Thermal-stress events have changed the structure, biodiversity, and functioning of coral reefs. But how these disturbances affect the dynamics of individual coral colonies remains unclear. By tracking the fate of 1069 individual Acropora and massive Porites coral colonies for up to 5 years, spanning three bleaching events, we reveal striking genus-level differences in their demographic response to bleaching (mortality, growth, and recruitment). Although Acropora colonies were locally extirpated, substantial local recruitment and fast growth revealed a marked capacity for apparent recovery. By contrast, almost all massive Porites colonies survived and the majority grew in area; yet no new colonies were detected over the 5 years. Our results highlight contrasting dynamics of boom-and-bust vs. protracted declines in two major coral groups. These dangerous demographics emphasise the need for caution when documenting the susceptibility and perceived resistance or recovery of corals to disturbances.

The deep reef refuge hypothesis (DRRH) predicts that deep coral reefs may act as refuges against major disturbances affecting shallow reefs, but to date, a few studies have explicitly examined its validity at the community level. We sampled 19 Brazilian reefs distributed between 3 and 61 m depth and tested five DRRH predictions regarding species diversity, distribution, and functional profile of communities. The first prediction was that deep reefs (>30 m depth) should host greater gamma diversity to be able to export species to shallow reefs (<30 m). Second, depth‐generalist species should dominate the shallow reefs; otherwise, local extirpation in shallow areas could not be reverted by the deep reefs. Third, alpha diversity should be greater in deep reefs due to reduced anthropogenic pressure in deeper areas. Fourth, beta diversity should be smaller among shallow than deep reefs due to the human‐induced spread of a few disturbance‐adapted species near sea surface. Finally, the functional composition of shallow reefs should be a subset from that of deep reefs to allow functional recovering of shallower areas. Contrary to expectations, coral communities presented twice more gamma diversity in shallow than deep reefs (13 vs. seven effective species) and only three out of 17 species occurred along the entire gradient. Additionally, the alpha diversity of rare, typical, and dominant species was similar between shallow and deep reefs, and the beta diversity of rare and typical species was about 50% greater in shallow than deep reefs. Supporting the DRRH, coral communities of both reefs were dominated by reef‐building, zooxanthellated, gonochoric corals with brooding or broadcast reproductive mode (Siderastrea stellata and Montastraea cavernosa). However, soft corals were observed only in shallow reefs and azooxanthellated corals were recorded only in deep reefs. These findings revealed a limited potential of deep reefs to serve as refuges for Southwestern Atlantic coral communities, though they may work for two depth‐generalist dominant species. We strongly recommend preventing human disturbances at any depth and including both shallow and deep reefs in regional conservation actions.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

1. Carbonate budgets dynamically balance production and loss of calcium carbonate (CaCO 3 ) on coral reefs. To sustain or expand the coral reef framework, CaCO 3 production by calcifying organisms must be higher than erosion. However, global climate change has been negatively impacting carbonate production, with bleaching events causing widespread coral mortality. Although bleaching and coral mortality are well documented, the fate of coral colonies after their death, including their erosion rates, are still poorly known.2. We followed the fate of 143 recently dead individual coral colonies with complex growth forms (arborescent, caespitose, corymbose, digitate and tabular), whose mortality was triggered by two consecutive bleaching events. These colonies, spread over 16 km 2 of the Lizard Island reef complex, were tracked for up to 5 years, allowing detailed examination of erosion rates and post-mortality structural persistence. We also tested how variables that are commonly used in coral reef erosion studies relate to spatial and temporal variability in the erosion rates of dead coral colonies.3. We revealed rapid erosion of dead coral colonies, with an average of 79.7% of dead colonies completely disintegrating within 60 months. The predicted halflife of a dead coral colony was 40 months, with limited variation among wave exposure levels. Remarkably, we found no effect of estimated parrotfish bioerosion, wave exposure, nor coral growth form, on observed erosion rates. 4. Our results suggest that our understanding of the erosion of dead corals may be more limited than previously thought. The rapid loss of coral colonies on our study sites calls for a re-evaluation of the role of corals with complex growth forms in reef growth and of parrotfishes in reef erosion.

No abstract

No abstract