AGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZAAABACADAEAFAGAHAIAJAKALAMANAOAPAQARASATAUAVAWAXAYEFEGEHEIEJEK
1
IDYearAuthorsTitlePublisher / OrganisationFull referencePublication TypePublic URLCoral Restoration Technique or methodsCountryLocationFor geocodingLatitudeLongitudeDisturbanceObjectiveTourism Stewardship?Method specificsMethod of attachments (coral fragments)Novelty in methodSpatial ScaleOn going maintenance implemented Location rationaleCoral SpeciesGeneraMorphologySingle species?species rationaleSource of coral fragmentsControls?Baseline Monitoring?Post Monitoring?Post monitoring length (months)Biological/Ecological?Variables measuredsurvival % (if measured)MAX survivalEvidence of successful restoration outcome?Indicators of successAuthors/Practitioners main results/conclusionstechnical 'lessons learnt'Temporal ScaleObjective = Outcome?OutcomeData entered by
2
PR0012000H. Schuhmacher, P. van Treeck, M. Eisinger and M. PasterTransplantation of coral fragments from ship groundings on electrochemically formed reef structuresProceedings 9th International Coral Reef Symposium, Bali, Indonesia 23-27 October 2000, Vol. 2H. Schuhmacher, P. van Treeck, M. Eisinger and M. Paster (2000) Transplantation of coral fragments from ship groundings on electrochemically formed reef structures. Proceedings 9th International Coral Reef Symposium, Bali, Indonesia 23-27 October 2000, Vol. 2.Conference Proceedings
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228404574_Transplantation_of_coral_fragments_from_ship_groundings_on_electrochemically_formed_reef_structures
Substrate Enhancement - ElectricEgyptRas Mohammed, Egypt
Ras Mohammed, Egypt, Egypt
27.742004334.2347743Ship Grounding1NoNoCoral fragments transplanted onto steel mesh which is electrified to encourage the electrochemical deposition of calcium. Tent-like/pyramid shaped structures were tested as trays for coral fragment nurseries.Wedged in meshnone (location)unknownNot reportedClose to power source
Acropora hemprichiiAcropora squarrosaAcropora granulosaAcropora hyacinthusAcropora clathrataAcropora digitiferaAcropora eurystomaAcropora validaAcropora cythereaStylophora pistillataPorites luteaEchinopora gemmaceaPocillopora damicornisHydnophora exaesaMillepora dichotomaMillepora exaesaMerulina scabriculaEchinopora lamellosaMontipora digitataPocillopora damicornisPorites rusAcropora formosaMontipora aequituberculata
Acropora, Stylophora, Porites, Echinopora, Goniopora, Pocillopora, Hydnophora, MilleporaMixedNoLocal abundanceCorals of opportunityn/anoyes6biologicalgrowth, survival93.597yessurvival/growthApplying electricity enhances restoration success by providing a nature-like substrate, using coral nubbins speeds up recolonisationMount nurseries on poles to avoid Drupella infestations, All Pocilloporid nubbins died6noBiologicalLBE
3
PR0022008Lee Shaish, Gideon Levy, Edgardo Gomez, Baruch RinkevichFixed and suspended coral nurseries in the Philippines: Establishing the first step in the “gardening concept” of reef restoration
Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology
Shaish, L., Levy, G., Gomez, E., and Rinkevich, B. (2008) Fixed and suspended coral nurseries in the Philippines: Establishing the first step in the “gardening concept” of reef restoration. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 358: 86-97.
Journal Article
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002209810800066X
Coral Gardening - Nursery PhasePhilippinesSilaqui Island, Bolinao
Silaqui Island, Bolinao, Philippines
16.4419444119.9227778Destructive fishing1NoNoLeg fixed coral nurseries above substrate, populated with coral fragments collected from nearby reef. Cyanoacrylate gluesuspended, leg fixed nurseries12yesnot reported
Merulina scabricula, Echinopora lamellosa, Montipora digitata, Pocillopora damicornis, Porites rus, Acropora formosa, Montipora aequituberculata
Merulina, Echinopora, Montipora, Pocillopora, Porites, Acropora, MontiporaMixedNoLocal abundance
Transplantation - fragments
n/anoyes12biologicalgrowth, survival88.291.1yessurvival/growthNo difference between fixed/suspended trays, mortality and growth species specificsuper glue not strong enough to hold non-branching species to mesh12noBiologicalLBE
4
PR0032010Villanueva, R. D., Edwards, A. J., and Bell,J. D.Enhancement of Grazing Gastropod Populations as a Coral Reef Restoration Tool: Predation Effects and Related Applied ImplicationsRestoration Ecology
Villanueva, R. D., Edwards, A. J., and Bell,J. D. (2010) Enhancement of Grazing Gastropod Populations as a Coral Reef Restoration Tool: Predation Effects and Related Applied Implications. Restoration Ecology 18:803-809.
Journal Article
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1526-100X.2010.00742.x
Substrate addition - artificial reef, Substrate Enhancement - Algae removalPhilippinesMalilnep Channel, Bolinao
Malilnep Channel, Bolinao, Philippines
16.3425356119.8927296Overfishing5NoNoFactorial experiment with 42 experimental Reef Balls (tm): 14 with transplanted corals at low density (9.5 /m2), 14 at high density (19/m2), and 14 without coral transplants (control). Half of the Reef Balls (tm) in each treatment category were stocked with cultured trochus shells. Trochus niloticus were spawned and reared in aquaria for 5-6 months before release onto reef balls. Trochus were stocked at high densities that were continuously maintained over 6 months. not reportedUsing trochus shells (Trochus niloticus) as an indirect method of encouraging coral recruitment and transplant growth. The trochus shells consume fleshy algae which may inhibit recruitment and growth of corals.110yes
Area affected by disturbance
Pocillopora damicornis, Acropora muricata, Porites cylindrica, Montipora digitata, Echinopora lamellosa
Pocillopora, Acropora, Porites, Montipora, EchinoporaMixedNonot reportednot reportedyesyesyes6biologicalSurvival, recruitment7497Noeffect of algal grazersThe addition of an algal grazer did not enhance coral growth/recruitment on artificial reefs. No difference in recruitment, recruit/transplanted coral survival in either treatment. Speculate that octopus may have consumed large proportion of shells, reducing densities below those required to have an impact on algae cover. Even heavily fished reefs that have been depleted of herbivores can have sufficient densities of octopus to feed on trochus shells. Therefore, the authors recommend adding refugia for trochus grazers that protect them from predators.6noBiologicalLBE
5
PR0042007Omori, M., K. Iwao, and M. TamuraGrowth of transplanted Acropora tenuis 2 years after egg cultureCoral ReefsOmori, M., K. Iwao, and M. Tamura (2007) Growth of transplanted Acropora tenuis 2 years after egg culture. Coral Reefs 27: 165.Journal Article
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227230418_Growth_of_transplanted_Acropora_tenuis2_years_after_egg_culture
Coral Gardening - Transplantation PhaseJapanAkajima Island, Okinawa
Akajima Island, Okinawa, Japan
26.199204127.2784676None1YesNoA. tenuis (a hermaphroditic coral species) grown from fertilised eggs in cages 2m above seafloor (12-18 months), out planted using pegs and underwater glue. Nursery cages contained trochus shells to control algae.pegs, uw glueusing hermaphroditic corals as fragment sourcenot relevantNonot reportedAcropora tenuisAcroporaBranchingYesReproductive characteristicsSexual Reproductionn/anoyes6biologicalgrowth, survival8989Yessurvival/growthAbility to culture A. tenuis from eggs through successful transplantation and growth of juveniles on degraded reefs represents a valuable tool in reef restoration.None36noBiologicalLBE
6
PR0052010Borell, E. M., S. B. C. Romatzki, and S. C. A. Ferse.Differential physiological responses of two congeneric scleractinian corals to mineral accretion and an electric field.Coral ReefsBorell, E. M., S. B. C. Romatzki, and S. C. A. Ferse (2009) Differential physiological responses of two congeneric scleractinian corals to mineral accretion and an electric field. Coral Reefs 29: 191-200.Journal Article
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00338-009-0564-y
Substrate Enhancement - ElectricIndonesiaNorth Sulawesi
North Sulawesi, Indonesia
0.6246932123.9750018None1NoNoField experiment testing benefits of electrochemical vs electric field in coral nurseries. Treatments: 5 x 42 nubbins grown on electrified steel frames, 5 x 42 nubbins grown on bamboo frames within electrical field, 4 x 42 nubbins grown on bamboo trays outside of electric field (control) metal cups (on cathode), glued into concrete cups (on bamboo)Experimental test of direct electrical current vs electric fieldnot relevantNonot reportedAcropora pulchra, A. yongeiAcroporaBranchingNoFast growth, common
Transplantation - fragments
Yesn/ayes4biologicalMortality, growth, fluorescence, zoox densities and chl a concentrations88.6666666799NoMortality, growth, fluorescence, zoox densities and chl a concentrationsDirect exposure to electrical current (ie attached to a cathode) did not increase survival of coral fragments after 4 months. Growth was fastest for both species inside the electric field. A pulchra had higher zoox and chlorophyll a densities on cathode compared to electric field and controls.The suggested benefits of mineral accretion technology vary between species. Except for chl a concentrations, the cathode had a significant adverse effect on all measured variables for A. yongei but not for A. pulchra. A pulchra had increased zooxs and chlorophyll a densities on the cathode, yet did not exhibit a corresponding fast growth and low mortality. 4noBiologicalLBE
7
PR0062001Epstein, N., R. P. M. Bak, and B. Rinkevich.Strategies for Gardening Denuded Coral Reef Areas: The Applicability of Using Different Types of Coral Material for Reef Restoration.Restoration EcologyEpstein, N., R. P. M. Bak, and B. Rinkevich (2001) Strategies for Gardening Denuded Coral Reef Areas: The Applicability of Using Different Types of Coral Material for Reef Restoration. Restoration Ecology 9: 432-442.Journal Article
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1046/j.1526-100X.2001.94012.x
Coral Gardening - Nursery PhaseIsraelEilatEilat, Israel29.55766934.951925None7NoNoDonor experiment: testing effects of differing amount of damage to donor colonies (10, 20, 30%), on reproductive activity.
not reportedTesting effects on donor coloniesnot relevantNon/aStylophora pistillataStylophoraBranchingYesFast growth, common
Transplantation - fragments
yesn/ayes24biologicalsurvival00YessurvivalDonor colonies with >10% damage suffered 100% mortality within a month, while colonies with 10% damage survived longer (12-17 months). Eventually 100% of colonies died. Pruning during gametogenesis immediately reduces reproductive capacity, however this is restored after 5 months?Prune less than 10% of donor colonies24yesBiologicalLBE
8
PR0072001Epstein, N., R. P. M. Bak, and B. Rinkevich.Strategies for Gardening Denuded Coral Reef Areas: The Applicability of Using Different Types of Coral Material for Reef Restoration.Restoration EcologyEpstein, N., R. P. M. Bak, and B. Rinkevich (2001) Strategies for Gardening Denuded Coral Reef Areas: The Applicability of Using Different Types of Coral Material for Reef Restoration. Restoration Ecology 9: 432-442.Journal Article
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1046/j.1526-100X.2001.94012.x
Coral Gardening - Transplantation PhaseIsraelEilatEilat, Israel29.55766934.951925Diver damage7NoNoTransplant experiment: test survival of fragments on two sites: one highly visited by scuba divers and one protectednot reportedTesting survival based on disturbance regime (visitation by scuba divers), and size of transplant (isolated branch vs small colony)not relevantNoDegraded siteStylophora pistillataStylophoraBranchingYesFast growth, common
Transplantation - fragments
n/an/ayes6biologicalsurvival53.755Yessurvival/growthHigher survival (83%) on protected site, compared to site with heavy scuba diving pressure (25%). Isolated branches of S. pistillata had higher survivorship than small colonies, however the small colonies grew 10 times faster than isolated branches.Small colonies can successfully be relocated from high disturbance sites into nurseries6yesBiologicalLBE
9
PR0082001Epstein, N., R. P. M. Bak, and B. Rinkevich.Strategies for Gardening Denuded Coral Reef Areas: The Applicability of Using Different Types of Coral Material for Reef Restoration.Restoration EcologyEpstein, N., R. P. M. Bak, and B. Rinkevich (2001) Strategies for Gardening Denuded Coral Reef Areas: The Applicability of Using Different Types of Coral Material for Reef Restoration. Restoration Ecology 9: 432-442.Journal Article
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1046/j.1526-100X.2001.94012.x
Coral Gardening - Transplantation PhaseIsraelEilatEilat, Israel29.55766934.951925None7NoNoAttachment procedures experiment: growth of fragments compared between treatments (fragments individually held by plastic clips, or in plastic trays)plastic clips, in spaces of plastic meshTesting how growth is affected by attachment methodnot relevantNon/aStylophora pistillataStylophoraBranchingYesFast growth, common
Transplantation - fragments
n/an/ayes6biologicalsurvival5482.5YessurvivalHigher survival (83%) in plastic crate compared to individual plastic clips on cement tiles (25%). 6yesBiologicalLBE
10
PR0092001Epstein, N., R. P. M. Bak, and B. Rinkevich.Strategies for Gardening Denuded Coral Reef Areas: The Applicability of Using Different Types of Coral Material for Reef Restoration.Restoration EcologyEpstein, N., R. P. M. Bak, and B. Rinkevich. 2001. Strategies for Gardening Denuded Coral Reef Areas: The Applicability of Using Different Types of Coral Material for Reef Restoration.,Restoration Ecology 9: 432-442.Journal Article
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1046/j.1526-100X.2001.94012.x
Coral Gardening - Nursery PhaseIsraelEilatEilat, Israel29.55766934.951925None7NoNoPlanula larvae of S. pistillata were collected and reared in a laboratory for 3 months, then placed in underwater nurseriesnot reportedTesting S. pistillatanot relevantNon/aStylophora pistillataStylophoraBranchingYesFast growth, commonSexual Reproductionn/an/ayes1biologicalsurvival583Yessurvival41% of spats survived the nursery phase (3 month), while 5 % survived 1 month after transplantingLow survival but high growth of survivors. Relies on using a species which reproduces several months of the year ( ie not a broadcasting species). Expensive because it requires ex situ maintenance of larvae. 1yesBiologicalLBE
11
PR0102008Putchim, L., N. Thongtham, A. Hewett, and H. Chansang.Survival and growth of Acropora spp. in mid-water nursery and after transplantation at Phi Phi Islands, Andaman Sea, Thailand. Proceedings of the 11th Int. Coral Reef Symposium. Florida. Session
Putchim, L., N. Thongtham, A. Hewett, and H. Chansang (2008) Survival and growth of Acropora spp. in mid-water nursery and after transplantation at Phi Phi Islands, Andaman Sea, Thailand. Proceedings of the 11th Int. Coral Reef Symposium. Florida. Session
Conference Proceedings
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309697796_Survival_and_growth_of_Acropora_spp_in_mid-water_nursery_and_after_transplantation_at_Phi_Phi_Islands_the_Andaman_Sea_Thailand
Coral GardeningThailandPhi Phi Island
Phi Phi Island, Thailand
7.74073898.77841Tsunami1NoNoCorals reared for 4 months in mid water nursery, consisting of trays suspended at 6 m depth with floats and anchors. Pipes/tubesnone (location)10No
Area affected by disturbance
Acropora grandis, A. muricataAcroporaBranchingNoLocal abundance
Transplantation - fragments
n/an/ayes12biologicalgrowth, survival81.1587Yessurvival/growthFragments of A. muricata and A. grandis had high survivorship both in nursery (95%) and after transplantation (81%), and the authors recommend the coral species as suitable for nursery and transplantation in the Andaman Sea. Relatively few transplanted corals grew tissue/skeleton over the metal bar. No description of metal bar type etc in paper18noBiologicalLBE
12
PR0112009Ferse, S. C. A., and A. Kunzmann.Effects of Concrete-Bamboo Cages on Coral Fragments: Evaluation of a Low-Tech Method Used in Artisanal Ocean-Based Coral Farming.Journal of Applied Aquaculture Ferse, S. C. A., and A. Kunzmann (2009) Effects of Concrete-Bamboo Cages on Coral Fragments: Evaluation of a Low-Tech Method Used in Artisanal Ocean-Based Coral Farming. Journal of Applied Aquaculture 21: 31-49.Journal Article
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10454430802694538
Coral Gardening - Nursery PhaseIndonesiaSambangan Island
Sambangan Island, Indonesia
-8.1485516115.0983069None7NoNoExperiment testing effects of bamboo cages to exclude coral predators (fish and invertebrates). Nubbins on concrete bases, fixed onto 1 x 1m bamboo boards. Treatments = Bamboo cages with small and large mesh, shading vs no shading, deep vs shallow. Control = no cages, open cages, no shading.CementUsing inexpensive, locally available materials to construct cages and trays for coral nurseries, testing effects of handling and measuring, and effects of cages/shadingnot relevantYesn/aAcropora gomezi, Pavona cactusAcropora, PavonaMixedNoLocal abundance
Transplantation - fragments
yesn/ayes4.4biologicalgrowth, survivalnot reportedn/aNosurvival/growthFragments do not necessarily grow faster and at higher survival rates in cages, especially if they do not adequately exclude fish. A. gomezi fragments reached the highest mean skeletal extension when cultured outside of cages in shallow water, all other treatments showed net negative growth. P. cactus growth was only affected by cages in deeper sites. Similarly, A gomezi grew faster unshaded, while P. cactus grew more in the shade.Bamboo cages not appropriate to keep fishes out, but rather attract fish, which may cause mechanical damage to coral fragments inside cages. 4.4yesBiologicalLBE
13
PR0122010Levy, G., L. Shaish, A. Haim, and B. Rinkevich. Mid-water rope nursery-Testing design and performance of a novel reef restoration instrument.Ecological Engineering
Levy, G., L. Shaish, A. Haim, and B. Rinkevich (2010) Mid-water rope nursery-Testing design and performance of a novel reef restoration instrument. Ecological Engineering 36:560-569.
Journal Article
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/248412731_Mid-water_rope_nursery-Testing_design_and_performance_of_a_novel_reef_restoration_instrument
Coral Gardening - Nursery PhasePhilippinesBolinaoBolinao, Philippines16.3425356119.8927296None7NoNoExperiment testing three different types of rope nurseries: 1) Floats on surface, 2) attached on bottom with ropes, 3) attached to bottom with legs. Methods specifically target separate genotypes of colonies within the same species to increase genotypic diversitySpliced in ropesFirst test of floating rope nurseries. Considering genetic diversity. Simplistic rope nursery design, vene when fixed to bottom.not relevantYesFavourable environmental conditionsM. digitata, E.lamellosa, M. scabricula, Pocillopora damicornisMontipora, Echinopora, PocilloporaMixedNonot reportedTranslocation - Coloniesn/an/ayes10biologicalSurvival, growth, bleaching72.8384615499.6Yessurvival/growthGrowth and survival vary between genotypes of the same species. Survival is highest in rope nurseries tied to the bottom, compared to those floating on the surface (presumably due to wave action). Branching species have a higher survival, compared to encrusting species.Nurseries attached to surface increase movement of colonies, encourages unusual growth forms, lower growth and survival. May still be suitable for places with high tidal movement (as bottom affixed nurseries will experience depth changes during tidal cycle). Use larger fragments for encrusting species, to ensure survival.10yesBiologicalLBE
14
PR0132012Griffin, S., H. Spathias, T. Moore, I. Baums, and B. Griffin.Scaling up Acropora nurseries in the Caribbean and improving techniques.Proceedings of the 12th International Coral Reef Symposium, Cairns
Griffin, S., H. Spathias, T. Moore, I. Baums, and B. Griffin (2012) Scaling up Acropora nurseries in the Caribbean and improving techniques. Proceedings of the 12th International Coral Reef Symposium, Cairns
Conference Proceedings
http://www.icrs2012.com/proceedings/manuscripts/ICRS2012_20A_2.pdf
Coral Gardening - Nursery PhasePuerto RicoSouth coast of Puerto Rico
South coast of Puerto Rico, Puerto Rico
18.0247132-66.6014073Ship grounding1NoNoDamaged fragments of Acropora cervicornis were cached in nurseries during emergency restoration, and line nurseries were set up to grow additional corals for restoration. Growth rates (linear and maximum diameter) and survival of 712 colonies were monitored for one year examining the effects of genotype, depth and attachment method.
rubber coated wire, line, monel wire, and cable ties
None (Location)not reportedNonot reportedAcropora cervicornisAcroporaBranchingYesLocal abundanceCorals of opportunityNonoyes12biologicalgrowth, survival95.595.5yessurvival, growthCoated wire had the lowest mortality (2.6%), and cable ties had the highest mortality (12.5%). Fragments placed at deeper depths had significantly higher growth rates than corals placed at shallower depths. Survival and growth rates also varied between genotypes. The line nurseries produced high survival and growth rates, required low maintenance and held up well during storm events. Given the decline in A. cervicornis populations in the Caribbean over the last few decades and the current focus on scaling up nurseries in the Caribbean, the results and techniques presented here are useful for the development of future nursery operations.12yesBiologicalLBE
15
PR0142012Pizarro, V., N. Charuvi, and C. Garcia-Llano.Growing corals in line and floating nurseries at Tayrona Park. ISRSPizarro, V., N. Charuvi, and C. Garcia-Llano. 2012. Growing corals in line and floating nurseries at Tayrona Park. ,ISRSConference Abstract
http://www.icrs2012.com/Downloads/ICRS2012_Book_of_Abstracts.pdf
Coral Gardening - Nursery PhaseColombiaTayrona National Natural Park
Tayrona National Natural Park, Colombia
11.3064409-74.0657561None7NoNoExperiment testing growth and survival of fragments in line and floating nurseries. Opportunistic study of bleaching survival on nurseries vs reef corals.not reportedTesting bleaching resiliencenot relevantNonot reportedAcropora cervicornis, A. palmataAcroporaBranchingNoSpecies under threat
Transplantation - fragments
n/an/ayes18biologicalgrowth, survivaln/an/aYesgrowth, survivalNo significant differences between nurseries survivorship and growth in the first 7 months. Higher survival of coral fragments on nurseries (95%) compared to natural reef population (10-90%) during bleaching eventn/a18yesBiologicalLBE
16
PR0152012Schopmeyer, S. A., D. Lirman, E. Bartels, J. Byrne, D. S. Gilliam, J. Hunt, M. E. Johnson, E. A. Larson, K. Maxwell, K. Nedimyer, and C. Walter.In Situ Coral Nurseries Serve as Genetic Repositories for Coral Reef Restoration after an Extreme Cold‐Water Event. Restoration Ecology
Schopmeyer, S. A., D. Lirman, E. Bartels, J. Byrne, D. S. Gilliam, J. Hunt, M. E. Johnson, E. A. Larson, K. Maxwell, K. Nedimyer, and C. Walter (2012) In Situ Coral Nurseries Serve as Genetic Repositories for Coral Reef Restoration after an Extreme Cold‐Water Event. Restoration Ecology 20: 696 - 703.
Journal Article
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1526-100X.2011.00836.x
Coral Gardening - Nursery PhaseUSAFlorida Reef tract
Florida Reef tract, USA
27.6648274-81.5157535None7NoNoExperiment testing whether wild and nursery bred coral colonies have a different tolerance for cold water exposure. Line or block nurseries.not reportedTesting cold water exposure tolerancenot relevantNonot reportedAcropora cervicornisAcroporaBranchingYesnot reportedTransplantation - fragmentsNoYesYes1biologicalSurvivaln/an/aYessurvivalHigher survival of coral fragments on nurseries due to less exposure to cold. Nurseries may serve as genetic repositories for wild populations.Strategic deployment of nurseries in areas with lower risk may safeguard genetic material and diversity1yesBiologicalLBE
17
PR0162015Calderon, E. N., C. Zilberberg, and C. B. E. Castro.Farming of the fire‐coral Millepora alcicornis for reef restoration purposes: the influence of inclination on growth. Aquaculture ResearchCalderon, E. N., C. Zilberberg, and C. B. E. Castro (2015) Farming of the fire‐coral Millepora alcicornis for reef restoration purposes: the influence of inclination on growth. Aquaculture Research 46: 2034-2036.Journal Article
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/are.12338
Coral Gardening - Nursery PhaseBrazilRecife de Fora, porto Seguro
Recife de Fora, porto Seguro, Brazil
-16.402684-38.981778None7NoNoCoral fragments on trays, oriented horizontally and vertically. not reportedTesting effect of orientation in Millepora.not relevantNonot reportedMillepora alicornisMilleporaBranchingYesnot reported
Transplantation - fragments
n/an/aYes3biologicalgrowth, survival100100Yesgrowth, survivalWhile horizontal nubbins grew more branch tips, vertical nubbins had higher growth. Authors speculate that orientation of fragment should be guided by objective: Fast growth=vertical, increase 3D complexity=horizontal orientation. If nubbins are to be used as new donor colonies, they should be grown horizontally, since number of branch tips are increased in that orientation. 3yesBiologicalLBE
18
PR0172014Ng, C. S. L., and L. M. Chou.Rearing juvenile “corals of opportunity” in in situ nurseries – A reef rehabilitation approach for sediment-impacted environments. Marine Biology Research
Ng, C. S. L., and L. M. Chou (2014) Rearing juvenile “corals of opportunity” in situ nurseries – A reef rehabilitation approach for sediment-impacted environments. Marine Biology Research 10: 833-838.
Journal Article
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17451000.2013.853124
Coral Gardening - Nursery PhaseSingaporePulau Semakau
Pulau Semakau, Singapore
1.2064868103.7709177None1NoNoCoral juveniles (<4.5cm) collected on unstable substrate, reared in flow through aquaria ex situ . After rearing for 4-5 weeks, they were placed on PVC trays at an in situ nursery site. Coral sorted into size classesWedged in meshTransplanting recruits from area where they are unlikely to survive (COP).not relevantNonot reportedPectinia paeonia, P. speciosaPectiniaFolioseNoLocal abundanceCorals of opportunityn/an/aYes5biologicalgrowth, survival81.0597Yesgrowth, survivalUsing juvenile COP's is a viable coral gardening strategy. No difference in survival between size classes, however larger COP's grew faster than smaller ones. Differences in growth seem to not be related to sedimentation rates Transportation stress may increase mortality. In species which stresses easily by fragmentation, using juvenile COP's may be an option that increases survival and growth. 5noBiologicalLBE
19
PR0182001Bowden-Kerby, A. Low-tech coral reef restoration methods modeled after natural fragmentation processes.Bulletin of Marine ScienceBowden-Kerby, A. (2001) Low-tech coral reef restoration methods modeled after natural fragmentation processes. Bulletin of Marine Science 69: 915-931Journal Article
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233556450_Low-tech_coral_reef_restoration_methods_modeled_after_fragmentation_process
Coral Gardening - Nursery PhasePuerto RicoLa Parguera
La Parguera, Puerto Rico
17.9749654-67.0465664None7NoNoFactorial design testing three coral varieties (A. cervicornis back and front reef varieties, A prolifera back reef variety). Line nursery on rubble zones of back reefCable tie on monofilament linetesting two growth morphologies (adapted high vs low energy environments) of both speciesnot relevantNonot reportedAcropora cervicornis, A. proliferaAcroporaBranchingNoProne to fragmentation, fast growingTranslocation - fragmentsYesn/aYes7biologicalgrowth, survivalnot reportedn/aYesgrowth, survivalDifferences between varieties in survival. Survival highest in species harvested from similar habitat to nursery location. (I.E back reef variety). Front reef varieties retain growth morphology adapted to front reef conditions, even when grown under backreef conditionsLine nurseries can survive a substantial hurricane, however some fragment damage is likely to occur. Fast growing branching species can be "pruned" to control growth and allow slower growing coral to catch up. This would also serve as a sustainable source of fragments.7yesBiologicalLBE
20
PR0192001Bowden-Kerby, A. Low-tech coral reef restoration methods modeled after natural fragmentation processes.Bulletin of Marine ScienceBowden-Kerby, A. (2001) Low-tech coral reef restoration methods modeled after natural fragmentation processes. Bulletin of Marine Science 69: 915-931Journal Article
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233556450_Low-tech_coral_reef_restoration_methods_modeled_after_fragmentation_process
Coral Gardening - Nursery PhasePuerto RicoLa Parguera
La Parguera, Puerto Rico
17.9749654-67.0465664None7NoNoFactorial design testing growth and mortality of different coral fragment sizes. Apical tips of branches of three size classes usedCable tie on monofilament linenone (location)not relevantNonot reportedAcropora cervicornis, A. proliferaAcroporaBranchingNoProne to fragmentation, fast growing
Transplantation - fragments
Yesn/aYes6biologicalgrowth, survivalnot reportedn/aYessurvivalSmaller fragments have higher mortality6yesBiologicalLBE
21
PR0202001Bowden-Kerby, A. Low-tech coral reef restoration methods modeled after natural fragmentation processes.Bulletin of Marine ScienceBowden-Kerby, A. (2001) Low-tech coral reef restoration methods modeled after natural fragmentation processes. Bulletin of Marine Science 69: 915-931Journal Article
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233556450_Low-tech_coral_reef_restoration_methods_modeled_after_fragmentation_process
Coral Gardening - Nursery PhasePuerto RicoLa Parguera
La Parguera, Puerto Rico
17.9749654-67.0465664None7NoNoFactorial experiment testing the effect of fragment age (position within colony) on survivalCable tie on monofilament linetestng effects of fragment age on survivalnot relevantNonot reportedAcropora cervicornis, A. proliferaAcroporaBranchingNoProne to fragmentation, fast growingTranslocation - fragmentsYesn/aYes7biologicalsurvivalnot reportedn/aYessurvivalYounger fragments have higher mortality7yesBiologicalLBE
22
PR0212001Bowden-Kerby, A. Low-tech coral reef restoration methods modeled after natural fragmentation processes.Bulletin of Marine ScienceBowden-Kerby, A. (2001) Low-tech coral reef restoration methods modeled after natural fragmentation processes. Bulletin of Marine Science 69: 915-931Journal Article
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233556450_Low-tech_coral_reef_restoration_methods_modeled_after_fragmentation_process
Coral Gardening - Transplantation PhasePuerto RicoLa Parguera
La Parguera, Puerto Rico
17.9749654-67.0465664None7NoNoFactorial experiment testing the effect of substrate type and location on survival,growth and overgrowth of fragments. Fragments placed on 1) sand, 2) in contact with sand, supported by tray, 3) 5-10 cm above sandtraystesting differences in fragment location during nursery phasenot relevantNonot reportedAcropora cervicornis, A. proliferaAcroporaBranchingNoProne to fragmentation, fast growing
Transplantation - fragments
Yesn/aYes12biologicalsurvival, growth, overgrowthnot reportedn/aYesgrowth, survival100% of fragments on sand died, while ~80% survived on trays suspended above sand. Fragments placed on rubble, or in contact with sand suffered intermediate mortality. Fragments grown suspended above sand will overgrow mesh and form a strong attachment to mesh within 2 months, however this attachment was lost within a year. Fragments on weighted frames can survive a strong hurricane.12yesBiologicalLBE
23
PR0222001Gleason, D. F., D. A. Brazeau, and D. Munfus. Can self-fertilizing coral species be used to enhance restoration of Caribbean reefs?Bulletin of Marine Science
Gleason, D. F., D. A. Brazeau, and D. Munfus (2001) Can self-fertilizing coral species be used to enhance restoration of Caribbean reefs? Bulletin of Marine Science 69:933-943.
Journal Article
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/contentone/umrsmas/bullmar/2001/00000069/00000002/art00053?crawler=true
Coral Gardening - Transplantation PhaseUSASt. CroixSt. Croix, USA17.7245968-64.8347992None7NoNo
Testing survival/growth/ reproductive capacity of brooding corals after cutting in half (to increase output?) and outplanting at two different depths (9 & 24 metres). The corals used originated fom either 9 or 24m, and were tested ina factorial expriemnt. Also testing self-fertilisation rates in a separate genetic study. Measures growth through dye
EpoxyUsing self fertilising species, because it can guarantee reproductive output even at low population densities on restored reefsnot reportedNonot reportedPorites astreoidesPoritesMassiveYesLocal abundance
Transplantation - fragments
Yesn/aYes21biologicalsurvival, growth, reproduction94.875100YesSurvival, growth, reproductive outputColonies moved from deep to shallow bleached at first, but recovered and were indistinguishable from shallow colonies after 10 months. There was no difference in survival between intact and divided colonies. Colonies that were moved from shallow to deep sites grew slower, while colonies that were moved in the opposite direction (deep to shallow) grew faster. Results for reproductive output were similar to growth, albeit less pronounced. Hermaphroditic brooders can survive handling and being split in half, and still produce reproductive output comparable to resident control colonies, and can therefore be valuable in restoration efforts.21yesBiologicalLBE
24
PR0232006Yeemin, T., M. Sutthacheep, and R. Pettongma. Coral reef restoration projects in Thailand. Ocean & Coastal ManagementYeemin, T., M. Sutthacheep, and R. Pettongma. 2006. Coral reef restoration projects in Thailand. ,Ocean & Coastal ManagementJournal Article
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0964569106000780
TransplantationThailandSattahip Bay
Sattahip Bay, Thailand
12.6766338100.8967847Sedimentation1NoYesCoral colonies (hard & soft), fragments relocated from disturbance site to restored siteCementnone (location)not reportedNot reportednot reportedn/aMixedNonot reportedTranslocation - coloniesNoNoYes6biologicalgrowth, survival9292YesSurvival, growthHigh survival of translocated coloniesNone6NoBiologicalLBE
25
PR0242014Gomez, E. D., P. C. Cabaitan, H. T. Yap, and R. M. DizonCan Coral Cover be Restored in the Absence of Natural Recruitment and Reef Recovery? Restoration Ecology
Gomez, E. D., P. C. Cabaitan, H. T. Yap, and R. M. Dizon (2014) Can Coral Cover be Restored in the Absence of Natural Recruitment and Reef Recovery? Restoration Ecology 22: 142-150.
Journal Article
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/rec.12041
TransplantationPhilippinesBolinaoBolinao, Philippines16.3425356119.8927296None1NoNoTesting whether P. cylindrica will survive in heavily degraded area where it is locally extinct. Survival growth compared between sites/ attachment orientation/attachment densities. Fragments attached in depressions created on bommies in sandy area. EpoxyTesting two sites with different sedimentation type, density of attachment and orientation of attachmentnot reportedNoDegraded sitePorites cylindricaPoritesBranchingYesLocally extinct
Transplantation - fragments
yesNoYes20Biologicalgrowth, survival90.2598YesSurvival, growthHigh survival and growth of translocated colonies at both locations (sedimentation rates and depths differed)Fragments survive and grow better when transplanted to locations that are similar to their original habitats.20NoBiologicalLBE
26
PR0252005Fox, H. E., P. J. MOUS, J. S. PET, A. H. MULJADI, and R. L. CALDWELL.Experimental Assessment of Coral Reef Rehabilitation Following Blast Fishing
Conservation Biology 19:98–107.
Fox, H. E., P. J. MOUS, J. S. PET, A. H. MULJADI, and R. L. CALDWELL. 2005. Experimental Assessment of Coral Reef Rehabilitation Following Blast Fishing,Conservation Biology 19:98–107.Journal Article
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00261.x/full
Substrate StabilisationIndonesiaKomodo National Park
Komodo National Park, Indonesia
-8.527716119.4833198Destructive fishing7YesNoSmall scale pilot experiment (1m2) of three rubble stabilisation techniques: 1)fishing net attached to rubble, 2) cement slabs pinned to rubble, 3) piles of rocks attached to rubble. Sites were not recruitment limited based on previous surveys.n/aTesting different techniques for rubble stabilisation1No
Area affected by disturbance
n/an/an/an/an/aNatural recruitmentyesyesYes36Biologicalrecruitment, growthnot reportedn/aYesSurvival, growthRock piles had the highest recruitment and cover of hard corals after three years, followed by cement and netting, compared to control sites (no treatment). However, many sites (including rubble piles) were degraded over time, by water movement.Rock piles need to be stabilised to ensure longevity36yesBiologicalLBE
27
PR0262005Fox, H. E., P. J. MOUS, J. S. PET, A. H. MULJADI, and R. L. CALDWELL.Experimental Assessment of Coral Reef Rehabilitation Following Blast Fishing.
Conservation Biology 19:98–107.
Fox, H. E., P. J. MOUS, J. S. PET, A. H. MULJADI, and R. L. CALDWELL. 2005. Experimental Assessment of Coral Reef Rehabilitation Following Blast Fishing. ,Conservation Biology 19:98–107.Journal Article
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00261.x/full
Substrate StabilisationIndonesiaKomodo National Park
Komodo National Park, Indonesia
-8.527716119.4833198Destructive fishing7YesNoMid-scale experiment, building on pilot study of stabilisation techniques on reefs damaged by dynamite fishing. Rubble piles were piled higher (70-90cm) than in pilot to prevent burial in high currents. n/aTesting different techniques for rubble stabilisation100No
Area affected by disturbance
n/an/an/an/an/aNatural recruitmentyesyesYes36Biologicalrecruitment, growthnot reportedn/aYesSurvival, growthCoral counts and cover increased substantially on rock piles compared to control sites. Some high current sites low or decreasing coral cover over time, Rock piles in areas of high water movement get covered in rubble36yesBiologicalLBE
28
PR0272005Fox, H. E., P. J. Mous, J. S. Pet, A. H. Muljadi, and R. L. Caldwell.Experimental Assessment of Coral Reef Rehabilitation Following Blast Fishing. 19:98–107.Conservation Biology
Fox, H. E., P. J. Mous, J. S. Pet, A. H. Muljadi, and R. L. Caldwell (2005) Experimental Assessment of Coral Reef Rehabilitation Following Blast Fishing. Conservation Biology 19:98–107.
Journal Article
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00261.x/full
Substrate StabilisationIndonesiaKomodo National Park
Komodo National Park, Indonesia
-8.527716119.4833198Destructive fishing1YesYesLarge scale experiment testing rock piles in four types of configuration, designed to limit encroachment by rubble: 1) complete coverage, 2) rock piles, 3) spur and groove parallel to current, 4) spur and groove perpendicular to currentn/aTesting different techniques for rubble stabilisation6430No
Area affected by disturbance
n/an/an/an/an/aNatural recruitmentyesyesYes72
biological / ecological
Coral cover, fish assemblage composition, coral recruitmentnot reportedn/aYesCoral cover, fish assemblage composition, coral recruitmentCoral cover, recruit size and fish abundance/diversity was higher on restored sites, compared to control sites. No clear data on different substrate enhancement types. High variability in success of various substrates stabilisation techniques between sites and stabilisation types. Success was highest at moderate current sites, compared to sites with high or low current.Some heavier corals stopped being supported by the rubble piles - stabilisation of piles may be needed to ensure longevity. Technique only relevant where access to quarried rocks is relatively easy and cheap.72yesbiological / ecologicalLBE
29
PR0282013Ngai, N. D., N. D. Cu, and D. A. TuyeCoral degradation and ability of rehabilitation of coral reefs in Co To Archipelago, Quang Ninh province, Vietnam. Deep-Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in OceanographyNgai, N. D., N. D. Cu, and D. A. Tuye (2013) Deep-Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography 96: 50-55.Journal Article
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967064513001562?via%3Dihub
TransplantationVietnamCô Tô District
Cô Tô District, Vietnam
21.1062206107.8346924Destructive fishing1NoNoFragments from donor colonies ('coral seed'?) out planted onto ReefBalls and existing hard substrate (dead coral)
Cable tie on monofilament line
None (Location)not reportednot reported
Area affected by disturbance
not reportedn/an/an/aLocal abundance
Transplantation - fragments
n/ayesyes24Biologicalsurvival88.388.3YesSurvivalHigh survival of fragments on reef balls, but low survival on hard substrate. The authors conclude that the method of attachment on stakes was insufficient to stop fragments from becoming dislodged. New fragments attracted Drupella, which caused increased mortality.24noBiologicalLBE
30
PR0292005Omori, MSuccess of mass culture of Acropora corals from egg to colony in open water. Coral ReefsOmori, M (2005) Success of mass culture of Acropora corals from egg to colony in open water. Coral Reefs 24: 563-563.Journal Article
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00338-005-0030-4
Coral Gardening - Nursery Phase
JapanOkinawaOkinawa, Japan26.501301127.945404None7NoNoCoral larvae induced to settle inside floating plastic cages to reduce issues with sedimentation, bioerosion and coral livores. Cages also contained topshell juveniles (Trochus nilocitus) to control algae and other fouling organisms.n/aUsing sexual reproduction as source of corals, hanging cages to exclude predators and reduce sedimentation, including organisms that stop fouling.n/aNoN/aAcropora tenuisAcroporaBranchingyesnot reportedSexual reproduction yesn/ayes9Biologicalgrowth, survivalnot reportedn/ayesSurvivalColonies inside cages grew to ~40mm in 9 months. 100% mortality in cages without trochus topsnailsIncluding trochus top nails inside cages can control fouling organisms like algae, sponges, hydroids and tunicates. 9yesBiologicalLBE
31
PR0302017Schopmeyer, S. A., D. Lirman, E. Bartels, D. S. Gilliam, E. A. Goergen, S. P. Griffin, M. E. Johnson, C. Lustic, K. Maxwell, and C. S. Walter.Regional restoration benchmarks for Acropora cervicornis. Coral Reefs Schopmeyer, S. A., D. Lirman, E. Bartels, D. S. Gilliam, E. A. Goergen, S. P. Griffin, M. E. Johnson, C. Lustic, K. Maxwell, and C. S. Walter (2017) Regional restoration benchmarks for Acropora cervicornis. Coral Reefs 36: 1047-1057.Journal Article
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00338-017-1596-3
Coral GardeningUSAMixedMixed, USA37.09024-95.712891n/a1NoNoIn situ coral nurseries populated with fragments collected from donor colonies (<10% collected, donor colonies selected based on size and condition). out planted after 1 year. Donor colonies monitored for 12 months following collection. Some overlap with Johnson et al 2011
Cable tie on monofilament line
Largest coordinated species recovery effort in the worldnot reportedYesnot reportedAcropora cervicornisAcroporaBranchingyes
Species under threat
Transplantation - fragments
yesyesyes12BiologicalSurvival, growth, condition8890.8yesSurvival, growthNo negative effects (disease, mortality, growth) on donor colonies in any location. High survival on nurseries (90.8%) and outplants (85.2). The study proposes benchmarks which can be used to assess the success of other A. cervicornis projects:
-75% donor survival in first year
-80% survival of nursery fragments in first year
-77% survival of out planted colonies in the first year
Projects within 10% of benchmarks=Green (doing well), 10-20% = yellow (some changes needed), and >20% = red (issues needs to be addressed)
n/a12noBiologicalLBE
32
PR0311982Alcala, A. C., E. D. Gomez, and L. C. Alcala.Survival and growth of coral transplants in Central Philippines Kalikasan, Kalikasan, Philipp J BiolAlcala, A. C., E. D. Gomez, and L. C. Alcala. 1982. Survival and growth of coral transplants in Central Philippines Kalikasan, ,Kalikasan, Philipp J BiolJournal Article
https://www.coralreef.gov/mitigation/coraltransplants_centralphilippines.pdf
TransplantationPhilippinesSumilon MP
Sumilon MP, Philippines
9.9162209125.4432657n/a7NoNoFragments from nearby donor colonies were fixed with ordinary cement in depressions in the rocky substrate.CementFirst transplantation study?not reportedNonot reportedAcropora securis, Acropora formosa, Acropora affinis, Acropora speciosa, Acropora brueggemanni, Euphyllia fimbriata, Montipora foliosa, Montipora undata, Turbinaria foliosa, Seriatopora caliendrum, Heliopora coerulea, Pocillopora danae, Pocillopora verrucosa, Millepora platyphylla, Millepora elegans, Stylophora danae, Stylophora pistillata, Hydnophora rigida, Porites spp., Hydnophora spp., Symphyllia spp., Millepora spp., Pavona spp.
Acropora, Euphyllia, Montipora, Turbinaria, Seriatopora, Heliopora, Pocillopora, Millepora, Stylophora, Hydnophora, Porites, Symphyllia, Pavona
MixedNonot reported
Transplantation - fragments
n/ayesyes13Biologicalgrowth, survival60.4375100yesSurvival, growthDifferent levels of survival at the two sites tested (40 vs 71%), how were the reason for low survival are unknown.none13yesBiologicalLBE
33
PR0322000
Ammar, M. S. A., E. M. Amin, D. Gundacker, and W. E. G. Mueller.
One Rational Strategy for Restoration of Coral Reefs: Application of Molecular Biological Tools to Select Sites for Rehabilitation by Asexual Recruits.Marine Pollution Bulletin
Ammar, M. S. A., E. M. Amin, D. Gundacker, and W. E. G. Mueller (2000) One Rational Strategy for Restoration of Coral Reefs: Application of Molecular Biological Tools to Select Sites for Rehabilitation by Asexual Recruits. Marine Pollution Bulletin 40: 618-627.
Journal Article
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X00000308
TransplantationEgyptRed SeaRed Sea, Egypt25.107683833.7964613none7NoNoTransplantation of fragments using donor colonies that have been analysed to be of high health using molecular tools? Also testing survival rate between fragments attached with resin to mesh, vs those just pushed in to the mesh without resin.
Mesh and/or epoxy resin
None (Location)not reportedNonot reportedAcropora humilis, A. verweyi, A. hemprichii, Stylophora pistillata, Pocillopora damicornis, Favia stelligeraAcropora, Stylophora, Pocillopora, FaviaMixedNonot reported
Transplantation - fragments
n/ayesyes12BiologicalSurvival, growth, attachment46.4923076978.5yesSurvival, growthHigher survival of corals at sites with better water quality indicates corals require high water quality to survive and grow. Attaching nubbins in mesh with epoxy resin ensures their survival during turbulent conditions.12yesBiologicalLBE
34
PR0332010Baria, M. V. B., J. R. Guest, A. J. Edwards, P. M. Aliño, A. J. Heyward, and E. D. Gomez.
Caging enhances post-settlement survival of juveniles of the scleractinian coral Acropora tenuis.
Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology
Baria, M. V. B., J. R. Guest, A. J. Edwards, P. M. Aliño, A. J. Heyward, and E. D. Gomez (2010) Caging enhances post-settlement survival of juveniles of the scleractinian coral Acropora tenuis. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 394: 149-153.
Journal Article
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022098110003205
Coral Gardening - Transplantation PhasePhilippinesNW Luzon
NW Luzon, Philippines
16.5662318121.2626366none7NoNoTransplanting spats (6 week old) of corals that had spawned ex situ. Testing the effects of cages to protect spats from herbivores and other grazers.Natural settlementExperimentally testing whether presence of cages protects spats from herbivores or other grazersnot reportedYesnot reportedAcropora tenuisAcroporaBranchingYesnot reportedSexual reproductionyesyesyes3Biologicalsurvival, algal biomass22.77533yesSurvivalSignificant higher survival of 6 week old spats in cages compared to uncaged, although no significant difference in survival between closed and open cages. Significantly higher levels of macroalgae in caged vs open cage and no cage indicate this is not due to herbivory. 3yesBiologicalLBE
35
PR0342001Becker, L. C., and E. Mueller. The culture, transplantation and storage of Montastraea faveolata, Acropora cervicornis and Acropora palmata: What we have learned so far.Bulletin of Marine ScienceBecker, L. C., and E. Mueller. 2001. The culture, transplantation and storage of Montastraea faveolata, Acropora cervicornis and Acropora palmata: What we have learned so far.,Bulletin of Marine Science 69: 881-896.Journal Article
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/umrsmas/bullmar/2001/00000069/00000002/art00050#
Coral GardeningUSAFlorida KeysFlorida Keys, USA25.0273356-81.5357506ship grounding1NoNoExperiment 1 tested minimum viable size of fragments, and outplant orientation. Montastraea faveolata cores were mounted on pickets and reared in aquaria (1 year), before being out planted (1 & 2 years).
epoxy on mounts, drilled into dead reef
Trialling minimum size of massive coral fragments
not reportedYes
Area affected by disturbance
Montastraea faveolataMontastreaMassiveYesLocal abundance
Transplantation - fragments
NoYesyes24Biologicalgrowth, survival63.8888888958.3yesSurvival, growth100% survival in nurseries, 63% survival of out planted corals. No corals died in situ, but were lost from outplanting site.Orientation of out planted fragments did not affect growth or survival. There were significant year and site effects on growth.Cores grew tissue over epoxy, while cores with exposed skeletons remained exposed (ie the tissue did not cover the coral skeleton) allowing algae and boring invertebrates to colonise.24noBiologicalLBE
36
PR0352001Becker, L. C., and E. Mueller. The culture, transplantation and storage of Montastraea faveolata, Acropora cervicornis and Acropora palmata: What we have learned so far.Bulletin of Marine ScienceBecker, L. C., and E. Mueller. 2001. The culture, transplantation and storage of Montastraea faveolata, Acropora cervicornis and Acropora palmata: What we have learned so far.,Bulletin of Marine Science 69: 881-896.Journal Article
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/umrsmas/bullmar/2001/00000069/00000002/art00050#
Coral Gardening - Nursery Phase
USAFlorida KeysFlorida Keys, USA25.0273356-81.5357506ship grounding7NoNoExperiment 2 tests different nursery type for branching corals (closed aquaria, open systems or in situ field arrays). 7cm fragments were taken from donor colonies, and mounted onto plates using epoxy. Half of the fragments were reared ex situ in a flow through outdoor aquarium system, while half were reared in an in situ shallow nursery site (on a vertical tree-like construction)Epoxy
testing difference in growth and survival between ex situ and in situ nurseries?
not relevantNonot reportedAcropora palmata, A. cervicornisAcroporaBranchingNo
Species under threat
Transplantation - fragments
NoYesyes10Biologicalgrowth, survival95.83333333100yesSurvival, growthNo difference in linear extension between in situ and ex situ nurseries for A. cervicornis, however the basal width was significantly larger in the tank compare to the field.In contrast A. palmata colonies had higher linear extension and mineral accretion in the field compared to ex situ nurseries, however the basal growth was larger in the tanks compared to field nurseries. Tank reared A cervicornis exhibited limited branching while field colonies formed multiple branches during the study period. Growing in tanks allowed bases to develop which may be advantageous when outplanting, however the reduced water movement may have resulted in reduced branching.10yesBiologicalLBE
37
PR0362001Becker, L. C., and E. Mueller. The culture, transplantation and storage of Montastraea faveolata, Acropora cervicornis and Acropora palmata: What we have learned so far.Bulletin of Marine ScienceBecker, L. C., and E. Mueller (2001) The culture, transplantation and storage of Montastraea faveolata, Acropora cervicornis and Acropora palmata: What we have learned so far. Bulletin of Marine Science 69: 881-896.Journal Article
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/umrsmas/bullmar/2001/00000069/00000002/art00050#
TransplantationUSAFlorida KeysFlorida Keys, USA25.0273356-81.5357506ship grounding7NoNoExperiment 3 tests outplanting without a nursery phase. M. faveolata cores on poles, and A cervicornis fragments were placed either in aquaria, on an in situ array, or directly on to the reef substrate.Epoxytesting storage of fragmentsnot relevantYes
Area affected by disturbance
Montipora faveolata, Acropora cervicornisMontipora, AcroporaMixedNo
Species under threat
Transplantation - fragments
NoYesyesvariesBiologicalgrowth, survival21.4285714363.8partialSurvival, growthFragments in aquaria had issues with disease and suffered high mortality. Field fragment of both species did better, however a large hurricane dislodged and buried a large amount of the fragments, so survival and growth measurements were impossible after that. - Closed aquaria allows for monitoring and maintenance, however growth morphology is affected.This is also the most expensive method (both time/cost). Disease was an issue in this experiment, however the authors suggest using a quarantine tank to safeguard against introduced pathogens.
- Open aquaria require less maintenance but require high water quality.Acroporids grew slower in these tanks compared to those in the field.
- Placing fragments directly onto the substrate is only suitable for short time storage under calm conditions.
- In istue arrays raise the fragments above the substratum and protect against scouring and burying, how vere are vulnerable to discarded fishing gear and wave action.
variousyesBiologicalLBE
38
PR0372012Boch, C. A., and A. N. C. Morse.Testing the effectiveness of direct propagation techniques for coral restoration of Acropora spp. Ecological Engineering
Boch, C. A., and A. N. C. Morse (2012) Testing the effectiveness of direct propagation techniques for coral restoration of Acropora spp. Ecological Engineering 40: 11-17.
Journal Article
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0925857411003934
Larval EnhancementPalauEast sideEast side, Palau7.51498134.58252None7NoNoComparing the growth and survival of fragments vs sexaully produced coral propagules on sites with differing water flow regimes. Fragments attached directly onto restoration siet in tubes using zip ties. Gametes collected after spawning in the lab, allowed to fertilise and then reared for 5 days in ex situ aquaria until competent. The planula were then encouraged to settle onto ocean conditioned pushmounts (~15 per pushmount). After 4 days (=9 days post fertilisation) the mounts were transplanted onto the reef in pre-drilled holes
plastic tubes and zip ties
None (Location)not reportednonot reportedAcropora digitifera, A. hyacinthusAcroporaBranchingyesnot reportedTranslocation - fragmentsNoyesyes18Biologicalgrowth, survival48.07580partialSurvival, growthMean growth of both species was significantly higher at the site with higher water flow. Survival was high for fragments, and not significantly different between sites, however survival of sexual propagules was relatively low, although significantly higher in the high flow site)Increase in density of larval settlement could increase survivorship by encouraging fusion of the polyps. Caging to reduce predation of recruits may also increase survival, but is difficult to scale up.variousyesBiologicalLBE
39
PR0381997Bowden-Kerby, A.Coral transplantation in sheltered habitats using unattached fragments and cultured colonies.
Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute: Panama.
Bowden-Kerby, A. 1997. Coral transplantation in sheltered habitats using unattached fragments and cultured colonies.,Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute: Panama.Conference Proceedings
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275210184_Coral_transplantation_in_sheltered_habitats_using_unattached_fragments_and_cultured_colonies
TransplantationPuerto Rico, Puerto Rico18.220833-66.590149None7NoNoPilot study of fragments on rubble. Fragments relocated and scattered over rubble. Coral cover and fish communities surveyed and compared to controls.noneSurveying fish communities25Nonot reportedAcropora cervicornisAcroporaBranchingyesnot reported
Transplantation - fragments
yesyesyes12
biological / ecological
Survival, growth, fish abundance, coral covernot reported98.1yesCoral cover, fish abundanceCoral cover increased at site from 2.2% to 24.5%, with a concomitant increase in fish abundance from 17 fish in control plot, to 13 in restored plot. 75% of coral were attached to the substrate or each other. 12yesbiological / ecologicalLBE
40
PR0391997Bowden-Kerby, A.Coral transplantation in sheltered habitats using unattached fragments and cultured colonies.
Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute: Panama.
Bowden-Kerby, A. (1997) Coral transplantation in sheltered habitats using unattached fragments and cultured colonies. Proceedings of the 8th International Coral Reef Symposium Volume: 2: 2063-2068Conference Proceedings
http://www.reefbase.org/resource_center/publication/pub_9981.aspx
Coral GardeningPuerto RicoPuerto Rico
Puerto Rico, Puerto Rico
18.220833-66.590149None7NoNoDifferent size classes of fragments were collected and attached to monofilament line, draped over rubble.Cable tie on monofilament lineNone (Location)not relevantNonot reportedAcropora cervicornis, A. proliferaAcroporaBranchingNonot reported
Translocation - fragments
noyesyes3Biologicalgrowth, survival87.5555555695yesSurvival, growthLarger and medium fragments of A cervicornis had significantly higher survival than smaller size classes. There was no effect of size in A. prolifera.3yesBiologicalLBE
41
PR0401997Bowden-Kerby, A.Coral transplantation in sheltered habitats using unattached fragments and cultured colonies.
Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute: Panama.
Bowden-Kerby, A. (1997) Coral transplantation in sheltered habitats using unattached fragments and cultured colonies. Proceedings of the 8th International Coral Reef Symposium Volume: 2: 2063-2068Conference Proceedings
http://www.reefbase.org/resource_center/publication/pub_9981.aspx
TransplantationMicronesiaPohnpei
Pohnpei, Micronesia
6.8921132158.2146857None7NoNoPilot study of fragments on sand. Large fragments were placed on sand in various configurations to test the feasibility of transplanting corals on sand in two depths (shallow and deep). noneNone (Location)not reportedNonot reportedAcropora cervicornisAcroporaBranchingyesnot reported
Transplantation - fragments
noyesyes24Biologicalgrowth, survival47.46666667100partialSurvival, growthAll but three fragments died in shallow sites, while survival was higher in deeper sites. In particular, fragments with multiple branches survived at a higher arte (100%) than single branches (40%). The double brache also grew faster than single branchesCoral gardening can be achieved by creating rubble nursery sites, and transplanting fused coral fragments onto reefs. Fragments should be diverse to encourage resilience to disease etc. 24yesBiologicalLBE
42
PR0411997Bowden-Kerby, A.Coral transplantation in sheltered habitats using unattached fragments and cultured colonies.
Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute: Panama.
Bowden-Kerby, A. 1997. Coral transplantation in sheltered habitats using unattached fragments and cultured colonies.,Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute: Panama.Conference Proceedings
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275210184_Coral_transplantation_in_sheltered_habitats_using_unattached_fragments_and_cultured_colonies
TransplantationPuerto Rico, Puerto Rico18.220833-66.590149None7NoNoIntact coral colonies (from pilot study?) were translocated onto sandy areas to investigate mortality and fish recruitmentnoneSurveying fish recruitmentnot reportedNonot reportedAcropora cervicornisAcroporaBranchingyesnot reported
Transplantation - colonies
noyesyes3
biological / ecological
Survival, growth, fish recruitment95100yesSurvival, fish recruitmentHigh survival of entire colonies. Fish recruitment was higher n colones location >20 m from a reef, compared to those located <2m from a reef. 3yesbiological / ecologicalLBE
43
PR0421997Bowden-Kerby, A.Coral transplantation in sheltered habitats using unattached fragments and cultured colonies.
Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute: Panama.
Bowden-Kerby, A. (1997) Coral transplantation in sheltered habitats using unattached fragments and cultured colonies. Proceedings of the 8th International Coral Reef Symposium Volume: 2: 2063-2068Conference Proceedings
http://www.reefbase.org/resource_center/publication/pub_9981.aspx
TransplantationPuerto RicoPuerto Rico
Puerto Rico, Puerto Rico
18.220833-66.590149None7NoNoTesting survival and growth depending on different level of contact with the sand: 1) placed on sand,2) fragment supported but in contact with sand, 3) fragment not in contact with sand noneEffect of sand contactnot reportedNonot reportedAcropora cervicornis, A. proliferaAcroporaBranchingNonot reported
Transplantation - fragments
noyesyes3BiologicalSurvival, growth, attachment60.46666667n/ayesSurvival, growth, attachmentAll fragments scattered on sand died, while those suspended above the substrate showed higher survival compared to those in contact with the sand for A cervicornis. This difference was not evident in A. prolifera. More than half of coral fragments on wire frames had attached to the frame after 3 months.Fragments are more resilient to storms if attached above the substrate, and less prone to smothering. 3yesBiologicalLBE
44
PR0432001Bruckner, A., and R. Bruckner.
Condition of restored Acropora palmata fragments off Mona Island, Puerto Rico, 2 years after the Fortuna Reefer ship grounding.
Coral ReefsBruckner, A., and R. Bruckner (2001) Condition of restored Acropora palmata fragments off Mona Island, Puerto Rico, 2 years after the Fortuna Reefer ship grounding. Coral Reefs 20: 235-243.Journal article
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s003380100164
TransplantationPuerto RicoMona Island
Mona Island, Puerto Rico
18.0829054-67.8927472Ship grounding7NoNoNail and tie method used to attached fragments dislodged from a ship groundingWirenone (Location)not reportedno
Area affected by disturbance
Acropora palmataAcroporaBranchingyes
Species under threat
Corals of opportunitynonoyes24biologicalgrowth, survivalnot reportedn/ayesgrowthUnable to determine mortality since only a subset of original branches were re-examined. Of those examined 57.5 % had live tissue remaining, and only 10% had fused to the substratum. No effect of orientation on growth. The data suggests larger fragments have a higher proportion live tissueCable ties became dislodged with wave action, switched to stainless steel wire instead. However 73% of fragments examined had tissue mortality where the wire touched the coral24yesbiologicalLBE
45
PR0442008Cabaitan, P. C., E. D. Gomez, P. A. J. O. E. Marine,
Effects of coral transplantation and giant clam restocking on the structure of fish communities on degraded patch reefs
Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology
Cabaitan, P. C., E. D. Gomez, P. A. J. O. E. Marine (2008) Effects of coral transplantation and giant clam restocking on the structure of fish communities on degraded patch reefs. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 357: 85-98.
Journal article
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022098108000191
TransplantationPhilippinesAnda Island
Anda Island, Philippines
16.2982564119.9856157None7NoNoCoral fragments (>15 cm) attached to individual cement blocks (20 x 20 x 5cm) and assembled to create patch reef consisting of 100 fragmentsCementCreating patch reefs with a mix of coral species and growth morphologiesnot reportednonot reportedMixedAcropora, Pocillopora, Heliopora, Tubipora, MilleporaMixednofish habitat
Transplantation - fragments
yesyesyes10
biological / ecological
survival, fish community7272yesfish community72% of transplanted corals in the coral only treatments survived, however no fragments survived in the coral + clam treatments. Fish species richness and abundance increased significantly on coral patch reefs compared to controls. The authors conclude that restoration efforts can rapidly have positive effects on reef fish communities10yesecologicalLBE
46
PR0452015Cabaitan, P. C., H. T. Yap, and E. D. Gomez.
Performance of single versus mixed coral species for transplantation to restore degraded reefs.
Restoration EcologyCabaitan, P. C., H. T. Yap, and E. D. Gomez (2015) Performance of single versus mixed coral species for transplantation to restore degraded reefs. Restoration Ecology 23: 349-356.Journal article
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/rec.12205
TransplantationPhilippinesBolinaoBolinao, Philippines16.3425356119.8927296None7NoNoExperiment comparing the survival and the growth of corals transplanted in single-species plots with those in mixed-species plots. Corals attached directly onto substrate with epoxy, either in drilled holes or pre-existing crevices. Three treatments were tested: 1) single species assemblage P. cylindrica 2) single species assemblage P. frondifera 3) both species mixedEpoxy
testing single vs mixed species assemblages
not reportednonot reportedPorites cylindrica, Pavona frondifera, Hydnophora rigidaPorites, PavonaMixednonot reportedCorals of opportunitynoyesyes12Biologicalgrowth, survival89.595yesgrowth, survivalP. cylindrica had overall high survival (84-95%), and was unaffected by single vs mixed species assemblages. However. P. frondifera showed site effects, with higher survival in low water movement sites. P. frondofera showed higher survival in mixed assemblages on high water movement sites. The authors claim that the high mortality on the high water movement sites was due to predation by COTS and Drupella. Neither species showed any long term differences in linear growth in any treatment. Pick a species that is not a COTS (or other coral predator) favourite. P. cylindrica is not a preferred species, and was this spared. However, Hydnophora rigida was completely consumed by COTS in a pilot experiment. 12yesbiologicalLBE
47
PR0462016Carne, L., L. Kaufman, K. Scavo,Measuring success for Caribbean acroporid restoration: key results from ten years of work in southern Belize. ISRS
Carne, L., L. Kaufman, K. Scavo (2016) Measuring success for Caribbean acroporid restoration: key results from ten years of work in southern Belize. Proceedings of the 13th International Coral Reef Symposium, Honolulu, Hawai'i.
Conference Proceedings
http://coralreefs.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Session-42-B-2-Carne-ICRS-clean-and-final-ATB1.pdf
Coral Gardening - Transplantation Phase
BelizeLaughing Bird Caye NP
Laughing Bird Caye NP, Belize
16.4434667-88.1971864None1YesYesCoral fragments were out planted with a mix of genotypes and species at each location. plaster of paris, rope, wedging and cementLong-term studynot reportednoFavourable environmental conditionsAcropora palmata, A. cervicornis, A. proliferaAcroporaBranchingno
Species under threat
Corals of opportunitynoyesyes114
biological / ecological
growth, survival, genetic diversity9494yescoral cover, survivalIndividual tracking of survival on a small subset revealed high survival. A. palmata transplanted from one reef to another showed 89% survival, while nursery grown A. palmata showed 99% survival. Photo tracking of the much larger number of transplanted corals revealed increases in coral cover ranging from 4.7 -23.4% over a single year. All three species spawned a year after outplanting.The outplant sites are located in a national park, where guides accompany each diver/snorkeler. These guides are trained in the removal of coral predators, and may therefore have helped the transplants survive unusually high proportions. 114nobiologicalLBE
48
PR0472015Casey, J. M., S. R. Connolly, and T. D. Ainsworth.
Coral transplantation triggers shift in microbiome and promotion of coral disease associated potential pathogens
Scientific ReportsCasey, J. M., S. R. Connolly, and T. D. Ainsworth (2015) Coral transplantation triggers shift in microbiome and promotion of coral disease associated potential pathogens. Scientific Reports 5: 11903.Journal article
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep11903
TransplantationAustraliaLizard Island
Lizard Island, Australia
-14.6680433145.463777None7NoNoCoral fragments were transplanted inside and outside Stegastes damselfish territories, to determine the impact of exposure to the Epilithic algal matrix sustained by the farming behaviour of Stegastes, on the bacterial community of each fragment. Epoxy
Evaluating the effect of transplantation on bacterial communities
not relevantnopresence of StegastesAcropora muricataAcroporaBranchingyesAssociated with Stegastes colonies
Transplantation - fragments
yesyesyes12Biologicalsurvival, bacterial communitynot reportedn/anosurvival, bacterial communityCorals transplanted inside damselfish territories suffered higher mortality than those transplanted outside Stegastes territories. Potential coral pathogens increased significantly compared to baseline fragments, in all treatments, however these levels were lower inside damslefish territories compared to outside territories. Microbial communities on fragments with a high amount of mortality are more similar to microbial communities on the EAM, than to those of healthy baseline coral microbial communities. 12yesbiologicalLBE
49
PR0482015Ng, C., S. C. Lim, J. Y. Ong, L. Teo, L. Chou, K. E. Chua, and T. KS.Enhancing the biodiversity of coastal defence structures: transplantation of nursery-reared reef biota onto intertidal seawallsEcological EngineeringNg, C., S. C. Lim, J. Y. Ong, L. Teo, L. Chou, K. E. Chua, and T. KS (2015) Enhancing the biodiversity of coastal defence structures: transplantation of nursery-reared reef biota onto intertidal seawalls. Ecological Engineering 82: 480-486.Journal article
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925857415300409
Coral GardeningSingaporeChangiChangi, Singapore1.3450101103.9832089Construction8NoNoThe project is attempting to establish a coral reef on sewalls erected in area of high ship traffic. Fragments collected and transported to ex situ nursery, stored for 1 month, then further fragmented, and allowed to grow in holding tanks for a further 3 months. Coral fragments were then attached (15 cm apart) to the stone seawall using marine epoxy. EpoxyEstablishing a coral reef on rock wallnot reportednoDevelopment sitePorites lobata, Pocillopora damicornis, Diploastrea heliopora, Goniastrea minutaPorites, Pocillopora, Diploastrea, GoniastreaMixednoLocal abundance
Transplantation - fragments
nonoyes24Biologicalgrowth, survival15.947.7yesgrowth, survivalAlmost half of P. lobata fragments survived after 2 years, however P. damicornis and H rigida suffered complete mortality after 2 months. 90% G. minuta and 10% D. heliopora survived after 12 months.
While all coral species were present on nearby reefs, some were more successful than others. Slow growing massive corals were better suited for the high energy environment than fast-growing branching corals, which were more vulnerable to becoming dislodged by flotsam.
24yesbiologicalLBE
50
PR0492017Chamberland, V. F., D. Petersen, J. R. Guest, U. Petersen, M. Brittsan, and M. J. A. Vermeij.New Seeding Approach Reduces Costs and Time to Outplant Sexually Propagated Corals for Reef Restoration.Scientific ReportsChamberland, V. F., D. Petersen, J. R. Guest, U. Petersen, M. Brittsan, and M. J. A. Vermeij (2017) New Seeding Approach Reduces Costs and Time to Outplant Sexually Propagated Corals for Reef Restoration. Scientific Reports 7: 18076 .Journal article
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-17555-z
Coral GardeningCuracaoCuracaoCuracao, Curacao12.16957-68.99002None7NoNoTesting the effectiveness of two types of cement tetrapods seeded with coral propagules. The tetrapods were incubated for 6 months in flow-through aquaria, and placed in containers with planula from aquarium reared coral colonies. The tetrapods, with coral settlers, were transferred to holding tanks for three weeks, after which they were transplanted at the restoration sites. Restoration sites were of low, medium or high structural complexity.
Wedging into substrate
New seeding approach1500nonot reportedFavia favumFaviaMassiveyesnot reportedSexual reproductionnonoyes12Biologicalseeding unit dispersal, growth, survival5656yesretention, growth survivalTetrapods moved very little and a majority became attached to the substrate, with no differences between the two designs. An average of 9.6 % of settlers survived on the two designs, and there was no difference in the growth rate on either design. 56% of tetrapods sustained a >1 coral polyp after one year, and this proportion is higher in medium and high complexity reefs. Seeding in areas with low complexity may not be successful, as tetrapods may move and cause abrasion to to settlers. Concrete is ideal for algae to grow on, so the authors suggest trying a non-porous material like glass or glaze ceramics to limit algal growth12yesbiologicalLBE
51
PR0502013Toh, T. C., C. S. L. Ng, J. Guest, and L. M. Chou.
Grazers improve health of coral juveniles in ex situ mariculture.
AquacultureToh, T. C., C. S. L. Ng, J. Guest, and L. M. Chou (2013) Grazers improve health of coral juveniles in ex situ mariculture. Aquaculture 414-415: 288-293.Journal article
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0044848613004237
Coral Gardening - Nursery PhaseSingaporeChangiChangi, Singapore1.3450101103.9832089None7NoNoInvestigating the use of biocontrols to limit macro-algal growth in ex situ coral nursery tanks. Corals were encouraged to spawn, and planula settled on concrete embedded plugs. Trochus maculatus (shell) and Salmacis sphaeroides (urchin) were introduced into aquaria, and growth and survival of the coral recruits was examined. n/atesting whether biocontrol of invertebrates can improve condition of coral fragmentsnot relevantnon/aPocillopora damicornisPocilloporaBranchingyesnot reportedSexual reproductionyesnoyes6Biologicalgrowth, survival, condition77.1666666787.7yesgrowthGrowth was faster in the biocontrol tanks than in the control tanks, although survival was similar across all three treatments. Furthermore, the corals were healthier (colour and presence of lesions) in biocontrol treatments compared to controls6yesbiologicalLBE
52
PR0511997Clark, T.Tissue regeneration rate of coral transplants in a wave exposed environment, Cape D’Aguilar, Hong Kong. Proceedings of the 8th International Coral Reef SymposiumClark, T. 1997. Tissue regeneration rate of coral transplants in a wave exposed environment, Cape D’Aguilar, Hong Kong. ,Proceedings of the 8th International Coral Reef SymposiumConference Proceedings
http://www.reefbase.org/resource_center/publication/pub_9982.aspx
Coral GardeningHong KongCape D'Aguilar
Cape D'Aguilar, Hong Kong
22.2166667114.2666667None7NoNoInvestigating how the regeneration of tissue occurs in transplanted corals, and how it is impacted by different sheltering regimes. Colonies collected and transported to ex situ aquaria, and held for one month. A lesion is then inflicted on the coral colony, and recovery is recorded.cement, hooks and ropesLooking specifically at regeneration in transplanted coralsnot reportedno
proposed marine reserve
Favia speciosa, Goniastrea aspera, Porites lobataFavia, Goniastrea, PoritesMixednoLocal abundanceTranslocation - coloniesyesnoyes4Biologicaltissue regenerationnot reportedn/ayesregeneration timesGeneration times differed between species, wave exposure and attachment method. Exposed sites with loose attachment methods (ie hook and rope) were the slowest to regenerate. 4yesbiologicalLBE
53
PR0521995S. Clarke, A.J. EdwardsCoral transplantation as an aid to reef rehabilitation: evaluation of a case study in the Maldive IslandsCoral ReefsClarke, S., and Edwards, A. J. (1995) Coral transplantation as an aid to reef rehabilitation: evaluation of a case study in the Maldive Islands. Coral Reefs 14: 201-213.Journal article
http://rdcu.be/Epvm
TransplantationMaldivesGalu Falhu
Galu Falhu, Maldives
3.20277873.22068Coral mining1NoNoTransplanting whole coral colonies from unmined reef to mined site. Colonies attached to concrete mat with concrete and/or nails.concrete mat, concrete and nailsnone (Location)not reportedno
Area affected by disturbance
Acropora hyacinthus, A. cytherea, A. divaricata, A. digitfera, A. gemmifera, A. humilis, A. tenuis, Montipora spp., Astreopora spp., Porites lobata, P. lichen, P. lutea, P. nigrescens, Favia spp., Favites spp., Pocillopora verrucosa, P. damicornis, Montastrea spp., Cyphastrea spp., Pavona spp., Psammocora spp., Symphyllia spp., Goniastrea reticulosa, Leptastrea purpurea, L. transversa, Hydnophora spp., Galaxea spp., Heliopora spp.
Acropora, Pocillopora, Porites, Favia, Favites, Montipora, Astreopora, Montastrea, Cyphastrea, Pavona, Psammacora, Symphyllia, Goniastrea, Leptastrea, Hydnophora, Galaxea, Heliopora
Mixednonot reportedTranslocation - coloniesyesyesyes28Biologicalgrowth, survival510.51yesgrowth, survivalA quarter of all transplanted corals were dislodged and lost, and overall 51% of colonies survived. A large proportion of colonies experienced negative growth, ie partial mortality. Natural recovery on contro sites was non-existent.The concrete mats also encourage and promote natural recovery through recruitment28nobiologicalLBE
54
PR0531997H. M. Custodio III, H. T. YapSkeletal extension rates of Porites cylindrica and Porites (Synaraea) rus after transplantation to two depths. Coral ReefsH. M. Custodio III, H. T. Yap (1997) Skeletal extension rates of Porites cylindrica and Porites (Synaraea) rus after transplantation to two depths. Coral Reefs 16: 267-268.Journal article
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s003380050083
TransplantationPhilippinesBolinaoBolinao, Philippines16.3425356119.8927296None7NoNoComparing growth of transplants between depth and to non transplanted colonies. Colonies collected from nearby reef, fragmented and attached to plexiglass plates. The plates were attached to wire tables at the restoration site (raised 20cm from the bottom). All fragments and colonies were sacrificed at the end of the experiment, to measure growthCyanoacrylate glueUntested speciesnot reportedyesnot reportedPorites cylindrica, P. rusPoritesMixednonot reported
Translocation - fragments
yesnoyes14Biologicalgrowthnot reportedn/ayesgrowthThere were significant differences between species (P. cylindrica grew faster than P. russ),and depths (deeper depths grew slower, control grew fastest)14yesbiologicalLBE
55
PR0542014Cruz, D. W. D., R. D. Villanueva, and M. V. B. Baria. Community-based, low-tech method of restoring a lost thicket of Acropora corals.
ICES Journal of Marine Science
Cruz, D. W. D., R. D. Villanueva, and M. V. B. Baria (2014) Community-based, low-tech method of restoring a lost thicket of Acropora corals. ICES Journal of Marine Science 71: 1866-1871.
Journal article
https://academic.oup.com/icesjms/article/71/7/1866/664250
TransplantationPhilippinesBolinaoBolinao, Philippines16.3425356119.8927296None7NoYesDeveloping a cost-effective restoration method that is simple and low-tech enough to involve the local community. Fragments staked into sand, in tow treatments: high (6 fragments m-2) and low density (3 fragments m-2) coral.Stakes into sandnone (Location)not reportednoDegraded siteAcropora pulchra, A. intermediaAcroporaBranchingnoLocal abundance
Transplantation - fragments
yesyesyes19
biological / ecological
growth, survival, fish abundance and biomass78.589yesgrowth, survival, fish abundance and biomassCoral transplantation sites increased in coral cover from 0% to 24 and 54% in low and high density treatments respectively. Transplants had grownsignificnalty over 19 months. Fish abundance increased by 50% on high density treatments compared to low density and control plots. Macroinvertebrate abundance also increased in both transplantation plots compared to control plots. Pick a species that is known to survive in your restoration area. 19yesbiological / ecologicalLBE
56
PR0552015Dela Cruz, D. W., B. Rinkevich, E. D. Gomez, and H. T. Yap. Assessing an abridged nursery phase for slow growing corals used in coral restoration. Ecological Engineeringde la Cruz, D. W., B. Rinkevich, E. D. Gomez, and H. T. Yap. (2015) Assessing an abridged nursery phase for slow growing corals used in coral restoration. Ecological Engineering 84: 408-415.Journal articlehttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925857415301865/pdfft?md5=a32ac7bd9ffec7ae0df295d2e4a48d84&pid=1-s2.0-S0925857415301865-main.pdfCoral GardeningPhilippinesBolinaoBolinao, Philippines16.3425356119.8927296None7NoNoTesting the benefits of a nursery phase in coral gardening, compared to direct transplantation, for slow-growing coral species. Fragments were either collected and directly transplanted onto dead coral bommies, or housed in table-nurseries in situ for 1 year, and then out plantedEpoxyTesting value of nursery phase of coral gardeningnot reportednonot reportedEchinopora lamellosa, Merulina scabriculaEchinopora, MerulinaFoliosenonot reported
Transplantation - fragments
yesyesyes12Biologicalgrowth, survival, attachment8.33333333321partialgrowth, survivalMost corals died following a bleaching event, however data prior to bleaching suggest patterns of higher growth rates, higher survivorship as well as improved attachment rate of corals in the nursery when compared to directly transplanted counterparts of the first experiment (wild out planted vs fragments in nurseries). E. lamellosa is sensitive to transplantation and benefits form a nursery phase. Both species had significantly higher rates of self-attachment and growth in nurseries compared to out planted individuals. However, the second experiment suggests that these differences are not maintained over time (after 1 year in nursery)Costs associated with nurseries are not necessarily linked to the time corals spend in the nursery, so slow-growing corals may be best spending longer time in the nursery, rather than trying to shorten the time to save money. 12yesbiologicalLBE
57
PR0562012Polak, O., and N. Shashar.
Can a small artificial reef reduce diving pressure from a natural coral reef?
Ocean & Coastal Management
Polak, O., and N. Shashar (2012) Can a small artificial reef reduce diving pressure from a natural coral reef? Ocean & Coastal Management 55: 94-100.
Journal articlehttp://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0964569111001591Substrate Addition - Artificial reefEgyptGulf of EilatGulf of Eilat, Egypt28.692926134.7298765None4YesNoDeploying artificial reef in area with extremely high densities of scuba diving tourists. Six large (4 x 4 x 4m) concrete units were deployed on sandy bottom, and left for 5 months, before coral transplants were attached in pre drilled holes. Diving groups were followed before and after deployment, immediately following coral transplantation and two years post deployment, and time spent on the artificial reef was compared to time spent inside the adjacent marine park, and a nearby coral outcrop. Coral cover, fish abundance was monitored on all three sites. Holes in concreteTesting whether the creation of artificial reefs can take pressure off existing reefs with high visitation by scuba diving touristsnot reportedno
Area affected by disturbance
Acropora spp., Stylophora pistillata, Pocillopora verrucosa, Dendronephthya
hemprichi and others
Acropora, Stylophora, Pocillopora, Dendronephthya and othersMixedNonot reported
Transplantation - fragments
yesyesyes24Otherdiver visitationnot reportedn/ayesdiver visitationThe deployment of the artificial reefs did not change the visitation rates inside the marine reserve or adjacent coral bommie, either for certified or uncertified divers in training. However, the duration of dives inside the MPA were reduced for instructor-lead dives.An artificial reef in close proximity to an otherwise attractive dive site (e.g MPA) must be sufficiently large and attractive to encourage instructors/guides/divers to divert their time to it. However, an attractive artificial reef further away from the MPA may completely divert divers away from the MPA. The authors further suggest that the location of artificial dive sites should be discussed with dive guides/instructors prior to deployment, to ensure that they will take their divers there. 24yesotherLBE
58
PR0572002Heyward, A. J., L. D. Smith, M. Rees, and S. N. Field.Enhancement of coral recruitment by in situ mass culture of coral larvae.
Marine Ecology Progress Series
Heyward, A. J., L. D. Smith, M. Rees, and S. N. Field (2002) Enhancement of coral recruitment by in situ mass culture of coral larvae. Marine Ecology Progress Series 230: 113-118.
Journal articlehttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=0037023603&origin=inwar
Larval Enhancement
AustraliaCoral BayCoral Bay, Australia-23.144722113.776389None7NoNoCreation of a floating in situ larval nursery pond (2 x 2m). Gametes and embryos were collected from the slick formed during spawning. The larvae were kept in the ponds for 7 days, until competency was determined (using CCA in vitro method). They were then flushed into a floorless mesh tent (1.8 x 1m), placed on the reef. Two seeding densities were tested (low/high). Recruit density after 6 weeks was assessed in high/low/control plots using terracotta tiles. Natural settlementFirst in situ larval rearing experiment?14.4nonot reported
A. formosa, A. grandis, A. hyacinthus, A. humulis, A. millepora, A. nobilis, A. secale, A. tenuis.
AcroporaMixedNon/aSexual reproductionyesnoyes1.5BiologicalNatural recruitmentnot relevantn/ayesNatural recruitment5% of larvae survived to 6 days in ponds. Recruitment was greatly enhanced in experimental quadrats, with the highest density treatment receiving 100 times more recruits than natural recruitment in the bay. The higher density treatment had significantly higher densities of settled recruits. 1.5yesbiologicalLBE
59
PR0582017Dela Cruz, D. W., and P. L. Harrison.
Enhanced larval supply and recruitment can replenish reef corals on degraded reefs.
Scientific Reportsde la Cruz, D. W., and P. L. Harrison (2017) Enhanced larval supply and recruitment can replenish reef corals on degraded reefs. Scientific Reports 7: 13985.Journal articlehttps://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-14546-y
Larval Enhancement
PhilippinesBolinaoBolinao, Philippines16.3425356119.8927296None7NoNoGravid colonies of A. tenuis were collected and placed in aquaria ex situ, until spawning. The gametes were collected and placed in a fertilisation container with filtered seawater. Developing embryos were then transferred to rearing tanks, until competent. Competent larvae were then transferred into a bag for transportation to restoration site. Larvae were introduced into mesh tents (size??) placed on the reef, and maintained for 5 days, to allow larval settlement to occur. Settlement tiles ( of condition dead tabular acropora) were the examined to estimate settlement numbersNatural settlementFirst long term monitoring of larval enhancement96yesDegraded siteAcropora tenuisAcroporaBranchingyesLocal abundanceSexual reproductionyesyesyes36Biologicalrecruitment, growth, reproductionnot reportedn/ayesgrowth, reproductionHigh mortality in the first 5 months of settled spats (Type III survival curve), both on tiles and on natural substrate within the larval enhancement plots. Survivorship stabilised after 9 months, with very low mortality of coral colonies past 1 year. Coral colonies grew and many reached reproductive size after 3 years (avg ~16 cm in 3 years). The results illustrate the importance of early rapid growth to reach a size where survival is more likely. Authors note that method is only suitable in locations where environmental conditions are suitable for reef corals to grow, but natural recruitment is limited. Furthermore, chronic disturbances and key threats must be effectively managed. 35yesbiologicalLBE
60
PR0592015Edwards, A. J., J. R. Guest, A. J. Heyward, R. D. Villanueva, M. V. Baria, I. S. F. Bollozos, and Y. Golbuu.Direct seeding of mass-cultured coral larvae is not an effective option for reef rehabilitation. Marine Ecology Progress SeriesEdwards, A. J., J. R. Guest, A. J. Heyward, R. D. Villanueva, M. V. Baria, I. S. F. Bollozos, and Y. Golbuu (2015) Direct seeding of mass-cultured coral larvae is not an effective option for reef rehabilitation. Marine Ecology Progress Series 525: 105-116.Journal articlehttp://www.int-res.com/abstracts/meps/v525/p105-116/
Larval Enhancement
PalauIou Lukes reef
Iou Lukes reef, Palau
7.51498134.58252None7NoNoGravid colonies of A. digitifera were collected from nearby reefs and placed in in situ flow-through tanks, until they spawned. Gamete bundles were collected and placed in a fertilisation tank. Larvae were considered competent when >50% were competent to settle (using CCA chip to induce settlement). Larvae were then introduced to concrete Reef balls (pallet ball type), which was covered in a camping tent to contain the larvae on the artificial substrate. The mesh tent was removed after 24 hours. Settlement was measured on fibre cement tiles attached to each reef ball, and on visible settlement on the reef balls themselves. Natural settlementTesting whether high larval density can enhance recruit success20.58nonot reportedAcropora digitiferaAcroporaBranchingyesLocal abundanceSexual reproductionyesyesyes12Biologicalrecruitment, growthnot reportedn/anononeSeeding Reef Balls with larvae increased the settlement substantially after five weeks, however this this increase did not persist after 30 weeks. In addition, comparisons to visible recruits after 12 months revealed no difference between the treatment and control reef balls. The authors report a 4 fold increase in visible settlers compared to the background of natural recruitment, but speculate that this is because the area a;ready receives a relatively large contribution of recruiting larvae, compared other restoration sites. Authors concede that larval supplemental methods may be more suitable to places with low background recruitment levels.12yesbiologicalLBE
61
PR0602005Okamoto, M., S. Nojima, Y. Furushima, and W. C. Phoel.A basic experiment of coral culture using sexual reproduction in the open sea.Fisheries Science
Okamoto, M., S. Nojima, Y. Furushima, and W. C. Phoel (2005) A basic experiment of coral culture using sexual reproduction in the open sea. Fisheries Science 71: 263-270.
Journal articlehttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1444-2906.2005.00959.x/fullSubstrate Addition - Artificial reefJapanSekisei Lagoon
Sekisei Lagoon, Japan
36.204824138.252924Bleaching7NoNoSettlement tiles were placed on a site with high natural recruitment, and recruitment analysed. Three types of settlement tiles were tested, 1) regular pottery stone tiles, arranged in towers 2) circular pottery's stone rods, pitted with 4 mm diameter holes, 3) square limestone pillars, pitted with 4 mm diameter holes. The towers, rods and pillars were arranged in a stainless steel frame (42cm x 45 cm x 40 cm). The plates were deployed on a shallow site, and remained there over the coral spawning period (~14 weeks). The rods were then dried and recruits counted. Natural settlementTesting different recruitment tilesnot reportedno
Favourable environmental conditions
n/an/an/an/an/aSexual reproductionnonoyes3BiologicalNatural recruitmentnot reportedn/ayesNatural recruitmentThe number of settlers on the square stick was 4 times higher than on the cylindrical stick. MOst settlers on plates were on the undersideHoles on settlement sticks may have been too shallow to protect corals from predation3yesbiologicalLBE
62
PR0612006Shafir, S., J. Van Rijn, and B. Rinkevich.Steps in the construction of underwater coral nursery, an essential component in reef restoration acts.Marine Biology
Shafir, S., Van Rijn, J. and Rinkevich, B., 2006. Steps in the construction of underwater coral nursery, an essential component in reef restoration acts. Marine Biology, 149(3), pp.679-687.
Journal articlehttp://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00227-005-0236-6Coral Gardening - Nursery PhaseIsraelGulf of EilatGulf of Eilat, Israel29.550892234.9593004None7NoNo A in situ hanging coral nuresey was established nera a fish farm, providing nutrient enrichment to the growing corals. Mpther colonies were collcted from artifical port structures and fragmented. Fragments were superglued ontoplastic pins, which were placedwithi a frame. The fraes were plasedon a supsenden mid-water nursery, and maintained for approxiimatey 10 months.Cyanoacrylate glueTesting whether corals grow in mid water nurseries, near fish farm(nutrient enrichment)not relevantyesnot reportedStylophora pistillata, Pocillopora damicornis, Acropora pharaonis, A. eurystoma, A. validaStylophora, Pocillopora, AcroporaBranchingnonot reported
Transplantation - fragments
nonoyes10Biologicalgrowth, survival68.568.5yessurvival, growthA large number of corals detached in the first 144 days, but remaining corals grew fast, increasing in height 6-fold, and coulee 5-fold after 306 days.Super Glue is insufficient attachment method on plastic pins. Avoid planting corals too close as it excludes grazing herbivores and invertebrates, which my remove macroalgae etc. Drupella was attracted to coral nurseries.10nobiologicalLBE
63
PR0622015Forsman, Z. H., C. A. Page, R. J. Toonen, and D. Vaughan.Growing coral larger and faster: micro-colony-fusion as a strategy for accelerating coral cover.PeerJ
Forsman, Z. H., C. A. Page, R. J. Toonen, and D. Vaughan (2015) Growing coral larger and faster: micro-colony-fusion as a strategy for accelerating coral cover. PeerJ 3:e1313.
Journal articlehttps://peerj.com/articles/1313Coral Gardening - Microfragmentationnot reportednot reported
not reported, not reported
None7NoNoSmall fragments (~1x1cm) were cut from massive corals and placed on tiles, which were placed in ex situ aquaria. Maintenance involved daily siphoning of detritus, and manual algae removal. In a second experiment, the tiles were mounted to a concrete triangular concrete and placed in two tanks, one cleaned tank and one established.Cyanoacrylate gluetesting microfragmentation12yesnot reportedOrbicella faveolata, Pseudodiploria clivosa, Porites lobataOrbicella, Pseudodiploria, PoritesMassivenoLocal abundance
Transplantation - fragments
n/anoyes12Biologicalgrowth, survival100100yessurvival, growthOrbicella faveolata and Pseudodiploria clivosa grew an average 20 cm2 per month (although it was highly variable), with overall area increasing 329 and 154% (respectively) in 5 months. Larger fragments grew at a faster rate. For Porites lobata, there was a diffrence in growth between tanks (cleaned/established), with fragments growing faster in the established tank compared to the cleaned tank.The mesocosm of the established tank provided herbivores and increased diversity in terms of microbial , planktonic and benthic macrofauna.12yesbiologicalLBE
64
PR0632014Page, C., and Vaughan, D. E.The cultivation of massive corals using “micro-fragmentation” for the “reskinning” of degraded coral reefsBenthic Ecology Meeting
Page, C., and Vaughan, D. E. (2014) The cultivation of massive corals using “micro-fragmentation” for the “reskinning” of degraded coral reefs. Benthic Ecology Meeting, University of North Florida
Conference Posterhttps://www.researchgate.net/profile/Christopher_Page6/publication/287204400_The_cultivation_of_massive_corals_using_micro-fragmentation_for_the_reskinning_of_degraded_coral_reefs/links/5672f34a08aedbbb3f9f75d6.pdfCoral Gardening - MicrofragmentationUSAFloridaFlorida, USA27.6648274-81.5157535None7NoNoA diamond band saw was used to cut 1cm2 fragment from massive coral skeletons. The fragments were then mounted on tiles. The tiles are kept in indoor ex situ aquaria for 1 week, until fragments heal over their cuts. The tiles are then moved to outdoor tanks, until fragments have covered the tiles (4-12 months).Cyanoacrylate gluetesting microfragmentationnot relevantyesn/aOrbicella faveolataMontastraea cavernosaDiploria clivosaPorites astreoidesSiderastrea sidereaSolenastrea hyadesStephanocoenia interseptaEusmilia fastigiataPorites poritesOrbicella robustaMontastrea, Orbicella, DiploriaMassivenoLocal abundance
Transplantation - fragments
n/anoyesBiologicalgrowth, survival99.5666666799.7yessurvival, growthThe marine lab has 4347 microfragments in culture, with survival exceeding 99%10yesbiologicalLBE
65
PR0642003Lindahl, U.
Coral reef rehabilitation through transplantation of staghorn corals: effects of artificial stabilization and mechanical damages.
Coral ReefsLindahl, U. (2003) Coral reef rehabilitation through transplantation of staghorn corals: effects of artificial stabilization and mechanical damages. Coral Reefs 22: 217-223.Journal articlehttp://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00338-003-0305-6TransplantationTanzaniaMafia Island
Mafia Island, Tanzania
-7.86989539.7549511None7NoNoBranches of two species of Acropora, were collected from nearby reefs, and placed on a degraded reef using two methods. 1) loosely placed on the seabed, or 2) attached to a grid of strings which was loosely placed on the rubble. noneTesting the string-grid method to stabilise loose fragmentsnot reportednoDegraded siteAcropora muricata, A. vaughaniAcroporaBranchingnoLocal abundance
Transplantation - fragments
yesyesyes12Biologicalgrowth, survival9797yessurvival, growthCorals attached to the string grid had higher survival and faster growth compared to unattached fragments. 97% of attached branches survived, although 87% had experienced partial mortality, while 87% of unattached fragments survived, and 93% of survivors had partial mortality. To stop a defensive response between neighbouring fragments, which may affect growth, make sure that fragments attached to the same string originate from the same clone12yesbiologicalLBE
66
PR0651997Van Treeck, P., and H. Schuhmacher.Initial survival of coral nubbins transplanted by a new coral transplantation technology - Options for reef rehabilitation.
Marine Ecology Progress Series
Van Treeck, P., and H. Schuhmacher (1997) Initial survival of coral nubbins transplanted by a new coral transplantation technology - Options for reef rehabilitation. Marine Ecology Progress Series 150: 287-292.Journal articlehttp://www.jstor.org/stable/24857616Substrate Enhancement - ElectricIsraelGulf of Aqaba
Gulf of Aqaba, Israel
28.692926134.7298765None7NoNoA folded steel (chicken wire) cathode was connected to a DC power supply, and an anode of titanium mesh, placed 20 cm above each square. The magnesium and calcium minerals precipitate on the cathode by electrochemical deposition, and can form a calcium carbonate layer of 5-10mm thickness within 2 months. Coral fragments are inserted into the mesh (cathode)Wedged in meshTesting the effect of electrochemical frames on fragmentsnot relevantnonot reportedStylophora pistillata, Pocillopora damicornis, Acropora variabilis, A. squarrosa, Montipora danae, Pavona variansStylophora, Pocillopora, Acropora, Montipora, PavonaMixednoLocal abundance
Translocation - fragments
nonoyes12Biologicalgrowth, survival67.596yessurvival, growthAfter 8 weeks, fragments were cemented to the mesh. After 12 months, a large proportion were still alive, and had continued to grow.12yesbiologicalLBE
67
PR0662002
Sabater, M. G., and H. T. Yap.
Growth and survival of coral transplants with and without electrochemical deposition of CaCo3. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and EcologySabater, M. G., and H. T. Yap. 2002. Growth and survival of coral transplants with and without electrochemical deposition of CaCo3. ,Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and EcologyJournal articlehttp://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0022098102000515Substrate Enhancement - ElectricPhilippinesQuezon Island
Quezon Island, Philippines
16.2226498120.0462109None7NoNoTesting how electrochemical deposition influences growth and survival of corals, using an experimental design including controls. The system was designed using a graphite anode, and a cathode made from galvanised steel mesh (10mm mesh size). The power was supplied using solar modules, and initially batteries, although these were later removed due to to corrosion. A control setup using the same cathode, and wooden blocks producing the same shading effect as the anode. Finally, control corals on the reef of the same species were tagged and served as controls. Fragments were placed on the three experimental setups (electrochemical, transplantation control, and reef control) Wedged in meshTesting the effect of electrochemical frames on fragments, with controlsnot relevantnonot reportedPorites cylindrica, Acropora echinataPorites, AcroporaBranchingnoLocal abundance
Translocation - fragments
yesyesyes6Biologicalgrowth, survival83.6666666795yessurvival, growthThere was no significant difference in growth between fragments with electrochemical treatment compared to those without, in the same experimental setup. Furthermore, control colonies grew significantly faster that both treatments. However, survival and girth growth were both significantly higher in treated fragments compared to untreated. 6yesbiologicalLBE
68
PR0672003
Fox, H. E., J. S. PET, R. Dahuri, and R. L. Caldwell.
Recovery in rubble fields: Long-term impacts of blast fishing. Marine Pollution Bulletin
Fox, H. E., J. S. PET, R. Dahuri, and R. L. Caldwell (2003) Recovery in rubble fields: Long-term impacts of blast fishing. Marine Pollution Bulletin 1024-1031.
Journal articlehttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X03002467TransplantationIndonesiaBunakenBunaken, Indonesia1.6235162124.7602683Destructive fishing7NoNoCoral fragments were transplanted onto rubble field, testing two methods of attachment: 1) attached to rubble (unstable), 2) attached to PVC pipes driven into rubble (more stable)wire, cable tiesnone (Location)not reportedno
Area affected by disturbance
Acropora yongeiAcroporaBranchingyesLocal abundance
Transplantation - fragments
nonoyes6Biologicalsurvival52.565partialsurvivalIncreased survival in fragments that are stabilised (65%) compared to those attached to rubble (40%)6yesbiologicalLBE
69
PR0681989
Hudson, J. H., D. M. Robbin, J. T. Tilmant, and J. L. Wheaton.

Building a coral reef in southeast Florida: Combining technology and aesthetics.
Bulletin of Marine ScienceHudson, J. H., D. M. Robbin, J. T. Tilmant, and J. L. Wheaton. 1989.
Building a coral reef in southeast Florida: Combining technology and aesthetics.,Bulletin of Marine Science
Journal articlenot availableSubstrate Addition - Artificial reefUSABiscayneBiscayne, USA25.693713-80.1628248ship grounding1NoNoConcrete balls were cast into hollow dome shapes, and fragmented corals were cemented onto the domes. Cementnone (Location)not reportedno
Area affected by disturbance
Mixedn/anot reportednonot reportedNatural recruitmentnonoyes120Biologicalsurvival, fish community87.587.5yes
survival, fish community
The concrete domes show no signs of deterioration after 10 years, and a high proportion of transplanted corals survived. Furthermore, a large number of hard and soft-coral recruits have settled onto the domes. The fish community was intermediate compared to a natural reef patch and the sea floor after 10 years.120yesbiological / ecologicalLBE
70
PR0692006Monty, J. A., D. S. Gilliam, K. Banks, D. K. Stout, and R. E. Dodge. Coral of opportunity survivorship and the use of coral nurseries in coral reef restoration.
Proceedings of the 10th international coral reef symposium
Monty, J. A., D. S. Gilliam, K. Banks, D. K. Stout, and R. E. Dodge (2006) Coral of opportunity survivorship and the use of coral nurseries in coral reef restoration. Proceedings of the 10th international coral reef symposium
Conference Proceedingshttps://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwidm4Pfz5fZAhVHy7wKHRGXBN4QFggpMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnsuworks.nova.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D1030%26context%3Docc_facpresentations&usg=AOvVaw3UPrycLk3f2k5o60KbyfmpCoral Gardening - Nursery PhaseUSAFloridaFlorida, USA27.6648274-81.5157535None7NoYesCorals of opportunity from 17 species were collected near the nursery site, transported and handled on boat (<2 hours), and then transplanted to concrete artificial structures (2 types: Warren and DERM modules). The goal was to establish a nursery site which can be used as a donor source for future restoration activities. CementFirst Corals of Opportunity trials?not reportedno
Favourable environmental conditions
Siderastrea sidereaMontastraea cavernosaMeandrina meandritesSolenastrea bournoniStephanocoenia micheliniiDichocoenia stokesiiPorites astreoidesColpophyllia natansDiploria labyrinthiformisPorites poritesMontastraea faveolataEusmilia fastigiataAgaricia agricitesDiploria strigosa
Siderastrea, Meandrina, Solenastrea, Stephanocoenia, Dichocoenia, Colpophyllia, Diploria, Porites, Orbicella, Eusmilia, Agaricia, Diploria
MixednoLocal abundanceCorals of opportunityyesnoyes24BiologicalGrowth, survival, condition9696yessurvivalThe high survival, ease of collection and representative avialbaliklty of corals of opportunity makes the authors conclude that the method is viable in the location testes (Borward County, Florida, USA). Coral of opportunity which were not transplanted, but left loose as control colonies had significantly reduced survivorship24yesbiologicalLBE
71
PR0702004Chilcoat, G. C. Growth and survival of transplanted Acropora cervicornis in relation to coral reef restoration. Chapter 2: Seasonal Branching Patterns in transplanted reef-building corals Acropora Cervicornis and Acropora proliferaUniversity of GeorgiaChilcoat, G. C. (2004). Growth and survival of transplanted Acropora cervicornis in relation to coral reef restoration (Doctoral dissertation, uga).Thesishttps://getd.libs.uga.edu/pdfs/chilcoat_geoffrey_c_200408_ms.pdfTransplantationBahamas
Florida Keys and Bahamas
Florida Keys and Bahamas, Bahamas
24.5569474-81.8024352None7NoNo15 Artificially broken fragments (15-200mm) were transplanted to 3 sites from a parent colony four times per year (Acropora prolifera only one time in the Bahamas) corresponding to the seasons and monitored quarterly. Fragments were glued to PVC pipe (into a 2'' section of ½ '' PVC with Oately® epoxy putty) and attached to cement bricks adjacent to the reef they were collected. The weight, branching number and growth were measured quarterly. Epoxy to PVC pipe in cement bricksSeasonal factors modulating branching patterns of coral speciesnot reportednoDegraded siteAcropora cervicornis, A. proliferaAcroporaBranchingnoRare species in area
Transplantation - fragments
nonononoBiologicalWeight, branching rate, growthnot reportedn/an/anot relevantSeasonal variation in branching rates. Highest branching rate and growth rate during late spring/early summer and slowed or stopped during late summer/early fall. Earlier and more frequent branching in larger coral fragments. Growth rate and branching rate higher in A. prolifera than A. cervicornis, however linear extension to accretion (g/mm) not statistically different between species. 36yes?biologicalLL
72
PR0712004Chilcoat, G. C. Growth and survival of transplanted Acropora cervicornis in relation to coral reef restoration. Chapter 3: Effect of season and coral size on the growth rate of transplanted Acropora cervicornisUniversity of GeorgiaChilcoat, G. C. (2004). Growth and survival of transplanted Acropora cervicornis in relation to coral reef restoration (Doctoral dissertation, uga).Thesishttps://getd.libs.uga.edu/pdfs/chilcoat_geoffrey_c_200408_ms.pdfTransplantationBahamas
Florida Keys and Bahamas
Florida Keys and Bahamas, Bahamas
24.5569474-81.8024352None7NoNo15 Artificially broken fragments (2-19cm) were transplanted to 3 sites from a parent colony four times per year (Acropora prolifera only one time in the Bahamas) corresponding to the seasons and monitored quarterly. Fragments were glued to PVC pipe (into a 2'' section of ½ '' PVC with Oately® epoxy putty) and attached to cement bricks adjacent to the reef they were collected. Weight, length, branching were measured quarterly. Epoxy to PVC pipe in cement bricksNone (Location)not reportednoDegraded siteAcropora cervicornisAcroporaBranchingyesRare species in area
Transplantation - fragments
nonononoBiologicalWeight, branching rate, growthnot reportedn/an/anot relevantHighest growth rate in late spring and early summer. Accretion (g) to linear growth (mm) ratio relatively constant, depending on wave energy of site. Growth rate generally positively correlated with colony size. Time of transplantation important for subsequent growth. 24yes?biologicalLL
73
PR0722004Chilcoat, G. C. Growth and survival of transplanted Acropora cervicornis in relation to coral reef restoration. Chapter 4: Effect of season and coral size on the survival of transplanted Acropora cervicornisUniversity of GeorgiaChilcoat, G. C. (2004). Growth and survival of transplanted Acropora cervicornis in relation to coral reef restoration (Doctoral dissertation, uga).Thesishttps://getd.libs.uga.edu/pdfs/chilcoat_geoffrey_c_200408_ms.pdfTransplantationBahamas
Florida Keys and Bahamas
Florida Keys and Bahamas, Bahamas
24.5569474-81.8024352None7NoNo15 Artificially broken fragments (25-200mm) were transplanted to 3 sites from a parent colony four times per year (Acropora prolifera only one time in the Bahamas) corresponding to the seasons and monitored quarterly. Fragments were glued to PVC pipe (into a 2'' section of ½ '' PVC with Oately® epoxy putty) and attached to cement bricks adjacent to the reef they were collected. The weight, length, growth and mortality were measured quarterly. Epoxy to PVC pipe in cement bricksNone (Location)not reportednoDegraded siteAcropora cervicornis, A. proliferaAcroporaBranchingnoRare species in area
Transplantation - fragments
nonononoBiologicalWeight, length, growth, mortality100100n/anot relevantFor A. cervicornis: Survival rate higher in Florida keys than in Bahamas site. Survival of smaller colonies lower than larger at most sites. For A. prolifera: survival rate 100% 36yes?biologicalLL
74
PR0732006Dizon, R. T., Yap, H. T.Effects of coral transplantation in sites of varying distances and environmental conditionsMarine Biology
Dizon, R. T., & Yap, H. T. (2006). Effects of coral transplantation in sites of varying distances and environmental conditions. Marine Biology, 148(5), 933-943.
Journal articlehttps://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00227-005-0142-yTransplantationPhilippines
Pangasian province and Quezon province
Pangasian province and Quezon province, Philippines
15.8949055120.2863183None7NoNoWhole colonies pried off using hammer and chisel. Sizes ranged up to three-fold for all species. Transferred to transplant site. Two attachment methods tested: 1) depression excavated in rock, cement mix with seawater poured in depression covering the base of the coral, 2) tied to plastic screen (1m²) nailed to surface. Each attachment equals a treatment and each was replicated three times, hence 6 plots (each 1m², with 7 or 12 colonies in each plot) per transplant site and 4 sites per location plus 3 control sites. Measurements taken quarterly.CementSuitability for transplantation is compared at varying distances and environmental conditions in small scales (1m² plots)48no
Favourable environmental conditions
Acropora palifera, A. microphthalma, Porites cylindrica, P. lobata, Echinopora lamellosaAcropora, Porites, EchinoporaMixednoLocal abundance
Transplantation - colonies
yesnononoBiologicalgrowth, survival57.12595n/anot relevantSurvivorship higher for slow-growing corals, than branching and foliose. Highest survival for A.palifera (94%) and lowest for A.microphthalma (8%); clear trend in higher survivorship in Quezon sites (62-95%) than Pangasian sites (39-16%). Growth differed between most species across all sites, highest growth rate compared to low survivorship for A. microphthalma and E. lamellosa. No growth difference between attachment method, but survival higher in cement method. Hence successful coral transplantation is both
site- and species-specific.
Growth and survival rates, however, should not be considered as the sole criteria in the evaluation of
transplantation performance, as reproduction strategy should be taken into account. Consider broad environmental context of restoration to develop assembly rules allowing to match coral types and their sequence to each unique context.
variedyesbiologicalLL
75
PR0742008Dizon, R. T., Edwards, A. J., Gomez, E. D. Comparison of three types of adhesives in attaching coral transplants to clam shell substrates
Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems
Dizon, R. M., Edwards, A. J., & Gomez, E. D. (2008). Comparison of three types of adhesives in attaching coral transplants to clam shell substrates. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 18(7), 1140-1148.Journal articlehttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aqc.944/fullTransplantationPhilippinesBolinaoBolinao, Philippines16.3425356119.8927296None7NoNo45 giant clam shells (300-500mm length) used as substrate. Using hand-held grinder 12 notches on the ridges of each shell were made and identification labels were glued on each shell. One nubbin of each coral species (each 2-3 cm length, total of 540 nubbins) was attached to each clam using one type of adhesive per shell on the horizontal surface of the shell. 3 adhesive methods: 1) Cyanoacrylate glue (Super Glue Gel by Loctite); 2) Epoxy putty (Epoxyclay Aqua by Pioneer); 3) Marine epoxy (Non-Sag Marine Epoxy by Pioneer). Monitoring every two weeks for 5 months.
Cyanoacrylate glue; Epoxy putty; Marine epoxy. On giant clam shell
Comparison of different attachment methodsnot reportednonot reportedAcropora muricataMontipora digitataPocillopora damicornisPocillopora verrucosaSeriatopora caliendrumStylophora pistillataPorites cylindricaPorites nigrescensPorites rusHydnophora rigidaPavona frondiferaHeliopora coeruleaAcropora, Pocillopora, Merulina, Agaricia, Heliopora, PoritesMixednoLocal abundance
Transplantation - fragments
nonononoBiological
Detachments, mortality, self-attachment, other occurrences notes such as dislodgements, overgrowth, predation
57.457.4n/anot relevant Mortalities between species varied with highest mortality for Pocilloporids (between 71-82%) and A.muricata (71%). Lowest mortality for P. frondifera, H. coerulea and P. cylindrica with only between1-7 mortalities during the study. Overall SG treatment had poorest atachment effectiveness and self-attachment rate, however might do well in calm and sheltered environments. EP and ME performed equally well in atachment effectiveness, survival, and self-attachment, but differences between application time, cost, ease and effectiveness of attachment were observed. Appropriate attachment method should be selected and species specific traits should be considered carefully when selecting species to reintroduce as they determine which transplants survived in experiment. 5yes?biologicalLL
76
PR0752017Dubininkas, V.Effects of substratum on the growth and survivorship of Montipora capitata and Porites lobata transplants
Journal of experimental marine biology and ecology
Dubininkas, V. (2017). Effects of substratum on the growth and survivorship of Montipora capitata and Porites lobata transplants. Journal of experimental marine biology and ecology, 486, 134-139
Journal articlehttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002209811630185XCoral Gardening - Nursery PhaseUSA
Ānuenue Fisheries, Honolulu
Ānuenue Fisheries, Honolulu, USA
21.3040736-157.8711253None7NoNoOne single colony per species was collected to coral nursery in Ānuenue Fisheries Research Center, 132 fragments (2-3cm length) generated per species. 3 fragments of each species were attached to the respective substratum (size of substratum area ~10x10cm to 118x18cm) using two part marine epoxy. Natural substrata, mostly volcanic in origin were used, including black and red ʻAʻā lava, types of gray amygdaloidal basalt, gray ignimbrite, brown rhyolite breccia, and white amorphous coral skeletons. The synthetic substrata selected included white ceramic, translucent glass, white cultured marble, and white porcelain tiles.All replicates were moved into circular tanks. Transplants (n=264) were suspended ~0.3m below the surface on random locations within the tanks using PVP pipes and nylon rope. Photographs monitored growth and survival upon initiating of the experiment and after 78, 184 and 365 days to measure coenosarc surface area.Epoxy on either natural or synthetic substratum Type of substratum used to test substratum affinitynot relevantnonot reportedPorites lobata, Montipora capitataPorites, MontiporaMixednomorphological distinctive species
Transplantation - fragments
nonononoBiologicalgrowth, survival83.22222222100n/anot relevantApart from glass attachment (50% survival), survival onto other substrata was >70%. Hence it seems there is no distinct substratum affinity. Study limited to only one colonie of each species, further investigations need to include more colonies. Coenosarc tissue could not be measured after 184 days, due to fusion between fragments. Hence fragments should be attached further apart to avoid this issue. 12yesbiologicalLL
77
PR0762010Ferse, S.C.Poor performance of corals transplanted onto substrates of short durabilityRestoration Ecology
Ferse, S. C. (2010). Poor performance of corals transplanted onto substrates of short durability. Restoration ecology, 18(4), 399-407.
Journal articlehttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1526-100X.2010.00682.x/fullTransplantationIndonesiaNorth Sulawesi
North Sulawesi, Indonesia
0.6246932123.9750018none7NoNoThree plots of each 100m² were subdivided into 100 squares of 1m² that were covered with bamboo strips, connected with nails (suitable for sea water) to frame squares. Fragments (5-10cm) were glued to cement base (1:4 cement and sand mix), that was attached to bamboo frame using cable ties. Coral fragments were transplanted onto half the frames, alternated in chessboard pattern with frame onto which hollow concrete block (60cm high) was constructed. These structures were part of a parallel study examining the effects on reef fishes (Ferse 2008). Monitoring was done ~ once a month for up to 20 months.Epoxy to cement base, attached to bamboo frame with cable tiesTesting of cheap, low-tech and non-durable substrate materials300no
Favourable environmental conditions
Acropora muricata, A. yongei, Pocillopora verrucosa, Isopora brueggemanniAcropora, Pocillopora, IsoporaBranchingnoLocal abundance
Transplantation - fragments
nonononoBiologicalSurvival, Substrate disintegration, coral cover29.880no
Survival, Substrate disintegration, coral cover
Very high mortality of transplants by the end of the study in three of 4 species (67-95%), that was partially linked to substrate disintegration. Highest survival for Isopora species (>80%), followed by Acropora species and lowest survival of Pocillopora species (<20%). Apart from one frame, all frames were damaged after the end of the experiment after ~400 days. Particularly in areas with stronger currents or waves, higher effort has to be invested in more durable attachments than bamboo.
Bamboo cannot be recommended as a good general low-tech substrate method and it would be better to invest in more durable materials that provide better attachment, considering the high effort that is put into coral transplantation. Post- monitoring should last for several years to decades to monitor long-term success of substrate used.
20nobiologicalLL
78
PR0771993Edwards, A., and Clark, S.
Re-establishment of fish populations on a reef flat degraded by coral quarrying in the Maldives
Proceedings of the Seventh International Coral Reef Symposium
Edwards, A., and Clark, S. (1993) Re-establishment of fish populations on a reef flat degraded by coral quarrying in the Maldives. Proceedings of the Seventh International Coral Reef Symposium, Guam, 1992, Vol. 1: 593-600
Conference Proceedingshttp://www.reefbase.org/resource_center/publication/pub_536.aspxSubstrate Addition - Artificial reefMaldives
Garu Falhu, 2.4 km northwest of Malé
Garu Falhu, 2.4 km northwest of Malé, Maldives
4.175495973.5093474Coral mining1NoNoFour sets of artificial structures of varying structural complexity were deployed into three replicate 5 x 10 m sites, each positioned at the centre of a 50 x 50 m grid square. The four types of structures were: (1) one-cubic-metre SHED (Shephard Hill Energy Dissipator) hollow concrete blocks, modified with infills to reduce internal space, (2) Armorflex-220 flexible concrete mattresses (62 m2), (3) Armorflex onto which corals were transplanted (36 m2), and (4) chain-link fencing anchored by paving slabs. Controls included three 50m2 sites on the quarried reef flat, and 50m2 sites on undisturbed reef flats. Fish were surveyed with 30 minute timed swims, at weekly intervals for a month after deployment, then at roughly monthly intervals for six months and
at approximately three to five monthly intervals thereafter.
noneComparison of effects of four different artificial structures on fish community 40000no
Area affected by disturbance
not reportedn/anot reportedn/an/an/ayesnoyes16EcologicalFish species compositionnot relevantn/apartialfish density, species richness and species compositionWithin one year of emplacement, the three sets of structures with higher topographic complexity were supporting fish communities of similar species richness and higher density than undisturbed control reefs. However, after one year the fish species composition was significantly different from that in undisturbed reefs.Structures with higher topographic complexity are more successful at attracting fish on degraded reefs.16yes?ecologicalDMC
79
PR0781981Alcala, A. C., L. C. Alcala, E. D. Gomez, M. E. Cowan, and H. T. Yap.
Growth of certain corals, molluscs and fish in artificial reefs in the Philippines.
Proceedings of the 4th International Coral Reef Symposium
Alcala, A. C., L. C. Alcala, E. D. Gomez, M. E. Cowan, and H. T. Yap. 1982. Growth of certain corals, molluscs and fish in artificial reefs in the Philippines. Pages 215–220 in. Proceedings of the 4th International Coral Reef SymposiumConference Proceedingshttp://www.reefbase.org/resource_center/publication/pub_18.aspxSubstrate Addition - Artificial reefPhilippinesBantayan & Ajong
Bantayan & Ajong, Philippines
11.1999448123.7405967None5NoNoThree artificial reefs were established using used car tires, and monitored for 30 months.n/anone (Location)213nonot reportednot reportedAcropora, Dendrophyllia, Favia, Pocillopora, Seriatopora, Stylophora, MilleporaMixednonaturally recruitingNatural recruitmentn/ayesyes30Ecologicalgrowth, mollusc and fish densitiesnot reportedn/ayespresence of target fish speciesSeven genera of corals, and multiple species of non-mobile molluscs recruited and grew on the artificial reefs. Two species of fish targeted by local fishermen were present at the artificial reef sites, at sufficient numbers to sustain fishing. Recruited corals more likely to attach to concrete bases rather than rubber tire, suggesting concrete is a better recruitment substrate for coral planula.30yesecologicalLBE
80
PR0791997Muñoz-Chagín, R. F.Coral transplantation program in the Paraiso coral reef, Cozumel Island, Mexico
Proceedings of the 8th International Coral Reef Symposium
Muñoz-Chagín, R. F. (1997) Coral transplantation program in the Paraiso coral reef, Cozumel Island, Mexico. Proceedings of the 8th International Coral Reef Symposium 2: 2075-2078Conference Proceedingshttp://www.reefbase.org/resource_center/publication/pub_9983.aspxTransplantationMexico
Paraiso coral reef, Cozumel Island
Paraiso coral reef, Cozumel Island, Mexico
20.4013196-87.017594Construction3NoNoBenthic fauna (mobile and sessile) was removed from the area of a proposed building site and relocated between 100 and 600 m away. Artificial substrata were used to transplant sessile organisms.hydraulic cement, epoxy; animals tied to eyebolts with electrical cablesTranslocation of entire benthic community prior to disturbance.600no
Favourable environmental conditions
not reportedNot reported Mixednocomplete benthic communityTranslocation - coloniesnonoyes1Ecologicalsurvival970.97yessurvival23,796 individual organisms, including 161 species belonging to 17 groups, were moved from a proposed building site to a location between 100 and 600m away, which was enhanced with artificial substrata. High survival rate (97%) overall in the first month indicates a successful rescue of organisms.Artificial reef structures combined with transplantation efforts enhanced survival5yesecologicalDMC
81
PR0802003Alfeche, L. R. Coral reef restoration through coral transplantation: the case of Duka Bay, Medina, Misamis Oriental. Manila.
Proceedings of Second International Tropical Marine Ecosystems Management Symposium (ITMEMS)

2003. Coral reef restoration through coral transplantation: the case of Duka Bay, Medina, Misamis Oriental. Manila. Proceedings of Second International Tropical Marine Ecosystems Management Symposium (ITMEMS)
Conference Proceedingshttp://www.reefball.com/map/phillipinescoraltransplant/T10_DukaBayLAlfeche.pdfTransplantationPhilippinesDuka Bay
Duka Bay, Philippines
8.928261124.998911None7YesNoCement blocks (10 x 16 x 56 cm) were placed on disturbed reef, and coral fragments sourced from nearby reef transplanted. Cementnone (Location)500no
Area affected by disturbance
not reportedn/anot reportedn/anot reported
Transplantation - fragments
non/ayes24Ecologicalgrowth, survival, fish abundancenot reportedn/ayessurvivalThe transplanted corals grew faster than their donor colonies, and 24 species of fish were recorded at the transplantation sites at the conclusion of the experiment (2 years). The 'restored' sites became popular tourist attractions, generating income for the nearby resort and village.24yesecologicalLBE
82
PR0812002
Salvat, B., Chancerelle, Y., Schrimm, M., Morancy, R., Porcher, M., and Aubanel, A.
Restauration d'une zone corallienne dégradée et implantation d'un jardin corallien à Bora Bora, Polynésie FrançaiseRévue Ecologique
Salvat, B., Chancerelle, Y., Schrimm, M., Morancy, R., Porcher, M., and Aubanel, A. (2002) Restauration d'une zone corallienne dégradée et implantation d'un jardin corallien à Bora Bora, Polynésie Française. Révue Ecologique 9: 81-96
Journal articlehttp://documents.irevues.inist.fr/bitstream/handle/2042/55523/RevuedEcologie_2002_SUP9_81.pdf?sequence=1Substrate Addition - Artificial reef
French Polynesia
Bora Bora
Bora Bora, French Polynesia
-16.5004126-151.7414904Dredging1NoNoDredged pits were filled with 10,000m3 of sand, three 20m long groynes were built and the beach was replenished with sand. 125 artificial concrete structures, between 1.6 and 17t each, were deployed on the sandy shallow reef flat to act as breakwaters to protect the coastline. A 7,200 m2 “coral garden” was created by transplanting 311 coral colonies to 11 artificial structures and 200 large branching (Acropora spp.) and massive (Porites spp.) colonies to surrounding sand patches. Monitoring surveys were carried out at 1, 3, 6, 9,13, 28 and 32 months after transplantation. Monitoring measured survival, growth, disease, predation, bleaching, and the colonisation of the artificial structures by other organisms.
cement, epoxy gluenone (Location)7200no
Area affected by disturbance
Acropora spp., Montipora spp., Pavona cactus, Pocillopora damicornis, Porites rus, Psammocora spp., Fungia spp., Porites spp., Cyphastrea spp., Pocillopora verrucosa, Herpolitha limaxAcropora, Porites, Pavona, Montipora, Pocillopora, Fungia, Herpolitha, Cyphastrea, PsammocoraMixednoSimilar to nearby undisturbed habitatsTranslocation - coloniesnon/ayes32
biological / ecological
survival, growth, health90.36363636100yessurvival, growth, colonization by other speciesThe transplanted corals had a 95% survival rate, on average, except for high mortality of submassive Porites rus from smothering in sand. The coral gardens were further colonised by 53 coral colonies, sea urchins, tridacnid clams and a variety of reef fishes.Location effects need to be considered in the future, as the coral garden was affected by anchors and large amounts of sand.32partial (see notes)biological / ecologicalDMC
83
PR0821988Gittings, S. R., Bright, T. J., Choi, A., and Barnett, R. R.The recovery process in a mechanically damaged coral reef community: recruitment and growth
Proceedings of the 6th International Coral Reef Symposium
Gittings, S. R., Bright, T. J., Choi,A., and Barnett, R. R. (1988) The recovery process in a mechanically damaged coral reef community: recruitment and growth. Proceedings of the 6th International Coral Reef Symposium 2: 225-230Conference Proceedingshttps://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/89b7/3c18d2e9272d62859a8cf783bcabefbb325f.pdfSubstrate Addition - Artificial reefUSA
Key Largo National Marine Sanctuary, Florida
Key Largo National Marine Sanctuary, Florida, USA
24.4269857-83.1112798Ship grounding1NoNoHorizontal, grooved quarry tiles were grouped into 8 "recruitment stations" along a line ranging from no impact to maximum impact. Four tiles per station were secured on posts embedded into the reef, approx. 5cm from the substratum. Tiles were collected at 6 month intervals and checked for recruits.n/anone (Location)4100no
Area affected by disturbance
Pseudopterogorgia spp, Millepora alcicornis, Favia fragum, Briareum asbestinum, Agaricia agaricitesPseudopterogorgia, Millepora, Favia, Briareum, AgariciaMixednonot reportedNatural recruitmentyesnoyes27BiologicalNatural recruitmentnot reportedn/an/aNatural recruitmentCoral recruit density was negatively correlated with the severity of the impact; lowest recruitment was measured in the zone of maximal impact.27yesbiologicalDMC
84
PR0831997Oren, U., and Benayahu, Y.Transplantation of juvenile corals: a new approach for enhancing colonization of artificial reefsMarine Biology
Oren, U., and Benayahu, Y. (1997) Transplantation of juvenile corals: a new approach for enhancing colonization of artificial reefs. Marine Biology 127: 499-505
Journal articlehttps://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s002270050038Substrate addition - artificial reef, transplantationIsraelNature Reserve at Eilat
Nature Reserve at Eilat, Israel
29.509726534.9226082Pollution7YesNoAn artificial reef was constructed using a modular block deployed at a depth of 18m, a buoy 2-3m below the surface, and nine 50 x 50 x 3 cm PVC settlement plates attached vertically and horizontally between them. Coral planulae and fragments were transplanted onto the plates. Survivorship was monitored biweekly.Planulae or autotomous fragments attached to small tiles or petri dishes, these were then attached to the plates.Transplantation of planulae rather than fragments of adultsnot reportedno
Area affected by disturbance
Stylophora pistillata, Dendronephthya hemprichiStylophora, DendronephthyaMixednoLocal abundanceSexual reproduction nonoyes5Biologicalsurvivalnot reportedn/apartialsurvivalThe survivorship of the transplanted D. hemprichi colonies was significantly higher on the lower sides of shallower plates. Survivorship of S. pistillata colonies increased with depth when located on the vertical plates, or on the upper sides of the horizontal plates. The highest survivorship of this coral was on the vertical plates and on the upper sides of the horizontal plates, while very low survivorship was recorded on the lower sides. The results indicate that vertical artificial surfaces offer the optimal biotic and abiotic conditions (light intensity, sedimentation, colonisation by other organisms) for the survival of the two examined corals.Vertical artificial surfaces offer the optimal biotic and abiotic conditions (light intensity, sedimentation, colonisation by other organisms) for the survival of the two examined corals14yesbiologicalDMC
85
PR0842003Bongiorni, L., S. Shafir, and B. Rinkevich.Effects of particulate matter released by a fish farm (Eilat, Red Sea) on survival and growth of Stylophora pistillata coral nubbinsMarine Pollution BulletinBongiorni, L., S. Shafir, and B. Rinkevich. 2003. Effects of particulate matter released by a fish farm (Eilat, Red Sea) on survival and growth of Stylophora pistillata coral nubbins. Marine Pollution Bulletin 46:1120–1124.Journal Articlehttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/10601856_Effects_of_particulate_matter_released_by_a_fish_farm_Eilat_Red_Sea_on_survival_and_growth_of_Stylophora_pistillata_coral_nubbinsCoral Gardening - Nursery PhaseIsraelEilatEilat, Israel29.55766934.951925Pollution7NoNoTested the survival and growth of 1322 nubbins pruned from five colonies that were transplanted at a depth of 6 m in the vicinity of the fish cages and in a reference site. Nubbins were attached in three orientations (up, vertical and down positions). Cyanoacrylate glueTesting the effects of nutrient enrichment on transplanted coralsnot reportednoProximity to fish farmStylophora pistillataStylophoraBranchingyesLocal abundance
Transplantation - fragments
yesnoyes1.5biologicalgrowth, survival93.594n/asurvival, growthAfter 50 days, survival was high in both localities and no difference was recorded between the spatial orientations. At the fish farm, burial of the nubbins lateral growths and partial coverage of nubbins by settled particulate matter resulted in significant reduction of the lateral growth rates of nubbins settled in the up position as compared to the reference site. On the other hand, faster growth rates were recorded in the vertical set of nubbins at the fish farm when compared with the IUI site. Physical effects, rather than nutrient enrichment, may constitute the main cause of stress for minute coral fragments (resembling coral recruits) growing near the vicinity of a fish farm.1.5yesbiologicalDMC
86
PR0852013Ferse, S. C. A., Nugues, M. N., Romatzki, S. B. C., and Kunzmann, A.Examining the use of mass transplantation of brooding and spawning corals to support natural coral recruitment in Sulawesi / IndonesiaRestoration Ecology
Ferse, S. C. A., Nugues, M. N., Romatzki, S. B. C., and Kunzmann, A. (2013) Examining the use of mass transplantation of brooding and spawning corals to support natural coral recruitment in Sulawesi / Indonesia. Restoration Ecology 21: 745-754
Journal Articlehttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/rec.12004/abstractTransplantationIndonesiaSulawesiSulawesi, Indonesia-1.8479120.5279None7NoNoAt each of three locations, three 10 x 10 m plots, set 30 m apart, were marked and cleared, and then assigned to one of 3 treatments: 1) control, 2) structures, 3) structures and transplants. Controls were left alone, and treatments received 50 concrete structures arranged in a chessboard pattern. Structures+Transplants plots received coral fragments fixed on bamboo trays, which were placed on the rubble between the concrete structures. Species composition varied between three locations. Coral settlement was measured with 18 limestone plates (15 x 15 x 1 cm) per plot; plates were exchanged every 3 months.not reportedmeasuring effects of transplants on coral recruitment300nonot reportedAcropora yongei, A. muricata, Pocillopora verrucosa, Isopora brueggemanniAcropora, Pocillopora, IsoporaBranchingnoLocal abundance
Transplantation - fragments
yesnoyes24biologicalnumber of recruitsn/an/anocoral recruitmentCoral transplantation did not appear to be a suitable tool for enhancing coral recruitment in the short term.Under the study conditions, providing stable substrate
for settlement in the form of artificial reefs, together
with improved management to reduce chronic stressors,
may be more effective approaches to support coral
recruitment.
24nobiologicalDMC
87
PR0862012Forrester, G. E., Maynard, A., Schofield, S., and Taylor, K.Evaluating causes of transplant stress in fragments of Acropora palmata used for coral reef restorationBulletin of Marine ScienceForrester, G. E., Maynard, A., Schofield, S., and Taylor, K. (2012) Evaluating causes of transplant stress in fragments of Acropora palmata used for coral reef restoration. Bulletin of Marine Science 88: 1099-1113.Journal Articlehttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/262908362_Evaluating_Causes_of_Transplant_Stress_in_Fragments_of_Acropora_Palmata_Used_for_Coral_Reef_RestorationTransplantation
British Virgin Islands
White Bay, Guana Island
White Bay, Guana Island, British Virgin Islands
18.4667219-64.5769945None7NoNoTo evaluate transplant stress, newly transplanted coral fragments were compared to a restoration site to two other groups: (1) non-transplants, or fragments that remained at the source site, and (2) established transplants, or fragments that had been transplanted from the same source population to the restoration site 2 yrs prior. 84 healthy fragments were transplanted to a site that already had 45 established transplants, and 48 non-transplants were selected for comparison. Colony growth was measured, as well as bleaching, tissue loss, and damage from parrotfishes and territorial damselfishes, 2 weeks, 3 months and 1 year after transplantation.Cable tiesmeasuring effects of transplantation stress and effects of herbivores directly on the corals2500no
already in use as a restoration site
Acropora palmataAcroporaBranchingyes
already in use at the restoration site
Transplantation - fragments
yesnoyes12biologicaltissue loss, bleaching, growthnot reportedn/an/a
no difference in growth, tissue loss and bleaching between treatments
After 2 wks, new transplants displayed greater tissue loss and bleaching than both other groups. New transplants were affected by disease (white syndrome) more frequently than non-transplants or established transplants. Transplant-induced bleaching caused a slight reduction in growth and survival after 3 mo, but no carry-over effects were detectable after 1 yr. Damselfish bites significantly affected coral fragments but did not preferentially target new transplants.12yesbiologicalDMC
88
PR0872014Forrester, G. E., Ferguson, M. A., O'Connell-Rodwell, C. E., and Jarecki, L. L.Long-term survival and colony growth of Acropora palmata fragments transplanted by volunteers for restoration
Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems
Forrester, G. E., Ferguson, M. A., O'Connell-Rodwell, C. E., and Jarecki, L. L. (2014) Long-term survival and colony growth of Acropora palmata fragments transplanted by volunteers for restoration. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 24: 81-91
Journal Articlehttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aqc.2374/abstractTransplantation
British Virgin Islands
Guana Island
Guana Island, British Virgin Islands
18.4752932-64.5695896None7NoNo832 storm-generated Acropora palmata fragments that had been transplanted over the course of 7 years were monitored 3 months and 1 year after transplanting, and annually thereafter. Growth and survival were analysed and modelled as a function of initial colony size and time since transplantation.nylon cable ties, epoxy, cementAdding initial colony size into the analysisnot reportedno
already in use as a restoration site
Acropora palmataAcroporaBranchingyesalready in use at the restoration siteCorals of opportunitynonoyes72biologicalgrowth, survival54.5714285785n/asurvival, growthMortality was highest in the first year after transplanting, suggesting stress from handling or failure of the attachment method. Survival also varied with the year of transplantation, and was lowest in years with major storms (2007 and 2010). Fragment survival increased with increasing initial size. Colony size tended to decrease slightly in the first 3 months after being reattached, presumably due to stress from transplanting. Subsequently, the surface area of surviving colonies tended to increase over time. Colony growth was extremely variable and largely independent of initial colony size. Despite initial reductions in growth and survival due to transplanting, long-term survival of transplanted fragments was roughly comparable with that of natural colonies. Transplanting fragments is thus a promising tool for grass-roots restoration projects.Demographic monitoring of transplanted colonies should focus on the first year after transplantation.72yesbiologicalDMC
89
PR0882010Forrester, G. E., O'Connell-Rodwell, C., Baily, P., Forrester, L. M., Giovannini, S., Harmon, L., Karis, R., Krumholz, J., Rodwell, T., and Jarecki, L.Evaluating methods for transplanting endangered elkhorn corals in the Virgin IslandsRestoration EcologyForrester, G. E., O'Connell-Rodwell, C., Baily, P., Forrester, L. M., Giovannini, S., Harmon, L., Karis, R., Krumholz, J., Rodwell, T., and Jarecki, L. (2010) Evaluating methods for transplanting endangered elkhorn corals in the Virgin Islands. Restoration Ecology doi: 10.1111/j.1526-100X.2010.00664.xJournal Articlehttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1526-100X.2010.00664.x/abstractTransplantation
British Virgin Islands
Guana Island
Guana Island, British Virgin Islands
18.4752932-64.5695896None7NoNoTwo experiments were conducted with three treatments: (1) control fragments left unattached at the source sites; (2) fragments attached to the reef at the source sites; and (3) fragments moved to the restoration site and attached. Comparing treatments (1) and (2) isolated the effect of attaching fragments, and comparing (2) with (3) isolated the effect of relocating fragments. Additionally, attachment methods were compared. In experiment 1, two methods were compared: Z-spar epoxy resin and cable ties. In experiment 2, the authors compared four methods: Z-spar epoxy, cable ties, PC Marine Epoxy Putty, and hydrostatic cement. For each method of attachment, roughly 50% of fragments were attached at the source site and 50% at the restoration site. Final, algal removal was tested in experiment 2. Growth and survival were measured over 4 years.Z-Spar epoxy resin, cable ties, PC Marine Epoxy Putty, hydrostatic cementFactorial design testing effects of translocation, crossed with attachment methods. Adding macroalgal removalnot reportedyes
already in use as a restoration site
Acropora palmataAcroporaBranchingyesalready in use at the restoration site
Transplantation - fragments
yesnoyes48biologicalgrowth, survival4040yessurvival, growthUnattached control fragments at the donor site died faster and grew slower than fragments attached to the reef; attaching fragments to the reef is beneficial. There were no effects of moving fragments between donor and restoration sites. Growth and survival were similar using four methods of attaching fragments to the reef. Clearing surrounding algae improved the growth of fragments. After 4 years, transplanted fragments grew to 1,450 cm2 in area.Clearing algae from restored areas is beneficial to coral growth. The simplicity of the approach makes it useful for volunteers. Cable ties are cheaper and easier to use in areas of higher reef complexity.48yesbiologicalDMC
90
PR0892015Frias-Torres, S., Goehlich, H., Reveret, C., and Montoya-Maya, P. H.Reef fishes recruited at midwater coral nurseries consume biofouling and reduce cleaning time in Seychelles, Indian Ocean
African Journal of Marine Science
Frias-Torres, S., Goehlich, H., Reveret, C., and Montoya-Maya, P. H. (2015) Reef fishes recruited at midwater coral nurseries consume biofouling and reduce cleaning time in Seychelles, Indian Ocean. African Journal of Marine Science 2015: 1-6Journal Articlehttps://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.2989/1814232X.2015.1078259Coral Gardening - Nursery PhaseSeychelles
Cousin Island Special Reserve
Cousin Island Special Reserve, Seychelles
-4.331483255.6620239None7NoNoDeployed midwater net nurseries with coral fragments of mixed growth form. Observed nursery-associated fish assemblages with GoPro. Nurseries were then emptied and the fish surveys repeated.not reportedtesting the effects of coral nursery on fish, and effect of fish on the effort to clean fouling.108yes
already in use as a restoration site
Goniastrea edwardsiGoniopora tenuidensHydnophora microconosLobophyllia hemprichiiAstrae curtaParamontastraea serageldiniPavona decussataPavona explanulataPlatygyra acutaPorites lobataEchinophyllia asperaEchinopora hirsutissimaFavites pentagonaLeptastrea purpureaLeptoseris incrustansPsammocora haimianaTurbinaria irregularis
Acropora, Pocillopora, Stylophora, Acanthastrea, Astreopora, Coscinaraea, Cyphastrea, Dipsastraea, Favites, Galaxea, Goniastrea, Goniopora, Hydnophora, Lobophyllia, Astrae, Montastrea, Pavona, Platygyra, Porites, Echinophyllia, Echinopora, Favites, Leptastrea, Leptoseris, Psammocora, Turbinaria
Mixednonot reportedCorals of opportunitynoyesyes7Ecological
Fish species composition, fish density, fish trophic level, cleaning effort by divers
n/an/ayesreduced maintenance hours by divers in the presence of fishesThe density of blue-yellow damselfish Pomacentrus caeruleus was 12–16 times higher when corals were present than when corals were removed. Fish assemblages recruited into the nurseries included three trophic levels, from herbivores to omnivores, in six families: Ephippidae, Pomacentridae, Labridae (Scarinae), Gobiidae, Siganidae and Monacanthidae. Higher abundance of large fish (total number of individuals) resulted in 2.75 times less person-hours spent in nursery cleaning.Coral nurseries that attract recruiting fishes take less time and effort to clean, because the fish eat the algae and fouling organisms.7yesEcologicalDMC
91
PR0902008Garrison, V., and Ward, G.Storm-generated coral fragments - A viable source of transplants for reef rehabilitationBiological ConservationGarrison, V., and Ward, G. (2008) Storm-generated coral fragments - A viable source of transplants for reef rehabilitation. Biological Conservation 141: 3089-3100Journal Articlehttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320708003467Transplantation
US Virgin Islands
Virgin Islands National Park
Virgin Islands National Park, US Virgin Islands
18.3424047-64.7485759None7NoNoSixty coral fragments were transplanted and compared with control colonies left in situ. Survival and growth were monitored over 5 years.Cable tiesNone (Location)not reportedno
Favourable environmental conditions
Acropora cervicornis, A. palmata, Porites poritesAcropora, PoritesBranching noAvailability at donor sites
Transplantation - fragments
yesnoyes60biologicalgrowth, survival13.3333333320nosurvival and growth of transplanted fragmentsOne-fourth of the 135 colonies and fragments monitored were alive at the conclusion of the 5-year study. Survival of control and transplanted A. cervicornis and P. porites was very low, with no differences between transplant and control colonies. A. palmata colony survival was dependent on colony size and transplant/control status. Probability of survival increased with colony size.Viability for transplantation is species-specific.60noBiologicalDMC
92
PR0912012Garrison, V., and Ward, G.Transplantation of storm-generated coral fragments to enhance Caribbean coral reefs: a successful method but not a solution
Revista de Biología Tropical
Garrison, V., and Ward, G. (2012) Transplantation of storm-generated coral fragments to enhance Caribbean coral reefs: a successful method but not a solution. Revista de Biologia Tropical 60: 59-70.Journal Articlehttp://www.scielo.sa.cr/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0034-77442012000500006Transplantation
US Virgin Islands
Virgin Islands National Park
Virgin Islands National Park, US Virgin Islands
18.3424047-64.7485759Storm1NoYesCoral fragments were collected from unfavourable habitat and transplanted to damaged reefs. Survival and growth of 60 transplanted fragments and 75 reference colonies were monitored for 12 years.Cable tiesNone (Location)not reportedno
Favourable environmental conditions
Acropora cervicornis, A. palmata, Porites poritesAcropora, PoritesBranchingnoAvailability at donor sites
Transplantation - fragments
yesnoyes144biologicalgrowth, survival5.33333333313nosurvival and growth of transplanted fragmentsOnly 9% of colonies were alive after 12 years: no A. cervicornis; 3% of A. palmata transplants and 18% of reference colonies; and 13% of P. porites transplants and 7% of reference colonies. Only A. palmata showed a difference between transplant and reference colony survival, and only in the first year. No coral conservation strategy will be effective until underlying intrinsic and/or extrinsic factors driving high mortality rates are understood and mitigated or eliminated.Physical dislodgement resulted in the loss of 56% of colonies, whereas 35% died in place.144noBiologicalDMC
93
PR0922011Gomez, E. D., P. C. Cabaitan, H. T. Yap, and R. M. DizonSuccessful transplantation of a fragmenting coral, Montipora digitata, for reef rehabilitationCoastal Management
Gomez, E. D., P. C. Cabaitan, H. T. Yap, and R. M. Dizon (2011) Successful transplantation of a fragmenting coral, Montipora digitata, for reef rehabilitation. Coastal Management 39: 556-574.
Journal Articlehttps://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08920753.2011.600240TransplantationPhilippinesBolinaoBolinao, Philippines16.3425356119.8927296None7NoNoFragments were transplanted to two different locations. The treatments were: Low-Horizontal, Low-Vertical, High-Horizontal, and High-Vertical. Each treatment was replicated on each of three bommies in a site, yielding three replicates per treatment. Forty transplants were used for each density × surface combination. Survival and growth were monitored bimonthly.EpoxyNone (Location)not reportedno
Favourable environmental conditions
Montipora digitataMontiporaBranchingyesLocal abundance
Transplantation - fragments
nonoyes21
biological / ecological
survival, growth, effects of environmental variables, presence of other organisms
not reportedn/ayessurvival and growth of transplanted fragmentsGrowth and survival were significantly better at the site that resembled the natural habitat of the donor corals more closely. Environmental conditions at this site also favored the establishment of a greater diversity of species around the coral transplants. There was no difference in performance between transplants on vertical and horizontal surfaces, and the transplants showed limited differences due to density within the experimental range. Water motion showed significant effects on survival and growth. Effects of physical environmental variables. The presence of M. digitata at a previously denuded site enhanced structural complexity, and, as a result, overall diversity of benthic organisms.21yesbiological / ecologicalDMC
94
PR0932015Griffin, J. N., Schrack, E. C., Lewis, K. -A., Baums, I. B., Soomdat, N., and Silliman, B. R.Density-dependent effects on initial growth of a branching coral under restorationRestoration Ecology
Griffin, J. N., Schrack, E. C., Lewis, K. -A., Baums, I. B., Soomdat, N., and Silliman, B. R. (2015) Density-dependent effects on initial growth of a branching coral under restoration. Restoration Ecology 23: 197-200
Journal Articlehttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/rec.12173/abstractCoral Gardening - Transplantation Phase
US Virgin Islands
Cane Bay, St Croix
Cane Bay, St Croix, US Virgin Islands
17.771639-64.810145None7NoNoCoral fragments were transplanted onto flat areas of bare substratum in a range of densities, from 1 to 20, spaced 5cm apart, and growth rates were compared.EpoxyTesting the effects of out-plant density on growth100noFavourable environmental conditionsAcropora cervicornisAcroporaBranchingyesalready in use at the restoration site
Transplantation - fragments
n/anoyes3biologicalgrowthnot reportedn/an/agrowthIncreasing density led to a reduction in average out-plant growth, probably due to competition for space.Suggest explicit consideration of out-plant spatial arrangement and density in coral reef restoration projects.3n/aBiologicalDMC
95
PR0942015Griffin, S. P., Nemeth, M. I., Moore, T. D., and Gintert, B.Restoration using Acropora cervicornis at the T/V MARGARA grounding siteCoral ReefsGriffin, S. P., Nemeth, M. I., Moore, T. D., and Gintert, B. (2015) Restoration using Acropora cervicornis at the T/V MARGARA grounding site. Coral Reefs 34:885Journal Articlehttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00338-015-1310-2.pdfCoral Gardening - Transplantation PhasePuerto RicoTallaboa
Tallaboa, Puerto Rico
17.9949661-66.7162855Ship grounding1NoNo227 fragments and 400 colonies were attached to the damaged area.Fragments were attached to wire cages and cement puddles with stakes. Colonies were outplanted from the nursery using masonry nails, cable ties, and/or epoxy.None (Location)180no
Area affected by disturbance
Acropora cervicornisAcroporaBranchingyesLocal abundance
Translocation - fragments
n/anonot reported108biologicalgrowthnot reportedn/ayesgrowthAt the restoration site, transplanted corals have survived, grown and spread to surrounding areas.108yesBiologicalDMC
96
PR0952015Griffin, S. P., Nemeth, M. I., Moore, T. D., and Gintert, B.Restoration using Acropora cervicornis at the T/V MARGARA grounding siteCoral ReefsGriffin, S. P., Nemeth, M. I., Moore, T. D., and Gintert, B. (2015) Restoration using Acropora cervicornis at the T/V MARGARA grounding site. Coral Reefs 34:885Journal Articlehttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00338-015-1310-2.pdfSubstrate StabilisationPuerto RicoTallaboa
Tallaboa, Puerto Rico
17.9949661-66.7162855Ship grounding1NoNoRubble was stabilised and loose colonies reattached.n/aNone (Location)180no
Area affected by disturbance
Acropora cervicornisAcroporaBranchingyesLocal abundance
Translocation - fragments
n/anonot reported108biologicalgrowthnot reportedn/ayesgrowthAt the restoration site, transplanted corals have survived, grown and spread to surrounding areas.108yesBiologicalDMC
97
PR0962011Guest, J. R., Dizon, R. M., Edwards, A. J., Franco, C., and Gomez, E. D.How quickly do fragments of coral "self-attach" after transplantation?Restoration EcologyGuest, J. R., Dizon, R. M., Edwards, A. J., Franco, C., and Gomez, E. D. (2011) How quickly do fragments of coral "self-attach" after transplantation? Restoration Ecology 19: 234-242.Journal Articlehttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1526-100X.2009.00562.x/abstractTransplantationPhilippinesBolinaoBolinao, Philippines16.3425356119.8927296None7NoNoFragments were collected from 25 colonies of 13 species and transplanted into a sheltered environment for two re-attachment experiments. The first experiment examined times to self-attachment in 11 species of differing morphologies from seven families over approximately 7 months, and the second experiment examined three fast-attaching Acropora species over approximately 1 month.EpoxyExamination of reattachment timenot reportedno
Favourable environmental conditions
Acropora muricata, A. hyacinthus, A. digitifera, Montipora digitata, Pavona frondifera, Echinopora lamellosa, Heliopora coerulea, Hydnophora rigida, Pocillopora damicornis, Porites cylindrica, P. lutea, P. nigrescens, P. rusAcropora, Montipora, Pavona, Echinopora, Heliopora, Hydnophora, Pocillopora, PoritesMixednorange of morphologies
Transplantation - fragments
nonoyes7biologicaltissue growth / attachmentnot reportedn/an/aself-attachmentIn the first experiment, Acropora muricata had the fastest self-attachment time, while Echinopora lamellosa had the slowest. For the second experiment, A. muricata (branching) was significantly slower to self-attach than Acropora hyacinthus (tabular) and Acropora digitifera (corymbose digitate). Growth rates, growth form and life history may determine how quickly fragments of coral species self-attach after fragmentation and transplantation.Knowledge about self-attachment times is useful for reef restoration practitioners when selecting appropriate species for coral transplantation. If the transplant site is subjected to seasonal storms or wave surge coral transplants should be deployed so as to have time to self-attach before the onset of rough weather.
7yesBiologicalDMC
98
PR0972014Guest, J. R., Baria, M. V., Gomez, E. D., Heyward, A. J., and Edwards, A. J.Closing the circle: is it feasible to rehabilitate reefs with sexually propagated corals?Coral Reefs
Guest, J. R., Baria, M. V., Gomez, E. D., Heyward, A. J., and Edwards, A. J. (2014) Closing the circle: is it feasible to rehabilitate reefs with sexually propagated corals? Coral Reefs 33: 45-55.
Journal Articlehttps://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00338-013-1114-1Coral GardeningPhilippinesBolinaoBolinao, Philippines16.3425356119.8927296None7NoNoAcropora millepora larvae were induced to settle on pre-conditioned coral plug-ins, reared in the lab, and transplanted onto the reef. Corals were transplanted onto the reef in three batches: 7, 14 and 19 months after settlement. Survival and growth were monitored for 2 years after the first outplanting, more or less monthly.Plastic plugsSexual propagation of a broadcast spawning coral species and rearing to sexually mature size.not reportedno
Favourable environmental conditions
Acropora milleporaAcroporaBranchingyesnot reportedSexual reproduction nonoyes24biologicalgrowth, survival22.2333333346.7nosurvival, growth, costSurvival rates were higher in corals that were transplanted onto the reef at larger sizes. An intermediate ocean nursery stage is critical in the sexual propagation of corals for reef rehabilitation. 3 years post-settlement, colonies were reproductively mature, making this one of few published studies to date to rear a broadcasting scleractinian from eggs to spawning adults.
Producing a single 2.5- year-old coral on the reef cost at least US$60, which would constrain delivery of new corals to relatively small scales in many countries with coral reefs.
24yesbiologicalDMC
99
PR0981991Guzman, H. M.Restoration of coral reefs in Pacific Costa RicaConservation BiologyGuzman, H. M. (1991) Restoration of coral reefs in Pacific Costa Rica. Conservation Biology 5: 189-195Journal Articlehttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1523-1739.1991.tb00123.x/abstractTransplantationCosta Rica
Caño Island Biological Reserve
Caño Island Biological Reserve, Costa Rica
8.707268-83.8817571
General degradation
1NoNoCoral fragments collected from damaged reef and transplanted into the reserve in two locations; 58 in one and 52 in the other.WireNone (Location)20no
Area affected by disturbance
not reportedPocilloporaBranchingnoLocal abundance
Transplantation - fragments
noyesyes36biologicalgrowth, survival8183yessurvival, growth, coral coverAfter three years, survivorship was 79%-83%. Furthermore, subsequent fragmentation caused a 41%-115% increase in new colonies.36yesbiologicalDMC
100
PR0992014Hernández-Delgado, E. A., Mercado-Molina, A. E., Alejandro-Camis, P. J., Candelas-Sánchez, F., Fonseca-Miranda, J. S., González-Ramos, C. M., Guzmán-Rodríguez, R., Mège, P., Montañez-Acuña, A. A., Maldonado, I. O., Otaño-Cruz, A., and Suleimán-Ramos, S. E.Community-based coral reef rehabilitation in a changing climate: lessons learned from hurricanes, extreme rainfall, and changing land use impacts.Open Journal of EcologyHernández-Delgado, E. A., Mercado-Molina, A. E., Alejandro-Camis, P. J., Candelas-Sánchez, F., Fonseca-Miranda, J. S., González-Ramos, C. M., Guzmán-Rodríguez, R., Mège, P., Montañez-Acuña, A. A., Maldonado, I. O., Otaño-Cruz, A., and Suleimán-Ramos, S. E. (2014) Community-based coral reef rehabilitation in a changing climate: lessons learned from hurricanes, extreme rainfall, and changing land use impacts. Open Journal of Ecology 4: 918-944Journal Articlehttps://file.scirp.org/pdf/OJE_2014102811431713.pdfCoral Gardening - Nursery PhasePuerto RicoCulebra Island
Culebra Island, Puerto Rico
18.310394-65.3030705
General degradation
1NoYesCorals were farmed on frames (180 × 150 cm wire panels with 15 × 15 cm sq. holes). Each farm was subdivided in 6 replicate units per site, one per each genetic clone, at approximately 5 m depth. A total of 80 replicate fragments per clone, per site, were grown during a year in 2011-2012 on the frames. A second experiment, conducted a year later, used larger fragments (32-37cm).Cable tiesNone (Location)not reportedno
already in use as a restoration site
Acropora cervicornisAcroporaBranchingyesLocal abundancenot reportedyesnoyes24biologicalgrowth, survival7384partialsurvival, growthSurvival rate in “A frame” units improved from 73% during 2011-2012 to 81% during 2012-2013. Coral survival rate improved to 97% in horizontal line nurseries (HLN) incorporated during 2012-2013. Percent tissue cover ranged from 86% to 91% in “A frames”, but reached 98% in HLN. Mean coral skeletal extension was 27 cm/y in “A frames” and 40 cm/y in HLN. These growth rates were up to 545% to 857% faster than previous reports from coral farms from other parts of the Caribbean, and up to 438% faster than wild colonies. Coral mortality was attributed to hurricane physical impacts and sediment-laden runoff impacts associated to extreme rainfall and deforestation of adjacent lands.
Achieving successful local management of reefs and adjacent lands is vital to maintain the sustained net production in coral farms and of reef structure, and the provision of the important ecosystem services that they provide.
24partialbiologicalDMC