skip to main content

This content will become publicly available on February 1, 2023

Title: Evaluating the precariousness of coral recovery when coral and macroalgae are alternative basins of attraction
; ; ;
Award ID(s):
Publication Date:
Journal Name:
Limnology and Oceanography
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. Ocean acidification (OA) is negatively affecting calcification in a wide variety of marine organisms. These effects are acute for many tropical scleractinian corals under short-term experimental conditions, but it is unclear how these effects interact with ecological processes, such as competition for space, to impact coral communities over multiple years. This study sought to test the use of individual-based models (IBMs) as a tool to scale up the effects of OA recorded in short-term studies to community-scale impacts, combining data from field surveys and mesocosm experiments to parameterize an IBM of coral community recovery on the fore reef of Moorea, French Polynesia. Focusing on the dominant coral genera from the fore reef, Pocillopora , Acropora , Montipora and Porites , model efficacy first was evaluated through the comparison of simulated and empirical dynamics from 2010–2016, when the reef was recovering from sequential acute disturbances (a crown-of-thorns seastar outbreak followed by a cyclone) that reduced coral cover to ~0% by 2010. The model then was used to evaluate how the effects of OA (1,100–1,200 µatm pCO 2 ) on coral growth and competition among corals affected recovery rates (as assessed by changes in % cover y −1 ) of each coralmore »population between 2010–2016. The model indicated that recovery rates for the fore reef community was halved by OA over 7 years, with cover increasing at 11% y −1 under ambient conditions and 4.8% y −1 under OA conditions. However, when OA was implemented to affect coral growth and not competition among corals, coral community recovery increased to 7.2% y −1 , highlighting mechanisms other than growth suppression (i.e., competition), through which OA can impact recovery. Our study reveals the potential for IBMs to assess the impacts of OA on coral communities at temporal and spatial scales beyond the capabilities of experimental studies, but this potential will not be realized unless empirical analyses address a wider variety of response variables representing ecological, physiological and functional domains.« less
  2. Scleractinian corals are bathed in a sea of planktonic and particle-associated microorganisms. The metabolic products of corals influence the growth and composition of microorganisms, but interactions between corals and seawater microorganisms are underexplored. We conducted a field-based survey to compare the biomass, diversity, composition, and functional capacity of microorganisms in small-volume seawater samples collected adjacent to five coral species with seawater collected > 1 m away from the reef substrate on the same reefs. Seawater collected close to corals generally harbored copiotrophic-type bacteria and its bacterial and archaeal composition was influenced by coral species as well as the local reef environment. Trends in picoplankton abundances were variable and either increased or decreased away from coral colonies based on coral species and picoplankton functional group. Genes characteristic of surface-attached and potentially virulent microbial lifestyles were enriched in near coral seawater compared to reef seawater. There was a prominent association between the coral Porites astreoides and the coral symbiont Endozoicomonas, suggesting recruitment and/or shedding of these cells into the surrounding seawater. This evidence extends our understanding of potential species-specific and reef site-influenced microbial interactions that occur between corals and microorganisms within this near-coral seawater environment that we propose to call the “coralmore »ecosphere.” Microbial interactions that occur within the coral ecosphere could influence recruitment of coral-associated microorganisms and facilitate the transfer of coral metabolites into the microbial food web, thus fostering reef biogeochemical cycling and a linkage between corals and the water column.« less
  3. For several decades, white plagues (WPDs: WPD-I, II and III) and more recently, stony coral tissue loss disease (SCTLD) have significantly impacted Caribbean corals. These diseases are often difficult to separate in the field as they produce similar gross signs. Here we aimed to compare what we know about WPD and SCTLD in terms of: (1) pathology, (2) etiology, and (3) epizootiology. We reviewed over 114 peer-reviewed publications from 1973 to 2021. Overall, WPD and SCTLD resemble each other macroscopically, mainly due to the rapid tissue loss they produce in their hosts, however, SCTLD has a more concise case definition. Multiple-coalescent lesions are often observed in colonies with SCTLD and rarely in WPD. A unique diagnostic sign of SCTLD is the presence of bleached circular areas when SCTLD lesions are first appearing in the colony. The paucity of histopathologic archives for WPDs for multiple species across geographies makes it impossible to tell if WPD is the same as SCTLD. Both diseases alter the coral microbiome. WPD is controversially regarded as a bacterial infection and more recently a viral infection, whereas for SCTLD the etiology has not been identified, but the putative pathogen, likely to be a virus, has not beenmore »confirmed yet. Most striking differences between WPD and SCTLD have been related to duration and phases of epizootic events and mortality rates. While both diseases may become highly prevalent on reefs, SCTLD seems to be more persistent even throughout years. Both transmit directly (contact) and horizontally (waterborne), but organism-mediated transmission is only proven for WPD-II. Given the differences and similarities between these diseases, more detailed information is needed for a better comparison. Specifically, it is important to focus on: (1) tagging colonies to look at disease progression and tissue mortality rates, (2) tracking the fate of the epizootic event by looking at initial coral species affected, the features of lesions and how they spread over colonies and to a wider range of hosts, (3) persistence across years, and (4) repetitive sampling to look at changes in the microbiome as the disease progresses. Our review shows that WPDs and SCTLD are the major causes of coral tissue loss recorded in the Caribbean.« less