Thales
Active member
I guess I am taking a bit of a leap, but I concluded that since the SPS actually grew slightly faster at the higher phosphate level, the addition of iron may be the limiting factor since in that condition (higher phosphate and iron) there was alot more algae than SPS on the reefs. Whether the algae outcompeted the SPS for the available nutrients, shaded it to death or engaged in chemical warfare with it, we don't know, but can't we begin to surmise that its not so much the phosphate as the phosphate/iron that we need to be concerned about?
If I am getting what you are saying, I think it is more complicated than that. For instance, that part of the discussion is about higher nutrients in general, not just phosphate. From the article:
It appears that elevated nutrients, including phosphate, are not a problem for the reefs, as long as algal growth and disease-causing microbes are limited by some other factor"”in this case, the availability of iron. When the iron limitation is alleviated the reefs respond to the high nutrients in much the same way as those in Kāne"˜ohe Bay: the corals die and other organisms take over. The emerging picture on natural coral reefs is that excessive nutrient enrichment can severely damage a reef, but the effects depend on the context in which that enrichment occurs. What is safe for one coral reef could be enough to destroy another. The negative effects can also be largely indirect. That is, it is not necessarily clear from observations of whole coral reefs whether elevated nutrients (including phosphate) directly harm corals, but they can certainly be killed off if algae and microbes go bananas from excessive nutrient availability.