ArticlePloS one2018
Comparing the capacity of five different dietary treatments to optimise growth and nutritional composition in two scleractinian corals.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Nutritional and Microbial Responses of Pocillopora verrucosa to Co-Culture With Chromis viridis Damselfish.Environmental microbiology reports · 2026Article
- Adaptive Potential of Intracolonial Genetic Variability in Coral Populations.Ecology and evolution · 2025Review
- Controlled out-of-season spawning of reef-forming corals using offset environmental cues.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2025Article
- Improving Coral Grow-Out Through an Integrated Aquaculture Approach.Aquaculture nutrition · 2025Article
- Feeding of a Scleractinian Coral,Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2021Article
- Feeding and thermal conditioning enhance coral temperature tolerance in juvenileRoyal Society open science · 2021Article
- Effects of feeding on the physiological performance of the stony coral Pocillopora acuta.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Responses of corals to chronic turbidity.Scientific reports · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Developing an optimal heterotrophic feeding regime has the potential to improve captive coral growth and health. This study evaluated the efficacy of three exogenous diets: Artemia nauplii (ART), a commercially available coral diet (Reef Roids) (RR), and a novel, micro-bound diet (ATF), against a comparatively natural, unfiltered seawater treatment (RAW), and an unfed, ultra-filtered seawater treatment (CTL), in adult Acropora millepora and Pocillopora acuta nubbins. After 90 days, both species showed significantly positive weight gain in response to one treatment (A. millepora-RAW, P. acuta-ART), and comparatively low growth in response to another (A. millepora-ATF, P. acuta-RR). The results highlighted substantial differences in the nutritional requirements between species. The nutritional composition of A. millepora in the best performing treatment was dominated by high-energy materials such as storage lipids and saturated and monounsaturated fatty acids. In contrast, the P. acuta nutritional profile in the superior treatment showed a predominance of structural materials, including protein, phospholipids, and polyunsaturated fatty acids. This study demonstrates that Artemia nauplii can successfully replace a natural feeding regime for captive P. acuta, yet highlights the considerable work still required to optimise supplementary feeding regimes for A. millepora.
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.