Coral bleaching is the single largest global threat to coral reefs worldwide. Integrating the diverse body of work on coral bleaching is critical to understanding and combating this global problem. Yet investigating the drivers, patterns, and processes of coral bleaching poses a major challenge. A recent review of published experiments revealed a wide range of experimental variables used across studies. Such a wide range of approaches enhances discovery, but without full transparency in the experimental and analytical methods used, can also make comparisons among studies challenging. To increase comparability but not stifle innovation, we propose a common framework for coral bleaching experiments that includes consideration of coral provenance, experimental conditions, and husbandry. For example, reporting the number of genets used, collection site conditions, the experimental temperature offset(s) from the maximum monthly mean (MMM) of the collection site, experimental light conditions, flow, and the feeding regime will greatly facilitate comparability across studies. Similarly, quantifying common response variables of endosymbiont (Symbiodiniaceae) and holobiont phenotypes (i.e., color, chlorophyll, endosymbiont cell density, mortality, and skeletal growth) could further facilitate cross-study comparisons. While no single bleaching experiment can provide the data necessary to determine global coral responses of all corals to current and future ocean warming, linking studies through a common framework as outlined here, would help increase comparability among experiments, facilitate synthetic insights into the causes and underlying mechanisms of coral bleaching, and reveal unique bleaching responses among genets, species, and regions. Such a collaborative framework that fosters transparency in methods used would strengthen comparisons among studies that can help inform coral reef management and facilitate conservation strategies to mitigate coral bleaching worldwide.
Evidence has shown that individually feeding or reduced light can mitigate the negative effects of elevated temperature on coral physiology. We aimed to evaluate if simultaneous low light and feeding would mitigate, minimize, or exacerbate negative effects of elevated temperature on coral physiology and carbon budgets. Pocillopora damicornis, Stylophora pistillata, and Turbinaria reniformis were grown for 28 days under a fully factorial experiment including two seawater temperatures (ambient temperature of 25 °C, elevated temperature of 30 °C), two light levels (high light of 300 μmol photons m−2 s−1, low light of 150 μmol photons m−2 s−1), and either fed (Artemia nauplii) or unfed. Coral physiology was significantly affected by temperature in all species, but the way in which low light and feeding altered their physiological responses was species-specific. All three species photo-acclimated to low light by increasing chlorophyll a. Pocillopora damicornis required feeding to meet metabolic demand irrespective of temperature but was unable to maintain calcification under low light when fed. In T. reniformis, low light mitigated the negative effect of elevated temperature on total lipids, while feeding mitigated the negative effects of elevated temperature on metabolic demand. In S. pistillata, low light compounded the negative effects of elevated temperature on metabolic demand, while feeding minimized this negative effect but was not sufficient to provide 100% metabolic demand. Overall, low light and feeding did not act synergistically, nor additively, to mitigate the negative effects of elevated temperature on P. damicornis, S. pistillata, or T. reniformis. However, feeding alone was critical to the maintenance of metabolic demand at elevated temperature, suggesting that sufficient supply of heterotrophic food sources is likely essential for corals during thermal stress (bleaching) events.
Coral reefs are declining worldwide primarily because of bleaching and subsequent mortality resulting from thermal stress. Currently, extensive efforts to engage in more holistic research and restoration endeavors have considerably expanded the techniques applied to examine coral samples. Despite such advances, coral bleaching and restoration studies are often conducted within a specific disciplinary focus, where specimens are collected, preserved, and archived in ways that are not always conducive to further downstream analyses by specialists in other disciplines. This approach may prevent the full utilization of unexpended specimens, leading to siloed research, duplicative efforts, unnecessary loss of additional corals to research endeavors, and overall increased costs. A recent US National Science Foundation-sponsored workshop set out to consolidate our collective knowledge across the disciplines of Omics, Physiology, and Microscopy and Imaging regarding the methods used for coral sample collection, preservation, and archiving. Here, we highlight knowledge gaps and propose some simple steps for collecting, preserving, and archiving coral-bleaching specimens that can increase the impact of individual coral bleaching and restoration studies, as well as foster additional analyses and future discoveries through collaboration. Rapid freezing of samples in liquid nitrogen or placing at −80 °C to −20 °C is optimal for most Omics and Physiology studies with a few exceptions; however, freezing samples removes the potential for many Microscopy and Imaging-based analyses due to the alteration of tissue integrity during freezing. For Microscopy and Imaging, samples are best stored in aldehydes. The use of sterile gloves and receptacles during collection supports the downstream analysis of host-associated bacterial and viral communities which are particularly germane to disease and restoration efforts. Across all disciplines, the use of aseptic techniques during collection, preservation, and archiving maximizes the research potential of coral specimens and allows for the greatest number of possible downstream analyses.
Under current climate warming predictions, the future of coral reefs is dire. With projected coral reef decline, it is likely that coral specimens for bleaching research will increasingly become a more limited resource in the future. By adopting a holistic approach through increased collaborations, coral bleaching scientists can maximize a specimen’s investigative yield, thus reducing the need to remove more coral material from the reef. Yet to expand a specimen’s utility for additional analytic methods, information on how corals are collected is essential as many methods are variably sensitive to upstream handling and processing. In an effort to identify common practices for coral collection, sacrifice, preservation, and processing in coral bleaching research, we surveyed the literature from the last 6.5 years and created and analyzed the resulting dataset of 171 publications. Since January 2014, at least 21,890 coral specimens were collected for bleaching surveys or bleaching experiments. These specimens spanned 122 species of scleractinian corals where the most frequently sampled were Acropora millepora, Pocillopora damicornis, and Stylophora pistillata. Almost 90% of studies removed fragments from the reef, 6% collected skeletal cores, and 3% collected mucus specimens. The most common methods for sacrificing specimens were snap freezing with liquid nitrogen, chemical preservation (e.g., with ethanol or nucleic acid stabilizing buffer), or airbrushing live fragments. We also characterized 37 distinct methodological pathways from collection to processing of specimens in preparation for a variety of physiological, -omic, microscopy, and imaging analyses. Interestingly, almost half of all studies used only one of six different pathways. These similarities in collection, preservation, and processing methods illustrate that archived coral specimens could be readily shared among researchers for additional analyses. In addition, our review provides a reference for future researchers who are considering which methodological pathway to select to maximize the utility of coral bleaching specimens that they collect.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.