ArticlePeerJ2024
Coral geometry and why it matters.
Article in PeerJ, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Coral growth, retraction, defense, and regenerative strategies revealed by live microCT.Science advances · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Clonal organisms like reef building corals exhibit a wide variety of colony morphologies and geometric shapes which can have many physiological and ecological implications. Colony geometry can dictate the relationship between dimensions of volume, surface area, and length, and their associated growth parameters. For calcifying organisms, there is the added dimension of two distinct components of growth, biomass production and calcification. For reef building coral, basic geometric shapes can be used to model the inherent mathematical relationships between various growth parameters and how colony geometry determines which relationships are size-dependent or size-independent. Coral linear extension rates have traditionally been assumed to be size-independent. However, even with a constant calcification rate, extension rates can vary as a function of colony size by virtue of its geometry. Whether the ratio between mass and surface area remains constant or changes with colony size is the determining factor. For some geometric shapes, the coupling of biomass production (proportional to surface area productivity) and calcification (proportional to volume) can cause one aspect of growth to geometrically constrain the other. The nature of this relationship contributes to a species' life history strategy and has important ecological implications. At one extreme, thin diameter branching corals can maximize growth in surface area and resource acquisition potential, but this geometry requires high biomass production to cover the fast growth in surface area. At the other extreme, growth in large, hemispheroidal corals can be constrained by calcification. These corals grow surface area relatively slowly, thereby retaining a surplus capacity for biomass production which can be allocated towards other anabolic processes. For hemispheroidal corals, the rate of surface area growth rapidly decreases as colony size increases. This ontogenetic relationship underlies the success of microfragmentation used to accelerate restoration of coral cover. However, ontogenetic changes in surface area productivity only applies to certain coral geometries where surface area to volume ratios decrease with colony size.
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.