Talk:Davidson Seamount

message: Can anyone decipher "has not been disturbed less"? Unfree (talk) 20:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. ResMar 00:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Disturbed

message: "The expedition documented many rare, previously undiscovered species that exist nowhere else, not even on nearby seamounts, including ancient coral gardens that are vunerable to human activity."  What about ancient coral gardens that aren't vulnerable to human activity?  Or should "that" be replaced by ", which" (non-restrictive)?  The sentence reads as though "among" belongs before "ancient", but perhaps it means that coral gardens were "documented".  But gardens are neither seamounts nor species, of course.  It's hard to figure out how "including" is being used. Unfree (talk) 21:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Vulnerable gardens

message: "These large colonies are extremely fragile to human interaction."  What do interactions among people have to do with the ocean?  (And "fragile to" is new to me.) Unfree (talk) 21:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Any sort of human interaction. Dropping depth charges. Trawling. Not like I can define all of them. Also, what do you mean by "fragile to"? ResMar 00:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Human interaction

message: Does this refer to an attempt to harvest coral for commercial purposes? Unfree (talk) 21:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No. ResMar 00:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: "availability of coral"

message: The "factsheet" reference calls Davidson one of the largest seamounts in the world, but also says it's in the western Pacific!  Considering how few seamounts have been studied, and how small it is, the claim is hard to believe. Unfree (talk) 21:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Small? Davidson Seamount is not small. It's one of the largest, but yes, that claim IS a bit perposterous. I know of one, Detroit Seamount, which is supposedly as big as the island of Hawaii itself. As for reliability, this source is of impecable qualtity because it's work done by the NOAA. As far as I can see it it's a silly mistake on the sheet...ResMar 00:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Largest?

message: "Megafauna" is apparently a slippery term.  How many of these 168 species of huge animals grow to half a ton, or five tons?  And why, if there is such an astonishing abundance of them on the seamount, is there so little discussion of them, and so much of corals? Unfree (talk) 21:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "Megafauna" is in this case used to refer to the corals on the seamount. As far as I know everyone of these megafauna is some ancient coral or other. They grow quite large actually, to around 2.5 meters. That's why I focus on corals; and the only reason I use that yes, slippery term is because the ref uses it, and it's definetly reputable. ResMar 00:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Megafauna

message: 'The ridges constructed run parallel to an ancient spreading center which has since been replaced in its role by the San Andreas Fault system.'
The implication of the above sentence is that the San Andreas fault is a spreading center, which, of course, it is not. 
There are several other vague or inaccurate statements which I'll try to address. RobotBoy66 (talk) 10:59, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spreading Center?