Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25210660›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2014

Disease dynamics and potential mitigation among restored and wild staghorn coral, Acropora cervicornis.

Margaret W Miller, Kathryn E Lohr, Caitlin M Cameron, Dana E Williams, Esther C Peters

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Shifts in the coral microbiome in response toApplied and environmental microbiology · 2023
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Growth dynamics inPeerJ · 2020
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Considerations for maximizing the adaptive potential of restored coral populations in the western Atlantic.Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America · 2019
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Margaret W MillerNOAA-National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Science Center , Miami, FL , United States.
Kathryn E LohrRosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami , Miami, FL , United States.
Caitlin M CameronNOAA-National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Science Center , Miami, FL , United States ; Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami , Miami, FL , United States.
Dana E WilliamsNOAA-National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Science Center , Miami, FL , United States ; Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami , Miami, FL , United States.
Esther C PetersDepartment of Environmental Science and Policy, George Mason University , Fairfax, VA , United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The threatened status (both ecologically and legally) of Caribbean staghorn coral, Acropora cervicornis, has prompted rapidly expanding efforts in culture and restocking, although tissue loss diseases continue to affect populations. In this study, disease surveillance and histopathological characterization were used to compare disease dynamics and conditions in both restored and extant wild populations. Disease had devastating effects on both wild and restored populations, but dynamics were highly variable and appeared to be site-specific with no significant differences in disease prevalence between wild versus restored sites. A subset of 20 haphazardly selected colonies at each site observed over a four-month period revealed widely varying disease incidence, although not between restored and wild sites, and a case fatality rate of 8%. A tropical storm was the only discernable environmental trigger associated with a consistent spike in incidence across all sites. Lastly, two field mitigation techniques, (1) excision of apparently healthy branch tips from a diseased colony, and (2) placement of a band of epoxy fully enclosing the diseased margin, gave equivocal results with no significant benefit detected for either treatment compared to controls. Tissue condition of associated samples was fair to very poor; unsuccessful mitigation treatment samples had severe degeneration of mesenterial filament cnidoglandular bands. Polyp mucocytes in all samples were infected with suspect rickettsia-like organisms; however, no bacterial aggregates were found. No histological differences were found between disease lesions with gross signs fitting literature descriptions of white-band disease (WBD) and rapid tissue loss (RTL). Overall, our results do not support differing disease quality, quantity, dynamics, nor health management strategies between restored and wild colonies of A. cervicornis in the Florida Keys.

Indexed as

Florida KeysHistopathologyIncidenceRecoveryRestorationTropical storm

Identifiers

PMID25210660
PMCPMC4157300

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.