Computerized tomography and skeletal density of coral skeletons

Bosscher, H.

doi:10.1007/bf00302109

Cited by 66 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…At deeper depth, sediment deposition is higher due to attenuated wave energy, potentially increasing the number of tissue lesions. Perry (1998) demonstrated that bioerosion rates in dead coral substrata also increased from 5 to 30 m depth, and suggested that this increase might be due to a depth-dependent decline in calcification rates and skeletal densities (Bosscher 1993). However, other studies did not find any correlation between depth and internal macrobioerosion intensity Londoño-Cruz et al 2003).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Relationship of internal macrobioeroder densities in living massive Porites to turbidity and chlorophyll on the Australian Great Barrier Reef

Grand

Fabricius

2010

Coral Reefs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigates the relationship between the density of internal macrobioeroders in living massive Porites and nutrient status. The study was conducted along turbidity and chlorophyll gradients towards river mouths on 12 reefs in four regions of the inshore Great Barrier Reef. Mean internal macrobioeroder densities doubled from 2 to 8 m depth, and at the 8 m sites, densities increased 4-to 7-fold towards the river mouths in all regions. Densities also increased 1.6-fold for each additional 1 NTU turbidity and 650-fold per 1 lg L -1 additional chlorophyll a. The study shows that the density of macrobioeroder boreholes in living massive Porites is a simple bioindicator measure for changing turbidity and chlorophyll concentrations on the Great Barrier Reef for sites from which direct water quality measurements are unavailable.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Relationship of internal macrobioeroder densities in living massive Porites to turbidity and chlorophyll on the Australian Great Barrier Reef

Grand

Fabricius

2010

Coral Reefs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…What X-ray CT lacks in mobility it makes up for in resolution, with both surface and internal density information being collected, i.e., data collection not possible with other optical-scanning techniques. The surface does not have to be treated or illuminated in any special way, and complex structures that would be spatially occluded with other methods can easily be captured (Bosscher 1993). The most sizable collection of publications on this topic stemmed from work first formally documented by Kaandorp and Kubler (2001), where a Madracis mirabilis coral colony was scanned with a medical X-ray CT to investigate growth patterns.…”

Section: Veal Et Almentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparative study of methods for surface area and three‐dimensional shape measurement of coral skeletons

Veal

Holmes

Núñez

et al. 2010

Limnology & Ocean Methods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The three‐dimensional morphology and surface area of organisms such as reef‐building corals is central to their biology. Consequently, being able to detect and measure this aspect of corals is critical to understanding their interactions with the surrounding environment. This study explores six different methods of three‐dimensional shape and surface area measurements using the range of morphology associated with the Scleractinian corals: Goniopora tenuidens, Acropora intermedia, and Porites cylindrica. Wax dipping; foil wrapping; multi‐station convergent photogrammetry that used the naturally occurring optical texture for conjugate point matching; stereo photogrammetry that used projected light to provide optical texture; a handheld laser scanner that employed two cameras and a structured light source; and X‐ray computer tomography (CT) scanning were applied to each coral skeleton to determine the spatial resolution of surface detection as well as the accuracy of surface area estimate of each method. Compared with X‐ray CT, wax dipping provided the best estimate of the surface area of coral skeletons that had external corallites, regardless of morphological complexity. Foil wrapping consistently showed a large degree of error on all coral morphologies. The photogrammetry and laserscanning solutions were effective only on corals with simple morphologies. The two techniques that used projected lighting were both subject to skeletal light scattering, caused by both gross morphology and meso‐coral architecture and which degraded signal triangulation, but otherwise provided solutions with good spatial resolution. X‐ray CT scanning provided the highest resolution surface area estimates, detecting surface features smaller than 1000 µm2.

show abstract

“…Lough and Cooper, 2011). These growth parameters have been analyzed by the non-destructive methods of X-radiography, computed tomography (CT) and γ-densitometry (Carricart-Ganivet and Barnes, 2007;Bosscher, 1993;Chalker and Barnes, 1990).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Estimation of uncertainty for massive Porites coral skeletal density

Sowa

Watanabe

Nakamura³

et al. 2013

JAMSTEC Rep. Res. Dev.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous studies have not demonstrated the estimate errors in growth parameters (skeletal density, extension rate and calcification rate) for massive coral skeletons. In order to discuss the variability of coral skeletal growth, it is crucial for quantitative evaluation of the parameters with errors. We report the protocol of calculating errors as combined standard uncertainty for coral skeletal density (uρ SA ) based on ISO/IEC Guide 98-3 (2008). We applied the non-destructive transparent X-ray 2-D imaging scanner, TATSCAN-X1, which enabled to quick and quantitative analysis of the uρ SA parameters with digital procedures. We analyzed the annual skeletal density for massive Porites coral collected from Ishigaki Island. The skeletal densities changed from 1.45 to 1.70 g/cm 3 and uρ SA were ca. 0.02 g/cm 3. Our results indicated that the uρ SA was derived from the combined effects of 78.5% from the standard uncertainty of deducing of analytical curve (u ln OD (Y)→ρ*t (X) ) and 6.3% from that of the sample thickness error (ut SA ).

show abstract

Computerized tomography and skeletal density of coral skeletons

Cited by 66 publications

References 18 publications

Relationship of internal macrobioeroder densities in living massive Porites to turbidity and chlorophyll on the Australian Great Barrier Reef

Relationship of internal macrobioeroder densities in living massive Porites to turbidity and chlorophyll on the Australian Great Barrier Reef

A comparative study of methods for surface area and three‐dimensional shape measurement of coral skeletons

Estimation of uncertainty for massive Porites coral skeletal density

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About