, 65:27 | Cite as

Sponge bioerosion versus aqueous pCO2: morphometric assessment of chips and etching fissures

  • Neele MeyerEmail author
  • Max Wisshak
  • Christine H. L. Schönberg
Original Article
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Bioerosion: An interdisciplinary approach


Bioeroding sponges are important macroborers that chemically cut out substrate particles (chips) and mechanically remove them, thereby contributing to reef-associated sediment. These chemical and mechanical proportions vary with elevated levels of partial pressure of carbon dioxide (pCO2). To assess related impacts, the morphometric parameters “chip diameter” and “etching fissure width” were analyzed for Cliona orientalis Thiele, 1900, hypothesizing that their dimensions would differ with different pCO2 exposures (72 h at ca. 400, 750 and 1700 μatm). Under ambient conditions, we obtained a mean chip diameter of 21.6 ± 0.7 μm and a mean fissure width of 0.29 ± 0.01 μm. Chips were evenly distributed across the medium and coarse silt fractions regardless of treatment. We could not find a reliable pCO2 treatment effect for chip diameter and fissure width, but we observed strong data variability not related to our key questions. A hierarchical data design further reduced the test power. Fissure width was the more sensitive, but also more variable parameter. Sample size analyses nevertheless indicated that we had processed enough data. Thus, we reject our scenario of an increase in fissure width and consequent reduction in chip size to explain why chemical sponge bioerosion increases more strongly than the mechanical counterpart. Instead, we propose that a lowered ambient pH may favor respiratory acid build-up in the sponge tissue, possibly leading to a less localized bioerosion, causing bias towards more chemical bioerosion. Overall, this does not seem to affect the morphometry of sponge chips and the quality of sponge-generated sediment.


Chemical bioerosion Sediment production pH Global change Sample size Cliona orientalis 



Supreme logistical support was provided by AIMS staff members including M. Donaldson and D. Stockham and the OIRS team S. Kelly, H. Burgess, R. Wiley, I. Fennel, and N. Salmon. Fieldwork greatly profited from the commitment of the scientific volunteers R. and D. Wisdom, N. Lee and C. Ansell. B. Radford and R. Fischer discussed possible statistical approaches with us. We thank the anonymous reviewers for their positive review.


  1. Achlatis M, Schönberg CHL, van der Zande R, LaJeunesse T, Hoegh-Guldberg O, Dove S (in press) Photosynthesis by symbiotic sponges enhances their ability to erode calcium carbonate. J Exp Mar Biol EcolGoogle Scholar
  2. Acker KL, Risk MJ (1985) Substrate destruction and sediment production by the boring sponge Cliona caribbaea on Grand Cayman Island. J Sediment Res 55:705–711. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Adjas A, Masse J-P, Montaggioni LF (1990) Fine-grained carbonates in nearly closed reef environments: Mataiva and Takapoto atolls, Central Pacific Ocean. Sediment Geol 67:115–132. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alvarado JJ, Grassian B, Cantera-Kintz JR, Carballo JL, Londoño-Cruz E (2017) Coral reef bioerosion in the eastern tropical Pacific. In: Glynn P, Manzello D, Enochs I (eds) Coral reefs of the Eastern Tropical Pacific. Springer, Berlin, pp 369–403. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bros WE, Cowell BC (1987) A technique for optimizing sample size (replication). J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 114:63–71. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Calcinai B, Cerrano C, Bavestrello G (2002) A new species of Scantiletta (Demospongiae, Clionaidae) from the Mediterranean precious red coral with some remarks on the genus. Bull Mar Sci 70(3):919–926Google Scholar
  7. Calcinai B, Cerrano C, Bavestrello G (2007) Three new species and one re-description of Aka. J Mar Biol Assoc UK 87(6):1355–1365. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carballo JL, Ovalle-Beltrán H, Yáñez B, Bautista-Guerrero E, Nava-Bravo H (2016) Assessment of the distribution of sponge chips in the sediment of East Pacific Ocean reefs. Mar Ecol 38:e12390. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chisholm JRM, Gattuso J-P (1991) Validation of the alkalinity anomaly technique for investigating calcification of photosynthesis in coral reef communities. Limnol Oceanogr 36(6):1232–1239. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Donn TF, Boardman MR (1988) Bioerosion of rocky carbonate coastlines on Andros Island, Bahamas. J Coast Res 4(3):381–394Google Scholar
  11. Fang JKH, Mello-Athayde MA, Schönberg CHL, Kline DI, Hoegh-Guldberg O, Dove S (2013) Sponge biomass and bioerosion rates increase under ocean warming and acidification. Glob Change Biol 19(12):3581–3591. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fang JKH, Schönberg CHL, Hoegh-Guldberg O, Dove S (2016) Day–night ecophysiology of the photosymbiotic bioeroding sponge Cliona orientalis Thiele, 1900. Mar Biol 163:100. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Field A (2009) Calculating the effect size. Discovering statistics using SPSS, 3rd edn. Sage Publications, London, pp 389–390Google Scholar
  14. Fütterer DK (1974) Significance of the boring sponge Cliona for the origin of fine grained material of carbonate sediments. J Sediment Res 44:79–84. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Glynn PW, Manzello DP (2015) Bioerosion and coral reef growth: a dynamic balance. In: Birkeland C (ed) Coral reefs in the Anthropocene. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 67–97. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Goreau TF, Hartman WD (1963) Boring sponges as controlling factors in the formation and maintenance of coral reefs. In: Sognnaes RF (ed) Mechanisms of hard tissue destruction, vol 75. Amer Assoc Adv Sci Publ, Washington, pp 25–54Google Scholar
  17. Halley RB, Shinn EA, Hudson JH, Lidz B (1977) Recent and relict topography of Boo Bee patch reef, Belize. In: Proceedings 3rd international coral reef symposium, Miami, pp 29–35Google Scholar
  18. Hammer Ø, Harper DAT, Ryan PD (2001) PAST: paleontological statistics software package for education and data analysis. Palaeontol Electron 4:1–9Google Scholar
  19. Kadam P, Bhalerao S (2010) Sample size calculation. Int J Ayurveda Res 1(1):55–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Land LS (1979) The fate of reef-derived sediment on the north Jamaican island slope. Mar Geol 29(1–4):55–71. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. MacGeachy JK, Stearn CW (1976) Boring by macro-organisms in the coral Montastrea annularis on Barbados reefs. Int Rev ges Hydrobiol 61(6):715–745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Maldonado M, Giraud K, Carmona C (2008) Effects of sediment on the survival of asexually produced sponge recruits. Mar Biol 154(4):631–641. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mallela J, Perry CT (2007) Calcium carbonate budgets for two coral reefs affected by different terrestrial runoff regimes, Rio Bueno, Jamaica. Coral Reefs 26(1):129–145. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Marlow J, Schönberg CHL, Davy SK, Haris A, Jompa J, Bell JJ (2018) Bioeroding sponge assemblages: the importance of substrate availability and sediment. J Mar Biol Assoc UK. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Moore Jr CH, Shedd WW (1977) Effective rates of sponge bioerosion as a function of carbonate production. In: Proceedings 3rd international coral reef symposium, Miami, pp 499–505Google Scholar
  26. Moore Jr CH, Graham EA, Land LS (1976) Sediment transport and dispersal across the deep fore-reef and island slope (− 55 m to − 305 m), Discovery Bay, Jamaica. J Sediment Res 46(1):174–187. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pomponi SA (1980) Cytological mechanisms of calcium carbonate excavation by boring sponges. Int Rev Cytol 65:301–319. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rützler K (1975) The role of burrowing sponges in bioerosion. Oecologia 19(3):203–216. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rützler K (2002) Impact of crustose clionid sponges on Caribbean reef corals. Acta Geol Hisp 37(1):61–72Google Scholar
  30. Rützler K, Rieger G (1973) Sponge burrowing: fine structure of Cliona lampa penetrating calcareous substrata. Mar Biol 21(2):144–162. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schaetzl RJ, Thompson ML (2015) Solids. In: Schaetzl RJ, Thompson ML (eds) Soils. Genesis and morphology, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 778Google Scholar
  32. Schneider CA, Rasband WS, Eliceiri KW (2012) NIH Image to ImageJ: 25 years of image analysis. Nat Methods 9(7):671–675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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. Senckenb Marit 30(3–6):161–221. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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 165–202. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schönberg CHL (2016) Effects of dredging on filter feeder communities, with a focus on sponges. Final report of project 6.1 of the Dredging Science Node of the Western Australian Marine Science Institution, Perth, Western Australia, p 127.önberg_2016_FINAL.pdf. Accessed 02 Aug 2018
  36. Schönberg CHL, Ortiz J-C (2009) Is sponge bioerosion increasing? In: Proceedings of the 11th international coral reef symposium, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, USA, pp 520–523Google Scholar
  37. 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. Museu Nacional, Rio de Janeiro, pp 569–580Google Scholar
  38. Schönberg CHL, Fang JKH, Carballo JL (2017a) Bioeroding sponges and the future of coral reefs. In: Carballo JL, Bell JJ (eds) Climate change, ocean acidification and sponges. Springer International, Cham, pp 179–372. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schönberg CHL, Fang JKH, Carreiro-Silva M, Tribollet A, Wisshak M (2017b) Bioerosion: the other ocean acidification problem. ICES J Mar Sci 74(4):895–925. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schönberg CHL, Gleason FH, Meyer N, Wisshak M (2019) Close encounters in the substrate: when macroborers meet microborers. Facies 65:22. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schroeder D (1984) Soil—facts and concepts, 4th edn. Verlag Ferdinand Hirt, Bern, p 140Google Scholar
  42. Scoffin TP, Stearn CW, Boucher D, Frydl P, Hawkins CM, Hunter IG, MacGeachy JK (1980) Calcium-carbonate budget of a fringing-reef on the west-coast of Barbados. Part II—Erosion sediments and internal structure. Bull Mar Sci 30:475–508Google Scholar
  43. Smith SV, Key GS (1975) Carbon dioxide and metabolism in marine environments. Limnol Oceanogr 20(3):493–495. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Thiele J (1900) Kieselschwämme von Ternate. I Abh Senckenberg naturf Ges 25:19–80Google Scholar
  45. Videtich PE, Tremba EL (1978) Interpretation of the origin and diagenesis of Pleistocene chalk, Eniwetok Atoll, Marshal Islands. J Sediment Res 48(1):313–330. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Warburton FE (1958) The manner in which the sponge Cliona bores into calcareous objects. Can J Zool 36(4):555–562. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ward-Paige CA, Risk MJ, Sherwood OA, Jaap WC (2005) Clionid sponge surveys on the Florida Reef Tract suggest land-based nutrient inputs. Mar Pollut Bull 51(5–7):570–579. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Webb AE, van Heuven SMAC, de Bakker DM, van Duyl FC, Reichart G-J, de Nooijer LJ (2017) Combined effects of experimental acidification and eutrophication on reef sponge bioerosion rates. Front Mar Sci. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wisshak M, Schönberg CHL, Form A, Freiwald A (2012) Ocean acidification accelerates reef bioerosion. PLoS One 7(9):e45124. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 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 19:111–127. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wisshak M, Schönberg CHL, Form A, Freiwald A (2014) Sponge bioerosion accelerated by ocean acidification across species and latitudes? Helgol Mar Res 68(2):253–262. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Young HR, Nelson CS (1985) Biodegradation of temperate-water skeletal carbonates by boring sponges on the Scott Shelf, British Columbia, Canada. Mar Geol 65(1–2):33–45. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Marine Research DepartmentSenckenberg am MeerWilhelmshavenGermany
  2. 2.Oceans Graduate School and UWA Oceans Institute, The University of Western AustraliaCrawleyAustralia

Personalised recommendations