It is one of the least understood processes in nature. How do two very different species learn to live with each other and create a bond, known as symbiosis, which can give them a powerful evolutionary advantage?
Coral reefs are the most spectacular manifestations of symbiosis – and understanding the mechanics of this mutual endeavour has become an urgent task as global warming has triggered the widespread collapse of reefs across the planet.
In a bid to halt this destruction, an international group of researchers led by the Wellcome Sanger Institute is working together on the Aquatic Symbiosis Genomics (ASG) project. Powerful DNA sequencers are now unravelling the genetic secrets of coral, data that could be vital in saving the world’s reefs, and understanding the mysterious processes that drive symbiosis.
I have to say, I do wonder if reefs will just gradually shift to higher latitudes.
It may just be that the water temperature is increasing faster than the reefs can migrate. But if that’s the case, we can work with that. There has been remarkable success growing reefs by putting starter structures on the seafloor and then seeding them with coral. If we start doing that in places we previously thought to be to cold for coral, that has potential to work…
But it’s more than just temperature. Add salinity to the equation. I can’t tell you how salinity of any particular place changes with a temperature change, but it does. Add current, add all the other chemicals that are dropped into the ocean….
How does every coral on the the Great Barrier Reef know to spawn one time a year? How does a turtle find its way back to the place they were born to lay eggs? There are nuances well beyond our understanding and will outlive us. Coral will come back, but perhaps not in its current form, and probably not in our lifetimes.
There’s a lot we don’t know about ocean ecosystems in general, that’s very true. Saving the coral is a very hard problem. But to be honest, we’re human, hard problems are our bread and butter. Often, we prefer them to easy problems.
We were doing fine until the SuperCoral™ evolved the ability to breath air back in 2047… must’ve been some of that salamander DNA that we used. 
Wild species are extremely good at adapting to evolving conditions. Their ability in this is many more times more powerful than any developments these searchers will produce.
On the other hand, researchers are very good at convincing themselves that they should have more money … well, sometimes they are right.
Wild species are extremely good at adapting to evolving conditions. Their ability in this is many more times more powerful than any developments these searchers will produce.
Evolution is famously slow though. And there is a deadline here, so to speak… Human technological advancement on the other hand is famously fast, and constantly accelerates.
In other words, even if this is an overly optimistic plan today, it wouldn’t be overly optimistic in 5 years or so. And if it would be feasible in five years, then now is a great time to start working on it.
This reminds me of the human genome project, the effort to sequence the entire human genome. This was an international program started in 1984, sequencing really started in earnest in 1990, and by 1999, after fifteen years, they had only 10% of the genome sequenced. But just four years later they declared the project “complete” with 92% of the genome sequenced. Comparing those final four years to the previous nine years, you get a 1800% increase in speed.
i like your explanation and i even see one more way you are right about this (and i was wrong) : while it might be a long shot investing in this research, the cost of this is minimal compared to the benefit. So, it’s worth the shot (even if the chances of success are … hum … unknowable for now)
Actively breeding is much faster than evolution, and the current rate of change is too fast for evolution to keep up. Eventually something new will fill the niche, but that doesn’t help humanity.
Thanks for your reply. You are probably right and I was commenting in frustration about researchers not giving enough credit to nature’s capabilities.
