Removal of corallivorous snails as a proactive tool for the conservation of acroporid corals
Corallivorous snail feeding is a common source of tissue loss for the threatened coral, Acropora palmata, accounting for roughly one-quarter of tissue loss in monitored study plots over seven years. In contrast with larger threats such as bleaching, disease, or storms, corallivory by Coralliophila a...
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
PeerJ Inc.
2014-11-01
|
| Series: | PeerJ |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://peerj.com/articles/680.pdf |
| _version_ | 1827607893454618624 |
|---|---|
| author | Dana E. Williams Margaret W. Miller Allan J. Bright Caitlin M. Cameron |
| author_facet | Dana E. Williams Margaret W. Miller Allan J. Bright Caitlin M. Cameron |
| author_sort | Dana E. Williams |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Corallivorous snail feeding is a common source of tissue loss for the threatened coral, Acropora palmata, accounting for roughly one-quarter of tissue loss in monitored study plots over seven years. In contrast with larger threats such as bleaching, disease, or storms, corallivory by Coralliophila abbreviata is one of the few direct sources of partial mortality that may be locally managed. We conducted a field experiment to explore the effectiveness and feasibility of snail removal. Long-term monitoring plots on six reefs in the upper Florida Keys were assigned to one of three removal treatments: (1) removal from A. palmata only, (2) removal from all host coral species, or (3) no-removal controls. During the initial removal in June 2011, 436 snails were removed from twelve 150 m2 plots. Snails were removed three additional times during a seven month “removal phase”, then counted at five surveys over the next 19 months to track recolonization. At the conclusion, snails were collected, measured and sexed. Before-After-Control-Impact analysis revealed that both snail abundance and feeding scar prevalence were reduced in removal treatments compared to the control, but there was no difference between removal treatments. Recolonization by snails to baseline abundance is estimated to be 3.7 years and did not differ between removal treatments. Recolonization rate was significantly correlated with baseline snail abundance. Maximum snail size decreased from 47.0 mm to 34.6 mm in the removal treatments. The effort required to remove snails from A. palmata was 30 diver minutes per 150 m2 plot, compared with 51 min to remove snails from all host corals. Since there was no additional benefit observed with removing snails from all host species, removals can be more efficiently focused on only A. palmata colonies and in areas where C. abbreviata abundance is high, to effectively conserve A. palmata in targeted areas. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-09T07:02:18Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-7c1dd0dbd8784006a66397dfd6e716a3 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2167-8359 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-09T07:02:18Z |
| publishDate | 2014-11-01 |
| publisher | PeerJ Inc. |
| record_format | Article |
| series | PeerJ |
| spelling | doaj.art-7c1dd0dbd8784006a66397dfd6e716a32023-12-03T09:50:11ZengPeerJ Inc.PeerJ2167-83592014-11-012e68010.7717/peerj.680680Removal of corallivorous snails as a proactive tool for the conservation of acroporid coralsDana E. Williams0Margaret W. Miller1Allan J. Bright2Caitlin M. Cameron3Cooperative Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Studies, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami, Miami, FL, USASoutheast Fisheries Science Center, NOAA-National Marine Fisheries Service, Miami, FL, USACooperative Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Studies, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami, Miami, FL, USACooperative Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Studies, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami, Miami, FL, USACorallivorous snail feeding is a common source of tissue loss for the threatened coral, Acropora palmata, accounting for roughly one-quarter of tissue loss in monitored study plots over seven years. In contrast with larger threats such as bleaching, disease, or storms, corallivory by Coralliophila abbreviata is one of the few direct sources of partial mortality that may be locally managed. We conducted a field experiment to explore the effectiveness and feasibility of snail removal. Long-term monitoring plots on six reefs in the upper Florida Keys were assigned to one of three removal treatments: (1) removal from A. palmata only, (2) removal from all host coral species, or (3) no-removal controls. During the initial removal in June 2011, 436 snails were removed from twelve 150 m2 plots. Snails were removed three additional times during a seven month “removal phase”, then counted at five surveys over the next 19 months to track recolonization. At the conclusion, snails were collected, measured and sexed. Before-After-Control-Impact analysis revealed that both snail abundance and feeding scar prevalence were reduced in removal treatments compared to the control, but there was no difference between removal treatments. Recolonization by snails to baseline abundance is estimated to be 3.7 years and did not differ between removal treatments. Recolonization rate was significantly correlated with baseline snail abundance. Maximum snail size decreased from 47.0 mm to 34.6 mm in the removal treatments. The effort required to remove snails from A. palmata was 30 diver minutes per 150 m2 plot, compared with 51 min to remove snails from all host corals. Since there was no additional benefit observed with removing snails from all host species, removals can be more efficiently focused on only A. palmata colonies and in areas where C. abbreviata abundance is high, to effectively conserve A. palmata in targeted areas.https://peerj.com/articles/680.pdf Coralliophila abbreviata FloridaElkhornPredator Acropora palmata |
| spellingShingle | Dana E. Williams Margaret W. Miller Allan J. Bright Caitlin M. Cameron Removal of corallivorous snails as a proactive tool for the conservation of acroporid corals PeerJ Coralliophila abbreviata Florida Elkhorn Predator Acropora palmata |
| title | Removal of corallivorous snails as a proactive tool for the conservation of acroporid corals |
| title_full | Removal of corallivorous snails as a proactive tool for the conservation of acroporid corals |
| title_fullStr | Removal of corallivorous snails as a proactive tool for the conservation of acroporid corals |
| title_full_unstemmed | Removal of corallivorous snails as a proactive tool for the conservation of acroporid corals |
| title_short | Removal of corallivorous snails as a proactive tool for the conservation of acroporid corals |
| title_sort | removal of corallivorous snails as a proactive tool for the conservation of acroporid corals |
| topic | Coralliophila abbreviata Florida Elkhorn Predator Acropora palmata |
| url | https://peerj.com/articles/680.pdf |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT danaewilliams removalofcorallivoroussnailsasaproactivetoolfortheconservationofacroporidcorals AT margaretwmiller removalofcorallivoroussnailsasaproactivetoolfortheconservationofacroporidcorals AT allanjbright removalofcorallivoroussnailsasaproactivetoolfortheconservationofacroporidcorals AT caitlinmcameron removalofcorallivoroussnailsasaproactivetoolfortheconservationofacroporidcorals |