Abstract
Numerous tropical macroalgae provide associational refuge to other benthic organisms, presumably due to their physical structure and/or production of chemical metabolites. One feature determining their effectiveness as an associational refuge is likely to be the size of the organism benefitting from the refuge. Using a manipulative experiment in the back reef of Moorea, French Polynesia, we tested if the macroalga Turbinaria ornata provided an associational refuge from fish corallivores for small colonies of massive Porites spp., and how this differed with colony size (20–100 mm diameter). Tissue loss through corallivory increased with colony size but was ~ 72% less for Porites colonies associated with T. ornata versus colonies separated from this macroalga, while dense macroalgae beds on contemporary reefs negatively impact the recruitment, growth and survival of corals, small colonies of Porites appear to benefit, through reduced corallivory, by associating with the macroalga Turbinaria. This association may come at a cost (e.g., reduced growth) and should be the focus of future research.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
On many Indo-Pacific reefs, an increased frequency and magnitude of disturbances has led to decreases in coral abundance and increases in cover of macroalgae (Bruno et al. 2007; Hughes et al. 2017). Macroalgae can be strong competitors for space when interacting with corals (Hay 1986; Box & Mumby 2007; Clements et al. 2018), and the outcomes of such interactions contribute to phase shifts favoring macroalgal dominance (Brown et al. 2020). At high abundances, macroalgae can inhibit settlement of coral larvae through pre-emption of benthic space (Birrell et al. 2005), reduce coral recruitment (Bulleri et al. 2018), and depress the growth of corals (Venera-Ponton et al. 2011). These effects are mediated through indirect competitive effects such as shading (McCook et al. 2001), and direct effects such as overgrowth (Jorissen et al. 2016), chemical defense, and physical abrasion (Rasher and Hay 2010).
In addition to their negative effects, many tropical macroalgae may provide a benefit to other taxa through the provision of associational refugia from consumers due to their physical structure and/or chemical defenses (e.g., algae: Pfister and Hay 1988; Bittick et al. 2010; Loffler et al. 2015; motile invertebrates: Duffy and Hay 1994; scleractinian corals: Bulleri et al. 2013; Clements and Hay 2015). Associational refuges are created when taxa exploit attributes of another species to acquire protection from predators and disturbance, which can increase species richness (Hay 1986) and modify community structure (Stachowicz 2001). Tropical canopy-forming macroalgae, such as Sargassum and Turbinaria, create opportunities for associational refuges from fish and invertebrate herbivores that find them unpalatable (Hay 1986; Duffy and Hay 1990; 1994), or through their physical structure reducing detection and predation on taxa with which they are associated (Bulleri et al. 2013). The relative effect of macroalgae on associated taxa is likely conditional because the direction and magnitude of the effect are dependent on environmental conditions (Bronstein 1994), or the demographic attributes (e.g., life stage, body size; Hacker and Steneck 1990) of the taxon hypothesized to benefit from the association, as well as the taxon providing the service. For corals, the presence and strength of the associational refuge provided by macroalgae may vary with colony size if, for example, their effects are attenuated when colonies are taller than the macroalgal thalli adjacent to which they are growing.
Corallivory by fishes is an important process structuring coral communities (Rice et al. 2019) and can lead to partial and full mortality of coral colonies (Roff et al. 2011). However, small coral colonies have a higher chance of dying from corallivory than larger colonies, because small colonies are less able to withstand partial mortality (Hughes and Jackson 1985; Bythell et al. 1993; Meesters et al. 1996). A reduction in the likelihood of being consumed by corallivores would therefore be especially beneficial to small corals, with such effects potentially mediated through associational refuges. While corals can exploit associational refuges with macroalgae to reduce their susceptibility to corallivory (Bulleri et al. 2013), it is unknown whether such protection varies with coral colony size (Bulleri et al. 2013; Vieira et al. 2016). Here, we describe an experiment in which colonies of massive Porites spp. (a combination of P. lutea and P. lobata) placed adjacent to Turbinaria (i.e., in the center of a 5-cm radius circle of Turbinaria thalli) versus in isolation, were used to test the effect of Turbinaria in providing an associational refuge as a function of coral colony size. Two hypotheses were tested: (1) Turbinaria reduces fish corallivory on massive Porites spp., and (2) this effect was dependent on coral colony size.
Materials and methods
This study was conducted during May 2019 in the back reef on the north shore of Moorea, French Polynesia (17° 28.85' N, 149° 50.36' W), where Turbinaria has increased in abundance over the last 15 yrs, to cover ~ 14% of hard substrata in 2019 (Carpenter 2020). Colonies of massive Porites spp. (hereafter, Porites) were haphazardly collected from atop dead coral bommies in the back reef at 2–3 m depth, and only colonies free of visual signs of previous corallivory were selected. Sampled colonies varied from 20 to 100 mm diameter, and this size range was selected to implement a test of colony size on the outcome of exploiting an associational refuge with macroalgae. These colonies had planar areas of 519–7,452 mm2 and were likely 3–8 yrs old based on average growth rates for this genus (Pratchett et al. 2015). Colonies were fixed to 15 × 15 cm plastic bases with marine epoxy (Z-spar Splash Zone Compound, A788) and allowed to recover for 12 h in flowing seawater. Porites colonies were assigned to treatment groups (described below) and placed at least 2-m apart on dead portions of coral bommies at 3 m depth. Colonies attached to their plastic bases were fixed to the bommies using masonry nails. After the experiment was completed, the experimental apparatus was removed from the reef and the Porites colonies were reattached to the reef at the collection site.
To test the effects of Turbinaria on fish corallivory, cages (2 cm mesh size, Fig. 1A) were used to exclude fish corallivores from colonies of Porites that were placed either in the presence of, or absence of, Turbinaria. Three treatments were applied: (1) an open, cageless treatment to test for corallivory unimpeded by a cage or Turbinaria, (2) a Turbinaria treatment in which semi-enclosed cages (12 cm diameter, 7.5 cm height, open top) provided access to the coral by fish corallivores through the open top, with 6 macroalgal thalli (15 cm tall) located outside of the cage, where they were unable to physically contact the coral but created an associational refuge, and (3) a full cage (12 cm diameter, 7.5 cm height, with top) that excluded corallivorous fishes (see below) without the presence of Turbinaria. Ten replicates (i.e., each with one Porites colony) were constructed for each treatment (30 corals total), and Turbinaria thalli for the associational refuge treatment were collected from the site in which the experiment was conducted.
Tissue damage was quantified using macro images recorded with natural lighting using an Olympus TG-3 camera, and the total area of tissue damage on each colony was compared among treatment groups using colony area as a covariate. Photographs taken at the end of the 24-day experiment (28 May) were compared to those taken at the start of the experiment (4 May) to determine the change in coral area damaged by corallivory. Photographs were taken perpendicular to each colony, calibrated with a ruler in the frame, and analyzed using Fiji software (Schindelin et al. 2012) (Fig. 1B, C). The planar area of each coral was measured by tracing the outline of the perimeter of the colony, and the area of tissue damaged with scars of corallivores (sensu Cameron and Edmunds 2014) was measured by tracing the outline of the affected areas. The origin of the damage was determined by comparing the type of damage with that created by confirmed examples of fish corallivory on colonies of Porites that were growing on adjacent bommies and in the cageless treatment. In the back reef of Moorea, Chaetodon citrinellus, C. vagabundus and C. lunulatus were the most common fish corallivores on Porites, with bite rates on undisturbed large colonies (100–300 cm diameter, ~ 10 times larger than the colonies used in this experiment) with a median of 8.5 ± 7.7 bites min−1 (± SE, n = 37) (G. Srednick, unpublished data for 2019).
A linear model (LM) was used to test the effect of Turbinaria and coral colony size on the progression of tissue damage over 24 days. In this analysis, we used planar area as a measure of coral size instead of diameter because diameter does not provide adequate resolution of the 2-dimensional variation in planar area across colonies. The change in the area of damaged tissue from the initial (day 0) to final (day 24) was the response variable, and treatment (categorical) and colony size (continuous) were the predictor variables. The LM was fitted using a Gaussian distribution and the ‘stat’ base package (RStudio Team 2022) in R. Parametric assumptions were assessed by visual inspection of residual plots for normality, and the homogeneity of variances of the model was evaluated using Levene’s test (Figure S1) using the ‘DHARMa’ package in R (Hartig 2022). Colony planar area (mm2) was square-root transformed to satisfy parametric assumptions. All analyses were performed in the R statistical computing environment v 4.0.3 (R Core Team 2022) with the additional packages: ‘ggsignif’ (Ahlmann-Eltze and Patil 2021) and ‘tidyverse’ (Wickham et al. 2019).
Results and discussion
Our results suggest that the area of tissue damaged by fish corallivory on Porites increases with colony size but is reduced when colonies are associated with Turbinaria. In the 24-day experiment, corallivory increased with colony size (F1,26 = 4.68; p = 0.04, Fig. 2) and was greatest in fully exposed colonies (change in tissue damage: 165 ± 31 mm2, mean ± SE). Corallivory was reduced by ~ 72% on Porites colonies in associated with Turbinaria (46 ± 41 mm2 mean tissue damage; Treatment: F2,27 = 11.58, p < 0.001, Fig. 2). The effects of corallivory were statistically indistinguishable between Porites colonies associated with Turbinaria and with the full-cage treatments (Tukey’s HSD; p = 0.13). Corallivory on the experimental Porites colonies generally increased with colony size (i.e., the slope of the linear relationship between the tissue lost to corallivory and coral colony area = 3.18, p = 0.009; Fig. 2), with the effect being consistent among treatments (Treatment × Area interaction: F2,24 = 2.03; p = 0.15, Fig. 2).
The present finding that small Porites colonies (< 3000 mm2) experienced lower rates of corallivory when associated with Turbinaria is consistent with a previous study (Bulleri et al. 2013). The linear relationships of corallivory on colony area indicate that a Porites colony 2000 mm2 in area (45 on a square-root transformed scale; Fig. 2) would accrue 150 mm2 of corallivory damage over 24 days when isolated from Turbinaria, but only 34 mm2 of corallivory damage when associated with Turbinaria, a reduction of 77%. While this difference in corallivory between colonies placed adjacent to, versus isolated from, Turbinaria is consistent across the range of colony sizes examined (i.e., regression lines between colony size and corallivory for Turbinaria and open treatments have equal slopes), the smallest corals (i.e., ~ 600 mm2 area) almost fully avoided the effects of corallivory when adjacent to Turbinaria, suggesting that small coral colonies may benefit more than larger colonies from associating with Turbinaria. We did not find an interaction between colony area and the presence of associational refuge that would suggest treatment-specific size dependency of corallivory. Nonetheless, the increased refuge from corallivory provided by Turbinaria to small, relatively young corals may partly counteract the high risks of mortality in small size classes of corals (i.e., < 600 mm2 area) (Hughes and Jackson 1985; Meesters et al. 1996). Consequently, the relative value of the protection afforded by close proximity to Turbinaria would be expected to be greatest in small versus large colonies within the size range we studied (i.e., 500–7400 mm2 area).
A limitation of our experiment is the absence of a cage control treatment that would experimentally evaluate the effects of the cage alone in mediating corallivory on the corals. We rationalized the absence of cage controls by the near-complete encircling of Turbinaria thalli applied to the cages in the associational refuge treatment. Nevertheless, without a cage control we cannot be certain that the effects we report are a result of an associational refuge with the algae or the cage, although they demonstrate that the combination of the two confers protection from corallivory to corals. Together with examples of corals with scars of corallivory in open locations but not when crowded by algae (G Srednick, personal observation), our experimental evidence is consistent with the associational refuge hypothesis we posit to account for our results.
Consideration of the nuances in the outcomes of competition between taxa (e.g., coral vs. macroalgae) can have value in understanding coral community trajectories on coral reefs (Rice et al. 2019). It is possible that the protection from corallivory provided to corals by Turbinaria could be outweighed by their negative effects of shading and physical abrasion that can reduce coral growth rate and survival (River & Edmunds 2001; Bulleri et al. 2013; Clements et al. 2018; Clements & Hay 2023). Such effects (i.e., shading) might be greater when corals are smaller, when the benefit from associational refuge is greatest but could be alleviated as corals grow large enough to protrude out of macroalgal canopy. The aforementioned effects (i.e., colony size-dependent benefits from associational refuges) might be another factor of value in understanding the competitive relationships between corals and macroalgae and the factors mediating phase changes between coral-dominated and macroalgal-dominated reefs.
References
Ahlmann-Eltze C, Patil I (2021) ggsignif: R Package for displaying significance brackets for 'ggplot2'. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/7awm6
Birrell CL, McCook LJ, Willis BL (2005) Effects of algal turfs and sediment on coral settlement. Mar Pollut Bull 51:408–414
Bittick SJ, Bilotti ND, Peterson HA, Stewart HL (2010) Turbinaria ornata as an herbivory refuge for associate algae. Mar Biol 157:317–323
Box S, Mumby PJ (2007) Effect of macroalgal competition on growth and survival of juvenile Caribbean corals. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 342:139–149
Bronstein JL (1994) Conditional outcomes in mutualistic interactions. Trends Ecol Evol 9:214–217
Brown KT, Bender-Champ D, Hoegh-Guldberg O, Dove S (2020) Seasonal shifts in the competitive ability of macroalgae influence the outcomes of coral–algal competition. Roy Soc Open Sci 7:201797
Bruno JF, Selig ER (2007) Regional decline of coral cover in the Indo-Pacific: timing, extent, and subregional comparisons. PLoS ONE 2:e711
Bulleri F, Couraudon-Réale M, Loma TL, Claudet J (2013) Variability in the effects of macroalgae on the survival and growth of corals: the consumer connection. PLoS ONE 8:e79712
Bulleri F, Thiault L, Mills S, Nugues M, Eckert E, Corno G, Claudet J (2018) Erect macroalgae influence epilithic bacterial assemblages and reduce coral recruitment. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 597:65–77
Bythell JC, Gladfelter EH, Bythell M (1993) Chronic and catastrophic natural mortality of three common Caribbean reef corals. Coral Reefs 12:143–152
Cameron C, Edmunds P (2014) Effects of simulated fish predation on small colonies of massive Porites spp. and Pocillopora meandrina. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 508:139–148. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps10862
Carpenter, R of Moorea Coral Reef LTER (2020) MCR LTER: Coral reef: long-term population and community dynamics: benthic algae and other community components, ongoing since 2005. knb-lter-mcr.8.32. 10.6073/pasta/0bf200e9e0f099de69826f57b18ff3da
Clements CS, Hay ME (2015) Competitors as accomplices: seaweed competitors hide corals from predatory sea stars. Proc R Soc B-Biol Sci 282:221–229
Clements CS, Hay ME (2023) Disentangling the impacts of macroalgae on corals via effects on their microbiomes. Front Ecol Evol 11:1083341
Clements C, Rasher D, Hoey A, Bonito V, Hay M (2018) Spatial and temporal limits of coral-macroalgal competition: the negative impacts of macroalgal density, proximity, and history of contact. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 586:11–20
Duffy JE, Hay ME (1990) Seaweed adaptations to herbivory. Bioscience 40:368–375
Duffy JE, Hay ME (1994) Herbivore resistance to seaweed chemical defense: the roles of mobility and predation risk. Ecology 75:1304–1319
Hacker SD, Steneck RS (1990) Habitat architecture and the abundance and body-size-dependent habitat selection of a phytal amphipod. Ecology 71:2269–2285
Florian Hartig (2022) DHARMa: Residual Diagnostics for Hierarchical (Multi-Level / Mixed) Regression Models. R package version 0.4.6. http://florianhartig.github.io/DHARMa/
Hay ME (1986) Associational plant defenses and the maintenance of species diversity: turning competitors into accomplices. Am Nat 128:617–641
Hughes TP, Barnes ML, Bellwood DR, Cinner JE, Cumming GS, Jackson JBC, Kleypas J, Leemput IA van de, Lough JM, Morrison TH, Palumbi SR, Nes EH van, Scheffer M (2017) Coral reefs in the Anthropocene. 82–90
Hughes TP, Jackson JBC (1985) Population dynamics and life histories of foliaceous corals. Ecol Monogr 55:141–166
Jorissen H, Skinner C, Osinga R, de Beer D, Nugues MM (2016) Evidence for water-mediated mechanisms in coral-algal interactions. Proc Biol Sci 283:20161137
Loffler Z, Bellwood DR, Hoey AS (2015) Associations among coral reef macroalgae influence feeding by herbivorous fishes. Coral Reefs 34:51–55
McCook L, Jompa J, Diaz-Pulido G (2001) Competition between corals and algae on coral reefs: a review of evidence and mechanisms. Coral Reefs 19:400–417
Meesters EH, Wesseling I, Bak RPM (1996) Partial mortality in three species of reef-building corals and the relation with colony morphology. Bull Mar Sci 3:838–852
Pfister CA, Hay ME (1988) Associational plant refuges: convergent patterns in marine and terrestrial communities result from differing mechanisms. Oecologia 77:118–129
Pratchett M, Anderson K, Hoogenboom M, Widman E, Baird A, Pandolfi J, Edmunds P, Lough J (2015) Spatial, temporal and taxonomic variation in coral growth—implications for the structure and function of coral reef ecosystems. Oceanogr Mar Biol: an Annu Rev 53:215–295
Rasher DB, Hay ME (2010) Chemically rich seaweeds poison corals when not controlled by herbivores. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107:9683–9688
Rice MM, Ezzat L, Burkepile DE (2019) Corallivory in the anthropocene: interactive effects of anthropogenic stressors and corallivory on coral reefs. Front Mar Sci 5:525
River GF, Edmunds PJ (2001) Mechanisms of interaction between macroalgae and scleractinians on a coral reef in Jamaica. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 261:159–172
Roff G, Ledlie MH, Ortiz JC, Mumby PJ (2011) Spatial patterns of parrotfish corallivory in the caribbean: the importance of coral taxa, density and size. PLoS ONE 6:e29133
RStudio Team (2022). RStudio: Integrated Development for R. RStudio, PBC, Boston, MA http://www.rstudio.com/.
Schindelin J, Arganda-Carreras I, Frise E, Kaynig V, Longair M, Pietzsch T, Preibisch S, Rueden C, Saalfeld S, Schmid B, Tinevez J-Y, White DJ, Hartenstein V, Eliceiri K, Tomancak P, Cardona A (2012) Fiji: an open-source platform for biological-image analysis. Nat Methods 9:676–682
Stachowicz JJ (2001) Mutualism, facilitation, and the structure of ecological communities. Bioscience 51:235–246
Venera-Ponton D, Diaz-Pulido G, McCook L, Rangel-Campo A (2011) Macroalgae reduce growth of juvenile corals but protect them from parrotfish damage. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 421:109–115
Vieira C, Payri C, Clerck OD (2016) A fresh look at macroalgal-coral interactions: are macroalgae a threat to corals? Perspectives Phycol 3:129–140
Wickham H, Averick M, Bryan J, Chang W, McGowan LDA, François R, Yutani H (2019) Welcome to the Tidyverse. J Open Source Softw 4(43):1686
Acknowledgements
This research was funded by the U.S. National Science Foundation (OCE 14-15268 to P.J.E.) in part through the Moorea Coral Reef LTER (OCE 16-37396). Research was completed under permits issued by the French Polynesian Government (Délégation à la Recherche) and the Haut-Commissariat de la République en Polynésie Française (Protocole d’Accueil 2019–2020). We thank the staff of the Richard B. Gump South Pacific Research Station, S. Ginther and S. Doo for field support, and two anonymous reviewers who provided comments that improved an earlier draft. This is contribution number 381 of the CSUN Marine Biology Program.
Funding
Open Access funding enabled and organized by CAUL and its Member Institutions.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Srednick, G., Edmunds, P.J. Corallivory on small Porites colonies increases with coral colony size but is reduced by macroalgal associational refuge. Coral Reefs 42, 1233–1237 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00338-023-02424-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00338-023-02424-1