4.4 Article

Intraspecific variation in phenotype among nursery-reared staghorn coral Acropora cervicornis (Lamarck, 1816)

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jembe.2016.10.005

关键词

Coral restoration; Endangered species; Caribbean; Coral reef management; Aquaculture

资金

  1. University of Florida/IFAS Office of Research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although genetic diversity is recognized as an important consideration for coral restoration, genotypes for use in restoration are not typically selected based on an evaluation of phenotype. Systematic documentation of phenotypic variability within coral nurseries could inform restoration efforts. To quantify differences in phenotype, ten known genotypes of Acropora cervicornis in an established coral nursery in the Florida Keys were selected for study. Twelve 5-cm replicate colonies of each genotype were individually tagged for identification and suspended from four identical PVC tree structures within the nursery for grow-out. Total linear extension (TLE) and number of branches were measured at approximately 45-day intervals for a period of 13 months. Buoyant weight was determined for each colony initially and after five and 13 months in order to quantify calcification. Sub-lethal bleaching was observed among experimental colonies following a natural thermal stress event, and significant differences in bleaching prevalence were present among genotypes. At the conclusion of the study, significant differences in all growth parameters were detected among genotypes. Specific growth rate across genotypes decreased following bleaching. The ratio of buoyant weight to TLE varied among genotypes and decreased with increasing TLE, suggesting a potential tradeoff between extension and skeletal density in nursery-reared A. cervicornis. Phenotypic variation documented in this study has implications for nursery management and may be useful in selecting genotypes for A. cervicornis population enhancement. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.4
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