Advertisement

Marine Biology

, 163:100 | Cite as

Day–night ecophysiology of the photosymbiotic bioeroding sponge Cliona orientalis Thiele, 1900

  • James K.H. Fang
  • Christine H.L. Schönberg
  • Ove Hoegh-Guldberg
  • Sophie Dove
Original paper

Abstract

Marine bioerosion is projected to increase under future environmental conditions, and interest in investigating the ecological roles of bioeroding sponges has grown substantially over recent years. Cliona orientalis Thiele, 1900 is an important bioeroding sponge on Indo-Pacific coral reefs that belongs to the Cliona viridis species complex, which is a group of Clionaidae that are symbiotic with dinoflagellates of the genus Symbiodinium. The present study aimed to investigate the intracellular Symbiodinium and the holosymbiont of C. orientalis under a day–night cycle. Measurements of chlorophyll fluorescence confirmed significant day–night relocation of Symbiodinium by C. orientalis, in which Symbiodinium mostly resided at the surface during the day to enhance light availability. Under the light regime within C. orientalis, Symbiodinium displayed efficient photosynthesis as indicated by its oxygen production rate. At night, Symbiodinium was drawn deeper into the sponge. As a holosymbiont, C. orientalis did not significantly change net uptake of heterotrophic carbon between day and night. During the day, the host presumably received autotrophic carbon translocated from Symbiodinium and displayed faster bioerosion measured as dissolution of calcium carbonate. The present findings advance our understanding of how diurnal rhythms may influence energy acquisition strategies and ecological performance of a sponge–photosymbiont association.

Keywords

Sponge Particulate Organic Carbon Dark Respiration Rate Oxygen Production Rate Siliceous Spicule 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge Moreton Bay Research Station of The University of Queensland, and E. Lewis, N. Van Dyck, K. Townsend and W. K. W. Loh for their assistance in the field. We thank M. Carmi, D. Bender and G. Roff for their advice on the chlorophyll fluorescence assay, O2 flux assay and light curve fitting, respectively. We also thank the anonymous reviewers who provided valuable comments on this article. This study was funded by the Australian Research Council (ARC) Linkage Grant LP0775303 (SD and OHG) and the ARC Centre of Excellence Grant CE0561435 (SD and OHG). A permit from the Department of Environment and Resource Management, Australia (QS2010/MAN79) was provided to collect the sponge samples used in this study.

References

  1. Bergman KM (1983) The distribution and ecological significance of the boring sponge Cliona viridis on the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. MSc thesis, McMaster UniversityGoogle Scholar
  2. Black CC, Burris JE (1983) Diurnal carbon-14 partitioning between zooxanthellae and the coral animal tissue of intact Seriatopora hystrix colonies. Mar Biol 75:117–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bond C (1992) Continuous cell movements rearrange anatomical structures in intact sponges. J Exp Zool 263:284–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown BE, Ambarsari I, Warner ME, Fitt WK, Dunne RP, Gibb SW, Cummings DG (1999) Diurnal changes in photochemical efficiency and xanthophyll concentrations in shallow water reef corals: evidence for photoinhibition and photoprotection. Coral Reefs 18:99–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brümmer F, Pfannkuchen M, Baltz A, Hauser T, Thiel V (2008) Light inside sponges. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 367:61–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cattaneo-Vietti R, Bavestrello G, Cerrano C, Sarà M, Benatti U, Giovine M, Gaino E (1996) Optical fibres in an Antarctic sponge. Nature 383:397–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chalker BE, Dunlap WC, Oliver JK (1983) Bathymetric adaptations of reef-building corals at Davies Reef, Great Barrier Reef, Australia. II. Light saturation curves for photosynthesis and respiration. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 73:37–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Consalvey M, Perkins RG, Paterson DM, Underwood GJC (2005) PAM fluorescence: a beginners guide for benthic diatomists. Diatom Res 20:1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Custódio MR, Hajdu E, Muricy G (2002) In vivo study of microsclere formation in sponges of the genus Mycale (Demospongiae, Poecilosclerida). Zoomorphology 121:203–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Day RJ (1994) Algal symbiosis in Bunodeopsis: sea anemones with “auxiliary” structures. Biol Bull 186:182–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dickson AG, Afghan JD, Anderson GC (2003) Reference materials for oceanic CO2 analysis: a method for the certification of total alkalinity. Mar Chem 80:185–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Falkowski PG, Raven JA (1997) Aquatic photosynthesis. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  13. Fang JKH, Schönberg CHL (2015) Carbonate budgets of coral reefs: recent developments in excavating sponge research. Reef Encounter 30:43–46Google Scholar
  14. Fang JKH, Mello-Athayde MA, Schönberg CHL, Kline DI, Hoegh-Guldberg O, Dove S (2013a) Sponge biomass and bioerosion rates increase under ocean warming and acidification. Glob Change Biol 19:3581–3591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fang JKH, Schönberg CHL, Kline DI, Hoegh-Guldberg O, Dove S (2013b) Methods to quantify components of the excavating sponge Cliona orientalis Thiele, 1900. Mar Ecol 34:193–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fang JKH, Schönberg CHL, Mello-Athayde MA, Hoegh-Guldberg O, Dove S (2014) Effects of ocean warming and acidification on the energy budget of an excavating sponge. Glob Change Biol 20:1043–1054CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fitt WK, Cook CB (2001) Photoacclimation and the effect of the symbiotic environment on the photosynthetic response of symbiotic dinoflagellates in the tropical marine hydroid Myrionema amboinense. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 256:15–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gaino E, Sarà M (1994) Siliceous spicules of Tethya seychellensis (Porifera) support the growth of a green alga: a possible light conducting system. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 108:147–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gaither MR, Rowan R (2010) Zooxanthellar symbiosis in planula larvae of the coral Pocillopora damicornis. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 386:45–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Glynn PW (1997) Bioerosion and coral reef growth: a dynamic balance. In: Birkeland C (ed) Life and death on coral reefs. Chapman and Hall, New York, pp 69–98Google Scholar
  21. Granados C, Camargo C, Zea S, Sánchez JA (2008) Phylogenetic relationships among zooxanthellae (Symbiodinium) associated to excavating sponges (Cliona spp.) reveal an unexpected lineage in the Caribbean. Mol Phylogenet Evol 49:554–560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hill MS (1996) Symbiotic zooxanthellae enhance boring and growth rates of the tropical sponge Anthosigmella varians forma varians. Mar Biol 125:649–654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hill M, Allenby A, Ramsby B, Schönberg C, Hill A (2011) Symbiodinium diversity among host clionaid sponges from Caribbean and Pacific reefs: evidence of heteroplasmy and putative host-specific symbiont lineages. Mol Phylogenet Evol 59:81–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hoegh-Guldberg O, Jones RJ (1999) Photoinhibition and photoprotection in symbiotic dinoflagellates from reef-building corals. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 183:73–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Holmes KE (2000) Effects of eutrophication on bioeroding sponge communities with the description of new West Indian sponges, Cliona spp. (Porifera: Hadromerida: Clionadae). Invertebr Biol 119:125–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Iglesias-Prieto R, Trench RK (1994) Acclimation and adaptation to irradiance in symbiotic dinoflagellates. I. Responses of the photosynthetic unit to changes in photon flux density. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 113:163–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jones RJ, Hoegh-Guldberg O (2001) Diurnal changes in the photochemical efficiency of the symbiotic dinoflagellates (Dinophyceae) of corals: photoprotection, photoinactivation and the relationship to coral bleaching. Plant Cell Environ 24:89–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kohler KE, Gill SM (2006) Coral point count with excel extensions (CPCe): a visual basic program for the determination of coral and substrate coverage using random point count methodology. Comput Geosci 32:1259–1269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. LaJeunesse TC, Loh WKW, van Woesik R, Hoegh-Guldberg O, Schmidt GW, Fitt WK (2003) Low symbiont diversity in southern Great Barrier Reef corals, relative to those of the Caribbean. Limnol Oceanogr 48:2046–2054CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. López-Victoria M, Zea S, Weil E (2006) Competition for space between encrusting excavating Caribbean sponges and other coral reef organisms. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 312:113–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Maldonado M, Ribes M, van Duyl FC (2012) Nutrient fluxes through sponges: biology, budgets, and ecological implications. In: Becerro MA, Uriz MJ, Maldonado M, Turon X (eds) Advances in marine biology, vol 62. Advances in sponge science: physiology, chemical and microbial diversity, biotechnology. Elsevier, London, pp 113–182Google Scholar
  32. Masuda K, Goto M, Maruyama T, Miyachi S (1993) Adaptation of solitary corals and their zooxanthellae to low light and UV radiation. Mar Biol 117:685–691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Muller-Parker G (1987) Seasonal variation in light-shade adaptation of natural populations of the symbiotic sea anemone Aiptasia pulchella (Carlgren, 1943) in Hawaii. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 112:165–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Muscatine L (1990) The role of symbiotic algae in carbon and energy flux in reef corals. In: Dubinsky Z (ed) Coral reefs. Ecosystems of the world 25. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 75–84Google Scholar
  35. Pettay DT, LaJeunesse TC (2009) Microsatellite loci for assessing genetic diversity, dispersal and clonality of coral symbionts in ‘stress-tolerant’ clade D Symbiodinium. Mol Ecol Resour 9:1022–1025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Platt T, Gallegos CL, Harrison WG (1980) Photoinhibition of photosynthesis in natural assemblages of marine phytoplankton. J Mar Res 38:687–701Google Scholar
  37. Ralph PJ, Gademann R (2005) Rapid light curves: a powerful tool to assess photosynthetic activity. Aquat Bot 82:222–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rosell D, Uriz MJ (1992) Do associated zooxanthellae and the nature of the substratum affect survival, attachment and growth of Cliona viridis (Porifera: Hadromerida)? An experimental approach. Mar Biol 114:503–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schönberg CHL (2000) Bioeroding sponges common to the central Australian Great Barrier Reef: descriptions of three new species, two new records, and additions to two previously described species. Senckenbergiana Marit 30:161–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schönberg CHL (2001) Small-scale distribution of Australian bioeroding sponges in shallow water. Ophelia 55:39–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schönberg CHL (2002) Sponges of the ‘Cliona viridis complex’—a key for species identification. In: Moosa MK, Soemodihardjo S, Soegiarto A, Romimohtarto K, Nontji A, Soekarno, Suharsono (eds). Proceedings of the 9th international coral reef symposium, Bali, pp 295–300Google Scholar
  42. Schönberg CHL (2003) Substrate effects on the bioeroding demosponge Cliona orientalis. 2. Substrate colonisation and tissue growth. Mar Ecol 24:59–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schönberg CHL (2006) Growth and erosion of the zooxanthellate Australian bioeroding sponge Cliona orientalis are enhanced in light. In: Suzuki Y, Nakamori T, Hidaka M, Kayanne H, Casareto BE, Nadaoka K, Yamano H, Tsuchiya M (eds). Proceedings of 10th international coral reef symposium, Okinawa, pp 168–174Google Scholar
  44. Schönberg CHL (2008) A history of sponge erosion: from past myths and hypotheses to recent approaches. In: Wisshak M, Tapanila L (eds) Current developments in bioerosion. Springer, Berlin, pp 165–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Schönberg CHL (2015) Self-cleaning surfaces in sponges. Mar Biodiv. 45:623–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schönberg CHL, Loh WKW (2005) Molecular identity of the unique symbiotic dinoflagellates found in the bioeroding demosponge Cliona orientalis. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 299:157–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schönberg CHL, Ortiz J-C (2009) Is sponge bioerosion increasing? In: Riegl BM, Dodge RE (eds). Proceedings of 11th international coral reef symposium, Fort Lauderdale, pp 520–523Google Scholar
  48. Schönberg CHL, Suwa R (2007) Why bioeroding sponges may be better hosts for symbiotic dinoflagellates than many corals. In: Custódio MR, Lôbo-Hajdu G, Hajdu E, Muricy G (eds) Porifera research: biodiversity, innovation and sustainability. National Museum, Rio de Janeiro, pp 569–580Google Scholar
  49. Schönberg CHL, Wilkinson CR (2001) Induced colonization of corals by a clionid bioeroding sponge. Coral Reefs 20:69–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Schönberg CHL, de Beer D, Lawton A (2005) Oxygen microsensor studies on zooxanthellate clionaid sponges from the Costa Brava, Mediterranean Sea. J Phycol 41:774–779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Schönberg CHL, Suwa R, Hidaka M, Loh WKW (2008) Sponge and coral zooxanthellae in heat and light: preliminary results of photochemical efficiency monitored with pulse amplitude modulated fluorometry. Mar Ecol 29:247–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Steindler L, Beer S, Peretzman-Shemer A, Nyberg C, Ilan M (2001) Photoadaptation of zooxanthellae in the sponge Cliona vastifica from the Rea Sea, as measured in situ. Mar Biol 138:511–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Ulstrup KE, Kühl M, Bourne DG (2007) Zooxanthellae harvested by ciliates associated with brown band syndrome of corals remain photosynthetically competent. Appl Environ Microb 73:1968–1975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Vacelet J (1982) Algal-sponge symbioses in the coral reefs of New Caledonia: a morphological study. In: Gomez ED, Birkeland CE, Buddemeier RW, Johannes RE, Marsh JA Jr, Tsuda RT (eds). Proceedings of 4th international coral reef symposium, Manila, pp 713–719Google Scholar
  55. Van Soest RWM, Boury-Esnault N, Hooper JNA, Rützler K, de Voogd NJ, Alvarez de Glasby B, Hajdu E, Pisera AB, Manconi R, Schönberg CHL, Janussen D, Tabachnick KR, Klautau M, Picton B, Kelly M, Vacelet J, Dohrmann M, Díaz M-C, Cárdenas P (2015) World Porifera Database. http://www.marinespecies.org/porifera. Accessed 19 July 2015
  56. Walz (2014) Imaging-PAM M-Series chlorophyll fluorometer: instrument description and information for users (2.152/07.06), 5th edn. Heinz Walz GmbH, EffeltrichGoogle Scholar
  57. Warner ME, Lesser MP, Ralph PJ (2011) Chlorophyll fluorescence in reef building corals. In: Suggett DJ, Prasil O, Borowitzka MA (eds) Chlorophyll a fluorescence in aquatic sciences: methods and applications, developments in applied phycology 4. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 209–222Google Scholar
  58. Weisz JB, Massaro AJ, Ramsby BD, Hill MS (2010) Zooxanthellar symbionts shape host sponge trophic status through translocation of carbon. Biol Bull 219:189–197Google Scholar
  59. Wisshak M, Schönberg CHL, Form A, Freiwald A (2012) Ocean acidification accelerates reef bioerosion. PLoS ONE 7:e45124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wisshak M, Schönberg CHL, Form A, Freiwald A (2013) Effects of ocean acidification and global warming on reef bioerosion—lessons from a clionaid sponge. Aquat Biol 19:111–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wisshak M, Schönberg CHL, Form A, Freiwald A (2014) Sponge bioerosion accelerated by ocean acidification across species and latitudes? Helgoland Mar Res 68:253–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Zundelevich A, Lazar B, Ilan M (2007) Chemical versus mechanical bioerosion of coral reefs by boring sponges—lessons from Pione cf. vastifica. J Exp Biol 210:91–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • James K.H. Fang
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Christine H.L. Schönberg
    • 4
    • 5
  • Ove Hoegh-Guldberg
    • 1
    • 2
    • 6
  • Sophie Dove
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Coral Reef Ecosystems Laboratory, School of Biological SciencesThe University of QueenslandSt. LuciaAustralia
  2. 2.Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef StudiesThe University of QueenslandSt. LuciaAustralia
  3. 3.Benthic Resources and Processes Research GroupInstitute of Marine ResearchBergenNorway
  4. 4.Oceans InstituteThe University of Western AustraliaCrawleyAustralia
  5. 5.Aquatic ZoologyWestern Australian MuseumWelshpoolAustralia
  6. 6.Global Change InstituteThe University of QueenslandSt. LuciaAustralia

Personalised recommendations