Thermally induced bleaching has caused a global decline in corals and the frequency of such bleaching events will increase. Thermal bleaching severely disrupts the trophic behaviour of the coral holobiont, reducing the photosynthetically derived energy available to the coral host. In the short term this reduction in energy transfer from endosymbiotic algae results in an energy deficit for the coral host. If the bleaching event is short-lived then the coral may survive this energy deficit by depleting its lipid reserves, or by increasing heterotrophic energy acquisition. We show for the first time that the coral animal is capable of increasing the amount of heterotrophic carbon incorporated into its tissues for almost a year following bleaching. This prolonged heterotrophic compensation could be a sign of resilience or prolonged stress. If the heterotrophic compensation is in fact an acclimatization response, then this physiological response could act as a buffer from future bleaching by providing sufficient heterotrophic energy to compensate for photoautotrophic energy losses during bleaching, and potentially minimizing the effect of subsequent elevated temperature stresses. However, if the elevated incorporation of zooplankton is a sign that the effects of bleaching continue to be stressful on the holobiont, even after 11 months of recovery, then this physiological response would indicate that complete coral recovery requires more than 11 months to achieve. If coral bleaching becomes an annual global phenomenon by mid-century, then present temporal refugia will not be sufficient to allow coral colonies to recover between bleaching events and coral reefs will become increasingly less resilient to future climate change. If, however, increasing their sequestration of zooplankton-derived nutrition into their tissues over prolonged periods of time is a compensating mechanism, the impacts of annual bleaching may be reduced. Thus, some coral species may be better equipped to face repeated bleaching stress than previously thought.

The economic and environmental viability of dedicated terrestrial energy crops is in doubt. The production of large scale biomass (macroalgae) for biofuels in the marine environment was first tested in the late 1960’s. The culture attempts failed due to the engineering challenges of farming offshore. However the energy conversion via anaerobic digestion was successful as the biochemical composition of macroalgae makes it an ideal feedstock. The technology for the mass production of macroalgae has developed principally in China and Asia over the last 50 years to such a degree that it is now the single largest product of aquaculture. There has also been significant technology transfer and macroalgal cultivation is now well tried and tested in Europe and America. The inherent advantage of production of biofuel feedstock in the marine environment is that it does not compete with food production for land or fresh water. Here we revisit the idea of the large scale cultivation of macroalgae at sea for subsequent anaerobic digestion to produce biogas as a source of renewable energy, using a European case study as an example.

To meet the Convention on Biological Diversity's Aichi Target 11 on marine biodiversity protection and Aichi Target 6 on sustainable fisheries by 2020, as well as the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 2 on food security and SDG 14 on oceans by 2030, there is an urgent need to rethink how best to reconcile nature conservation and sustainable development. This paper argues for effective governance to support processes that apply principles of sustainable development and an ecosystem approach to decide about economic activities at sea such as aquaculture. It describes opportunities, benefits and synergies between aquaculture and MPAs as a basis for wider debate. The scope is not a comprehensive analysis of aquaculture and MPAs, but rather to present examples of positive interactions between aquaculture activities and MPAs. The unintended negative consequences are also discussed to present balanced arguments. This work draws from four workshops held in 2015 and 2016 and used to collect information from about 100 experts representing various sectors and perspectives. It is recognized that aquaculture is an important activity in terms of sustainable development. It can play a role in providing food security, poverty alleviation and economic resilience, in particular for MPA local communities, and contribute to wild stock enhancement, as an alternative to overfishing and for providing services to the ecosystem. This study showed that there is a need from both aquaculture and MPA sides for clarity of objectives and willingness for open and extensive dialogue. The paper concludes by describing a number of tools and methods for supporting greater synergies between aquaculture and MPAs. The results from this work have already helped to build a common understanding between conservation and aquaculture and initiate a rapprochement for increasing synergies.