenrd species they even have threats these threats can be divers or maybe even boats with anchors

Divers can go under the surface and grab the beautiful coral from the water. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.243.191.42 (talk) 20:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Movable moon pool
Can movable moon pools be added as equipment helpful with coral reef restoration? This image could be added too: 81.245.180.184 (talk) 11:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Baseline coral reefs
in the article it should be mentioned that almost all coral reefs have already been degraded so much that it is hard to understand how a original baseline coral reef looks like. Mention that the Kingmanreef and some 49 other location are still in their original state.

Crazy glue
Crazy glue was mentioned as a glue used in coral propogation. Not sure what its made of, supposedly nontoxic. See http://www.cdnn.info/eco/e031117/e031117.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.198.201 (talk) 08:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Restoration
Coral gene banks can play an important role in coral reef restauration, especially as many corals are declining so quickly they may soon become extinct. Make an article about it and mention at restauration section of this article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.198.201 (talk) 08:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Distribution
Coral reefs are rare along the American west coast, as well as along the African west coast. This is due primarily to upwelling and strong cold coastal currents that reduce water temperatures in these areas.[3] Corals are seldom found along the coastline of South Asia from Pakistan to Bangladesh.[2] They are also rare along the coast around north-eastern South America and Bangladesh due to the freshwater release from the Amazon and Ganges Rivers respectively.[citation needed]

--> remark 1: Corals are seldom found along the coastline of South Asia from Pakistan to Bangladesh. This line doesn't stroke with the drawing at all; isn't this from the eastern tip of India (Madras) to the border of Bangladesh and Myanmar ?

--> remark 2: Coral reefs are rare along the American west coast, as well as along the African west coast. This is due primarily to upwelling and strong cold coastal currents that reduce water temperatures in these areas. This doesn't quite explain why so little coral reefs exist between Senegal and Gabon (no cold currents here, see ocean currents map) Also, it doesn't explain why so little coral reefs exist between the western coast of columbia and the western coast of Peru.

I'll already change the article info with remark 1 and add remark 2

KVDP

Apologies
I was notified that I had vandalized this page. This IP address belongs to an entire school, so I cannot claim who exactly vandalized the page. I do, however, know that I (and probably most of the other children in the school) apologize for an inconvenience of any type. If possible, could you give me a summary of the damage caused? Thank you very much, Furiku Waarurusu —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.215.177.154 (talk) 20:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Image
I have rv'd the image changed (back to the left). I think it needs discussion because it is out of sync with the "accepted"/expected style of WP pages. My main issue is that it break formatting on numerous devices: I think we need specific rationale for it's inclusion on the left rather than the right; it is not what the reader expects and may disrupte the page. I think we may have to discuss it at WT:MOS to ensure it meets policy/accepted practice --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 09:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * On my netbook it crushes the lead to a few words per line
 * On my phone(s) it reduces it to one word per line
 * It makes the TOC sit out from the left on my computer


 * Okay. I guess the increasing restriction small displays like phones impose really is a problem here. One solution would be a software solution to slide images down the page when the display has limited size. I'm surprised phone technology is not a bit more helpful here, by grouping the text above or below when the width available drops too low. But approaches like that are maybe outside Wikipedia's scope. I have been resisting the issue because this is not the only article the issue applies to. If you navigate to the other articles on the template (and other templates!), you will find the same problem applies to most of them. This means there are only two alternatives, I think. Either the image can be right justified and the template slid down the page. This means that the articles look good in the accepted way, but the templates lose immediate effectiveness, since they are no longer immediately visible. It also means that the template will often disrupt an image in a very untidy way if it used in the first section after the lead. Alternatively, the image can be slid down the page, leaving the template at the top. In this case, the templates are effective, but the initial view of the articles is rather stark. Neither alternative is very satisfactory. --Epipelagic (talk) 09:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, thinking about it, there may be a better solution (I see what you are saying). We could modify the infobox to accept an image + caption at the top (as part of the template). Thoughts on that? --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 09:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Something along these lines User:Tmorton166/coral --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 09:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, maybe. It would have to be a wide template to provide a good image size. Then would it not look like an info box, and further confuse viewers? Maybe if it said they were related links. Really this a modified version of the second alternative above, where the image is right justified and the template slid down. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes I think that works. Well done! --Epipelagic (talk) 11:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Dubious
The area covered by coral reefs quoted here is 284,000 km2, "just under one tenth of one percent of the surface area occupied by the world oceans". No direct citation is given for this figure, and an IP editor disputes it. Ocean gives a figure for the surface area of the world's oceans of 3.61 × 1014 m2, which is 361,000,000 km2, which would make 284,000 km2 about 0.08%, which is fair enough. The problem comes with Great Barrier Reef, which claims an area of 344,400 km2 on its own. Presumably, this disparity is down to different measures of the extent of a coral reef, but I think a citation is probably necessary, ideally with an explanation of the different measurements. --Stemonitis (talk) 10:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Well I think the best source is the UNEP-WCMC World Atlas of Coral Reefs, which confirms the figure of 284,000 km2, and gives an area of 48,960 km2, for Australian reefs, or about 17% of the total. Clearly there is an issue concerning how other people arrive at area estimates, but for comparative purposes, I would think the World Atlas would be the most reliable and consistent source. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Restoration
What isn't described is how the coral is propogated: this is usually done asexually (by taking cuttings). However, in some projects, sexual propogation is also used: this is done by catching the coral larvae at night and then securing them on a rock (mushroom shaped with a pin to secure on a platform). Appearantly, a project like this is undertaken at Koh Tao, eco-advisor for the project is Frans van Klaveren —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.238.6 (talk) 08:58, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be good if you could add that information yourself, particularly if you can provide reliable sources to go with it. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Epipelagic's objections
I've responded to some of the objections with further edits, but those I found less obvious I treat here:
 * to tourism, fisheries and shoreline protection vs "tourism, fisheries and shorelines". I chose the latter wording for reasons of parallelism. (The other choice would have been to change to something like "expanding tourism, fishery sustainability and shoreline protection." I like the shorter version...
 * "wikipedia is not a reliable source". I couldn't find this in the cited link. Please help me find it. Contrarily, I think I understand the logic, but it seems impractical to recite every ref in every article that makes use of a point. If the ref'ed wp article is itself properly sourced, what is the problem? In any event, given that the ref is available at the linked article, why not copy it, rather than removing content that is clearly valid?

Lfstevens (talk) 02:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC) ... No need for a new section for an old struggle. Today I made some edits, and added some inline questions. Epipelagic removed the questions without answering them, and filled his comments with attacks, also reverting other changes without explanation. I'll put my questions here, in hopes of working something out. I checked some of the references for the section, in hopes of finding answers, but was unsuccessful.
 * Corals in tropical waters live in "low nutrient" water, but require nutrients to survive, as do the phytoplankton at the base of their foodchain. My question is where do the nutrients for the phytoplankton come from, and how are they replenished as they are consumed?
 * I replaced the term "boundary layer" with "envelope", which E reverted, commenting that I was dumbing down the article.
 * I replaced the phrase "water is agitated" with "water passes over them" and was again reverted.

Assuming my edits were incorrect, I think the article should clarify the importance/meaning of the specific wording for our non-technical audience. E threatened to "give up", but unless that happens, I will allow others to try to get past the guardian on these points.
 * Lfstevens (talk) 01:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If you look again, you will notice that I fully commented each edit I made in the edit summaries. You say I "removed the questions without answering them", though in fact I gave detailed answers to each of your (hidden) questions that I removed. That is why I removed only one question per edit, so I could answer them as I went. Likewise, I explained that the key point was that the water is "agitated" in the edit notes. You would have been aware of that anyway, if you had carefully read the rest of the article or looked at the relevant sources. There is not much point writing edit summaries if you don't bother to read them. You did not ask "where do the nutrients for the phytoplankton come from" in your hidden questions. You are further widening your scope by asking that, and I'm not sure why it is my job here to answer all these questions. Why not get some good books on coral reefs and study them for a bit?


 * There are no personal attacks, just the occasional objective, and at times highly frustrated, comment on your specific behaviors. I would prefer to get on with writing new material, rather than this unproductive business of trying to guard ones that are basically written. It is costly in time and seems like an endless sink of energy dealing with all these supposed copyedits you make in fishery areas. Particularly when you add your own unsourced original research, which is usually outright incorrect. You seem to work only on the key fisheries articles, and always seem to want to rewrite the lead in your own way, particularly the lead sentence. It's fine when you genuinely copyedit, adding endashes, removing an unnecessary redundancy, and so on. But you also want to continually change the meaning and remove essential and carefully thought out nuances. If you want to change the meaning, and you have no source, why not propose your change on the talk page instead of just making it without comment in the article (leaving me tearing my hair out)? If you like tinkering, why not write articles yourself that you can endlessly tinker with, or find articles to tinker with that are on topics you have some in depth knowledge? I apologise if I get a bit abrupt sometimes, but it can be very frustrating. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Since I mentioned your edit summaries, I think you know I read them. Since I was unsatisfied with those summaries, I recapitulated my concerns above. I didn't say your attacks were personal, and won't further characterize them, as readers can make up their own minds. I didn't/don't find "agitated" or "boundary layer" very revealing. If the article said that turbulent rather than laminar flow was required and explained what a boundary layer was, with links and refs, that might help. I did check several of the refs, even commenting that one of them appeared to violate WP:RS. Are you reading my edit summaries? Readers aren't supposed to have to check the refs to understand the articles. I don't intentionally remove nuances. When that happens, it is because I don't see your intended meaning. Either I'm a dope, or the nuance is not obvious, meaning more work is in order, i.e., an amplification in the article, not a revert, is in order. I can't find your response to my deleted question about nutrient replenishment in the text or summaries. Please point me in the right direction. I have edited many obscure fisheries articles as well, and note that you are pretty much the only one to object to my changes. In the end what I don't get is that instead of working with me, or even following the basic notion of working things out on the talk pages, you revert, venting. This is a critical article, and should be a GA/FA, but I wouldn't rate it that way at the moment. I think we're both trying to change that.
 * Lfstevens (talk) 08:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * You say, "I can't find your response to my deleted question about nutrient replenishment in the text or summaries. Please point me in the right direction."


 * You had three hidden questions about nutrients. I removed two of them with summaries. The first question had the following source text:


 * Plants form the base of the food chain


 * I removed this question with the summary: at the base of a food chain are the primary producers. See trophic level.


 * The second question had the following source text:


 * Phytoplankton rapidly use nutrients in the surface waters, and in the tropics these nutrients are not usually replaced because of the thermocline.


 * Again, I removed this question with the summary: the phytoplankton do die, and in the tropic sink to the bottom of the ocean where they are not recycled.


 * Your remaining question I didn't remove and is still in the article:




 * Yes, something could be added to the article clarifying that. I would be good if you would like a more collegial environment. Please assist by making fewer unsourced changes in content and calling them copyedits. Instead, you could discuss proposed changes on the talk page. If I am the person who responds to your edits on the fishery articles it is maybe because I write most of them. You can quickly check contributors to articles by clicking "Contributions" on the article History page. I don't think we should endlessly "amplify" these articles to meet every possible question that could be raised, though clarity is always good. --Epipelagic (talk) 09:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

(outdenting...)
 * Thanks for the clarifications and the calm tone.
 * You say that the nutrients are not replenished and sink. My confusion is that once the nutrients are gone, why don't the phytoplankton die, with the predictable cascade?
 * When I think I'm making a controversial change, I do go to the talk page. Your reactions leave me feeling blindsided.
 * I do hope you'll clarify the article re my concerns above. I'm not starting an edit war, so it's up to you. I continue to find the language unedifying.
 * Lfstevens (talk) 18:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

the Red Sea
I doubt that the Red Sea extends along the coasts of Djibouti, Somalia or Israel as said in the article. the real extent of the red sea ends at Bab al-Mandab strait according to The Britannica encyclopedia, which means that Djibouti and Somalia are out of its extent, and i do not think that Israel could have a coast, or at least a significant one, on the red sea. the Britannica encyclopedia also says that just Egypt, Sudan, Eritrea, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Yemen have a coasts along of the sea --aad_Dira (talk) 13:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC).
 * We would need a more primary reference, such as a book regarding the Red Sea, to make the alterations you suggest. Encyclopedias are not considered primary references.  Thegreatdr (talk) 13:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * WP attempts to avoid primary sources in favor of secondary and tertiary material. See WP:PRIMARY.
 * Lfstevens (talk) 01:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Merging The African Coral Reef
A recent article has been created on The African Coral Reef; however, I've been unable to verify that this system of reefs is considered an entity in its own right (as, for example, the Great Barrier Reef is). There's little information in the article, so I propose mereging what there is to Coral reef or similar. Yunshui (talk) 07:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are of course African coral reefs, but there is no such entity as "The African Coral Reef" --Epipelagic (talk) 08:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Since you expanded the article instead of merging it, I have removed the merge tag and renamed the article African coral reefs. There is no "African Coral Reef System". --Epipelagic (talk) 08:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Growth rates
Great article, but growth rate is overly simplified in saying "Healthy tropical coral reefs grow horizontally from 1 to 3 cm (0.39 to 1.2 in) per year, and grow vertically anywhere from 1 to 25 cm (0.39 to 9.8 in) per year". As a reef grows through time it compacts under its own mass and the surface growth rate is much greater than the overall growth rate for the overall deposit. The process is similar to how snow compacts into a glacier. For this reason (and others) it would be inacurate to calculate reef growth rates over long time scales using the numbers provided in this article, or to calculate growth duration from thickness of an existing reef deposit. Science 26 November 1976: Vol. 194 no. 4268 pp. 937-939 DOI: 10.1126/science.194.4268.937 Calcium Carbonate Production, Coral Reef Growth, and Sea Level Change S. V. SMITH and D. W. KINSEY These authors suggest the maximum growth rate of a reef deposit is 3 to 5 mm per year. aaronshunkAaronshunk (talk) 22:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for these useful comments. I repositioned them, since new comments are usually added to the bottom of talk pages. I won't act on your suggestion for a while, because as a new editor, you might like to jump into the water and make the changes you think should be made to the article yourself. Don't worry at this stage about things like getting the format right — that's easy to fix! --Epipelagic (talk) 00:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

read the first couple of sentences
trying to do a report and someone vandalized the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.31.3.10 (talk) 16:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting us know. Our friendly neighborhood robot caught it. In the future, know that you can remove vandalism yourself if you see it; Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Good luck with your report! Danger High voltage! 16:53, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Coral reef locations.jpg
It seems that this map is a bit off. Looking at the NGC map of Martin Gamache in NGC magazine, march 2012, it seems that there are far less coral reefs in the Persian Gulf than indicated at File:Coral reef locations.jpg; the NGC map btw also sgows seagrass locations, shark and doejong locations. Perhaps someone at the Graphic Lab can take it over 91.182.51.34 (talk) 15:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Biodiversity=>Ecology
I propose renaming that section "Ecology". It's already about more than biodiversity. Changing the name provides room for further expansion. Lfstevens (talk) 19:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I concur. Danger! High voltage! 20:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * A key point about coral reefs is that they support a large biodiversity of other species, and there should be a section reflecting that. There could be a section, or containing section called Ecology, where the ecology could be discussed, that is the specific interactions between coral reefs and the other species that are part of their biodiversity. An obvious case in point is the relationship between coral and zooxanthellae, but that has been covered elsewhere in the article. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:51, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Protection: refugia
There will still be some coral species left in 50 years time in some places. Such places, called refugia can be found in the Red Sea and the Southern Great Barrier Reef. By prioritizing these places, it may be possible so save some coral species

mention in article KVDP (talk) 17:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Besides natural refugia, it's also possible to make artificial refugia. For example, some atols like Rangiroa in Polynesia have one inlet and one outlet. Coral can be placed within the atol, and the water can be changed artificially to contain less co² and less heat, that can be done:
 * by placing a gabion filled with olivine at the inlet
 * and by possibly adding pipes with propellers conducting seawater from greater depths to where the coral grows (seawater at greater depth is colder)

Also note btw that it's also possible to simply disperse crushed olivine at natural reefs; the effect of this would be far lower than the artificial refugia proposal above, but it has the advantage that some reefs can be protected in situ, at the cost of needing to use a lot more olivine KVDP (talk) 15:19, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Ref section
This article seems to be using two different ref templates, and one of these is duplicated in the other ref section. The others are not cited or belong in external links. I'll leave them below just in case. I'll be removing them or finding a suitable place for them. Esox id talk•contribs 22:01, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * To User:Epipelagic, I have moved the paper from Science Daily here, since it isn't cited anywhere, until I can find a place for it. The other link I removed citing an article on land use impacts, is dead. If you follow the link, it results in "The page you requested could not be found. Perhaps searching will help." Another page has the article hosted, so I updated the link. Esox  id talk•contribs 16:35, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

It seems the ScienceDaily article is already cited, but was listed under a different title in the external links section. Not sure why there was a duplicate, but that's taken care of. Esox id talk•contribs 17:55, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Butler, Steven. 1996. "Rod? Reel? Dynamite? A tough-love aid program takes aim at the devastation of the coral reefs". U.S. News and World Report, November 25, 1996.
 * Christie, P. 2005a. University of Washington, Lecture. May 18, 2005.
 * Christie, P. 2005b. University of Washington, Lecture. May 4, 2005.
 * Courtney, Catherine and Alan White. 2000. Integrated Coastal Management in the Philippines. Coastal Management; Taylor and Francis.
 * Fox, Helen. 2005. Experimental Assessment of Coral Reef Rehabilitation Following Blast Fishing. The Nature Conservancy Coastal and Marine Indonesia Program. Blackwell Publishers Ltd, February 2005.
 * Gjertsen, Heidi. 2004. Can Habitat Protection Lead to Improvements in Human Well-Being? Evidence from Marine Protected Areas in the Philippines.
 * Sadovy, Y.J. Ecological Issues and the Trades in Live Reef Fishes, Part 1
 * Coral Reef Protection: What Are Coral Reefs?. US EPA.
 * UNEP. 2004. Coral Reefs in the South China Sea. UNEP/GEF/SCS Technical Publication No. 2.
 * UNEP. 2007. Coral Reefs Demonstration Sites in the South China Sea. UNEP/GEF/SCS Technical Publication No. 5.
 * UNEP, 2007. National Reports on Coral Reefs in the Coastal Waters of the South China Sea. UNEP/GEF/SCS Technical Publication No. 11.
 * UNEP. 2007. Coral Reefs Demonstration Sites in the South China Sea. UNEP/GEF/SCS Technical Publication No. 5.
 * UNEP, 2007. National Reports on Coral Reefs in the Coastal Waters of the South China Sea. UNEP/GEF/SCS Technical Publication No. 11.



Discussion for How Stuff Works link
Since there seems to be some disagreement, can we hold the discussion here on this source? http://science.howstuffworks.com/zoology/marine-life/coral-reef.htm I have copied a section from the other user's talk page and pasted it below. Esox id talk•contribs 00:54, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Since when is "reasonably reliable" considered an authoritative source? The "How Stuff Works" article on coral reefs contains serious factual errors. For example, it repeatedly mis-identifies xoozanthellae as "plants" or algae (which they are decidedly NOT - they are now considered dinoflagellates).
 * This kind of error is why many academics do not allow students to use Wikipedia as a reliable source. User:12.196.196.228
 * I read through all the pages, and I don't see any serious errors. It gives a good lay-person overview. The "half-plant" comment seems oversimplifying it, but autotrophic dinoflagellates are considered algae. I agree that it is a reasonably reliable external page. It doesn't really cover anything that isn't covered in the wiki page though. Wikipedia shouldn't be considered a primary source. It provides information on topics, and provides primary or secondary sources.
 * See WP:MOS and External links for more information. Personally I don't see the need to keep the link per WP:LINKSTOAVOID (Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article.) since it provides no new information, and the sources it contains could be incorporated. I do not find it factually inaccurate though. Esox  id talk•contribs 00:54, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with what you say Esoxid. Contrary to what the IP claims, the link does not say xoozanthellae are plants. What it in fact says is that, "Coral almost could be considered half-plant because of the zooxanthellae (pronounced zoo-zan-thelly) algae that live just inside each polyp's cell walls. The zooxanthellae supplies the polyp with the byproducts of photosynthesis, which the polyp turns into proteins, fats and carbohydrates." And contrary to what the IP implies, the link was not used as "an authoritative source"; it was not used as a source for anything in the article at all. It was merely added as an external link because it provides a readable and reasonably reliable overview that a layman might find useful. It is the IP who seems to be manufacturing "serious factual errors". --Epipelagic (talk) 01:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment from student project
In paragraph one where it states that the coral's hard exoskeleton supports and protects their body, it would be helpful to elaborate on which organisms body it is, whether it is the coral or the algae that grows within the organism.

In paragraph three when the damaging factors to the coral reefs were mentioned, it should state how coral bleaching is becoming a major issue that must be dealt with.

For the section "Reefs in the Past", it would be good to have references to people in history who have explored the reefs underwater from diving, or swimming. Plus, having a section about research occurring in the different reefs.Harpster.33 (talk) 03:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments, and welcome to Wikipedia! Based upon your first comment, I made an edit to the lead, to indicate that it is the corals themselves, and not the zooxanthellae. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Coral reefs coverage
In the second paragraph, the percentage of coral reefs coverage should be equal to 0.2% and not less than 0.1%. Also, coral reefs provide habitats for approximately one-quarter to one-third of all marine species and not just to 25% of all marine species. These data are found in this scientific article: Fujise, L., Yamashita, H., Suzuki, G., Sasaki, K., Liao, L.M., Koike, K. (2014) Moderate thermal stress causes active and immediate expulsion of photosynthetically damaged zooxanthellae (Symbiodinium) from corals “PLoS ONE,” ‘’’9’’’ (12): 1-18. I recommend making these changes and I will make the changes unless someone objects. MauriGirl14 (talk) 23:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for that. However, accepting what a new paper says can be a bit hasty. That paper is not a review and so far there has been no rush to cite it. It is contradicted by other recent sources that normally have high credibility. For example, according to NOAA the area of the ocean is 362 million sq km and the area of shallow water coral reefs is 284 thousand sq km  From those figures, basic arithmetic tells you the coral occupies 0.084% of the area occupied by the ocean. That rounds to the 0.1% used in the Wikipedia article. (Mind you, this is complicated in the second NOAA source where someone who did the arithmetic there came up with "less than 0.015 percent"!) However, about 0.1 % seems to be generally accepted, and that figure will be steadily diminishing as coral reefs die. I don't know where the 0.2% mentioned in your source comes from, but it may be based on a guesstimate of the (unknown) area occupied by deep water corals. Anyway, I have qualified the Wikipedia article so it refers to shallow coral reefs. On the question of biodiversity, it may well be the percentage increases as more research results come in. I have also modified the article so it refers to at least 25%, in alignment with the NOAA source. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments. I'll keep on looking for sources and if I ever come across a review article that provides information on this, I'll make sure to mention it here. MauriGirl14 (talk) 19:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Tsushima Reef
Does anyone know the coords for Tsushima Reef? It is somewhere between these two land masses. Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Misspellings and grammar problems
Misspellings and grammar problems are present in this article. Just getting the word out.

El Nino should be replaced with El Niño Tdynes (talk) 02:12, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Then be bold and make the correction yourself. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:22, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2016
Please add "Coral Bleaching is a huge threat to coral ecosystems. Coral Bleaching happens when corals are struggling to survive due to changes in their ecosystems such as "temperature, light, and/or nutrients"(NOAA). These sudden changes cause the coral to expel algae (zooxanthellae) which leads to white coral reefs, called coral bleaching. According to the NOAA, "corals can survive a bleaching event, but they are under more stress and are subject to mortality" ( in the beginning of this paragraph "In El Niño-year 2010, preliminary reports show global coral bleaching reached its worst level since another El Niño year, 1998, when 16% of the world's reefs died as a result of increased water temperature. In Indonesia's Aceh province, surveys showed some 80% of bleached corals died. Scientists do not yet understand the long-term impacts of coral bleaching, but they do know that bleaching leaves corals vulnerable to disease, stunts their growth, and affects their reproduction, while severe bleaching kills them.[115] In July, Malaysia closed several dive sites where virtually all the corals were damaged by bleaching.[116][117]" I want someone to add what coral bleaching is because no one really talks about what it is even though it is under the main topic "threats". The two examples of bleaching from El Nino and Malaysia are great examples, but there needs to be a paragraph before talking about what the threat is before you can start talking about where the threat happened and what it did.

Daysithemarinebiologist (talk) 23:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)


 * There is a whole article dedicated to Coral bleaching. I've added a prominent link to the article. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Biodiversity - Algae
I ask for correction of the following sentence: "The algal population consists of turf algae, coralline algae, and macro algae." Since coralline algae are a particular kind of macroalgae, and since the term population should be referred to a single species, and thus is not correct here, I suggest to modify the sentence as follows: "The algal association consists of turf algae, calcareous green algae and red coralline algae, and other soft-bodied macroalgae". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.132.83.82 (talk) 11:17, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on Coral reef. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060822015653/http://www.reef.crc.org.au:80/discover/coralreefs/coralgbr.html to http://www.reef.crc.org.au/discover/coralreefs/coralgbr.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761575831/Great_Barrier_Reef.html
 * Added tag to http://www.ocean.org.il/Eng/_documents/Management-of-coral-reefs.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.coralgarden.co.uk/plate.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.coralgarden.co.uk/puls.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:35, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Coral reef. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070620013057/http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/12437/Reef-Facts-01.pdf to http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/12437/Reef-Facts-01.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.reef.crc.org.au/discover/coralreefs/coralgbr.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080724113051/http://www.library.uow.edu.au/adt-NWU/uploads/approved/adt-NWU20060726.114643/public/02Whole.pdf to http://www.library.uow.edu.au/adt-NWU/uploads/approved/adt-NWU20060726.114643/public/02Whole.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130522041619/http://www.fws.gov/midway/midwaywildlifebirds.html to http://www.fws.gov/midway/midwaywildlifebirds.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:52, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Selective breeding
Selective breeding is also being practiced to help protect coral reefs (it's used to repopulate sections of the reef that have bleached). It's being done for instance at AIMS. Perhaps we can mention it ? KVDP (talk) 15:51, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Coral reef. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061005122324/http://www.aims.gov.au/pages/research/project-net/reefs/apnet-reefs00.html to http://www.aims.gov.au/pages/research/project-net/reefs/apnet-reefs00.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120111134948/http://eas8001.eas.gatech.edu/papers/Cobb_Nature_2003.pdf to http://eas8001.eas.gatech.edu/papers/Cobb_Nature_2003.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:51, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Coral reef. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.marine.uq.edu.au/mackayarc/Reports%20%26%20publications/Mackay_ARC_2007_lowres.pdfLong-term
 * Added tag to http://eprints.qut.edu.au/16690/2/02whole.pdf
 * Added tag to http://dissertations.ub.rug.nl/FILES/faculties/science/2009/j.m.de.goeij/13completethesis.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927181624/http://www.coral.noaa.gov/component/content/article/138.html to http://www.coral.noaa.gov/component/content/article/138.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Coral reef. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402153213/http://library.queensu.ca/ojs/index.php/ISE/article/view/4627 to http://library.queensu.ca/ojs/index.php/ISE/article/view/4627
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141129072055/http://www.savethehighseas.org/theproblem/ to http://www.savethehighseas.org/theproblem/
 * Added tag to http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-12-climate%3Csup%3E%E2%88%92%3C/sup%3Egoal-coral-reefs.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Coral reef. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720101953/http://www.ucar.edu/communications/Final_acidification.pdf to http://www.ucar.edu/communications/Final_acidification.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029223033/http://www.ibiology.org/ibioseminars/evolution-ecology/nancy-knowlton-part-1.html to http://www.ibiology.org/ibioseminars/evolution-ecology/nancy-knowlton-part-1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Reefs in the past doesn't mention coral reefs
It's my understanding that there were long periods of time when there were no corals, for various reasons inclding the oceans being too acid for coral, leading to sponges instead.

See.

Robert Walker (talk) 19:50, 27 February 2018 (UTC)


 * The source says that corals didn't exist, but Coral reef explicitly says there were almost always reefs and Not all reefs in the past were formed by corals and talks about those groups of animals. I'm not understanding what the problem is. Rhinopias (talk) 15:13, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah. If you're suggesting a scope issue, the section discusses Rugosa and Scleractinia, both of which are major groups of corals. (And also the third paragraph.) The small paragraph about non-coral reefs I think is decent background information based on the section's introductory mention of reefs. This is touched on at Archaeocyatha and could be expanded upon at Reef, but I don't think it detracts from coral reefs here. Also, this article appropriately focuses on corals in #Biology, but historical ways in which groups of animals formed reefs are relevant to this article's treatment of reef formation, types, biodiversity, and geological history ("in the past"). Rhinopias (talk) 15:23, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Changing an Image
I am trying to upload different images in place of the three coral reef images:fringing, platform, and barrier reef coral. I believe that the images I plan on uploading are of better quality because they are an svg. the correct file type and are slightly more in detail. I have made these images for an AP Biology final, they are my own work. I would like to upload them to the article, however the current images are protected so I can not edit them. Can someone assist me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erinemccarthy (talk • contribs) 16:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Added section "Microfragmentation and Fusion"
Hello, I've added a new section titled "Microfragmentation and Fusion" since this is a relatively new but greatly adopted technology for coral restoration developed by Mote Marine Laboratory. It has helped advance the growth of slow-growing species of coral and may serve as a critical conservation method for coral reefs. I have included citations from all their articles describing the protocol of this method, as well as their website for more information on the organization. Vivianlee6 (talk) 01:06, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2020
Please change 19702 to 1970 as an extra digit has been added by mistake (see reference 167 to confirm this) PreciousWorld (talk) 09:47, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done – Thjarkur (talk) 09:54, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2020
Last line of Darwin's Paradox I located a ref and third word in the line should be 'uses' not use I believe. Phytoplankton rapidly uses nutrients in the surface waters, and in the tropics, these nutrients are not usually replaced because of the thermocline. BobTheMan 00:40, 4 March 2020 (UTC) BobTheMan 00:40, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: Reference added. However, if phytoplankton is singular, then use is singular. So I refused that edit, so "use" sounds more gramatically correct in the sentence.  To reply, copy and paste this:      (Talk)       04:55, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2020
I would like to add a section about tropical cyclone wave damage to reefs under the 'Threats' section as well as briefly discuss how cyclone induced cooling can relieve thermal stress if appropriately located and timed. I have never edited a Wikipedia page - not sure how to go about it. Thank you, Dr. Marji Puotinen 139.218.124.178 (talk) 11:59, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello Marji, since this page is currently protected what you'll have to do is write your addition here below on this talk page. You can also draft your proposed section and link to it here below, have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. – Thjarkur (talk) 12:35, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

protection templates
add

Protection
QUOTE: According to the Caribbean Coral Reefs - Status Report 1970–2012, states that; stop overfishing especially fishes key to coral reef like parrotfish, coastal zone management that reduce human pressure on reef, (for example restricting coastal settlement, development and tourism) and control pollution specially sewage, may reduce coral decline or even reverse it. The report shows that healthier reefs in the Caribbean are those with large populations of parrotfish in countries that protect these key fishes and sea urchins, banning fish trapping and spearfishing, creating "resilient reefs".[170][171]

This para has horribly poor grammar and I can't work out what it is trying to say. It needs an edit - but what? -- SGBailey (talk)

I have restructured the section and rewritten some paragraphs. This section still needs further re-writing, checking of references, and addition of more reverences. Carcharias taurus (talk) 14:01, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

dead reference
Reference 6 - https://coralreef.noaa.gov/aboutcorals/coral101/corallocations/ is dead and leads to a page with no info. probably need to use wayback machine

TheHeroBrine (talk) 22:56, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Coral Reef Definition is Erroneous
The definition in the opening line that coral reef is an eco-system is misleading. In Alan Strahler's authoritative book Introducing Physical Geography, it is "Coral reef is a rocklike accumulation of carbonates secreted by corals." Ambious26 (talk) 09:42, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe these statements are both true but take a different perspective, your quoted comment does not contradict the statement that reefs are an ecosystem. |→ Spaully ~talk~ 09:52, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Coaral reef
Where is the coaral reef What is there in The CoarL reef 2405:201:8006:6859:D54D:B8C:D6BD:1A0B (talk) 15:40, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Environmental threats to the Great Barrier Reef
Environmental threats to the Great Barrier Reef has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:19, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Suggestions for improvement
I don't have time to make these suggestions myself but perhaps they can be implemented at some point in future:
 * Consider using an image collage to show a range of coral reefs in the lead (I've just moved an image to the lead because I felt just having that template box is not sufficient as the same image would then appear for quite a few articles).
 * The article is quite long; readable prose is 56 kB (should be less than 50 kB); some sections could be culled/condensed where sub-articles exist e.g. the section on corals or the sections on threats and restoration. Consider the use of excerpts, too. EMsmile (talk) 10:13, 20 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Responding in order to your points...
 * The template is not, as you seem to think, an infobox. It is a navigation sidebar specifically constructed for articles that belong to the series on Marine habitats so readers can see and navigate to other articles about marine habitats. If you navigate to some of those articles, you will find each article has its own carefully selected individual image at the top of the template.
 * This limit of 50 kB on readable prose must be a recent (and in my view seriously retrograde) change in the guidelines. Where exactly is the guideline that requires articles "should be less than 50 kB"? I can see that may be desirable as a general rule, but only if the rule is flexible enough to allow exceptions where appropriate. — Epipelagic (talk) 04:12, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

About the article length and connecting with sub-articles
The article length guideline that I was referring to can be found here. As with most things, it's only a guideline, not a hard and fast rule. I think it's a good guideline though. In the case of coral reefs, I think we'll see a lot of new publications coming out in the future discussing the damage that climate change does to coral reefs. This kind of content then needs to be updated in for example: Environmental issues with coral reefs, Coral bleaching, and Environmental threats to the Great Barrier Reef. Similarly there will be more content about protection, like in the sub-article on Coral reef protection. When that new information is added to Wikipedia, we either add it to lots of articles simultaneously (this would be not efficient). Or we add it to one main article, and the other articles then refer to it. For that reason, I think the content about "threats" and "protection" might need to be culled and condensed a bit here, and it needs to be made clear to the readers that the bulk of the content is at the relevant sub-article. I think that main articles and sub-articles need to interlink well with each other so that it becomes a web of information. EMsmile (talk) 12:04, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * In some cases, the use of excerpts might also work well, like for example at effects of climate change on oceans which doesn't repeat the information on sea level rise with new text but takes the content as an excerpt from sea level rise EMsmile (talk) 12:04, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Using an additional image in the lead or just the navigation sidebar?
I am continuing here the discussing that was started above. Sorry for calling it an infobox - it's a navigation side bar. I am used to articles having navigation side bars below an image for the lead, like it's done for pollution; see also at sewage treatment. As per Manual of Style "It is also common for the lead image to be representative because it provides a visual association for the topic, and allow readers to quickly assess if they have arrived at the right page". What I didn't realise at first is that even though it's a navigation side bar it does change the image for each sub-article. This is different to the navigation side bar used at pollution. So that's good but I still find it a little bit confusing that the box in the lead for "coral reef" has as its main title "marine habitats". I find it unusual for the lead image to be introduced in this way. Therefore, I would still favour a separate lead image that comes before the navigation side box. But no problem if I'm the only one with this opinion. EMsmile (talk) 11:55, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: SSC199 TY2
— Assignment last updated by Mimitee123 (talk) 22:20, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Protection
There are many fish and creatures in coral reefs. Have you ever thought of how those creatures escape from predators? There are many different ways that they hide, it all depends on what they are. If a clown fish needs to hide they go to an anemone where the poison doesn't hurt to them only to the predators. Frogfish blend in with their surroundings. Octopi find a small (or large space) and blend in, if they are found, BOOM ink. 75.115.208.250 (talk) 00:16, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * See coral reef fish — Epipelagic (talk) 04:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Errors in age descriptions
"Most coral reefs were formed after the Last Glacial Period when melting ice caused sea level to rise and flood continental shelves. Most coral reefs are less than 10,000 years old."

This is at minimum an erroneous minimalist description. During glacial periods, the sea level dropped many meters. The previous reef was left far above sea level, but still existed without coral in it. There were some corals down at the new sea level. When the glaciers melted, the water returned to the old reef and some were repopulated with coral. (We can expect variations due to erosion and variations in sea levels -- there have been events where sea levels were meters above or below the current levels.) Variations on the theme have happened during several glacial periods.

Indeed, over in the Great Barrier Reef article it is mentioned that 600,000 year old traces have been found, and the present reef is 20,000 years old. SEWilco (talk) 04:30, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * This is not my area of expertise so I don't know if you're right or wrong. But presuming you're right, can you fix things up accordingly but with utilising reliable sources for any new statements? Thanks a lot. EMsmile (talk) 23:26, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Moved history section
I've just moved a         and renamed the "history" section:  I feel that this fits better to be below the "formation" section heading and have a different section heading, not history. Have named it "in the geologic past" now. When I see "history" then I expect more the human related history, e.g. discovery and research of coral reefs. Is this OK with everyone? EMsmile (talk) 23:24, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Largest coral reefs
I have some gripes with the descriptions of the longest reefs in the Locations section as well as in the List of reefs page linked within. They're highly inconsistent with each other, with themselves, and with the individual reefs' pages regarding which are the world's largest or longest reefs or reef systems. Right off the bat, the Locations section states that the Mesoamerican Barrier Reef System is the "second largest, stretching 1,000 kilometers", but then several other reef systems (such as the New Caledonia Barrier Reef and the Red Sea reefs) are stated to be longer than 1,000 km. Other reefs' sizes are also listed by area rather than length, which is less concerning but does obscure things further.

Meanwhile, the "List of reefs" page includes the Mesoamerican Barrier Reef System (without any distinctions about its size), but it also lists several of its constituent reefs. One such reef is the Belize Barrier Reef, which is described as "the second biggest coral reef system on Earth [...] approximately one third the size of the 900km long Mesoamerican Barrier Reef system." I don't understand why the Belize Barrier Reef would be described as second only to the Great Barrier Reef in size if it is then immediately stated to be one part of a larger reef system. The page for the Belize Barrier Reef makes the same confusing claim, referring to it as "a 300-kilometre (190 mi) long section of the 900-kilometre (560 mi) Mesoamerican Barrier Reef System" but also "the second largest coral reef system in the world." On the other hand, the page for the Mesoamerican Barrier Reef System calls it the "largest barrier reef in the Western Hemisphere" and includes a detail about the Belize Barrier Reef constituting about 30% of it.

None of these details have much in the way of reputable citations, either, although to be fair, my (brief) searching has yielded surprisingly few sources on the topic. Those that do exist range in quality and credibility, rarely provide any citations of their own, and disagree with each other just as much as these Wikipedia details do internally. I think this is the point where I say I don't know enough about the subject (or about how Wikipedia determines the quality or accuracy of its information and citations) to make any kind of judgement call, but I wanted to bring this to the attention of those who might know more. If nothing else, I think having a section that so obviously makes contradictory or illogical claims risks causing readers to question the credibility of the entire article. Dcmldcml (talk) 22:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC)