Invertebrate recruitment on artificial substrates in the Red Sea: role of substrate type and orientation

Siddik, Aboobucker; Al-Sofyani, Abdulmohsin; Ba-Akdah, Mohammad Abdulaziz; Satheesh, Sathianeson

doi:10.1017/s0025315418000887

Cited by 26 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 85 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…depending on whether coral heads are alive or dead (Gibson et al, 2011), with degraded reef frameworks exhibiting greater diversity (Enochs & Manzello, 2012;Nelson et al, 2016). Larval settlement of sessile reef invertebrates can be greater on artificial substrates (Higgins et al, 2019), in which community composition is affected by the orientation and composition of plates (Siddik et al, 2019), presence of microtopographies (Whalan et al, 2015), and grazing pressure (Hixon & Brostoff, 1985). The organisms that settle on plastic settlement plates such as those that comprise an ARMS structure may not be representative of the dominant organisms inhabiting coral carbonate structures (Zimmerman & Martin, 2004), although similarities have been found in prior surveys using ARMS (Pennesi & Danovaro, 2017;Plaisance et al, 2011).…”

Section: All Motus All Motus Idenɵfied To Ordermentioning

confidence: 99%

Hide ‘n seq: Direct versus indirect metabarcoding of coral reef cryptic communities

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ecological patterns in biodiversity are primarily based on conspicuous organisms. Few methods are used to survey the taxonomically rich cryptobiome, which is made up of inhabitants from within microhabitats. One way that cryptic marine biodiversity can be non-invasively surveyed is by analyzing environmental DNA (eDNA) present in seawater. Using coral reefs as a model system, here we compare estimates of cryptic diversity among community biomass and eDNA metabarcoding sampling methods with a broad eukaryotic marker (COI). First, contributions to eDNA were investigated across cryptobiomes through a comparison of community metabarcoded biomass from standardized autonomous reef monitoring structures (ARMS) to eDNA acquired from seawater in which individual ARMS were soaked. Second, we compared these results to those from eDNA samples taken from within reef crevices and the ambient water column. Metabarcoding of community biomass from ARMS and eDNA from the two types of water samples revealed significantly different communities of cryptic coral reef habitat with little overlap between methods. Taxa that were unique to metabarcoding of ARMS biomass were predominantly from chitinous and calcifying groups (polychaetes, palaemonid shrimp, mollusks, brittle stars, and red algae), which suggests that these taxa are underrepresented in eDNA surveys. Other than the corals themselves, sponges and red algae were significant drivers of reef crevice community differences, while ambient seawater samples detected mostly planktonic organisms and reef fishes. Our data indicate that both eDNA and ARMS provide incomplete accounting of cryptic diversity. Direct sampling of biomass is best suited for building taxonomies and improving databases, whereas eDNA methods offer rapid insights into the composition of cryptobiomes. Because each method likely captures different taxa, multiple targeted assays can be used to provide the greatest estimates of metazoan and macroalgal richness.

show abstract

Section: All Motus All Motus Idenɵfied To Ordermentioning

confidence: 99%

Hide ‘n seq: Direct versus indirect metabarcoding of coral reef cryptic communities

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Substrate selection by larvae has been assessed by both field and laboratory experiments. In field experiments, test substrata are immersed in the field and the amounts of settlers are compared among the substrata under different conditions [1,2]. Results include both pre-settlement selection and post-settlement selection.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To develop such physical approaches against biofouling, it is necessary to elucidate the larval preference(s) of the physical properties of substrates for settlement. This review focuses on wettability and nano-structures of substrate surfaces for the substrate selection of ascidian larvae, while other factors of microhabitat influencing the pre-settlement selection were examined, such as the orientation of the substrate (i.e., vertical or horizontal) [2], nutrient contaminants in water [16], and textures of the substrate [9].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Substrate Selection of Ascidian Larva: Wettability and Nano-Structures

Hirose

Sensui

2021

JMSE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ascidians are marine sessile chordates that comprise one of the major benthic animal groups in marine ecosystems. They sometimes cause biofouling problems on artificial structures underwater, and non-indigenous, invasive ascidian species can potentially and seriously alter native faunal communities. Ascidian larvae are usually tadpole-shaped, negatively phototactic, and adhere on substrates by secreting a glue from their adhesive organs. Although larvae often prefer hydrophobic surfaces, such as a silicone rubber, for settlement, hydrophobic materials are often used to reduce occurrence of fouling organisms on artificial structures. This inconsistency may indicate that an attractive surface for larvae is not always suitable for settlement. Micro-scale structures or roughness may enhance the settlement of ascidian larvae, but settlement is significantly reduced by a nano-scale nipple array (or moth-eye structure), suggesting functional properties of similar structures found on the body surfaces of various invertebrates. The substrate preferences of larvae should be one of the important bases in considering measures against biofouling, and this review also discusses the potential uses of materials to safely reduce the impacts of invasive species.

show abstract

“…Indeed, a growing number of field studies have demonstrated that larval settlement rates of calcifying marine invertebrates vary on common structural materials (e.g., concrete, stainless steel). 46,47 Further work has assessed the ability of different materials to promote the growth of settlement-inducing algae and microbial communities. 48,49 However, to our knowledge, larval settlement cues related solely to inorganic material composition have not yet been investigated systematically.…”

Section: ■ Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thus, it is plausible that corals have evolved to seek out specific inorganic chemicals or materials during the larval stage that would indicate whether a location will be favorable for mineralization and skeletal attachment and support. Indeed, a growing number of field studies have demonstrated that larval settlement rates of calcifying marine invertebrates vary on common structural materials (e.g., concrete, stainless steel). , Further work has assessed the ability of different materials to promote the growth of settlement-inducing algae and microbial communities. , However, to our knowledge, larval settlement cues related solely to inorganic material composition have not yet been investigated systematically.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Composite Substrates Reveal Inorganic Material Cues for Coral Larval Settlement

Levenstein

Marhaver

Quinlan

et al. 2022

ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The widespread loss of stony reef-building coral populations has been compounded by the low settlement and survival of coral juveniles. To rebuild coral communities, restoration practitioners have developed workflows to settle vulnerable coral larvae in the laboratory and outplant settled juveniles back to natural and artificial reefs. These workflows often make use of natural biochemical settlement cues, which are presented to swimming larvae to induce settlement. This paper establishes the potential for inorganic cues to complement these known biochemical effects. Settlement substrates were fabricated from calcium carbonate, a material present naturally on reefs, and modified with additives including sands, glasses, and alkaline earth carbonates. Experiments with larvae of two Caribbean coral species revealed additive-specific settlement preferences that were independent of bulk surface properties such as mean roughness and wettability. Instead, analyses of the substrates suggest that settling coral larvae can detect localized topographical features more than an order of magnitude smaller than their body width and can sense and positively respond to soluble inorganic minerals such as silica (SiO 2 ) and strontianite (SrCO 3 ). These findings open a new area of research in coral reef restoration, in which composite substrates can be designed with a combination of natural organic and inorganic additives to increase larval settlement and perhaps also improve post-settlement growth, mineralization, and defense.

show abstract

Invertebrate recruitment on artificial substrates in the Red Sea: role of substrate type and orientation

Cited by 26 publications

References 85 publications

Hide ‘n seq: Direct versus indirect metabarcoding of coral reef cryptic communities

Hide ‘n seq: Direct versus indirect metabarcoding of coral reef cryptic communities

Substrate Selection of Ascidian Larva: Wettability and Nano-Structures

Composite Substrates Reveal Inorganic Material Cues for Coral Larval Settlement

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About