Study

Density dependence drives habitat production and survivorship of Acropora cervicornis used for restoration on a Caribbean coral reef

  • Published source details Ladd M.C., Shantz A.A., Nedimyer K. & Burkepile D.E. (2016) Density dependence drives habitat production and survivorship of Acropora cervicornis used for restoration on a Caribbean coral reef. Frontiers in Marine Science, 3.

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Transplant nursery-grown coral onto natural substrate

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

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 2013–2014 at a coral reef site off Plantation Key, Florida, USA (Ladd et al. 2016) found that transplanting staghorn coral Acropora cervicornis fragments at lower density led to a higher survival rate compared to fragments transplanted at higher densities, but results for growth were mixed. Thirteen months after transplanting, fragment survival was higher in the 3 fragments/plot treatment (100%) compared to the 12-clumped/plot and 24/plot (both 58%) and higher in the 6/plot (84%), 12/plot (88%) and 12-clumped/plot compared to 24/plot. Daily growth rate (skeletal extension) did not vary between treatments until the final survey period when growth was higher for 12/plot fragments (0.82 cm/day) compared to 24/plot (0.44 cm/day). There was no difference in daily growth rate between 3 (0.67 cm/day), 6 (0.68 cm/day), and 12-clumped (0.82 cm/day) plots compared to 24/plot (0.44 cm/day). In May 2013, twenty-four 4 m2 plots were marked on a reef 5–7 m deep. Staghorn coral fragments (~85 cm long) were transplanted from a nearby nursery and attached to the substrate using marine epoxy in densities: 3/plot (0.75 corals/m2); 6/plot (1.5/m2); 12/plot (3/m2); 12-clumped/plot (12/m2); and 24/plot (6/m2). Fragments were evenly distributed within each plot except the 12-clumped which were placed within 1m2 inside the plot. Each plot had four replicates and an additional four plots were left without transplants as controls. Plots were surveyed in August and December 2013 and June 2014. Growth was measured as total skeletal extension (length, width, and height) of all fragments. Survival (% fragments alive) was recorded at each survey. 

    (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 21

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