4.6 Article

Effects of moderate thermal anomalies on Acropora corals around Sesoko Island, Okinawa

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 14, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0210795

关键词

-

资金

  1. JSPS KAKENHI [15H04326]
  2. University of the Ryukyus President's Research Award for Leading Scientists
  3. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [15H04326] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Over the past several decades, coral reef ecosystems have experienced recurring bleaching events. These events were predominantly caused by thermal anomalies, which vary widely in terms of severity and spatio-temporal distribution. Acropora corals, highly prominent contributors to the structural complexity of Pacific coral reefs, are sensitive to thermal stress. Response of Acropora corals to extremely high temperature has been well documented. However, studies on the effects of moderately high temperature on Acropora corals are limited. In the summer of 2016, a moderate coral bleaching event due to moderately high temperature was observed around Sesoko Island, Okinawa, Japan. The objective of this study was to examine thermal tolerance patterns of Acropora corals, across reefs with low to moderate thermal exposure (degree heating weeks similar to 2-5 degrees C week). Field surveys on permanent plots were conducted from October 2015 to April 2017 to compare the population dynamics of adult Acropora corals 6 months before and after the bleaching events around Sesoko Island. Variability in thermal stress response was driven primarily by the degree of thermal stress. Wave action and turbidity may have mediated the thermal stress. Tabular and digitate coral morphologies were the most tolerant and susceptible to thermal stress, respectively. Growth inhibition after bleaching was more pronounced in the larger digitate and corymbose coral morphologies. This study indicates that Acropora populations around Sesoko Island can tolerate short-term, moderate thermal challenges.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据