Why the story of urchin barrens and kelp forests is more complex than we thought

Why the story of urchin barrens and kelp forests is more complex than we thought

John Turnbull/Flickr, CC BY-NC-ND

It’s not hard to find a long-spined sea urchin (Centrostephanus rodgersii) on rocky walls and in underwater forests comprised of golden kelp (Ecklonia radiata) and crayweed (Phyllospora comosa) in southeast Australia.

They also live in “urchin barrens”, areas of bare rock and encrusting algae. In media reports, these areas are often described as “lifeless moonscapes”. In this telling, large numbers of urchins eat their way through kelp forests and create new barrens.

This isn’t quite fair on the barrens – or the urchins. Much concern has focused on how fast barrens have expanded their range into Tasmanian waters in recent decades as oceans have warmed up. But in New South Wales, barrens do not appear to be increasing. Barrens are vital habitat. By some measures, they can be richer in species and host different invertebrates than kelp forests.

Urchins, too, may be being judged unfairly. Across their native NSW range, long-spined urchin populations have been stable over long timeframes.

Long-spined urchins have long been suggested as the key cause of kelp forest declines, because disappearing kelp coincides with more urchins. In response, authorities have launched urchin control programs, where divers pull urchins from the sea.

But recent research suggests it’s not that simple. Kelp species like cold water, and the oceans are warming fast. Urchins may well be a symptom, not the key cause.

Of urchins and underwater barrens

Like many urchin species, long-spined urchins are omnivores. They eat kelp as well as small worms and other invertebrates, tiny organic particles and drifting algae.

The question is, how heavily do they depend on kelp? Long-spined urchins graze differently to most other urchins. They don’t actively move towards kelp and cannot climb into the kelp canopy to feed. Unlike other native urchins, they don’t form dense “feeding fronts” typically associated with creating barrens.

Across their native range in southeastern Australia, long-spined urchins prefer shallower waters (down to ~15–20 metres) and their mobility to access kelp is limited compared to other species. That means they eat kelp within well-defined boundaries.

In recent research, we collected 100 long-spined urchins from barrens and kelp forests off the coast of New South Wales. We examined their gut contents and found they had been eating invertebrates, kelp and particulate matter.

We then used a different approach, stable isotope analysis, to estimate the long-term dietary proportion for each food group. We found urchins were using kelp as food, but that invertebrates and particulate organic matter were often equally or more important.

In southern NSW, the recent decline of kelp forests has been attributed to grazing urchins. But our results show urchins in these waters relied far more strongly on particulate matter. Even within dense kelp forests, urchins can rely more on food other than kelp.

diver measuring sea urchin, crayweed forest behind.
The author measuring the diameter of a sea urchin. Jeremy Day, CC BY-NC-ND

Are urchin predators in short supply?

So why are long-spined urchins so common?

One possibility is a lack of large predators. It is often suggested overfishing of eastern rock lobsters (Sagmariasus verreauxi), eastern blue groper (Achoerodus viridis) and pink snapper (Chrysophrys auratus) has removed natural controls on urchin numbers.

But do these predators often eat long-spined urchins? To test this theory, we analysed the gut contents of gropers and snapper and eastern rock lobsters and ran wild and caged feeding trials with lobsters. We found urchins were being eaten by these species, but only rarely. Predator size didn’t appear to matter.

When we used isotope analysis on these predators, we found little direct evidence the two fish species relied on long-spined urchins. Snapper appeared more likely to be long-spined urchin predators than blue groper, while rock lobsters showed far less potential reliance on them.

a large blue fish swimming amid kelp, seen from above.
Eastern blue gropers rarely appear to eat long-spined urchins in wild settings. Ai Yoshi/Getty

Are our interventions helping?

It’s natural to be concerned about disappearing kelp forests. Culling urchins and protecting their predators have been proposed as ways to help kelp.

The problem is, culling costs money, takes continual effort, is very hard to scale and has limited long-term effectiveness. Recent research found when long-spined urchins were removed across large areas, those remaining reproduced faster.

What about protecting urchin predators? Even when large predators are present, long-spined urchins appear to be at the bottom of the menu.

In long-protected areas such as Jervis Bay Marine Park, large urchin predators are abundant, but kelp-free urchin barrens persist. This suggests the role of predators has been overstated.

Urchins may not be the major cause of kelp forest loss. But once kelp is gone, their grazing of young kelp does stop it regrowing, maintaining the barrens.

So what else might be killing kelp forests?

Kelp likes cold, salty water. But Australia’s coastal waters are warming fast, while large volumes of fresh water from intense floods kill swathes of kelp. Climate change is worsening each of these threats.

The same climate-boosted threats also affect urchins. Pulses of fresh water and storms rapidly reduce urchin numbers across a large area.

Long-spined urchins do eat kelp and predators do eat urchins. But our body of research shows these relationships are more complex than often made out.

We can’t just say urchins are the problem and that the solution is to keep pulling them from the sea.

Protecting gropers, snapper and lobsters may have little effect on urchin control. But it’s worth doing because they’re ecologically valuable in their own right.

Spotting more long-spined urchins after kelp disappears may be a symptom of broader collapse, rather than the main cause. Long-term solutions will require confronting the elephant in the room – the rapid warming of our oceans due to climate change.

The Conversation

Jeremy Day has received funding support from the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, the Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales and the Ecological Society of Australia.

Do whales grieve? Rare footage of humpback alongside stillborn calf suggests they might | Olaf Meynecke for the Conversation

The behaviours we observed could represent grief, but they could also reflect maternal attachment, confusion or instinctive caregiving

It was a tragic sight.

One day last July, a newborn humpback whale calf lay motionless on the seafloor, just a kilometre off Australia’s Gold Coast. The encounter was captured through underwater video.

Continue reading…

We could soon be able to track changes in Australia’s forests in near-real time – using satellites

We could soon be able to track changes in Australia’s forests in near-real time – using satellites

Brendan Choat, CC BY-NC-ND

Forests and woodlands cover millions of hectares across Australia, from tropical rainforests and temperate eucalypt forests to the vast woodlands and shrublands of the arid interior. They store enormous amounts of carbon, support biodiversity, regulate water supplies and help buffer the impacts of climate change. Yet we know surprisingly little about how these important ecosystems are changing over time.

Australia has world class ecological research sites and monitoring programs. But until now, we haven’t had a coherent, long term national monitoring network able to track the health of forests across the continent.

As a result, it’s hard to answer fundamental questions. Are forests becoming more vulnerable to drought? How quickly do these ecosystems recover after fire? How much carbon is being stored in forests and woodlands and how might that change in the future? Right now, we don’t know.

As climate change loads the dice for more frequent and intense droughts, heatwaves and bushfires in Australia, it’s vital we understand which ecosystems are at most risk, and which have more resilience.

Our new project aims to help fill this gap. We are upgrading thousands of existing solar-powered sensors so they can transmit data close to real time via satellites in low-Earth orbit. If our demonstration project in western New South Wales is successful, it could be expanded across the state – or the entire country.

Why do we need this?

Tracking changes to forests and woodlands in remote parts of Australia has long been a challenge.

Researchers have installed sensors in many areas highly exposed to climate extremes, such as the arid west of NSW.

These sensors measure soil moisture, microclimate, tree growth and plant water stress in near real time.

In many remote locations there’s no practical way to transmit the data continuously. It can be an ordeal to access data from these sensors as it must be done manually. It doesn’t help when they are located far from towns, roads and telecommunications infrastructure. As a result, data is often collected a couple of times a year.

That’s not ideal. It means we don’t have access to the continuous observations needed to detect change as it happens. This data would be particularly valuable after major events such as droughts, heatwaves and bushfires, when ecological conditions can change rapidly.

Without it, we can’t gauge how ecosystems respond to disturbances or recover over time. That makes it harder to judge how they will respond to future climate extremes.

Eyes in the sky – or data from the ground?

When most people think about using satellites to track environmental change, they might picture images taken from space.

These are valuable as a way to track logging or illegal roads, for instance. But photos aren’t enough. We still need to take measurements on the ground.

This is why our project doesn’t rely on satellites as eyes in the sky. Their communication abilities are much more valuable. Satellites in low Earth orbit let sensors continuously transmit data from regions far too remote to have mobile phone coverage.

While satellite communication has existed for decades, newer low-Earth-orbit satellite systems make it possible for small, low-power environmental sensors to transmit data more efficiently and at lower cost than before.

The benefits of near real-time monitoring will go well beyond science. Graziers, land managers, conservation organisations and carbon projects will be able to get early warning if ecosystems are under new strain.

Environmental monitoring has always been difficult in a country as large and sparsely populated as Australia. Satellites offer a practical way to overcome the tyranny of distance.

Scaling up

To make this a reality, researchers (including this article’s authors) at Western Sydney University and UNSW are working with satellite communications company OQ Technology, with support from the NSW Smart Sensing Network.

At present, we are working to expand the network of monitoring plots from the wet sclerophyll forests and rainforests of the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area to the arid woodlands of the far west of NSW.

Climate, rainfall and vegetation differ dramatically across this area. But all ecosystems are feeling increasing pressure from drought, bushfire and extreme heat.

We have installed satellite-enabled sensors at plots in the Blue Mountains and mulga woodlands in western NSW. Our next step is to test how well the sensors communicate with the satellite.

The network includes sensors that measure soil moisture using probes buried in the soil, monitor local weather conditions, track changes in stem growth, and estimate plant water stress

Over time, flows of data from these sensors will build the datasets we need to make better forecasts of future risk.

Better measurements, better decisions

Policymakers, industry and conservationists rely on models and predictions to understand how Australia’s ecosystems are responding to worsening climate change.

But forecasts are only as reliable as the observations used to build and validate them.

Tracking change with satellites and sensors won’t prevent droughts, fires or ecosystem decline. But this approach can help spot emerging threats, improve forecasts and give the evidence needed to make better decisions in an increasingly uncertain future.

The Conversation

Brendan Choat receives research funding from the Australian Research Council, the NSW Smart Sensing Network, the Terrestrial Ecosystem Research Network and the NSW Natural Resources Commission. This project is supported by the NSW Smart Sensing Network and undertaken in collaboration with researchers from UNSW and industry partner OQ Technology.

Daniel Falster receives funding from the Australian Research Council.