Coral-dwelling fish moderate bleaching susceptibility of coral hosts

Chase, Tory J.; Pratchett, Morgan S.; Frank, Grace E.; Hoogenboom, Mia O.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0208545

Cited by 31 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 74 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A new long-term study of ecosystem impacts shows that severe bleaching persistently changes reef fish communities, lasting for more than 15 yrs (Robinson et al 2019). Other novel work indicated that fish living within the branches of corals may moderate the impacts of bleaching on their hosts (Chase et al 2018).…”

Section: What Have We Learned From Gcbe-3?mentioning

confidence: 99%

The 2014–2017 global-scale coral bleaching event: insights and impacts

Eakin

Sweatman

Brainard³

2019

Coral Reefs

278

184

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

2014-2017 was an unprecedented period of successive record-breaking hot years, which coincided with the most severe, widespread, and longest-lasting globalscale coral bleaching event ever recorded. The 2014-2017 global-scale coral bleaching event (GCBE) resulted in very high coral mortality on many reefs, rapid deterioration of reef structures, and far-reaching environmental impacts. Through the papers in this special issue of Coral Reefs entitled The 2014-2017 Global Coral Bleaching Event: Drivers, Impacts, and Lessons Learned, as well as papers published elsewhere, we have a good analysis of the 2014-2017 GCBE and its impacts. These studies have provided key insights into how climate change-driven marine heatwaves are destroying coral reef ecosystems: (a) The 2014-2017 GCBE is unique in the satellite record in its spatial scale, duration, intensity, and repetition of bleaching. (b) The impacts have been the most severe ever seen at many reefs. (c) Timing of observations matters and needs to be considered during the analysis of impacts. (d) On both global and local scales, the intensity of heat stress and impacts varied. (e) We continue to see important differences among and within coral taxa, with key roles played by algal symbionts and the microbiome. (f) Heat stress and bleaching both play a role in subsequent disease, which plays a key role in mortality. (g) Impacts ripple far beyond corals, with significant changes to the fish and invertebrate community that may last decades. (h) The structure of both individual coral's skeletons and entire reefs has been eroded much more quickly than previously realized. (i) The 2014-2017 GCBE provided little support for the proposed ''lifeboat'' hypothesis, whereby deep or mesophotic reefs serve as a means of coral reef salvation. (j) While marine protected areas (MPAs) provide protection from local stressors, they not only do not protect reefs from global-scale stressors, but also here is also little evidence they provide significant resilience. Keywords Coral bleaching Á Heat stress Á Coral Reef Watch Á CoralTemp Á Marine heatwave Á Symbionts Á Microbiome Á Coral disease Á El Niño Á ENSO

show abstract

Section: What Have We Learned From Gcbe-3?mentioning

confidence: 99%

The 2014–2017 global-scale coral bleaching event: insights and impacts

Eakin

Sweatman

Brainard³

2019

Coral Reefs

278

184

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Damselfishes (Pomacentridae) are the most diverse family of planktivorous fishes on the GBR and can be extremely abundant [3]. While consumption of zooplankton by planktivorous damselfishes contributes to nutrient transfer onto reef environments, these fishes may also provide more indirect ecological benefits: some eat the larvae of coral-feeding crown-of-thorns starfish, possibly constraining starfish population upsurges [4] and associated coral declines, while others that preferentially reside within corals may moderate the bleaching susceptibility of their coral hosts [5]. Additionally, planktivorous damselfishes are a primary source of food for many predatory fishes on the GBR including the commercially important coral trout (Plectropomus spp.)…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Distribution of Planktivorous Damselfishes (Pomacentridae) on the Great Barrier Reef and the Relative Influences of Habitat and Predation

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Planktivorous damselfishes (Pomacentridae) are diverse and abundant on the Great Barrier Reef (GBR), are important prey for commercially harvested coral trout (Plectropomus spp.) and their feeding mode plays a central role in transferring energy from the plankton to the reef. However, little is known about their distribution patterns throughout the GBR and how those patterns are influenced by predators and habitat despite increasing pressures on both. Here we quantify the distribution and abundance of GBR planktivorous damselfishes, then examine the role of coral trout and habitat in shaping their assemblages. The assemblage structure of planktivorous damselfishes varied across the continental shelf, yet their total abundances varied sub-regionally, dependent on differences in coral habitat. Latitudinal patterns were relatively weak. Damselfish assemblages generally retained characteristics of their sub-regional setting over 20 years and assemblage degradation was only associated with major coral losses. Damselfish numbers were not negatively influenced by top-down control from coral trout. Instead, numbers of coral trout and damselfishes were both positively associated with coral habitat and each other. Our findings suggest that a complexity of factors and interactions shape reef fish assemblages and reinforce the fundamental importance of coral as the foundation of healthy reef communities.

show abstract

“…These hotspots, areas of high localized nutrient production by fishes [28,102] are generally infrequent across seascapes. Nutrient subsidy, along with other fish-derived services like increased photosynthesis [103], colony growth [28], bleaching susceptibility [27] sediment removal [101], may be density-dependent (i.e., >15 g seen in studies focusing on larger-bodied or more abundant fish species, see [26,104,105]) and fish-species dependent. With 68% of corals vacant, it is clear that many colonies do not receive potential beneficial effects of resident damselfish.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For colonies with resident fishes (n = 142), the numbers of all fishes on each focal colony were recorded, and all fish were placed into general standard-length size classes of small, medium, and large, for each species respectively. Size class data were subsequently converted into biomass estimates, based on published length/weight relationships generated from damselfish [27,47], where damselfish were collected using hand-nets and a liquid anesthetic (a diluted solution of clove oil, ethanol, and seawater [27,59,60]). Surveys focused on ecologically important damselfish's occupancy and biomass patterns rather than fish numbers, as biomass has been directly linked to fish-derived services and benefits for corals [26,61].…”

Section: Colony Diametermentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Differential Occupation of Available Coral Hosts by Coral-Dwelling Damselfish (Pomacentridae) on Australia’s Great Barrier Reef

Chase

Hoogenboom

2019

Diversity

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Associations between habitat-forming, branching scleractinian corals and damselfish have critical implications for the function and trophic dynamics of coral reef ecosystems. This study quantifies how different characteristics of reef habitat, and of coral morphology, determine whether fish occupy a coral colony. In situ surveys of aggregative damselfish–coral associations were conducted at 51 different sites distributed among 22 reefs spread along >1700 km of the Great Barrier Reef, to quantify interaction frequency over a large spatial scale. The prevalence of fish–coral associations between five damselfish (Chromis viridis, Dascyllus aruanus, Dascyllus reticulatus, Pomacentrus amboinensis and Pomacentrus moluccensis) and five coral species (Acropora spathulata, Acropora intermedia, Pocillopora damicornis, Seriatopora hystrix, and Stylophora pistillata) averaged ~30% across all corals, but ranged from <1% to 93% of small branching corals occupied at each site, depending on reef exposure levels and habitat. Surprisingly, coral cover was not correlated with coral occupancy, or total biomass of damselfish. Instead, the biomass of damselfish was two-fold greater on sheltered sites compared with exposed sites. Reef habitat type strongly governed these interactions with reef slope/base (25%) and shallow sand-patch habitats (38%) hosting a majority of aggregative damselfish-branching coral associations compared to reef flat (10%), crest (16%), and wall habitats (11%). Among the focal coral species, Seriatopora hystrix hosted the highest damselfish biomass (12.45 g per occupied colony) and Acropora intermedia the least (6.87 g per occupied colony). Analyses of local coral colony traits indicated that multiple factors governed colony usage, including spacing between colonies on the benthos, colony position, and colony branching patterns. Nevertheless, the morphological and habitat characteristics that determine whether or not a colony is occupied by fish varied among coral species. These findings illuminate the realized niche of one of the most important and abundant reef fish families and provide a context for understanding how fish–coral interactions influence coral population and community level processes.

show abstract

Coral-dwelling fish moderate bleaching susceptibility of coral hosts

Cited by 31 publications

References 74 publications

The 2014–2017 global-scale coral bleaching event: insights and impacts

The 2014–2017 global-scale coral bleaching event: insights and impacts

The Distribution of Planktivorous Damselfishes (Pomacentridae) on the Great Barrier Reef and the Relative Influences of Habitat and Predation

Differential Occupation of Available Coral Hosts by Coral-Dwelling Damselfish (Pomacentridae) on Australia’s Great Barrier Reef

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About