Study

Evaluating causes of transplant stress in fragments of Acropora palmata used for coral reef restoration

  • Published source details Forrester G.E., Maynard A., Schofield S. & Taylor K. (2012) Evaluating causes of transplant stress in fragments of Acropora palmata used for coral reef restoration. Bulletin of Marine Science, 88, 1099-1113.

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Transplant wild grown coral onto natural substrate

Action Link
Coral Conservation

Transplant wild grown coral onto natural substrate

Action Link
Coral Conservation
  1. Transplant wild grown coral onto natural substrate

    A replicated, randomized study in 2010–2011 in the British Virgin Islands (Forrester et al. 2012), found that storm-generated fragments of elkhorn coral Acropora palmata transplanted onto natural substrate at a new site had higher levels of bleaching and tissue loss than fragments transplanted within the original site or established fragments transplanted two years before, but growth was lower for same-site than new-site or established fragments. After 10-16 days, a higher number of new-site fragments (57/84) showed some bleaching (>0%) compared to original-site ([figure shows] 9/45) and established fragments (9/45). The number of new-site fragments showing some tissue loss (>0%) was higher (72/84) than original-site (26/48) and established (24/45) fragments. After three months, long-term tissue loss as a percentage of the original fragment size was greater in original-site (68% tissue loss) compared to new-site (37%) and established (28%) fragments. In July-August 2010, one-hundred-and-thirty-two storm-generated elkhorn fragments were collected from two sites in the British Virgin Islands (Harris Ghut and Little Camanhoe). Eighty-four fragments were randomly selected and transplanted to an existing restoration site at White Bay and attached to the substrate using cable-ties. Remaining fragments were re-attached to the substrate at their original site (22 at Harris Ghut, 26 at Little Camanhoe) using cable-ties. As a comparison, 45 fragments that had been transplanted in July – August 2008 at White Bay were surveyed. Percentage tissue loss and bleaching was recorded after 2-4 days for new-site fragments and 10-16 days after transplanting for all fragments. Growth was measured using photographs after three months. Hurricane Earl affected the area in September 2010 – two weeks after transplanting. 

    (Summarised by: Ann Thornton)

  2. Transplant wild grown coral onto natural substrate

    A replicated study in 2010–2011 in the British Virgin Islands (Forrester et al. 2012), found that transplanting storm-generated fragments of elkhorn coral Acropora palmata outside known damselfish Stegastes planifrons territory did not result in less tissue loss or bleaching than fragments transplanted inside territories. After 10 – 16 days, there was no significant difference in the number of fragments showing some tissue loss between newly or established transplanted fragments inside (new transplants: 21/25, 84%; established transplants: 8/13, 62%) or outside damselfish territory (new: 51/59, 86%; established: 16/32, 50%). There was also no significant difference in the number of fragments showing some bleaching inside (new: 13/25, 52%; established: 3/13, 23%,) or outside damselfish territory (new: 44/59, 75%; established: 16/32, 19%). In July-August 2010, eighty-four storm-generated elkhorn fragments were collected from two sites in the British Virgin Islands (Harris Ghut and Little Camanhoe) and transplanted to an existing restoration site at White Bay. Fragments were attached to the substrate using cable ties either inside (25) or outside (59) known damselfish territories. As a comparison, 45 fragments that had been transplanted in July–August 2008 at White Bay were surveyed. Of those, 13 were inside and 32 outside damselfish territories. Percentage tissue loss and bleaching were visually assessed after 10–16 days and recorded on a 0-5 scale. Hurricane Earl affected the area in September 2010 – two weeks after transplanting. 

    (Summarised by: Ann Thornton)

Output references
What Works 2021 cover

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read the latest volume: Volume 22

Go to the CE Journal

Discover more on our blog

Our blog contains the latest news and updates from the Conservation Evidence team, the Conservation Evidence Journal, and our global partners in evidence-based conservation.


Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the Evidence Champions

Endangered Landscape ProgrammeRed List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Mauritian Wildlife Supporting Conservation Leaders
Sustainability Dashboard National Biodiversity Network Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Bat Conservation InternationalPeople trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust