Man-made reefs and ecosystems

[O2BBubbleFree]

where humans are more involved as replacements in the food chain.

Humans as replacements in the food chain? The number of slow-moving divers has greatly increased over the years, and shark attacks are still overwhelmingly limited to cases of mistaken identity (usually people playing in the surf zone along side the natural prey).

I think the fact that slow-moving divers are not eaten supports the idea that we are not, and will not be, in their food chain.

I think we taste bad.

 

[archman]

Steel and stainless steel corrodes in seawater at a rate of about .008" per year. Armor plate is a bit less as it wll tend to be protected by the rest of the hull until it dissolves. A warship with 24" of armor plate will last quite a while. Many merchant ship hulls are made of 1" to 1.5" plate.

Hard numbers like this are fantastic. Dang Fred, you should be an expert consultant for the feds, or at least teach some seminars & workshops. I know a lot of folks (me included) that would love to hear your insights. I need to start archiving your posts!

Sorry, my original premise was the basis for the story lines. One stated if the natural food chain is destroyed by pollution and overfishing, then something else will become the replacement in the food chain. The second was man messing with the environment i.e. artificial reefs, and it draws unintentioned results.

So my actual question was, dealing with both scenarios, wouldn't the end result be possible, where humans are more involved as replacements in the food chain.

Aw come on, artificial reefs are much more fun to talk about than dreary pollution! But the results of overfishing remove links of the food chain, which we officially call "fishing down the food chain". Sometimes other critters replace the lost niche, but usually not (besides, we'd just fish down that resource too). What's happening globally with fishing stocks is loss of high-order consumers, and progressive losses to the next lower "tiers" of fisheries. Humans do not replace these lost links to the food chain, at least not in the marine environment.

With pollution, higher order consumers tend to be worse off due to biomagnification issues, but there's all sorts of scales and types of what we call "pollution". Some animals actually LIKE pollution, others can't be seen to be affected in any way. But with "evil nasty pollution", yeah it'll kill stuff.
Humans don't replace those losses to the ecology either. Best case, we curb the release of pollutants and let the environment take care of itself. It's really not a bad idea to let the environment alone, as playing Mother Nature costs a bloody fortune, and usually doesn't work out half as well as envisioned. I have an entire stack of books and articles that cover nothing but the pitfalls of past ecological restorations. Someone should compile the best case studies and write a book... some of the things done are just plain funny. One example comes directly to mind, use of old Christmas trees as "seeds" for beach dune creation. The things worked out great until the trees rotted, and then the new "dunes" imploded. I love stuff like that!

 

[mxracer19]

"Wonder if anyone's designed an artificial mangrove yet..."


Yes, as a matter of fact for a number of years an artificial rainforest has been "growing" in...i believe...either switzerland or sweeden. its in a giant bubble. it will eventually revolutionize the way we percieve zoos, as that is what it was originally intended for, along with research. you can walk along paths that wind through the jungle and there are no cages holding the animals back. only small animals tho haha

 

[FredT]

Hard numbers like this are fantastic. Dang Fred, you should be an expert consultant for the feds, or at least teach some seminars & workshops. I know a lot of folks (me included) that would love to hear your insights. I need to start archiving your posts!

I'm not PC enough for the feds. I simply can't resist calling an idiotic idea an idiotic idea, no matter if the fool that gave birth to it is at my elbow. The rice bowl protection
reflex always seems to kick in and the fools continue to cherish their blinders.

One example comes directly to mind, use of old Christmas trees as "seeds" for beach dune creation. The things worked out great until the trees rotted, and then the new "dunes" imploded. I love stuff like that!

But at the end of the day was there more sand on the beach, and did they think to seed the "dunes" with something to hold the sand where the trees piled it up? Sand blown inland and out to sea is usually lost to the littoral system so holding it in dunes is not counter-productive. Groins, breakwaters, ect that simply rob the littoral converyor belt are counter-productive for all those beaches down the littoral drift current.

 

[archman]

But at the end of the day was there more sand on the beach, and did they think to seed the "dunes" with something to hold the sand where the trees piled it up? Sand blown inland and out to sea is usually lost to the littoral system so holding it in dunes is not counter-productive.

The first trees were simply dumped back behind the beach, and left alone. They eventually imploded. Later, trial efforts were made to put plants on top of some. Of course, when those dunes imploded, they buried the plants sitting on top, and the dunes were no more. So the christmas tree idea wasn't all that successful. Dune restoration as you probably know is critical to modern coastal home-building on the seaward side of barrier islands; there needs to be a dune line to ameliorate the storm effects and erosion/deposit of sand. It's a big deal in Texas; most of our northern dunes were removed decades ago to use the sand, and now we're trying to put them back. Fun.

 

[FredT]

Dune restoration as you probably know is critical to modern coastal home-building on the seaward side of barrier islands; there needs to be a dune line to ameliorate the storm effects and erosion/deposit of sand. It's a big deal in Texas; most of our northern dunes were removed decades ago to use the sand, and now we're trying to put them back. Fun.

Please note the primary problem: THERE SHOULD BE NO "HOMES" ON SAND BARRIER ISLANDS IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!

The key to successful intervention is to fix the root cause. All else is pushing on a rope! In this case simply remove the insurace infrastructure and utilities necessary to build out there. Thoise who do will have to be self-insured and self-sufficient, and will NOT be adding excess cost to the rest of us in higher hurricane insurance premiums.

FT