4.1 Article

Current status of coral takeover by an encrusting excavating sponge in a Caribbean reef

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/maec.12379

关键词

Cliona tenuis; competition; coral reefs; corals; excavating sponges

资金

  1. Pontificia Universidad Javeriana-Cali

向作者/读者索取更多资源

On Caribbean reefs, the excavating sponge Cliona tenuis opportunistically colonized dead skeletons of the elkhorn coral Acropora palmata after its massive die-off in the 1980s. Further C.tenuis population increase occurred by colonization of other coral species, causing coral tissue death through undermining of live tissue and lateral growth. To follow up on a previous (2001) characterization of the abundance and size structure of C.tenuis at Islas del Rosario (Colombia), these factors were again estimated in 2014, along with its substratum utilization. The fate of sponge individuals colonizing massive coral colonies marked in 2001-2004 was also followed. By 2014 C.tenuis was still disproportionally occupying dead A.palmata branches, but its abundance and density, and the cover of other benthic elements, had not significantly changed over the 13-year period, suggesting that a stasis has been reached. Cliona tenuis was thus initially favored in the 1980s, but substratum monopolization did not occur. From 2001 to 2014, small individuals increased in number and very large ones decreased, suggesting not only that new recruitment is occurring, but also that larger sponges are shrinking or fragmenting. Marked sponges continued killing corals over the first few years, but over longer times they retreated or died, allowing corals to resume upward growth. However, it could not be ascertained whether the sponge retreat was age-related or the result of some environmental effect. The apparent preference for recently dead clean coral by larvae of C.tenuis and its current dynamics of recruitment, growth, fragmentation and mortality have stabilized its space occupation at Islas del Rosario.

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

4.1
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