4.4 Article

Recruitment, early survival and growth of the Mediterranean red coral Corallium rubrum (L 1758), a 4-year study

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jembe.2004.08.029

关键词

artificial substrates; Corallium rubrum; growth rate; life history; octocorals; recruitment; western Mediterranean

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recruitment, early survival and growth rates of the precious Mediterranean red coral Corallium rubrum (L 1758) are poorly known. We examined these life history traits by means of artificial long-term settlement plates. Eighteen marble tiles placed off the coast of Leghorn (Tuscany, Italy) at two depths (25 and 35 m) were photographed monthly over the 4-year period from 1998 to 2002. Overall, 864 transparencies were examined to follow the individual life histories of red coral colonies belonging to four successive cohorts. Red coral planulae settled on tiles each year between July and September. Overall, 388 settlers colonized the tiles (244 at 25 m and 144 at 35 m), and their respective densities varied between 12.37+/-6.1 and 2.75+/-2.4 dm(-2). Heavy mortality affected these colonies (-24.35+/-9.12 colonies % y(-1)), but, after 4 years, the tiles still harboured a persistent population (19+/-4.97 and 9.75+/-2.87 colonies dm(-2), respectively, at 25 and 35 m) with positive net recruitment rates. Only in 1999 did the net recruitment rate show a negative trend, although only at the shallower depth. At the same time (late summer 1999), a thermal anomaly affected several epibenthic communities in the Ligurian Sea. After 4 years, the tiles were removed, and the colonies that settled on them were measured. The average annual growth rate of colonies was low (0.62+/-0.19 mm y(-1) in diameter), and a marked reduction in growth with age was observed. Our findings suggest that the populations of this slow-growing long-lived octocoral exhibit a high capacity for colonization and seem to be quite resilient to environmental variability. (C) 2004 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