Coral Interactions in the 120 Tank Sean Reagan and Anna Sewell

Coral Interactions in the 120 TankSean Reagan and Anna Sewell

Introduction

Focus of Our ResearchObserve growth and interactions of propagated coral species.Exposure to lightingCurrentsDirect feedingCompetitionMontipora digitataMontipora capricornisPorites branneriEuphyllia ancora (vs. M. digitata)

Montipora digitata:Found from Western Indian Ocean to the Great Barrier Reef (McBirney, Carrie, and Brough)Shallow, well-lit waters (McBirney, Carrie, and Brough)Unique Montipora species - finger branches instead of encrusting whirling vase patterns (Fishlore). Background: M. digitata

Euphyllia ancora:Found in Pacific & Indian Oceans, Red Sea (Dakin 2003)Aggressive Scleractinian coral with anemone-like polyps (Dakin 2003)Sweeper tentacles with nematocysts (Dakin 2003)

Background: E. ancora

Montipora capricornis:Commonly found in the Pacific Ocean (Fish Channel)Hermatypic coral (Fish Channel)Background: M. capricornis

Porites Branneri:A scleractinian coral with colonies consisting of encrusting plates (Aronson, Bruckner, Moor, Precht, Weil 2008)Primarily found in the Caribbean, but is also Indo-Pacific (Borneman 2001)Low susceptibility to bleaching (Borneman 2001)

Background: P. branneri

1. As the Euphyllia ancora and the Montipora digitata continue to grow and compete for space in the tank, how will their interactions affect each other?2. Will the M. digitata and M. capricornus fragments grow more at more intense light levels than those that are on the bottom of the tank further from the light?3.What is the average growth rate of the P. branneri throughout the tank over a certain amount of time?4. Will direct feeding of M. digitata and M. capricornus fragments cause them to grow at a quicker rate than those of indirect feeding?5. If a powerhead is directed towards a P. branneri colony, will it grow more rapidly than those that are not in the direct current of the powerhead?Research Questions

The "IUNC Redlist" indicated the P. branneri was more commonly found in waters with higher currents.Complete Encyclopedia of the Saltwater Aquarium talked about the E. ancora's aggressiveness and rapid growth rate.No prior tests could be found on the effects of lighting levels on these corals, multiple sources said they were more common in very shallow waters. No published research about direct feeding of corals versus non-direct of the M. digitata and M. capricornis. Background Research

"The closer the M. digitata and the M. capricornis are to the light, the more the fragments of the two species will grow. If the M. digitata and E. ancora corals continue to grow at their current rates, they will further come into contact with each other and more of the M. digitata's branches will be bleached. Additionally, the more the P. branneri is in the path of the powerhead's current, the more rapidly it will grow. Finally, direct feeding of the M. capricornis and M. digitata coral fragments will result in a faster growth rate than those of indirect feeding."

Hypothesis

Methods

Research Plan120 TankMontipora digitata, Montipora capricornis, Porites branneri, Euphyllia ancora corals/fragmentsSupplies:Underwater camera/cameraphone RulerPowerheads, Coral rack holdersBrine/Mysis shrimp for feedingAdequate tank lightingTank maintenance equipment and fragmenting equipment

Lighting:4 M. digitata fragments (2 for top rack & 2 for the bottom of tank) and 3 M. capricornis fragments (2 top and 1 bottom) taken in late November. Both sets of corals measured (in inches) as accurately as possible every two weeks to see change in growth.Pictures taken during every measurement.Euphyllia & Digitata Competition:Daily observations made regarding competitionPictures taken every two weeksWhen new branch of M. digitata was exposed to Euphyllia we made note to see how long before bleaching The Experiments

FeedingMoved the Right M. digitata and M. capricornis fragments to a different rack at the same light level on the opposite glass side. Directly fed approximately 1 pipette of food to these fragments, while the other M. digitata and M. capricornis fragments continued to indirectly feed. All of the fragments were measured once a week over the course of four weeksPictures taken during measurements.

P. branneri Current Study:Placed a powerhead in close proximity to a P. branneri colony having it blow directly at it.Used a marker/sharpie and traced the starting point of the colony on the glass.Took note of growth progress in daily observations.The Experiments

Results

Review of E. ancora and M. digitata Competition Beginning: October/NovemberParts of the M. digitata branches had begun to bleachBy November, a second and third branch had begun to bleach.

October/November ImagesReview of E. ancora and M. digitata Competition

Middle: December/January/FebruaryE. ancora successfully killed the closest M. digitata branch and turned it black.Now covered in red algaeE. ancora continues to attack other branches, which have bleached/turned blackClipped the dead branches off the M. digitata to see if the competition continuedReview of E. ancora and M. digitata Competition

December/January/February ImagesReview of E. ancora and M. digitata Competition

End: March/AprilOn 3/11 turned the M. digitata so now new branches are facing the E. ancora. By 3/18 two branches had already bleached.By April the damage the E. ancora had done was very clear.Review of E. ancora and M. digitata Competition March and April Images

March/April ImagesReview of E. ancora and M. digitata Competition

Top Left M. digitata fragment

GR before dropping: 0.01011 (in/d)GR after dropping: 0.01040 (in/d)Review of M. digitata and M. capricornis Growth Rates: Light Levelsbottom left digitata frag = closest to glass, bottom right digitata frag = farthest from the glass

Top Right M. digitata fragment

GR before dropping: 0.01085 (in/d)GR after dropping: 0.01168 (in/d)Review of M. digitata and M. capricornis Growth Rates: Light Levels

Top Left M. capricornis fragment


Top Right M. capricornis fragment


Bottom Left M. digitata fragment

GR: 0.01048 (in/d)

Review of M. digitata and M. capricornis Growth Rates: Light Levels

Bottom Right M. digitata fragment

GR before dropping: -0.01336 (in/d)GR after dropping: 0 (in/d)Review of M. digitata and M. capricornis Growth Rates: Light Levels

Bottom M. capricornis fragment

GR before dropping: -0.001557 (in/d)GR after dropping: 0 (in/d)Review of M. digitata and M. capricornis Growth Rates: Light Levels

Review of M. digitata and M. capricornis Growth Rates: Light Levels

Coral FragmentGR Before Dropping (in/d)GR After Dropping (in/d)Top Left M. digitata0.010110.01040Top Right M. digitata0.010850.01168Top Left M. capricornis0.0048170.004544Top Right M. capricornis0.0072930.007684Bottom Left M. digitata0.01048n/aBottom Right M. digitata-0.013360

Bottom M. capricornis-0.0015570

TroubleshootingThe fragments on the bottom were stung by neighboring corals, which made it difficult to decide if the corals were bleaching from competition for from the light level. We decided they were ultimately bleaching from the competition, but their extremely pale color resulted from the low light intensity they received.Very difficult to measure because they were not straight and could measure at a variety of different pointsWhy we have some discrepancies in our data.Moved our bottom fragments to an area that we could not get to without getting stung by E. ancora, so measurements had to end. Review of M. digitata and M. capricornis Growth Rates: Light Levels

Review of M. digitata and M. capricornis Growth Rates: Direct FeedingFed M. digitata fragment

GR before dropping: 0.01184 (in/d)GR after dropping: 0.01224 (in/d)

Review of M. digitata and M. capricornis Growth Rates: Direct FeedingFed M. capricornis fragment

GR before dropping: 0.02077 (in/d)GR after dropping: 0.02126 (in/d)

Review of M. digitata and M. capricornis Growth Rates: Direct FeedingNot Fed M. digitata fragment

GR: 0.01679 (in/d)

Review of M. digitata and M. capricornis Growth Rates: Direct FeedingNot Fed M. capricornis fragment

GR before dropping: 0.0002415 (in/d)GR after dropping: 0 (in/d)

Review of M. digitata and M. capricornis Growth Rates: Direct Feeding

Coral FragmentGR Before Dropping (in/d)GR After Dropping (in/d)Fed M. digitata0.011840.01224Fed M. capricornis0.020770.02126Not Fed M. digitata0.01679n/aNot Fed M. capricornis0.00024150

Coral FragmentInitial Size (in)Final Size (in)Fed M. digitata4.54.75Fed M. capricornis2.753Not Fed M. digitata4.755.125Not Fed M. capricornis2.52.5

TroubleshootingWe did not have the new rack for very long and therefore could not collect very much data. Difficult to measure.Review of M. digitata and M. capricornis Growth Rates: Direct Feeding

Traced the growth of the different P. branneri colonies for a few months with expo marker.Ultimately we had to end this part of our experiment because our traces were constantly erased by people in tank room and we were unable to collect sufficient and reliable data. P. branneri: Average Rate of Growth.

Worked to determine whether the P. branneri grew the best/most in the strongest water current (with a powerhead placed in front) and the weakest water current (behind a powerhead).Throughout the year, we traced the weakest water current P. branneri colony and began tracing the strongest water current P. branneri in January.P. branneri: Average Growth in Different Water Currents

Realized that approximately half of the strong water current colony was actually dead, so decided that the colony was not well enough to support/reject our hypothesis of P. branneri growth in different water currents.Continued to outline the colonies and observed the colonies' growth and death.Review of M. digitata and M. capricornis Growth Rates: Direct Feeding

Strongest Current

Review of M. digitata and M. capricornis Growth Rates: Direct Feeding

Weakest CurrentReview of M. digitata and M. capricornis Growth Rates: Direct Feeding

Discussion

Lighting: Support hypothesis - The fragments that were closer to the lighting grew better than those on the bottom of the tank.The fragments closer to light looked healthier and had a more vibrant color than the ones on the bottom.

Reflections on Hypothesis: Light Levels

Coral FragmentAmount Grown (in inches)Top Left M. digitata1.25Top Right M. digitata1.5Top Left M. capricornis0.75Top Right M. capricornis1

Coral FragmentAmount Grown (in inches)Bottom Left. M. digitata0.875Bottom Right M. digitata-1 (or 0 with dropping)Bottom M. capricornis-0.25 (or 0 with dropping)

Competition: Support hypothesis - The Euphyllia did end up up bleaching digitata further and more than once.It appeared that the M. digitata had no effect on the E. ancoraSupported by the Complete Encyclopedia of the Saltwater Aquarium, which talked about the E. ancora's aggressiveness and rapid growth rate.Reflections on Hypothesis: Competition

Powerhead: Neither support nor reject hypothesis, P. branneri colony grew in some parts but not in others.Not a good colony to study because many parts of it were killed by an unknown cause of death. Reflections on Hypothesis: Water Current

Feeding: As of now, we support hypothesis with M. capricornis, but reject with M. digitata.If we continue research, our stance on our hypothesis may change. Reflections on Hypothesis: Direct Feeding

Coral FragmentAmount Grown (in inches)Fed M. digitata0.25Fed M. capricornis0.25

Coral FragmentAmount Grown (in inches)Not Fed M. digitata0.375Not Fed M. capricornis0

Measuring digitata frags, hard to read

Measurements being erased with P. branneri colonies

Powerhead current was too strong killing portions of the P. branneri

Not enough time to measure feeding tests (worked past April 19)

Challenges to Research

More time for feeding the corals

Accurately track of the average growth rate of the P. branneri colonies.

Continued to measure the coral fragments on the bottom of the tank/ measure the symbiodinium gain/loss due to lighting levels.

More accurate system of measuring then the ruler.

To Make Our Data More Complete...

Importance of sunlight:Polluted and murky waters are most likely a HUGE reason why corals are bleaching and dying in our oceans.Especially with these two species of corals, THE MORE EXPOSURE TO LIGHTING THE BETTER. (Possibly consider brighter lights on almost all the tanks for the new tank room)E. ancora should not be near corals that can't protect themselves. In the oceans most corals probably stay far awayGood for coral propagators to know about lighting and aggression when propagating their corals. Importance of Results

Experimenting with different types of lightContinue direct feeding vs. indirect (we were onto something but just ran out of time)Plenty of other competition taking place throughout tanksFind a better way to measure the growth of the P. branneri and find the average growthIs there a point where there can be too much lighting? Future Directions for Research

Works cited slideMcBirney, Carrie, and Clarice Brough. Velvet Finger Montipora. Animal-World. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Sept. 2012. .

Montipora Digitata Coral Fishlore. n.d Web. http://www.fishlore.com/coral/montipora-digitata-coral.html

Plate Montipora. Fish Channel. Bowtie, n.d. Web. 26 Sept. 2012. .

Dakin, Nick. Complete Encyclopedia of the Saltwater Aquarium. Buffalo: Firefly, 2003. Print.ARKive. Wildscreen, n.d. Web. 26 Sept. 2012. .

Veron, Jen. Corals of the World. Vol. 3. Townsville MC: Australian Institute of Marine Science, 2000. Print.

Aronson, R., Bruckner, A., Moore, J., Precht, B. & E. Weil 2008.~Porites branneri. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.1. .

Borneman, Eric H. Corals: Selection, Husbandry, and Natural History. Neptune City: T.F.H. Publications, 2001. Print. Pages 235-238. Calfo, Anthony Rosario. Book of Coral Propagation: Reef Gardening for Aquarists. 2nd ed. Vol. 1. Monroeville: Reading

Trees, 2009. Print. Pages 171-174.

Documents

Coral Interactions in the 120 Tank Sean Reagan and Anna Sewell