A novel μCT analysis reveals different responses of bioerosion and secondary accretion to environmental variability

Corals build reefs through accretion of calcium carbonate (CaCO3) skeletons, but net reef growth also depends on bioerosion by grazers and borers and on secondary calcification by crustose coralline algae and other calcifying invertebrates. However, traditional field methods for quantifying secondary accretion and bioerosion confound both processes, do not measure them on the same time-scale, or are restricted to 2D methods. In a prior study, we compared multiple environmental drivers of net erosion using pre- and post-deployment micro-computed tomography scans (μCT; calculated as the % change in volume of experimental CaCO3 blocks) and found a shift from net accretion to net erosion with increasing ocean acidity. Here, we present a novel μCT method and detail a procedure that aligns and digitally subtracts pre- and post-deployment μCT scans and measures the simultaneous response of secondary accretion and bioerosion on blocks exposed to the same environmental variation over the same time-scale. We tested our method on a dataset from a prior study and show that it can be used to uncover information previously unattainable using traditional methods. We demonstrated that secondary accretion and bioerosion are driven by different environmental parameters, bioerosion is more sensitive to ocean acidity than secondary accretion, and net erosion is driven more by changes in bioerosion than secondary accretion

The effects of eutrophication-related alterations to coral reef communities on agents and rates of bioerosion (Reunion Island, Indian Ocean)

International audienceThis study investigated the variation of bioerosional processes in relation to disturbances of reefal communities due to eutrophication. La Saline fringing reef (Reunion Island) is subjected to nutrient inputs from the adjacent land. Bioerosion by grazers, microborers, and macroborers was measured using experimental substrata exposed for 1 year in three sites characterized by different levels of nutrient input and benthic community response. The relationship between bioerosion and epilithic algal cover of hard substrata and the interactions between the various agents of bioerosion were analyzed with parametric statistics. Significant variations in bioerosion were found among sites, ranging from 1.63 to 3.52 kg CaCO3 m–2 year–1 for grazing rates, from 6.73 to 32.25 g m–2 year–1 for macroboring rates, and from 43.78 to 67.56 g m–2 year–1 for microboring rates. One of the major factors controlling these variations appeared to be changes in the epilithic algal cover on substrata in response to changes in reefal water chemistry. In low nutrient areas, where dead corals were colonized mainly by algal turfs, erosion by microorganisms was low (43.78 g m–2 year–1) due to intense grazing (3.52 kg m–2 year–1). In reef zones receiving high nutrient inputs, the development of encrusting calcareous algae and macroalgae was associated with the lowest grazing (1.63 kg m–2 year–1) and macroboring (6.73 g m–2 year–1) rates recorded among sites. In contrast, high microboring rates (57.54 and 67.56 g m–2 year–1) were found in enriched areas in association with high macroalgal cover

Coral Growth and Bioerosion of Porites lutea in Response to Large Amplitude Internal Waves

The Similan Islands (Thailand) in the Andaman Sea are exposed to large amplitude internal waves (LAIW), as evidenced by i.a. abrupt fluctuations in temperature of up to 10uC at supertidal frequencies. Although LAIW have been shown to affect coral composition and framework development in shallow waters, the role of LAIW on coral growth is so far unknown. We carried out a long-term transplant experiment with live nubbins and skeleton slabs of the dominating coral Porites lutea to assess the net growth and bioerosion in LAIW-exposed and LAIW-protected waters. Depth-related, seasonal and interannual differences in LAIW-intensities on the exposed western sides of the islands allowed us to separate the effect of LAIW from other possible factors (e.g. monsoon) affecting the corals. Coral growth and bioerosion were inversely related to LAIW intensity, and positively related to coral framework development. Accretion rates of calcareous fouling organisms on the slabs were negligible compared to bioerosion, reflecting the lack of a true carbonate framework on the exposed W faces of the Similan Islands. Our findings show that LAIW may play an important, yet so far overlooked, role in controlling coral growth in tropical waters

Cross-shelf differences in the pattern and pace of bioerosion of experimental carbonate substrates exposed for 3 years on the northern Great Barrier Reef, Australia

International audiencePatterns of bioerosion of dead corals and rubbles on the northern Great Barrier Reef were studied by using blocks of the massive coral Porites experimentally exposed at six sites, located on an inshore-offshore profile, for 1 year and 3 years. Rates of microbioerosion by microborers, grazing by fish, and macrobioerosion by filter-feeding organisms were simultaneously evaluated using image analysis. Microbioerosion, grazing, and total bioerosion were lower at reefs near the Queensland coast than at the edge of the continental shelf (1.81 kg m-2 and 6.07 kg m-2 after 3 years of exposure respectively, for total bioerosion). The opposite pattern was observed for macrobioerosion. Bioaccretion was negligible. These patterns were evident after 1 year of exposure, and became enhanced after 3 years. Microborers were established and were the main agent of bioerosion after 1 year of exposure, and as the principal support for grazing, continued to be the main cause of carbonate loss after 3 years. Full grazing activity and establishment of a mature community of macroborers required more than 1 year of exposure. After 1 year, macroborers and grazers were the second most important agents of bioerosion on both inshore and offshore reefs. However, after 3 years, grazers became the main agents at all sites except at the inshore sites, where macroborers were the principal agents. Because the contribution of microborers, grazers, and macroborers to bioerosion varies in space and time, we suggest that the estimation of reef carbonate budgets need to take in account the activities of all bioerosion agents