Regional restoration benchmarks for Acropora cervicornis

Schopmeyer, Stephanie; Lirman, Diego; Bartels, Erich; Gilliam, David S.; Goergen, Elizabeth A.; Griffin, Sean; Johnson, Meaghan E.; Lustic, Caitlin; Maxwell, Kerry; Walter, Cory

doi:10.1007/s00338-017-1596-3

Cited by 78 publications

(104 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These rates are significantly higher than those reported for A. cervicornis in Barbados (14 cm/y) (Lewis, 1974) and in Jamaica (12-26 cm/y) (Tunnicliffe, 1983) and explain in part the fast growth and colony sizes observed from 2010 to the present study. However, these rates are similar and/or significantly lower to growth rates reported for different genotypes of asexually produced, nursery and field fragments in Florida, the Dominican Republic and other localities (25.6-80.6 cm/y) (Lirman et al, 2014;Schopmeyer et al, 2017).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 69%

Growth dynamics in Acropora cervicornis and A. prolifera in southwest Puerto Rico

Weil

Hammerman

Becicka

et al. 2020

PeerJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Natural population recovery of Acropora palmata, A. cervicornis and their hybrid, Acropora prolifera, have fluctuated significantly after their Caribbean-wide, diseaseinduced mass mortality in the early 1980s. Even though significant recovery has been observed in a few localities, recurrent disease outbreaks, bleaching, storm damage, local environmental deterioration, algae smothering, predation, low sexual recruitment and low survivorship have affected the expected, quick recovery of these weedy species. In this study, the status of three recovering populations of A. cervicornis and two of A. prolifera were assessed over one year using coral growth and mortality metrics, and changes in their associated algae and fish/invertebrate communities in three localities in the La Parguera Natural Reserve (LPNR), southwest coast of Puerto Rico. Five branches were tagged in each of 29, medium size (1-2 m in diameter) A. cervicornis and 18 A. prolifera colonies in the Media Luna, Mario and San Cristobal reefs off LPNR. Branches were measured monthly, together with observations to evaluate associated disease(s), algae accumulation and predation. A. cervicornis grew faster [3.1 ± 0.44 cm/month (= 37.2 cm/y)] compared to A. prolifera [2.6 ± 0.41 cm/month (= 31.2 cm/y)], and growth was significantly higher during Winter-Spring compared to Summer-Fall for both taxa (3.5 ± 0.58 vs. 0.53 ± 0.15 cm/month in A. cervicornis, and 2.43 ± 0.71 vs. 0.27 ± 0.20 cm/month in A. prolifera, respectively). Algal accumulation was only observed in A. cervicornis, and was higher during Spring-Summer compared to Fall-Winter (6.1 ± 0.91 cm/month and 3.8 ± 0.29 cm/month, respectively, (PERMANOVA, df = 2, MS = 10.2, p = 0.37)). Mortality associated with white band disease, algae smothering and fish/invertebrate predation was also higher in A. cervicornis and varied among colonies within sites, across sites and across season. The balance between tissue grow and mortality determines if colonies survive. This balance seems to be pushed to the high mortality side often by increasing frequency of high thermal anomalies, inducing bleaching and disease outbreaks and other factors, which have historically impacted the natural recovery of these taxa in the La Parguera Natural Reserve in Puerto Rico and possibly other areas in the region. Overall, results indicate variability in both growth and mortality rates in both taxa across localities and seasons, with A. cervicornis showing overall higher mortalities compared to A. prolifera.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 69%

Growth dynamics in Acropora cervicornis and A. prolifera in southwest Puerto Rico

Weil

Hammerman

Becicka

et al. 2020

PeerJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Ross 2012; Hernandez‐Delgado et al 2014) compared to 11–14 (e.g. Schopmeyer et al ; Goergen & Gilliam ), and for Stylophora pistillata RRE scores of 10–12 (Rinkevich ; Shafir et al ) compared to 2–14 (Kotb ; Rachmilovitz & Rinkevich ). Identifying any potential improvement in practices over time is likely confounded by integrating datasets with highly variable RRE scores retrieved from differences in success from local conditions and genotypes.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Optimizing return‐on‐effort for coral nursery and outplanting practices to aid restoration of the Great Barrier Reef

Suggett

Camp

Edmondson

et al. 2019

Restoration Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Coral nursery and outplanting practices have grown in popularity worldwide for targeted restoration of degraded "high value" reef sites, and recovery of threatened taxa. Success of these practices is commonly gauged from coral propagule growth and survival, which fundamentally determines the return-on-effort (RRE) critical to the cost-effectiveness and viability of restoration programs. In many cases, RRE has been optimized from past successes and failures, which therefore presents a major challenge for locations such as the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) where no local history of restoration exists to guide best practice. In establishing the first multi-taxa coral nursery on the GBR (Opal Reef, February 2018), we constructed a novel scoring criterion from concurrent measurements of growth and survivorship to guide our relative RRE, including nursery propagule numbers (stock density). We initially retrieved RRE scores from a database of global restoration efforts to date (n = 246; 52 studies) to evaluate whether and how success commonly varied among coral taxa. We then retrieved RRE scores for Opal Reef using initial growth and survivorship data for six key coral taxa, to demonstrate that RRE scores were high for all taxa predominantly via high survivorship over winter. Repeated RRE scoring in summer is therefore needed to capture the full dynamic range of success where seasonal factors regulating growth versus survivorship differ. We discuss how RRE scoring can be easily adopted across restoration practices globally to standardize and benchmark success, but also as a tool to aid decision-making in optimizing future propagation (and outplanting) efforts.

show abstract

“…Restoration methodologies, from site selection to the use of artificial structures and the species and density of coral transplants used, all require careful consideration in terms of their impact on local benthic communities. Site selection, in particular, is increasingly recognized as an important factor for maximizing the outcomes of restoration efforts [10,21,72]. Comparison of the benthic community composition between restored and control reference sites is a useful indicator of the appropriateness of the site selected.…”

Section: Coral Restoration Influences the Composition Of The Benthicmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This lack of long-term comprehensive assessments of coral restoration effectiveness is widely criticized [6,7] and hinders the uptake of coral restoration within multi-scale resilience-based management frameworks [8]. In addition, many studies are focused on site-or region-specific restoration programs [9,10], which has made comparative studies difficult and limited the development of broad best-practice recommendations.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Coral Restoration Effectiveness: Multiregional Snapshots of the Long-Term Responses of Coral Assemblages to Restoration

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Coral restoration is rapidly becoming a mainstream strategic reef management response to address dramatic declines in coral cover worldwide. Restoration success can be defined as enhanced reef functions leading to improved ecosystem services, with multiple benefits at socio-ecological scales. However, there is often a mismatch between the objectives of coral restoration programs and the metrics used to assess their effectiveness. In particular, the scales of ecological benefits currently assessed are typically limited in both time and space, often being limited to short-term monitoring of the growth and survival of transplanted corals. In this paper, we explore reef-scale responses of coral assemblages to restoration practices applied in four well-established coral restoration programs. We found that hard coral cover and structural complexity were consistently greater at restored compared to unrestored (degraded) sites. However, patterns in coral diversity, coral recruitment, and coral health among restored, unrestored, and reference sites varied across locations, highlighting differences in methodologies among restoration programs. Altogether, differences in program objectives, methodologies, and the state of nearby coral communities were key drivers of variability in the responses of coral assemblages to restoration. The framework presented here provides guidance to improve qualitative and quantitative assessments of coral restoration efforts and can be applied to further understanding of the role of restoration within resilience-based reef management.

show abstract

Regional restoration benchmarks for Acropora cervicornis

Cited by 78 publications

References 37 publications

Growth dynamics in Acropora cervicornis and A. prolifera in southwest Puerto Rico

Growth dynamics in Acropora cervicornis and A. prolifera in southwest Puerto Rico

Optimizing return‐on‐effort for coral nursery and outplanting practices to aid restoration of the Great Barrier Reef

Coral Restoration Effectiveness: Multiregional Snapshots of the Long-Term Responses of Coral Assemblages to Restoration

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About