Coral restoration in a changing world - a global synthesis of methods and techniques

Coral reef ecosystems have suffered an unprecedented loss of habitat-forming hard corals in recent decades, due to increased nutrient outputs from agriculture, elevated levels of suspended sediment caused by deforestation and development, destructive fishing practices, over-harvesting of reef species, outbreaks of corallivorous crown-of-thorns starfish (COTS, Acanthaster planci), coral disease and tropical storms. However, in recent years climate change has emerged as the primary threat to coral reefs. While reefs have a natural capacity for recovery, recurring events like mass coral bleaching and extreme weather events is increasing in frequency, intensity and severity, and are eroding the time for recovery between catastrophic events. Marine conservation has primarily focused on passive habitat protection over active restoration, in contrast to terrestrial ecosystems where active restoration is common practice. Further, active restoration is well accepted for wetlands and shellfish reefs however coral reef restoration has remained controversial both in academia and amongst marine managers. This is despite recent research suggesting that optimal conservation outcomes include both habitat protection and restoration. Critics often argue that coral restoration detracts focus from mitigating climate change and other threats to the marine environment, while proponents of coral restoration counter that interventions can serve to protect coral biodiversity and endangered species in the short-term, while mitigation of large-scale threats such as climate change and water quality take effect. Despite this disconnect between coral restoration practitioners, coral reef managers and scientists, active coral restoration is increasingly used as a tool to attempt to restore coral populations. The field has largely developed through independent work of isolated groups, and has fallen victim to ‘growing pains’ associated with ecological restoration in many other ecosystems. Partly this is due to a reluctance to share outcomes of projects, and in some cases a lack of monitoring or appropriate reporting of project outcomes. To mitigate this, we aimed to synthesise the available knowledge in a comprehensive global review of coral restoration methods, incorporating data from a traditional literature search of the scientific literature, complemented with information gathered from online sources and through a survey of coral restoration practitioners. We identified 329 case studies on coral restoration, of which 195 were from the scientific literature, 79 were sourced from the grey literature (i.e. reports and online descriptions), and 55 were responses to our survey of restoration practitioners. We identified ten coral restoration intervention types: coral gardening - transplantation phase (23% of records), direct transplantation (21%), artificial reefs (19%), coral gardening - nursery phase (17%), coral gardening (both phases, 7%), substrate enhancement with electricity (4%), substrate stabilisation (4%), algae removal (2%), larval enhancement (1%) and microfragmentation (<1%). The majority of interventions involve coral fragmentation or transplantation of coral fragments (70%). While 52 countries are represented in the dataset, the majority of projects were conducted in the USA, Philippines, Thailand and Indonesia (together representing 40% of projects). Coral restoration case studies are dominated by short-term projects, with 66% of all projects reporting less than 18 months of monitoring of the restored sites. Overall, the median length of projects was 12 months. Similarly, most projects are relatively small in spatial scale, with a median size of restored area of 500 m2. A diverse range of species are represented in the dataset, with 221 different species from 89 coral genera. Overall, coral restoration projects focused primarily (65% of studies) on fast-growing branching corals. Among all the published documents, the top five species (22% of studies) were Acropora cervicornis, Pocillopora damicornis, Stylophora pistillata, Porites cylindrica and Acropora palmata. Over a quarter of projects (26%) involved the coral genus Acropora, while 9% of studies included a single species - Acropora cervicornis. Much of the focus on Acropora cervicornis and Acropora palmata is likely to have resulted from these important reef-forming species being listed as threatened on the United States Endangered Species List and as Endangered on the International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List of Endangered Species (IUCN 2018). We have dedicated a section to each intervention type covered in this review, and describe the potential and limitations of each intervention type in detail there. However, collating this information has highlighted the following main points which apply to coral restoration in general. 1. On average, survival in restored corals is relatively high. All coral genera with sufficient replication from which to draw conclusions (>10 studies listing that genus) report an average survival between 60-70%. 2. Differences in survival and growth are largely species and/or location specific, so the selection of specific methods should be tailored to the local conditions, costs, availability of materials, and to the specific objectives of each project. 3. Projects are overall small and short, however substantial scaling up is required for restoration to be a useful tool in supporting the persistence of reefs in the future. While there is ample evidence detailing how to successfully grow corals at smaller scales, few interventions demonstrate a capacity to be scaled up much beyond one hectare. Notable exceptions include methods which propagate sexually derived coral larvae. 4. To date, coral restoration has been plagued by the same common problems as ecological restoration in other ecosystems. Mitigating these will be crucial to successfully scale up projects, and to retain public trust in restoration as a tool for resilience based management. a. Lack of clear objectives - There is a clear mismatch between the stated objectives of projects, and the design of projects and monitoring of outcomes. Poorly articulated or overinflated objectives risk alienating the general public and scientists, by over-promising and under-delivering. Social and economic objectives have inherent value and do not need to be disguised with ecological objectives. b. Lack of appropriate monitoring - A large proportion of projects do not monitor metrics relevant to their stated objectives, or do not continue monitoring for long enough to provide meaningful estimates of success. Further, there is a clear need for standardisation in the metrics that are used, to allow comparisons between projects. c. Lack of appropriate reporting - The outcomes of a large proportion of projects are not documented, which restricts knowledge-sharing and adaptive learning. While we attempted to access some of the unreported projects through our survey, it is clear we have only scratched the surface of existing knowledge. d. Poorly designed projects - An effect of inadequate monitoring and reporting is that projects are poorly suited to their specific area and conditions. Improved knowledge-sharing and development of best practice coral restoration guidelines aims to mitigate this problem

Coral restoration – a systematic review of current methods, successes, failures and future directions

Coral reef ecosystems have suffered an unprecedented loss of habitat-forming hard corals in recent decades. While marine conservation has historically focused on passive habitat protection, demand for and interest in active restoration has been growing in recent decades. However, a disconnect between coral restoration practitioners, coral reef managers and scientists has resulted in a disjointed field where it is difficult to gain an overview of existing knowledge. To address this, we aimed to synthesise the available knowledge in a comprehensive global review of coral restoration methods, incorporating data from the peer-reviewed scientific literature, complemented with grey literature and through a survey of coral restoration practitioners. We found that coral restoration case studies are dominated by short-term projects, with 60% of all projects reporting less than 18 months of monitoring of the restored sites. Similarly, most projects are relatively small in spatial scale, with a median size of restored area of 100 m2. A diverse range of species are represented in the dataset, with 229 different species from 72 coral genera. Overall, coral restoration projects focused primarily on fast-growing branching corals (59% of studies), and report survival between 60 and 70%. To date, the relatively young field of coral restoration has been plagued by similar 'growing pains' as ecological restoration in other ecosystems. These include 1) a lack of clear and achievable objectives, 2) a lack of appropriate and standardised monitoring and reporting and, 3) poorly designed projects in relation to stated objectives. Mitigating these will be crucial to successfully scale up projects, and to retain public trust in restoration as a tool for resilience based management. Finally, while it is clear that practitioners have developed effective methods to successfully grow corals at small scales, it is critical not to view restoration as a replacement for meaningful action on climate change

A roadmap to integrating resilience into the practice of coral reef restoration.

Recent warm temperatures driven by climate change have caused mass coral bleaching and mortality across the world, prompting managers, policymakers, and conservation practitioners to embrace restoration as a strategy to sustain coral reefs. Despite a proliferation of new coral reef restoration efforts globally and increasing scientific recognition and research on interventions aimed at supporting reef resilience to climate impacts, few restoration programs are currently incorporating climate change and resilience in project design. As climate change will continue to degrade coral reefs for decades to come, guidance is needed to support managers and restoration practitioners to conduct restoration that promotes resilience through enhanced coral reef recovery, resistance, and adaptation. Here, we address this critical implementation gap by providing recommendations that integrate resilience principles into restoration design and practice, including for project planning and design, coral selection, site selection, and broader ecosystem context. We also discuss future opportunities to improve restoration methods to support enhanced outcomes for coral reefs in response to climate change. As coral reefs are one of the most vulnerable ecosystems to climate change, interventions that enhance reef resilience will help to ensure restoration efforts have a greater chance of success in a warming world. They are also more likely to provide essential contributions to global targets to protect natural biodiversity and the human communities that rely on reefs

Six priorities to advance the science and practice of coral reef restoration worldwide

Coral reef restoration is a rapidly growing movement galvanized by the accelerating degradation of the world's tropical coral reefs. The need for concerted and collaborative action focused on the recovery of coral reef ecosystems coalesced in the creation of the Coral Restoration Consortium (CRC) in 2017. In March 2020, the CRC leadership team met for a biennial review of international coral reef restoration efforts and a discussion of perceived knowledge and implementation bottlenecks that may impair scalability and efficacy. Herein we present six priorities wherein the CRC will foster scientific advancement and collaboration to: (1) increase restoration efficiency, focusing on scale and cost-effectiveness of deployment; (2) scale up larval-based coral restoration efforts, emphasizing recruit health, growth, and survival; (3) ensure restoration of threatened coral species proceeds within a population-genetics management context; (4) support a holistic approach to coral reef ecosystem restoration; (5) develop and promote the use of standardized terms and metrics for coral reef restoration; and (6) support coral reef restoration practitioners working in diverse geographic locations. These priorities are not exhaustive nor do we imply that accomplishing these tasks alone will be sufficient to restore coral reefs globally; rather these are topics where we feel the CRC community of practice can make timely and significant contributions to facilitate the growth of coral reef restoration as a practical conservation strategy. The goal for these collective actions is to provide tangible, local-scale advancements in reef condition that offset declines resulting from local and global stressors including climate change

Adult Romantic Attachment, Negative Emotionality, and Depressive Symptoms in Middle Aged Men: A Multivariate Genetic Analysis

Adult romantic attachment styles reflect ways of relating in close relationships and are associated with depression and negative emotionality. We estimated the extent to which dimensions of romantic attachment and negative emotionality share genetic or environmental risk factors in 1,237 middle-aged men in the Vietnam Era Twin Study of Aging (VETSA). A common genetic factor largely explained the covariance between attachment-related anxiety, attachment-related avoidance, depressive symptoms, and two measures of negative emotionality: Stress-Reaction (anxiety), and Alienation. Multivariate results supported genetic and environmental differences in attachment. Attachment-related anxiety and attachment-related avoidance were each influenced by additional genetic factors not shared with other measures; the genetic correlation between the attachment measure-specific genetic factors was 0.41, indicating some, but not complete overlap of genetic factors. Genetically informative longitudinal studies on attachment relationship dimensions can help to illuminate the role of relationship-based risk factors in healthy aging

Mismatches in Scale Between Highly Mobile Marine Megafauna and Marine Protected Areas

Marine protected areas (MPAs), particularly large MPAs, are increasing in number and size around the globe in part to facilitate the conservation of marine megafauna under the assumption that large-scale MPAs better align with vagile life histories; however, this alignment is not well established. Using a global tracking dataset from 36 species across five taxa, chosen to reflect the span of home range size in highly mobile marine megafauna, we show most MPAs are too small to encompass complete home ranges of most species. Based on size alone, 40% of existing MPAs could encompass the home ranges of the smallest ranged species, while only \u3c 1% of existing MPAs could encompass those of the largest ranged species. Further, where home ranges and MPAs overlapped in real geographic space, MPAs encompassed \u3c 5% of core areas used by all species. Despite most home ranges of mobile marine megafauna being much larger than existing MPAs, we demonstrate how benefits from MPAs are still likely to accrue by targeting seasonal aggregations and critical life history stages and through other management techniques

Mismatches in Scale Between Highly Mobile Marine Megafauna and Marine Protected Areas

Marine protected areas (MPAs), particularly large MPAs, are increasing in number and size around the globe in part to facilitate the conservation of marine megafauna under the assumption that large-scale MPAs better align with vagile life histories; however, this alignment is not well established. Using a global tracking dataset from 36 species across five taxa, chosen to reflect the span of home range size in highly mobile marine megafauna, we show most MPAs are too small to encompass complete home ranges of most species. Based on size alone, 40% of existing MPAs could encompass the home ranges of the smallest ranged species, while only \u3c 1% of existing MPAs could encompass those of the largest ranged species. Further, where home ranges and MPAs overlapped in real geographic space, MPAs encompassed \u3c 5% of core areas used by all species. Despite most home ranges of mobile marine megafauna being much larger than existing MPAs, we demonstrate how benefits from MPAs are still likely to accrue by targeting seasonal aggregations and critical life history stages and through other management techniques

Time to cash in on positive interactions for coral restoration

Coral reefs are among the most biodiverse and productive ecosystems on Earth, and provide critical ecosystem services such as protein provisioning, coastal protection, and tourism revenue. Despite these benefits, coral reefs have been declining precipitously across the globe due to human impacts and climate change. Recent efforts to combat these declines are increasingly turning to restoration to help reseed corals and speed-up recovery processes. Coastal restoration theory and practice has historically favored transplanting designs that reduce potentially harmful negative species interactions, such as competition between transplants. However, recent research in salt marsh ecosystems has shown that shifting this theory to strategically incorporate positive interactions significantly enhances restoration yield with little additional cost or investment. Although some coral restoration efforts plant corals in protected areas in order to benefit from the facilitative effects of herbivores that reduce competitive macroalgae, little systematic effort has been made in coral restoration to identify the entire suite of positive interactions that could promote population enhancement efforts. Here, we highlight key positive species interactions that managers and restoration practitioners should utilize to facilitate the restoration of corals, including (i) trophic facilitation, (ii) mutualisms, (iii) long-distance facilitation, (iv) positive density-dependence, (v) positive legacy effects, and (vi) synergisms between biodiversity and ecosystem function. As live coral cover continues to decline and resources are limited to restore coral populations, innovative solutions that increase efficiency of restoration efforts will be critical to conserving and maintaining healthy coral reef ecosystems and the human communities that rely on them

Ethics Approval

We have received an HSRB approva

Turri et al, Direct+Plus coordination

if you are planning to conduct a Direct+Plus replication, please check this page to determine if someone else is asking a similar question. Multiple locations studying the same moderators make for stronger inferenc