Study

Benefits of herbivorous fish outweigh costs of corallivory in coral nurseries placed close to a Kenyan patch reef

  • Published source details Knoester E.G., Murk A.J. & Osinga R. (2019) Benefits of herbivorous fish outweigh costs of corallivory in coral nurseries placed close to a Kenyan patch reef. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 611, 143-155.

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Transplant wild-grown coral onto artificial substrate

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

    A replicated, controlled study in 2016 at a coral reef near Wasini Island, Kenya (Knoester et al. 2019) found that transplanting stony coral Acropora verweyi fragments under cages to exclude fishes led to fewer bites by coral-eating fishes, but lower growth and survival, and higher levels of biofouling, than uncaged or partially caged fragments. Bite rates by coral-eating fishes were lower for caged fragments (0 g/min) compared to uncaged (0.32 g/min) and partially-caged (0.09 g/min), but there was no difference between uncaged and partially-caged. Specific growth rate/day (see original paper for equation) of caged fragments was lower (0.0047) than uncaged (0.0078) and partially-caged (0.0099). After 100 days, survival was lower for caged (89%) than uncaged (98%) and partially-caged (99%) fragments. There was no difference in growth or survival between uncaged and partially-caged fragments. Total fouling (including molluscs, algae, and crustose coralline algae) was higher in caged (484 g/m2) compared to uncaged (61 g/m2) and partially-caged (78 g/m2) structures, and there was no difference between uncaged and partially-caged. In April 2016, forty-five frames, comprising four 26 cm PVC pipes forming a cross, were installed 3 m deep at each of 15 locations along a 100 m stretch of reef. Four hundred and fifty naturally broken fragments of stony coral were collected from a reef, cut into 4 cm lengths, and suspended from the frames by fishing line (10 fragments/frame). A wire cage (0.5 × 0.25 × 0.25 m, 1.3 × 1.3 cm mesh size) was attached to 15 frames, a wire cage with two open sides was placed on 15 frames, and the remaining 15 frames were left uncovered. Bite rate (reported as fish-size-related mass in g/min – see original paper), growth, and survival were estimated each month using photographs. The experiment lasted 100 days. 

    (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