Crossbreeding corals from Honduras could help protect Florida's coast. Here's how it was done.
Warming ocean waters have had a devastating impact on the coral reefs of the Sunshine State. Efforts are underway to save the third-largest barrier reef system in the world, including the use of lab-grown corals and the removal of healthy corals, but scientists are now trying a method that they say has never been done before.
"It's the first time ever in the world that an international cross of corals from different countries have been permitted for outplanting on wild reefs," Dr. Andrew Baker, a marine biologist at the University of Miami's Rosenstiel School of Marine Science, told CBS News on a boat ride near Miami.
There are dozens of stony coral species along Florida's 350 miles of reefs, from the Florida Keys up to the St. Lucie Inlet. Two of them are listed as threatened under the U.S. Endangered Species Act, according to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, one of which is the Elkhorn coral.
The Elkhorn species helps form the skeleton of a healthy reef, but according to Baker, more than 95% of the Elkhorn coral off Florida has been wiped out by a combination of factors, including rising temperatures fueled by climate change, increased coastal development and disease outbreaks
"Over the last 50 years or so, we've lost more of these Elkhorn corals, culminating in 2023 when we had this really warm summer," Baker said. "And in order for that population to recover, it was determined that we need more diversity from outside the Florida population."
So, scientists and conservationists started looking off the Caribbean coast in Honduras, specifically Tela Bay, where Elkhorn coral live in "the kind of conditions where corals have to be really tough to survive," Baker said.
To crossbreed the Elkhorns, scientists with Tela Marine, a Honduras-based aquarium and marine research center, carefully plucked coral from the reef in Honduras. Permits were then needed to transport the coral fragments into the U.S.
Once they arrived in Florida, scientists with the University of Miami and the Florida Aquarium in Tampa worked to create the "Flonduran" Elkhorn, as it was nicknamed by Baker.
Earlier this month, the crossbred species were planted for the first time in Florida, underneath protective umbrellas to deter predators.
"And if these corals can live through the next marine heat wave, then that is critical for our coastal protection on the coast of Florida," said Keri O'Neil, the director of coral conservation at the Florida Aquarium.
With robust and healthy corals, South Florida's coastal communities are better protected from flooding because the reefs help break up hurricane-fueled waves. The planting of the first Flondurans is just the start of what's needed to rebuild.
"We need to now scale this up and be out planting hundreds of thousands of baby corals all throughout the reef," Baker said. "And there are ways to do that, but we've got to gear up and get going."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
'Silent killer': the science of tracing climate deaths in heatwaves
A heatwave scorching Europe had barely subsided in early July when scientists published estimates that 2,300 people may have died across a dozen major cities during the extreme, climate-fuelled episode. The figure was supposed to "grab some attention" and sound a timely warning in the hope of avoiding more needless deaths, said Friederike Otto, one of the scientists involved in the research. "We are still relatively early in the summer, so this will not have been the last heatwave. There is a lot that people and communities can do to save lives," Otto, a climate scientist at Imperial College London, told AFP. Heat can claim tens of thousands of lives during European summers but it usually takes months, even years, to count the cost of this "silent killer". Otto and colleagues published their partial estimate just a week after temperatures peaked in western Europe. While the underlying methods were not new, the scientists said it was the first study to link heatwave deaths to climate change so soon after the event in question. Early mortality estimates could be misunderstood as official statistics but "from a public health perspective the benefits of providing timely evidence outweigh these risks," Raquel Nunes from the University of Warwick told AFP. "This approach could have transformative potential for both public understanding and policy prioritisation" of heatwaves, said Nunes, an expert on global warming and health who was not involved in the study. - Big deal - Science can show, with increasing speed and confidence, that human-caused climate change is making heatwaves hotter and more frequent. Unlike floods and fires, heat kills quietly, with prolonged exposure causing heat stroke, organ failure, and death. The sick and elderly are particularly vulnerable, but so are younger people exercising or toiling outdoors. But every summer, heat kills and Otto -- a pioneer in the field of attribution science -- started wondering if the message was getting through. "We have done attribution studies of extreme weather events and attribution studies of heatwaves for a decade... but as a society we are not prepared for these heatwaves," she said. "People think it's 30 (degrees Celsius) instead of 27, what's the big deal? And we know it's a big deal." When the mercury started climbing in Europe earlier this summer, scientists tweaked their approach. Joining forces, Imperial College London and the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine chose to spotlight the lethality -- not just the intensity -- of the heat between June 23 and July 2. Combining historic weather and published mortality data, they assessed that climate change made the heatwave between 1C and 4C hotter across 12 cities, depending on location, and that 2,300 people had likely perished. But in a notable first, they estimated that 65 percent of these deaths -- around 1,500 people across cities including London, Paris, and Athens -- would not have occurred in a world without global warming. "That's a much stronger message," said Otto. "It brings it much closer to home what climate change actually means and makes it much more real and human than when you say this heatwave would have been two degrees colder." - Underestimated threat - The study was just a snapshot of the wider heatwave that hit during western Europe's hottest June on record and sent temperatures soaring to 46C in Spain and Portugal. The true toll was likely much higher, the authors said, noting that heat deaths are widely undercounted. Since then Turkey, Greece and Bulgaria have suffered fresh heatwaves and deadly wildfires. Though breaking new ground, the study has not been subject to peer review, a rigorous assessment process that can take more than a year. Otto said waiting until after summer to publish -- when "no one's talking about heatwaves, no one is thinking about keeping people safe" -- would defeat the purpose. "I think it's especially important, in this context, to get the message out there very quickly." The study had limitations but relied on robust and well-established scientific methodology, several independent experts told AFP. Tailoring this approach to local conditions could help cities better prepare when heatwaves loom, Abhiyant Tiwari, a health and climate expert who worked on India's first-ever heat action plan, told AFP. "I definitely see more such studies coming out in the future," said Tiwari from NRDC India. Otto said India, which experiences tremendously hot summers, was a "prime candidate" and with a template in place it was likely more studies would soon follow. np/klm/cw/tc
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Radar satellite launched by India and NASA will track minuscule changes to Earth's land and ice
CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) — NASA and India paired up to launch an Earth-mapping satellite on Wednesday capable of tracking even the slightest shifts in land and ice. The $1.3 billion mission will help forecasters and first responders stay one step ahead of floods, landslides, volcanic eruptions and other disasters, according to scientists. Rocketing to orbit from India, the satellite will survey virtually all of Earth's terrain multiple times. Its two radars — one from the U.S. and the other from India — will operate day and night, peering through clouds, rain and foliage to collect troves of data in extraordinary detail. Microwave signals beamed down to Earth from the dual radars will bounce back up to the satellite's super-sized antenna reflector perched at the end of a boom like a beach umbrella. Scientists will compare the incoming and outgoing signals as the spacecraft passes over the same locations twice every 12 days, teasing out changes as small as a fraction of an inch (1 centimeter). 'Congratulations India!' India's minister of science and technology, Jitendra Singh, said via X once the satellite safely reached orbit. The mission 'will benefit the entire world community.' NASA's deputy associate administrator Casey Swails, part of a small delegation that traveled to India for the launch, said it 'really shows the world what our two nations can do. But more so than that, it really is a pathfinder for the relationship building,.' It will take a full week to extend the satellite's 30-foot (9-meter) boom and open the 39-foot-in-diameter (12-meter) drum-shaped reflector made of gold-plated wire mesh. Science operations should begin by the end of October. Among the satellite's most pressing measurements: melting glaciers and polar ice sheets; shifting groundwater supplies; motion and stress of land surfaces prompting landslides and earthquakes; and forest and wetland disruptions boosting carbon dioxide and methane emissions. It's 'a first-of-its-kind, jewel radar satellite that will change the way we study our home planet and better predict a natural disaster before it strikes," NASA's science mission chief Nicky Fox said ahead of liftoff. She was part of the NASA delegation that attended the launch in person. NASA is contributing $1.2 billion to the three-year mission; it supplied the low-frequency radar and reflector. The Indian Space Research Organization's $91 million share includes the higher-frequency radar and main satellite structure, as well as the launch from a barrier island in the Bay of Bengal. It's the biggest space collaboration between the two countries. The satellite called NISAR — short for NASA-ISRO Synthetic Aperture Radar — will operate from a near-polar-circling orbit 464 miles (747 kilometers) high. It will join dozens of Earth observation missions already in operation by the U.S. and India. ___ The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Department of Science Education and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content. Marcia Dunn, The Associated Press
WIRED
7 hours ago
- WIRED
Scientists Say New Government Climate Report Twists Their Work
Jul 30, 2025 4:31 PM A new Department of Energy report 'fundamentally misrepresents' climate research and leaves out key context, multiple scientists cited in the report tell WIRED. Emissions fume at the coal-fueled Oak Grove Power Plant in Robertson County, Texas. Photograph:All products featured on WIRED are independently selected by our editors. However, we may receive compensation from retailers and/or from purchases of products through these links. A new report released yesterday by the Department of Energy purports to provide 'a critical assessment of the conventional narrative on climate change.' But nine scientists across several different disciplines told WIRED that the report mishandled citations of their work: by cherrypicking data, misrepresenting findings, drawing erroneous conclusions, or leaving out relevant context. This report was introduced on the same day that the EPA announced it would seek to roll back the endangerment finding, a crucial 2009 ruling that provides the scientific and legal basis for the agency to regulate greenhouse gasses under the Clean Air Act. In its draft reconsideration of the finding, the EPA cites the paper from the DOE as part of a review of 'the most recently available science' that it undertook to challenge the validity of the 2009 ruling. 'The goal is to restore confidence in science, in data, in rationalism. That's what enabled the creation of modern science,' DOE Secretary Chris Wright said in an Fox interview Tuesday with EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, to celebrate what Zeldin called 'the largest deregulatory action in the history of the United States.' 'We slid back into sort of a cancel culture, Orwellian squelching of science in talking about 'the' science, as opposed to the process that is science,' Wright continued. 'We need to restore some common sense around climate change and energy.' The report was authored by four scientists and one economist who are familiar contrarians in the climate science world. Three of the report's authors were recently hired at the Energy Department, the New York Times reported earlier this month, prompting alarm among mainstream scientists who have long followed their work. Each author has a long history of producing work that challenges mainstream consensus on climate science. Their work is often promoted by interests seeking to discredit scientific findings or downplay climate action. The DOE report's summary states that it finds '[CO 2 ]-induced warming appears to be less damaging economically than commonly believed, and that aggressive mitigation strategies could be more harmful than beneficial.' Many of the arguments reflected in the new DOE paper, mainstream scientists told WIRED, have been debunked over and over for years. 'I'm a bit surprised that the government put out something like this as an official publication,' Zeke Hausfather, the climate research lead at tech company Stripe and a research scientist at the climate nonprofit Berkeley Earth, told WIRED in an email. 'It reads like a blog post—a somewhat scattershot collection of oft-debunked skeptic claims, studies taken out of context, or cherry-picked examples that are not representative of broader climate science research findings.' The DOE says that it is opening the report up to a public comment process. In an email, Department of Energy spokesperson Andrea Woods said that the questions WIRED sent over about the use of research in specific portions of the report were too complex for the agency to answer thoroughly on a short turnaround, and encouraged scientists who spoke with WIRED to submit a public comment to the federal register. 'The Climate Working Group and the Energy Department look forward to engaging with substantive comments following the conclusion of the 30-day comment period,' Woods wrote. 'This report critically assesses many areas of ongoing scientific inquiry that are frequently assigned high levels of confidence—not by the scientists themselves but by the political bodies involved, such as the United Nations or previous Presidential administrations. Unlike previous administrations, the Trump administration is committed to engaging in a more thoughtful and science-based conversation about climate change and energy.' Ben Santer, a climate researcher and an honorary professor at the University of East Anglia, has a long history with some of the authors of the new report. (Santer's research is also cited in the DOE report; he, like other scientists who spoke to WIRED, say the report 'fundamentally misrepresents' his work.) In 2014, Santer was part of an exercise at the American Physical Society (APS), one of the largest scientific membership organizations in the country. Known as a red team vs blue team exercise, it pitted proponents of mainstream climate science against contrarians—including two authors of the current DOE report—to work through whether their claims had merit. The exercise was convened by Steve Koonin, one of the new hires at the Department of Energy and an author of the report. As Inside Climate News reported in 2021, Koonin resigned from his leadership role after APS refused to adopt a modified statement on climate science that he proposed following the exercise. Koonin later unsuccessfully pitched a similar exercise to the first Trump White House. 'These guys have a history of being wrong on important scientific issues,' Santer says. 'The notion that their views have been given short shrift by the scientific community is just plain wrong.' Hausfather's work is cited twice in the report in a section challenging emissions scenarios: projections of how much CO 2 will be emitted into the atmosphere under various different pathways. These citations, Hausfather says, are 'instructive' to see how the DOE report's authors 'cherrypick data points that suit their narrative.' The report includes a chart from a 2019 paper of his that, the DOE authors say, shows how climate models have 'consistently overestimated observations' of atmospheric CO 2 . However, Hausfather tells WIRED, the key finding of his 2019 research was that historic climate models were actually remarkably accurate in predicting warming. 'They appear to have discarded the whole paper as not fitting their narrative, and instead picked a single figure that was in the supplementary materials to cast doubt on models, when the whole paper actually confirmed how well they have performed in the years after they were published,' he tells WIRED. (Hausfather's research was also cited in the EPA's justification for rolling back the endangerment finding—which, he said in a post on X, draws a 'completely backwards' conclusion from his work.) It's not just Hausfather who feels his work was mishandled. Much of the early section of the report discusses how beneficial carbon dioxide is to plant growth, a claim that has been repeated by Secretary Wright as a 'plus' to global warming. The authors cite 2010 research from evolutionary biologist Joy Ward, now the provost and executive vice president of Case Western Reserve University, to support claims that plant life will flourish with more CO 2 in the atmosphere. Ward, however, told WIRED in an emailed statement that her experiments were conducted under 'highly controlled growth conditions' to create a 'mechanistic understanding' of CO 2 , and that climate change can cause a host of impacts on plants not accounted for in her study. 'With rising CO 2 in natural ecosystems, plants may experience higher heat loads, extreme weather events such as droughts and floods, and reduced pollinators—which can have severe net negative effects on plant growth and crop yields,' she says. 'Furthermore, our studies indicate that major disruptions in plant development such as flowering time can occur in direct response to rising CO 2 , which were not mentioned in the report.' The DOE report's section on ocean acidification cites research by Josh Krissansen-Totton, an assistant professor at the University of Washington who specializes in planetary science and biogeochemistry, to support a claim that 'the recent decline in [ocean] pH is within the range of natural variability on millennial time scales.' Research has shown that the oceans have been absorbing CO 2 from the atmosphere since the beginning of the industrial revolution, causing it to become considerably more acidic over the past two centuries. 'Ocean life is complex and much of it evolved when the oceans were acidic relative to the present,' that section of the report states. 'The ancestors of modern coral first appeared about 245 million years ago. CO 2 levels for more than 200 million years afterward were many times higher than they are today.' Krissansen-Totton told WIRED in an email that his work on ocean acidity billions of years ago has 'no relevance' to the impacts of human-driven ocean acidification today, and that today calcium carbonate saturation is quickly diminishing in the ocean alongside rising acidity. Dissolved calcium carbonate is essential for many marine species, particularly those that rely on it to build their shells. 'The much more gradual changes in ocean pH we observe on geologic timescales were typically not accompanied by the rapid changes in carbonate saturation that human CO 2 emissions are causing, and so the former are not useful analogs for assessing the impact of ocean acidification on the modern marine biosphere,' he says. The consensus among mainstream academics around climate change's severity and importance does not mean that there aren't still open questions about portions of the science. Jeff Clements, a marine ecologist who runs a research lab at Canada's federal fisheries and ocean department, says that the way the DOE report cites his research on ocean acidification and fish behavior is accurate 'from an explicit textual perspective.' Clements's work on this topic focuses on correcting alarming earlier studies connecting the effects of ocean acidification on fish. In the DOE report, his work is used to bolster the section downplaying ocean acidification. 'Much of the public discussion of the effects of ocean 'acidification' on marine biota has been one-sided and exaggerated,' the DOE report states. Clements said in an email to WIRED that just because his review of the literature found fish behavior to be relatively unaffected by ocean acidification does not mean that a myriad of other ocean ecosystems, biological processes, and species will fare similarly. Other work from his lab, meanwhile, has underscored the vulnerability of mussels to ocean warming and looked at how heatwaves negatively alter clam behavior. 'I want to make it clear that our results should not be interpreted to mean 'ocean acidification (or climate change more generally) is not a problem,'' he tells WIRED. 'While effects on fish behavior may not be as severe as initially thought, other species and biological processes are certainly vulnerable to the impacts of acidification and the compendium of other climate change stressors that our oceans are experiencing.' Richard Seager, a research professor at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University, coauthored a paper cited in the DOE report on the discrepancy between what climate models predict and what is actually being measured when it comes to sea-surface temperatures in the Pacific Ocean. 'I think acceptance has been growing that the models have been getting something wrong in the tropical Pacific,' he says. 'That and what this means for the future however is very much an area of intense research.' (A separate study on agricultural yields coauthored by Seager, he says, is misrepresented in another section of the report.) The future of further research on this topic and other open questions in climate science is in limbo six months into the second Trump administration. The irony of the report's promotion at a time when the White House is launching multiple fronts of attacks on traditional science—including removing the authors of the National Climate Assessment from their roles in April—is not lost on mainstream scientists. 'This report had five authors and was rushed over four months, and would not pass muster in any traditional scientific peer-review process,' says Hausfather. 'The fact that this has been released at the same time that the government has hidden the actual congressionally mandated national climate assessments that accurately reflect the science only further shows how much of a farce this is.'
