laragarg
How did you draw the correlation between
phytoplankton(phytop) and
crown-of-thorns sea stars(COT)? Since COT gladly eats phytop, apart from coral reefs, if phytop increases, coral reefs should also increase as COT would be more likely to eat COT
(think you meant phytop) instead of preying upon coral reefs.
I want to focus on the phrase at the start of the last sentence of the passage: "It is also possible that"
It is also possible that runoff containing nutrients for phytoplankton has resulted in larger phytoplankton blooms: the crown-of-thorns sea star gladly eats phytoplankton.Why has the naturalist used the word 'also;
1. Is it another cause for decline of coral reefs?
No.
The first mentioned contributing factor is predation on coral by organisms such as the CoT sea star.
Then the mention of something that CoT sea star thrive on doesn't seem to be a separate cause.
2. Then what does the phrase "it is also possible" go with?
The previous sentence.
Human fishing practices have decreased the sea star's predators, such as the harlequin shrimp. It is also possible that runoff containing nutrients for phytoplankton has resulted in larger phytoplankton blooms: the crown-of-thorns sea star gladly eats phytoplankton.In the harlequin shrimp sentence, the naturalist is giving a reason for why CoT sea star population might have increased. When I read the last sentence with this piece in my mind, it becomes more clear that the author is giving another possible reason for the CoT sea star population increase.
And why would the naturalist mention possible reasons for the growth of CoT sea star population?
To support why coral reefs decline could be caused by CoT sea star.
Not a perfect analogy, but I'm thinking:
Say a nice famous cafe opens next to one that wasn't doing well. The whole area would get more footfall. And that could get the older cafe to do better than before, even though there's competition next door now.