Coral Reproduction in Japan

Author(s):  
Naoko Isomura ◽  
Hironobu Fukami
Keyword(s):  
1994 ◽  
Vol 118 (2) ◽  
pp. 191-208 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. W. Glynn ◽  
S. B. Colley ◽  
C. M. Eakin ◽  
D. B. Smith ◽  
J. Cortés ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 275-284 ◽  
Author(s):  
AH Baird ◽  
VR Cumbo ◽  
S Gudge ◽  
SA Keith ◽  
JA Maynard ◽  
...  

Coral Reefs ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 405-413 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. G. Bauman ◽  
A. H. Baird ◽  
G. H. Cavalcante

2010 ◽  
Vol 158 (2) ◽  
pp. 275-285 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. H. Baird ◽  
D. R. Blakeway ◽  
T. J. Hurley ◽  
J. A. Stoddart

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Gilmour ◽  
Conrad W Speed ◽  
Russ Babcock

Larval production and recruitment underpin the maintenance of coral populations, but these early life history stages are vulnerable to extreme variation in physical conditions. Environmental managers aim to minimise human impacts during significant periods of larval production and recruitment on reefs, but doing so requires knowledge of the modes and timing of coral reproduction. Most corals are hermaphroditic or gonochoric, with a brooding or broadcast spawning mode of reproduction. Brooding corals are a significant component of some reefs and produce larvae over consecutive months. Broadcast spawning corals are more common and display considerable variation in their patterns of spawning among reefs. Highly synchronous spawning can occur on reefs around Australia, particularly on the Great Barrier Reef. On Australia’s remote north-west coast there have been fewer studies of coral reproduction. The recent industrial expansion into these regions has facilitated research, but the associated data are often contained within confidential reports. Here we combine information in this grey-literature with that available publicly to update our knowledge of coral reproduction in WA, for tens of thousands of corals and hundreds of species from over a dozen reefs spanning 20 degrees of latitude. We identified broad patterns in coral reproduction, but more detailed insights were hindered by biased sampling; most studies focused on species of Acropora sampled over a few months at several reefs. Within the existing data, there was a latitudinal gradient in spawning activity among seasons, with mass spawning during autumn occurring on all reefs (but the temperate south-west). Participation in a smaller, multi-specific spawning during spring decreased from approximately one quarter of corals on the Kimberley Oceanic reefs to little participation at Ningaloo. Within these seasons, spawning was concentrated in March and/or April, and October and/or November, depending on the timing of the full moon. The timing of the full moon determined whether spawning was split over two months, which was common on tropical reefs. There were few data available for non-Acropora corals, which may have different patterns of reproduction. For example, the massive Porites seemed to spawn through spring to autumn on Kimberley Oceanic reefs and during summer in the Pilbara region, where other common corals (e.g. Turbinaria & Pavona) also displayed different patterns of reproduction to the Acropora. The brooding corals (Isopora & Seriatopora) on Kimberley Oceanic reefs appeared to planulate during many months, possibly with peaks from spring to autumn; a similar pattern is likely on other WA reefs. Gaps in knowledge were also due to the difficulty in identifying species and issues with methodology. We briefly discuss some of these issues and suggest an approach to quantifying variation in reproductive output throughout a year.


2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
E. Michael Henley ◽  
Mariko Quinn ◽  
Jessica Bouwmeester ◽  
Jonathan Daly ◽  
Nikolas Zuchowicz ◽  
...  

AbstractOcean warming, fueled by climate change, is the primary cause of coral bleaching events which are predicted to increase in frequency. Bleaching is generally damaging to coral reproduction, can be exacerbated by concomitant stressors like ultraviolet radiation (UVR), and can have lasting impacts to successful reproduction and potential adaptation. We compared morphological and physiological reproductive metrics (e.g., sperm motility, mitochondrial membrane integrity, egg volume, gametes per bundle, and fertilization and settlement success) of two Hawaiian Montipora corals after consecutive bleaching events in 2014 and 2015. Between the species, sperm motility and mitochondrial membrane potential had the most disparate results. Percent sperm motility in M. capitata, which declined to ~ 40% during bleaching from a normal range of 70–90%, was still less than 50% motile in 2017 and 2018 and had not fully recovered in 2019 (63% motile). By contrast, percent sperm motility in Montipora spp. was 86% and 74% in 2018 and 2019, respectively. This reduction in motility was correlated with damage to mitochondria in M. capitata but not Montipora spp. A major difference between these species is the physiological foundation of their UVR protection, and we hypothesize that UVR protective mechanisms inherent in Montipora spp. mitigate this reproductive damage.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document