LETTER Long-term trends of coral imports into the United States indicate future opportunities for ecosystem and societal benefits Andrew L. Rhyne 1,2 , Michael F. Tlusty 1 , & Les Kaufman 1,3,4 1 New England Aquarium, John H. Prescott Marine Laboratory, Boston, MA, USA 2 Roger Williams University, Department of Biology and Marine Biology, Bristol, RI, USA 3 Boston University Marine Program, Department of Biology, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA 4 Conservation International, Arlington, VA, USA Keywords Aquarium trade; coral trade; curio trade; coral triangle; marine policy. Correspondence Andrew L Rhyne, Department of Biology and Marine Biology, Roger Williams University, One Old Ferry Road, Bristol, RI 02809, USA. Tel: 401 254-5750; Fax: 401 254-3310. E-mail: [email protected]Received 5 March 2012 Accepted 12 June 2012 Editor Dirk Roux doi: 10.1111/j.1755-263X.2012.00265.x Abstract The international trade in corals used to be primarily a curio trade of dried skeletons, but now focuses on live corals for the marine reef aquarium trade. The trade is still rapidly evolving, creating challenges including the addition of new species that outpace effective management strategies. New species in the live coral trade initially command high prices, but as they become common the price radically decreases with feedback effects to the trade. To understand these trends, 21 years of live coral import data for the United States were assessed. Trade increased over 8% per year between 1990 until the mid-2000s, and has since decreased by 9% annually. The timing of the peak and decline varies among species, and is a result of the rising popularity of mini-reef ecosystem aquariums, the global financial crisis, and an increase in aquaculture produc- tion. The live coral trade offers opportunities for coral reef ecosystem conserva- tion and sustainable economic benefits to coastal communities, but realization of these externalities will require effective data tracking. Introduction The marine aquarium trade is but one of many threats facing the world’s coral reefs, and despite some public opposition to the trade (reviewed in Tlusty et al. 2012), few quantitative studies of its true significance have been reported (Kolm & Berglund 2003). Species entering the market are extremely diverse and include algae, vascular plants, a wide range of invertebrate phyla and both bony and cartilaginous fishes. The trade has the potential to cause overharvesting, collateral damage to coral reef habitat and introduction of exotic species (Smith et al. 2008; Jones et al. 2009; Rhyne et al. 2009; Schofield et al. 2009). However, it is also a potential boon to conser- vation through elevated valuation and stewardship of wild habitats that support livelihoods based upon the collection, rearing and export of aquarium specimens (Tlusty 2002; Tlusty et al. 2008). The aquarium hobby can also benefit conservation by mobilizing public pressure to rein in other anthropogenic stressors including global climate change (Carpenter et al. 2008), unsustainable global market demand (e.g., shark fin, Napoleon wrasse, Chinese traditional medicine), and development of coastal and aquatic resources. Combined with commer- cial overfishing (Burke et al. 2011), these nonaquarium- related threats are likely to be far more severe and perva- sive than the direct damage done by aquarium collectors, though comparative data are lacking. Consequently, we have launched a systematic study of the marine aquar- ium trade and its current and potential relationship to coral reef conservation. Here we report on the changing face of the trade, in nature and magnitude, over the past 21 years with particular regard to coral biodiversity. The export of marine aquarium specimens is a global industry (Wabnitz et al. 2003). Each year, a complex trade network sells upwards of 50 million coral reef animals to an estimated 2 million hobbyists worldwide (Wood 2001; Green 2003; Wabnitz et al. 2003). The epicenter of 478 Conservation Letters 5 (2012) 478–485 Copyright and Photocopying: c 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Transcript
LETTER
Long-term trends of coral imports into the United States indicatefuture opportunities for ecosystem and societal benefitsAndrew L. Rhyne1,2, Michael F. Tlusty1, & Les Kaufman1,3,4
1 New England Aquarium, John H. Prescott Marine Laboratory, Boston, MA, USA2 Roger Williams University, Department of Biology and Marine Biology, Bristol, RI, USA3 Boston University Marine Program, Department of Biology, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA4 Conservation International, Arlington, VA, USA
The international trade in corals used to be primarily a curio trade of driedskeletons, but now focuses on live corals for the marine reef aquarium trade.The trade is still rapidly evolving, creating challenges including the addition ofnew species that outpace effective management strategies. New species in thelive coral trade initially command high prices, but as they become common theprice radically decreases with feedback effects to the trade. To understand thesetrends, 21 years of live coral import data for the United States were assessed.Trade increased over 8% per year between 1990 until the mid-2000s, and hassince decreased by 9% annually. The timing of the peak and decline variesamong species, and is a result of the rising popularity of mini-reef ecosystemaquariums, the global financial crisis, and an increase in aquaculture produc-tion. The live coral trade offers opportunities for coral reef ecosystem conserva-tion and sustainable economic benefits to coastal communities, but realizationof these externalities will require effective data tracking.
Introduction
The marine aquarium trade is but one of many threatsfacing the world’s coral reefs, and despite some publicopposition to the trade (reviewed in Tlusty et al. 2012),few quantitative studies of its true significance have beenreported (Kolm & Berglund 2003). Species entering themarket are extremely diverse and include algae, vascularplants, a wide range of invertebrate phyla and both bonyand cartilaginous fishes. The trade has the potential tocause overharvesting, collateral damage to coral reefhabitat and introduction of exotic species (Smith et al.2008; Jones et al. 2009; Rhyne et al. 2009; Schofield et al.2009). However, it is also a potential boon to conser-vation through elevated valuation and stewardship ofwild habitats that support livelihoods based upon thecollection, rearing and export of aquarium specimens(Tlusty 2002; Tlusty et al. 2008). The aquarium hobby canalso benefit conservation by mobilizing public pressure
to rein in other anthropogenic stressors including globalclimate change (Carpenter et al. 2008), unsustainableglobal market demand (e.g., shark fin, Napoleon wrasse,Chinese traditional medicine), and development ofcoastal and aquatic resources. Combined with commer-cial overfishing (Burke et al. 2011), these nonaquarium-related threats are likely to be far more severe and perva-sive than the direct damage done by aquarium collectors,though comparative data are lacking. Consequently, wehave launched a systematic study of the marine aquar-ium trade and its current and potential relationship tocoral reef conservation. Here we report on the changingface of the trade, in nature and magnitude, over the past21 years with particular regard to coral biodiversity.
The export of marine aquarium specimens is a globalindustry (Wabnitz et al. 2003). Each year, a complex tradenetwork sells upwards of 50 million coral reef animalsto an estimated 2 million hobbyists worldwide (Wood2001; Green 2003; Wabnitz et al. 2003). The epicenter of
A.L. Rhyne et al. Trade of aquarium and curio corals
trade is the Coral Triangle, a region of high biodiversitythat encompasses Indonesia, Malaysia, Papua NewGuinea, Philippines, Solomon Islands, and Timor-Leste.The Philippines and Indonesia represent about 85% oftrade volume, however, smaller island nations exportunique species helping to drive high rates of overall tradebiodiversity (Rhyne et al. 2012). Over 40 countries exportlivestock to feed the hobby and for the past three decadesgrowth in traded volume exceeded 10% per annum(Bruckner 2001), with some slowing at the end of 2007as a result of the global economic recession (Rhyne et al.2009). The United States is a major destination of livecoral reef products importing 68% of all live corals re-ported in CITES with the EU importing 24% (mostly splitamong Germany, France, the Netherlands, and GreatBritain) (Jones 2008). Given the significant U.S. role inthe coral trade, the United States Coral Reef Task Forceidentified reforms to the marine aquarium trade as a ma-jor priority in 2000 (www.coralreef.gov/international/).This resulted in efforts to increase the knowledge of thistrade within the United States (Puerto Rico and Hawaii)and to help promote a sustainable global trade interna-tionally (Tissot and Hallacher 2003; Legore et al. 2005).
While there are many management challenges forornamental fisheries at the local and the national level,global trade is the key driver (Green 2003; Olivier 2008).This is most evident in the coral trade (Bruckner 2001;Moore and Best 2001; Tissot et al. 2010), which beganmany decades ago with the harvest of dried “curio”specimens. The large take resulted in management mea-sures focused on the total mass of harvested coral (Lovell2001). With the advent of the marine home aquarium,trade emphasis shifted to the collection and transportof a much smaller volume of live colonies from remoteregions (Figure 1). During the mid-1980s, scientistsbegan to note a rapid, global degradation of coral reefhabitats, an event in which the curio and aquarium tradewere clearly participants. Because of the awareness ofimpacts to corals, “stony corals” and “live rock” havebeen protected by the Convention on International tradein Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITEScode AC22 Inf. 8) since 1985, and regulated by exportquotas and stringent import regulations (Department ofthe Interior Fish & Wildlife Service 2007). “Soft corals”and attached coral “substrata” are not covered by thisconvention and therefore are not highly regulated. Thedegradation of reefs and concern about trade of coralsled to the ban of shipments from the Philippines afterthe CITES listing (reviewed in Green & Shirley 1999).Since the CITES listing, the harvest of corals and coralrock has seen a dramatic shift; moving away from acurio (dead) based industry to the trade of live coral forthe marine reef aquarium trade. Indonesia, the largest
1980-1995Aquarium trade-wild fishery-remote locales-increasing volumes- ornamental value
Post-1995Aquarium trade-rare species -wild fishery -remote locales -decreasing-common species -aquaculture -central production -increasing
?Future-aquaculture of curios-MPA protection of slow growing species-aquaculture production for habitat enhancement-economic benefits for remote locales
Pre 1980Curio trade-wild fishery -remote locales -large volumes-little value for rarity
Figure 1 The trade in corals for the curio and live home hobby trade. The
curio trade was the most important until the marine home hobby trade
became popular. With the advent of ecosystem reef tanks in the mid-
1990s the trade changed again, with aquaculture of fast growing corals
presently increasing. Will the future allow for aquaculture production of
fast growing corals to supply the curio trade? How can the coral fisheries
be managed to provide economic benefits to the remote communities
dependent originally upon the fishery?
supplier of stony corals, along with other south Pacificcountries, claimed harvests did not significantly affectwild populations, and implemented harvest quota sys-tems in an effort to comply with CITES (Harriott 2003).While quotas provide an important trade limitation forthreatened species (Harriott 2003), questions on theireffectiveness have been raised (Bentley 1998; Castello &Stewart 2010; Knittweis & Wolff 2010), and the initiallarge quotas may not be sufficient for slow growing stonycoral species (Bruckner 2000). Bruckner (2001) reviewedthe strengths and weakness of CITES for monitoring theinternational trade of marine aquarium species, citing thekey limitation as the lack of taxonomic level information(Green & Hendry 1999). The major concern is that rarespecies could be overexploited under quotas set at thegenus level. The illegal trade of corals is difficult to track,as it is for all wildlife, and hence significant portions ofthe trade enterprise can potentially be unaccounted forin formal data (Rosen & Smith 2010; Toledo et al. 2012).However, there will be an asymmetry in the illegal tradeof corals. More illegal trade will likely occur in the curioside as the handling of live coral through known shippingroutes makes it more difficult to hide this trade comparedto the bulk cargo shipping of curio products.
The aquarium trade is a rapidly evolving industry(Larkin 2008; Olivier 2008; Rhyne et al. 2009). Species
Trade of aquarium and curio corals A.L. Rhyne et al.
can enter the trade and quickly become heavily traded(e.g., Banggai Cardinalfish, Pterapogon kauderni) (Lunn &Moreau 2004). Also, species that have been traded at alow level for decades can suddenly become a new fad andexperience a sharp increase in exploitation (e.g., Ricordeamushrooms, Ricordea florida) (Torres-Pratts et al. 2011).As new products move into the market, retail pricesare initially high until supply increases, at which pointprices dramatically drop (Larkin 2008). Because of thelow price, there is typically an influx of low quality sup-ply as the species becomes popular and more consumerscan afford the cheaper product. This rapidly changing na-ture of the aquarium trade creates numerous manage-ment challenges relevant to the trade of live coral. Forexample, the rapid shift in markets might allow for theover exploitation of slow growing corals harvested undermanagement systems designed for faster growing corals(Jones 2011). Here, we analyze trade data for live coralsfor two decades from 1990 to 2010. The purpose of this isto understand the overall trends over time as coral speciesenter the trade and become commercially popular. Wealso assess the impact increased aquaculture productionof corals (Parks et al. 2008) has on the trade, and forecasthow changes in the trade of live corals may impact coralreef ecosystems.
Methods
While the focus of the aquarium trade has historicallybeen on fishes, the advent of live reef and mini-reefaquarium set-ups has greatly increased demand formarine invertebrate taxa (Rhyne et al. 2009). Arthopoda,Mollusca, and Cnidaria are the most heavily traded trop-ical marine invertebrates (Wabnitz et al. 2003). The mostpopular cnidarians (approximately 5% of the total trade)are corals and anemones with a few species of jellyfishes(Wabnitz et al. 2003). Corals within the aquarium tradecan be loosely defined as polyps (corallimorphs, andzoanthids), gorgonians, and both soft and hard corals.They are categorized arbitrarily based upon the pres-ence or absence of a hard skeleton rather than on thebasis of actual phylogenetic relationships. For example,species of Alcyonacea, Corallimorpharia, Gorgonacea,and Zoantharia are often lumped into the general term“soft corals,” while the anthozoan orders Scleractinia andHelioporacea and hydrozoan order Anthoathecata aretraded as “hard corals.” In the same vein, some species ofthe Alcyonacea, namely Tubipora spp., are traded as hardcorals.
To better understand the recent changes in the stonycoral trade and assess market trends we queried CITEStrade data for a 21-year period (1990–2010) utilizing the
World Conservation Monitoring Center trade database(United Nations Environment Programme–World Con-servation Monitoring Centre 2010). Because the UnitedStates is the world’s largest importer of stony corals(Jones 2008) and numerous authors have noted dis-crepancies between import and export data in CITES(Bruckner 2001; Blundell & Mascia 2005; Jones 2008;Phelps et al. 2010), we limited our queries to importsof corals reported by the United States to CITES forall countries. To compare the long-term trends in thecommercial curio and live trade of stony corals we ana-lyzed “purpose code” trade data for trends in both “live”and raw or worked corals. We limited the possibilityof taxonomic misidentification by sorting all records togenus level and only analyzed the aquarium corals in thereports that listed “live” items and not kilograms. Livecorals traded in kilograms are likely to be biologicallyactive “live rock,” and not coral species of interest to thehobbyists. For example, the more than 300,000 kg of“live” Acropora exported from Tonga in 2003 is almostcertainly a live rock product sold under the terms “Tongabranch” or “shelf rock.” However, it is not live Acropora,it is likely dead, encrusted fragments of branching coralskeleton. The CITES data were used to designate coralsby common trade designations (small polyp, SPS, or largepolyp, LPS), life history traits (free-living or stationary)and method of production (wild or cultured) as indicatedby CITES source codes. In an effort to understand howretail price was related to the volume traded, price datawere gathered for all genera imported into the UnitedStates by collection price data off the internet available onretailer web pages as well as eBay. Listing on eBay was ofspecific interest because of the number of rare or uniquecorals being offered for sale. Retail prices (price per indi-vidual) were analyzed against trade volume, life historytraits (free, fixed) and trade designations (SPS, LPS) andvariation (more than 10%) from mean retail prices werefurther scrutinized for likely causes for this deviation.
Results and discussion
Trade
The total number of stony corals imported into the UnitedStates from the Coral Triangle and South Pacific grew at ayearly rate of 8.75% from 1990 until the mid-2000s. Af-ter a brief level period it dramatically declined by 8.98%annually (Figure 2). During this period, the proportion ofcorals originating from the Coral Triangle decreased from>90% in the 1990s to a low of 65% in 2010 as Australiaexpanded its exports. The life history traits (free, fixed)and trade designations (SPS, LPS) of coral species im-ported into the United States can be combined into three
A.L. Rhyne et al. Trade of aquarium and curio corals
Figure 2 Number (individual items unless otherwise indicated) of corals
imported into the United States over the past 21 years by trade type (top)
for live species grouping (middle) and by% composition (bottom). LPS and
SPS are trade terms for Large Polyp Stony corals and Small Polyp Stony
corals. LPS species are grouped into Fixed, those species that attached
to substrata or Free those species that are free living and not attached
to the substrata. Raw and worked (curio trade) corals (top) are shown in
both kilograms and pieces. Note the large increase in kilograms imported
in 2003 is a result of live rock (Tonga Branch Rock) imports mislabeled as
raw Acropora sp. from Tonga.
groups (Figure 2), each exhibiting a different historicaltrend. The percent of SPS-fixed corals in the trade tracksthe total import numbers, increasing from <10% in 1992up to 38% in 2006, then decreasing to 27% in 2009. TheLPS-fixed corals trend in the opposite direction, decreas-ing between 1992 (>50% of the trade) and 2006 (34%)before rising again to 43% in 2009. The percent of LPS-free corals in the trade decreased between 1992 and 2009beginning at just over 38% and ending at just under 30%of the trade (Figure 2).
This pattern is repeated in the annualized importrecords of the top six species of stony corals (Figure 3).Acropora spp. imports decline sharply post 2006 while the
Figure 3 Top six genera of stony corals imported as “live,” in individual
units, for trade into the United States over the past 21 years.
remaining five species (all SPS) peak earlier and decreaseslightly if at all. The increase in the number of speciesimported is a result of the switch in the marine aquariumhobby to the keeping of “mini-reef” ecosystems (Rhyneet al. 2009). This trend in the hobby also explains thechange in the proportion of the different types (positivetrend of SPS and negative of LPS), as SPS are more desir-able for the smaller mini-reef aquariums. The dramaticdecrease post-2006 was likely a result of two factors. Thefirst was the economic downturn (Mittelman 2009), inwhich spending on “luxury items” was curtailed. Prob-ably more important, however, was a change in coralsourcing. While the majority of corals are collected fromthe wild, there is a small but growing fraction of coralsfrom aquaculture production (Figure 4). Nearly all-wildcorals imported into the United States for the aquariumtrade originate from Pacific sources, with a majorityoriginating from the Coral Triangle, although Fiji andAustralia are shipping greater proportions of the totalamount. Currently, only a small number of coral generacan be commercially produced in aquaculture with amajority belonging to the genus Acropora (Figure 4b). Thesignificant decline in Acropora spp. imports to the UnitedStates (Figures 3 and 4b) is a result of the switch inproduction from wild capture to aquaculture. Hidden inthis decline is a growing importance of ex situ productionthrough fragmentation (“fragging”), which has beensuccessfully used for commercial production of SPS andsome branching LPS corals. Much of this type of pro-duction can occur within the United States and importrecords do not account for domestic production, whichbegan in the early 1990s (Perrin 1993). Currently, thestatistical tracking of coral production inside the UnitedStates is lacking. Thus, the U.S. domestic production
Trade of aquarium and curio corals A.L. Rhyne et al.
Figure 4 (Top) Total number of individual corals imported into the United
States. (Bottom)Acropora sp. imported into the United States. White bars
are fromwild harvests, while black bars indicate those corals from captive
culture (CITES source codes F, R, C).
of SPS corals is a likely factor in causing the negativetrend in both the percent imports of SPS-fixed species, aswell as the total number of corals imported. Increasingaquaculture production also occurs in source nations. Forexample, 26% of Acropora imported into to the UnitedStates from Indonesia in 2009 were listed under CITEScodes (F-farm, C-captive bred, and R-ranch) indicatingaquaculture production.
Aquaculture will likely continue to gain traction withthe vast majority of SPS corals being aquacultured withinthe next decade. Not all species lend themselves to cul-ture, however. Large polyp species of corals in the ses-sile genera Catalaphyllia, Nemenzophyllia and all free livingLPS corals are more challenging to produce and thereforewild production is likely to dictate supply for the timebeing. Free living species, which can be fragmented com-mercially, e.g., Fungia spp. are difficult to certify as aqua-cultured according to existing standards (Pasaribu 2008)and cultured species may be imported under existing wildharvest quotas.
% Australian
Figure 5 (Top) Relationship of price and volume (total number imported)
for corals imported into the United States. (Bottom) Relationship (r2 =0.55) of mean price and composition of coral imported from Australia.
Markets
Retail prices of all corals averaged US$56.29 per pieceranging from US$5.00 to US$499.99. No relationshipwas observed (y = –9E−05x + 57.56, r2 < 0.01) betweenvolume imported and average price (Figure 5 top). How-ever, SPS-fixed corals were more likely to be devaluedthan the two LPS designations, as the residuals from theabove mentioned relationship for the SPS corals weresignificantly less than 0, and lower than the residuals forthe LPS corals (Figure 6). The Australian corals had amajor influence on this relationship as the more preva-lent these corals became, the greater the price (Figure 5bottom). The higher-priced corals are sold with keywords of “rare,” “limited edition,” “unique” or sold underproducer’s name or strain name (e.g., Green Warpaint
A.L. Rhyne et al. Trade of aquarium and curio corals
Figure 6 The average price range (US$) and the average residual from
the price-volume (total number traded) relationship (Figure 4 top) for the
three different coral categories.
Scolymia) which appears to have increased their meanprice due to limited number of highly priced individuals.Therefore, prices appeared more dependent on perceivedmarket abundance and not the actual supply as indicatedfrom CITES records. While true abundance will affectprice (Courchamp et al. 2006), here it is postulated thatperceived rarity will also affect price, as often unusualcolors command greater prices than common colors. Thisrarity price premium will also muddle a comparison ofthe cost of wild and aquacultured species. Corals thatare sold as “aquacultured” are often much smaller thanwild corals with many domestic producers selling “frags”or small cuttings of corals whereas wild corals are oftensold as “large” “x-large” or “show” sizes. Currently manycultured corals are imported as wild product, since it issimpler to identify aquaculture products as wild than itis to provide all of the appropriate documentation of theaquacultured product (D. Palmer, personal communica-tion). These confounding variables will make it difficultto accurately determine the resource economics of thecoral trade.
Sustainability considerations
While these data are used to assess trade chains and thevalue of the home hobby industry, they can also be usedto highlight where conservation programs can focus theirattention for maximum impact. The surge of aquacultureamongst SPS corals indicates that these fast growingcorals would be ideal candidates for localized habitatrestoration programs (Edwards & Gomez 2007), oreven curio products. Typically, aquaculture concentratesproduction near central distribution gateways, and not inremote villages. Efforts need to be made to understandthe impact of this centralized production on small ruralcommunities in exporting countries, and to promote thesmall communities that have been the historically impor-
tant harvest locales. This localized production along withrestocking would help to maintain coral reef ecosystemservices. Ornamental fishery products from many Pacificisland countries are a major source of export revenue,and are important economic drivers, but it is importantto continue the financial benefits of the trade to the smallcollector communities. Fijian communities that harvestcorals for the aquarium trade have a higher medianincome from this harvest when compared to traditionalfishery products (Wabnitz et al. 2003; Lovell & Whippy-Morris 2009). In situ aquaculture production or ranchingis a means to match the various needs for ecological, eco-nomic and societal benefits. It is critical to have economicbenefits of ornamental species production (fishery oraquaculture) remain in the original source communities(Tlusty 2002): this should be a priority for a responsibleglobal trade, and will align the aquarium fishery with theConvention on Biological Diversity (Secretariat of theConvention on Biological Diversity 2005).
The CITES system for overseeing the live coral trade,while imperfect as currently implemented, is a good oneand it accomplishes a majority of the objectives for traderegulation (Phelps et al. 2010). Indonesia has respondedto CITES and calls for a more sustainable coral tradeby developing meaningful mariculture standards withtraceability (Pasaribu 2008). However, in a dramaticallyfast moving industry, monitoring trends in the tradeis not a simple matter of assessing volumes over time.For example, quotas that were derived from the curiotrade data in which product is measured in tonnageand focused on fast growing species is inappropriate forslower growing aquarium species that are sold by thepiece or “individual” (Jones 2011). Furthermore, price issusceptible to product rarity and perceived supply limita-tions. These “rare” corals do not appear in trade data, asthey are unique color morphs untraceable through theCITES or any other governmental monitoring system.The additional tracking of the value of imports will alsobe important to determine if decreasing trends reflectsupply difficulties, which could indicate significant pres-sure on populations from the fishery. If imports decrease,and price remains stable or declines, then demand islikely being met by domestic production. However, ifimports decline, and the price increases, then supply isnot meeting the demand (Courchamp et al. 2006).
Conclusion
In summary, the aquarium and curio trade for corals isassociated with positive and negative impacts to ecosys-tems and societies. It is a rapidly evolving trade, andbecause of this, needs to be adaptively managed in a way
Trade of aquarium and curio corals A.L. Rhyne et al.
to support conservation efforts and maximize the benefitof the trade. The increasing importance of aquaculturewill need to be integrated into both CITES rules andalso sourcing decisions for retailers within the trade.Valuing in situ production of corals will help maintainhistorically critical locales and communities, which willin return maintain value to extant reef ecosystems. Theaquarium trade needs to be a fully vested partner in suchmarket-driven coral reef conservation initiatives.
Future monitoring must accurately catalogue wild andaquacultured corals, their color morphs, and their value.It will also be important to address (1) the relative risksand benefits of ex situ or concentrated in situ produc-tion of corals for the aquarium trade; (2) how signifi-cant production increases will affect total revenue; and(3) whether there can be a return to curio corals throughaquacultured eco- or fair-trade labeled products. Answersto these questions will be critical to evaluate whethercoral production will continue to be part of a long-termsustainable economic solution especially for remote is-land communities.
Acknowledgments
The data and presentation of these data were preparedfor the 2011 United States Department of Commerce,National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration CoralMariculture Workshop held in Bali, Indonesia. Rhyneis supported by a National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration (NOAA) Coral Reef Conservation Pro-gram Grant NA09NMF4000385. The authors are gratefulto Ana Malone Oliver and Elizabeth Futoma, RogerWilliams University, for help in capturing the market andCITES data. Laura Dee, University of California at SantaBarbara, provided helpful comments on the marketdata. Kerri Warren, Roger Williams University, andtwo anonymous reviewers provide helpful commentson a previous draft of this manuscript. This paper is acontribution from the “Blueing the Aquarium Trade” ini-tiative of the New England Aquarium and ConservationInternational.
References
Bentley N. (1998) An overview of the exploitation, trade and
management of corals in Indonesia. TRAFFIC Bull. 17,
67–78.
Blundell A. & Mascia M. (2005) Discrepancies in reported
levels of international wildlife trade. Conserv. Biol. 19,
2020–2025.
Bruckner A. (2000) New threat to coral reefs: trade in coral
organisms. Issues Sci. Technol. Fall, 17, 1–6.
Bruckner A.W. (2001) Tracking the trade in ornamental coral
reef organisms: the importance of CITES and its limitations.
Aquar. Sci. Conserv. 3, 79–94.
Burke L., Reytar K., Spalding M. & Perry A. (2011) Reefs at risk
revisited. World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C.;
International Center for Living Aquatic Resource
Management, Manila; and United Nations Environment
Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre,
Cambridge.
Carpenter K.E., Abrar M., Aeby G. et al. (2008) One-third of
reef-building corals face elevated extinction risk from
climate change and local impacts. Science 321, 560–563.
Castello L. & Stewart D.J. (2010) Assessing CITES
non-detriment findings procedures for Arapaima in Brazil.
J. Appl. Ichthyol. 26, 49–56.
Courchamp F., Angulo E., Rivalan P. et al. (2006) Rarity value
and species extinction: the anthropogenic Allee effect. PLoS
Biol. 4, e415.
Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service. (2007)
Revision of regulations implementing the convention on
international trade in endangered species of Wild Fauna
and Flora (CITES). Code of Federal Regulation, title 50,
parts 10, 13, 17, and 23.
Edwards A. & Gomez A. (2007) Reef restoration concepts and
guidelines: Making sensible management choices in the face of
uncertainty. Coral Reef Targeted Research & Capacity
building for Management Programme, St. Lucia, Australia.
Green E. (2003) International trade in marine aquarium
species: using the global marine aquarium database. Pages
29–48 in J.C. Cato, C. Brown, editors. Marine ornamental
