Search for: All records

Mangrove ecosystems in the Caribbean are frequently exposed to hurricanes, leading to structural and regenerative change that elicit calls for recovery action. For those mangroves unaffected by human modifications, recovery can occur naturally. Indeed, observable natural recovery after hurricanes is the genesis of the “disturbance adaptation” classification for mangroves; while structural legacies exist, unaltered stands often regenerate and persist. However, among the >7,000 islands, islets, and cays that make up the Caribbean archipelago, coastal alterations to support development affect mechanisms for regeneration, sediment distribution, tidal water conveyance, and intertidal mangrove transgression, imposing sometimes insurmountable barriers to natural post-hurricane recovery. We use a case study approach to suggest that actions to facilitate recovery of mangroves on Caribbean islands (and similar settings globally) may be more effective when focusing on ameliorating preexisting anthropogenic stressors. Actions to clean debris, collect mangrove propagules, and plant seedlings are noble endeavors, but can be costly and fall short of achieving recovery goals in isolation without careful consideration of pre-hurricane stress. We update a procedural framework that considers six steps to implementing “Ecological Mangrove Restoration” (EMR), and we apply them specifically to hurricane recovery. If followed, EMR may expedite actions by suggesting immediate damage assessment focused on hydrogeomorphic mangrove type, hydrology, and previous anthropogenic (or natural) influence. Application of EMR may help to improve mangrove recovery success following catastrophic storms, and reduce guesswork, delays, and monetary inefficiencies. Key words: ecological mangrove restoration, EMR, genetic considerations, hydrogeomorphic type, regeneration, resiliency bottlenecks, tropical cyclones 

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 been 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. 

Anthropogenic environmental change has increased coral reef disturbance regimes in recent decades, altering the structure and function of many coral reefs globally. In this study, we used coral community survey data collected from 1996 to 2015 to evaluate reef‐scale coral calcification capacity (CCC) dynamics with respect to recorded pulse disturbances for 121 reef sites in the Main Hawaiian Islands and Mo'orea (French Polynesia) in the Pacific and the Florida Keys Reef Tract and St. John (U.S. Virgin Islands) in the western Atlantic. CCC remained relatively high in the Main Hawaiian Islands in the absence of recorded widespread disturbances; declined and subsequently recovered in Mo'orea following a crown‐of‐thorns sea star outbreak, coral bleaching, and major cyclone; decreased and remained low following coral bleaching in the Florida Keys Reef Tract; and decreased following coral bleaching and disease in St. John. Individual coral taxa have variable calcification rates and susceptibility to disturbances because of their differing life‐history strategies. As a result, temporal changes in CCC in this study were driven by shifts in both overall coral cover and coral community composition. Analysis of our results considering coral life‐history strategies showed that weedy corals generally increased their contributions to CCC over time while the contribution of competitive corals decreased. Shifts in contributions by stress‐tolerant and generalist corals to CCC were more variable across regions. The increasing frequency and intensity of disturbances under 21st century global change therefore has the potential to drive lower and more variable CCC because of the increasing dominance of weedy and some stress‐tolerant corals.