ArticlePloS one2016
Fine-Scale Skeletal Banding Can Distinguish Symbiotic from Asymbiotic Species among Modern and Fossil Scleractinian Corals.
Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- δEcology and evolution · 2026Article
- First paleoproteome study of fossil fish otoliths and the pristine preservation of the biomineral crystal host.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Article
- Detecting Photosymbiosis in Fossil Scleractinian Corals.Scientific reports · 2017Article
- Photosymbiosis and the expansion of shallow-water corals.Science advances · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Understanding the evolution of scleractinian corals on geological timescales is key to predict how modern reef ecosystems will react to changing environmental conditions in the future. Important to such efforts has been the development of several skeleton-based criteria to distinguish between the two major ecological groups of scleractinians: zooxanthellates, which live in symbiosis with dinoflagellate algae, and azooxanthellates, which lack endosymbiotic dinoflagellates. Existing criteria are based on overall skeletal morphology and bio/geo-chemical indicators-none of them being particularly robust. Here we explore another skeletal feature, namely fine-scale growth banding, which differs between these two groups of corals. Using various ultra-structural imaging techniques (e.g., TEM, SEM, and NanoSIMS) we have characterized skeletal growth increments, composed of doublets of optically light and dark bands, in a broad selection of extant symbiotic and asymbiotic corals. Skeletons of zooxanthellate corals are characterized by regular growth banding, whereas in skeletons of azooxanthellate corals the growth banding is irregular. Importantly, the regularity of growth bands can be easily quantified with a coefficient of variation obtained by measuring bandwidths on SEM images of polished and etched skeletal surfaces of septa and/or walls. We find that this coefficient of variation (lower values indicate higher regularity) ranges from ~40 to ~90% in azooxanthellate corals and from ~5 to ~15% in symbiotic species. With more than 90% (28 out of 31) of the studied corals conforming to this microstructural criterion, it represents an easy and robust method to discriminate between zooxanthellate and azooxanthellate corals. This microstructural criterion has been applied to the exceptionally preserved skeleton of the Triassic (Norian, ca. 215 Ma) scleractinian Volzeia sp., which contains the first example of regular, fine-scale banding of thickening deposits in a fossil coral of this age. The regularity of its growth banding strongly suggests that the coral was symbiotic with zooxanthellates.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.