Talk:Coral sand

[Untitled]

Most of this is either untrue, imprecise, or not very interesting. I'll wait to see if you can make this into an article. Otherwise, it should be merged with sand - Marshman 18:36, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What exactly is untrue? I just pulled it all in from university websites on the subject ... Ungtss 19:37, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Does it really strike you as worth an article separate from sand at this point? I will edit out the errors. - Marshman

Well, maybe you're right. but there are unique characteristics and environmental issues involved ... maybe we could develop those? Ungtss 20:09, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've paired it down to the essential facts as given. I'm sure you are right that more can be said. If you want to expand it, I won't merge it as long as it seems to be going somewhere. - Marshman

Thanks for your help. I'll see if i can make this into an article:). Ungtss 20:15, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Um, it didn't say that there were no currents or waves. it said it protected the beach, which it does, to some extent. I read this several places, including geology class. Where did i go wrong? Ungtss 02:46, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I tried to edit that second paragraph to bring it into accuracy, but just about none of it was true. Beaches do not form where there are no waves or currents, or are very small where protected by an offshore reef. Any large build up of sand on the shore comes from currents and large waves bringing sand to that shore. Thus, just the opposite of what you wrote is true. Coral reefs do contribute material to the beach, but that is said in the first paragraph. I know of no instance where damage or loss of vigor of a coral reef has caused a problem with beach nourishment. - Marshman 02:49, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My bad:). you obviously know your stuff, so i'll go with your judgment instead of the books:). goes to show you you can't trust what you read:). i'll revert:). Ungtss 02:50, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is true that a coral reef protects a shore from erosion, but that is different than protecting the beach. In fact, beaches behind coral reefs are typically rather puny (low in profile), unless the reef is not fully developed (i.e., offers less protection from waves). - I'd want to see what book you are referring to, but it coulds be just a misinterpretation of terminology Marshman 02:49, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

well, here's an article[1] that says basically the same stuff. are they stretching the truth to make an environmental point, or am i misunderstanding them? Ungtss 02:58, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think it is just that beaches are far more complex formations than most people realize. Obviously a coral bottom breaks the force of in-coming waves, and affects their angle of attack. Thus, a shore without a coral reef might well have no beach at all as all the sand-sized particles are washed away by the heavy surf. At some point, the reef will encourage beach formation by its upward growth changing the bottom profile (even this is an over-simplification because beaches obviously form on shores with no coral bottom offshore) and its rich biota contributing sand particles. As the reef provides more and more protection, it reduces the size of the waves reaching the shore to those too small to build much of a beach. The reef can also redirect sand movements away from the shore, reducing sand nourishment. In most cases, you have to look at a beach as simply an extension inward of an offshore sand body, and go from there. Beaches are seldom just a pile of sand at the shoreline. I will read the arrticle and let you know what I think (after I feed my dogs) - Marshman 03:03, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, the authors are well known in the field of coral biology, but the article is a little short of factual information. I'll investigate further with some coral biologists I know, but the parts about the beach are just window dressing and to my m ind plain misleading as trhe "technology" described" only indirectly relates to beaches. Also, on low coral islands, the entire land is a sort of beach in most cases, so that may be where they are really meaning to go, without being too technical in ther description. Now my dogs must eat!- Marshman 03:11, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)