ArticleScientific reports2024
Coral-seeding devices with fish-exclusion features reduce mortality on the Great Barrier Reef.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. 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.
- Genetic Diversity of Sexually Propagated Corals Is Maintained From the Aquarium to the Reef.Molecular ecology · 2026Article
- Wave energy and other environmental drivers as predictors of seeded-coral performance on the great barrier reef.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Fouling release coatings reduce colonisation of coral seeding devices.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Grazing deterrents improve survival of outplanted juvenile corals.Coral reefs (Online) · 2025Article
- Reef visitors' observation of assisted coral recovery devices in situ reduces concern about their use.PloS one · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Restoration methods that seed juvenile corals show promise as scalable interventions to promote population persistence through anthropogenic warming. However, challenges including predation by fishes can threaten coral survival. Coral-seeding devices with refugia from fishes offer potential solutions to limit predation-driven mortality. In an 8-month field study, we assessed the efficacy of such devices for increasing the survival of captive-reared Acropora digitifera (spat and microfragments) over control devices (featureless and caged). Devices with fish-exclusion features demonstrated a twofold increase in coral survival, while most corals seeded without protection suffered mortality within 48 h. Overall, spat faced more grazing and higher mortality compared to microfragments, and upward-facing corals were more vulnerable than side-facing corals. Grazing-induced mortality varied by site, with lower activity in locations abundant in mat-forming cyanobacteria or Scleractinian corals. Many scraping parrotfish were found feeding on or near the seeded corals; however, bites by Scarus globiceps explained the most site-related variation in grazing. Cyanobacteria may be preferred over corals as a nutritional resource for scraping parrotfish-advancing our understanding of their foraging ecology. Incorporating side-facing refugia in seeding devices and deploying to sites with nutrient-rich food sources for fish are potential strategies to enhance coral survival in restoration programs.
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.