Bacterial communities associated with corals out-planted on the Great Barrier Reef are inherently dynamic over space and time

Strudwick, Paige; Seymour, Justin R.; Camp, Emma F.; Roper, Christine; Edmondson, John; Howlett, Lorna; Suggett, David J.

doi:10.1007/s00227-023-04235-y

Cited by 6 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 87 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For both experiments, treatment (e.g., reef, nursery 1, and nursery 2) was not identified as a confounding factor for the PERMANOVA results. Changes in coral-associated bacterial communities after transfer from native reef to coral nurseries observed in this study are consistent with previous observations for A. millepora during nursery propagation on the GBR (Strudwick et al, 2022) and are typical of this coral genus when transported between distinct environments (Haydon et al, 2021;Strudwick et al, 2023;Ziegler et al, 2019).…”

Section: Impact Of Tie-materials On Coral-associated Bacterial Commun...supporting

confidence: 92%

“…Coral fragments were harvested from donor colonies of Acropora millepora and secured to nursery frames via three different attachment materials (Figure S2). The first experiment was conducted from August 2020-February 2021 at site 'Blue Lagoon', Opal Reef, which is subject to tidal currents due to close proximity to a deep-water channel (see Howlett et al, 2021;Suggett et al, 2019), where corals have previously been demonstrated to achieve good recovery from bleaching and storm damage (Edmondson pers. obs).…”

Section: Sampling Location and Experimental Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Experiments were conducted at coral nursery sites 'Blue Lagoon' and 'Mojo' located at Opal Reef (16 12 0 18 00 S 145 53 0 54 00 E), which is a 24.7 km 2 reef situated on the northern Great Barrier Reef (GBR) (detailed in Howlett et al, 2021;Suggett et al, 2019). All nursery sites at Opal Reef consist of multiple floating frames located at depths of 5-6 m on sand immediately adjacent to the reef (detailed in Howlett et al, 2021) (Figure S1).…”

Section: Sampling Location and Experimental Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Impacts of plastic‐free materials on coral‐associated bacterial communities during reef restoration

Strudwick,

Camp,

Seymour

et al. 2024

Environ Microbiol Rep

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Coral propagation and out‐planting based restoration approaches are increasingly being applied to assist natural recovery of coral reefs. However, many restoration methods rely on plastic zip‐ties to secure coral material which is potentially problematic for the marine environment. Plastic‐free biodegradable alternatives may however pose unique risks to coral‐associated bacterial communities integral to coral health. Therefore, to identify whether biodegradable materials differentially impact coral‐associated bacterial communities we examined Acropora millepora coral‐associated bacterial communities during propagation in two experiments on the Great Barrier Reef. Coral fragments were secured to coral nurseries with conventional plastic, metal, or biodegradable (polyester and polycaprolactone) ties. Tie failure and coral‐associated bacterial communities were then characterized over six months. Minimal coral mortality was observed (3.6%–8%) and all ties had low failure rates (0%–4.2%) except for biodegradable polyester ties (29.2% failure). No differences were observed between coral‐associated bacterial communities of fragments secured with different ties, and no proliferation of putatively pathogenic bacteria was recorded. Overall, our findings suggest that reducing reliance on conventional plastic is feasible through transitions to biodegradable materials, without any notable impacts on coral‐associated bacterial communities. However, we caution the need to examine more coral taxa of different morphologies and new plastic‐free materials prior to application.

show abstract

Section: Impact Of Tie-materials On Coral-associated Bacterial Commun...supporting

confidence: 92%

Section: Sampling Location and Experimental Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Sampling Location and Experimental Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Impacts of plastic‐free materials on coral‐associated bacterial communities during reef restoration

Strudwick,

Camp,

Seymour

et al. 2024

Environ Microbiol Rep

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The use of dominant symbiotic bacteria (i.e., Endozoicomonas sp.) may represent a promising strategy for a faster and perhaps more stable enrichment 103 ; however, without additional inoculations, their retention may be ultimately subject to environmental changes and other variables that can influence the coral-associated microbiome 104 – 107 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Probiotics reshape the coral microbiome in situ without detectable off-target effects in the surrounding environment

Delgadillo-Ordoñez,

Garcias-Bonet,

Raimundo

et al. 2024

Commun Biol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Beneficial microorganisms for corals (BMCs), or probiotics, can enhance coral resilience against stressors in laboratory trials. However, the ability of probiotics to restructure the coral microbiome in situ is yet to be determined. As a first step to elucidate this, we inoculated putative probiotic bacteria (pBMCs) on healthy colonies of Pocillopora verrucosa in situ in the Red Sea, three times per week, during 3 months. pBMCs significantly influenced the coral microbiome, while bacteria of the surrounding seawater and sediment remained unchanged. The inoculated genera Halomonas, Pseudoalteromonas, and Bacillus were significantly enriched in probiotic-treated corals. Furthermore, the probiotic treatment also correlated with an increase in other beneficial groups (e.g., Ruegeria and Limosilactobacillus), and a decrease in potential coral pathogens, such as Vibrio. As all corals (treated and non-treated) remained healthy throughout the experiment, we could not track health improvements or protection against stress. Our data indicate that healthy, and therefore stable, coral microbiomes can be restructured in situ, although repeated and continuous inoculations may be required in these cases. Further, our study provides supporting evidence that, at the studied scale, pBMCs have no detectable off-target effects on the surrounding microbiomes of seawater and sediment near inoculated corals.

show abstract

“…Survivorship of Planted CoralsAttachment and survival of coral fragments planted with Coralclip ® have been evaluated at various CNP sites on an ad hoc basis since 2019, using either (1) a rapid roving survey technique to capture Coralclip ® effectiveness of diffusely planted corals across a large area and sample size (as perSuggett et al 2020), or (2) marked fate-tracked plots to evaluate species and site-specific survivorship(Howlett et al 2022;Strudwick et al 2023). These prior fate-tracking assessments yielded coral outplant survivorship ranging 31.8-95.8% after 6-12 months (Table…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Cost‐effectiveness of tourism‐led coral planting at scale on the northern Great Barrier Reef

Scott,

Edmondson,

Camp

et al. 2024

Restoration Ecology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Stakeholder‐led coral reef restoration efforts, aimed at locally retaining or rebuilding coral populations, have rapidly grown over the last two decades. However, the cost‐effectiveness—and in turn viability—of coral restoration projects remains rarely reported. We therefore evaluated coral planting (often termed “outplanting”) cost‐effectiveness across the first 3.5 years of the Coral Nurture Program (CNP), a coral restoration approach integrated within tourism operations on Australia's Great Barrier Reef. CNP operator activity reporting forms (63,632 corals planted, 5 tourism operators, and 23 reef sites) were used to opportunistically calculate coral planting costs (PC; US$ coral−1 trip−1) for “routine” planting versus when additional stewardship activities—that regulate planting effectiveness—were undertaken (e.g., nursery maintenance). Mean PC (±standard error) was US$2.34 ± 0.20 coral−1 trip−1 (ranging US$0.78–6.03, 5th–95th percentile), but increased 2‐ to ‐6‐fold on trips where nursery propagation, site maintenance, or staff training was conducted to support planting efforts. The “realized” cost (PCR) of establishing coral biomass was subsequently determined by evaluating survivorship of planted corals across space (9 sites, single survey timepoint, n = 4,723 corals up to 3 years old) or over time (2 sites, over 9–12 months, n = 600 corals), resulting in costs increasing from PC to PCR by 25–71%. We demonstrate how integration of practices into tourism operations creates potential for cost‐effective coral planting at “high‐value” tourism reef sites, and discuss important steps for improving cost‐accounting in stakeholder‐led restoration programs that may be similarly positioned to routinely determine their cost‐effectiveness.

show abstract

Bacterial communities associated with corals out-planted on the Great Barrier Reef are inherently dynamic over space and time

Cited by 6 publications

References 87 publications

Impacts of plastic‐free materials on coral‐associated bacterial communities during reef restoration

Impacts of plastic‐free materials on coral‐associated bacterial communities during reef restoration

Probiotics reshape the coral microbiome in situ without detectable off-target effects in the surrounding environment

Cost‐effectiveness of tourism‐led coral planting at scale on the northern Great Barrier Reef

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About