Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39869054›Full record

ArticleEcology2025

Early life stage bottleneck determines rates of coral recovery following severe disturbance.

Kelly E Speare, Lauren N Enright, Allison Aplin, Thomas C Adam, Peter J Edmunds, Deron E Burkepile

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ecology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. A Genetic Method for Distinguishing CrypticEcology and evolution · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

6 authors.

Kelly E SpeareDepartment of Ecology, Evolution, and Marine Biology, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, California, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0016-3606
Lauren N EnrightDepartment of Ecology, Evolution, and Marine Biology, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, California, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-2442-2805
Allison AplinMarine Science Institute, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, California, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-8077-247X
Thomas C AdamMarine Science Institute, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, California, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6146-0260
Peter J EdmundsDepartment of Biology, California State University, Northridge, California, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9039-9347
Deron E BurkepileDepartment of Ecology, Evolution, and Marine Biology, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, California, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0427-0484

Funding

Gordon and Betty Moore FoundationNational Science Foundation NSF-OCE-1547952National Science Foundation NSF-OCE 16-37396NSF GRFPSchmidt Family Foundation
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Understanding how foundation species recover from disturbances is key for predicting the future of ecosystems in the Anthropocene. Coral reefs are dynamic ecosystems that can undergo rapid declines in coral abundance following disturbances. Understanding why some reefs recover quickly from these disturbances whereas others recover slowly (or not at all) gives insight into the drivers of community resilience. From 2006 to 2010 coral reefs on the fore reef of Moorea, French Polynesia, experienced severe disturbances that reduced coral cover from ~46% in 2005 to <1% in 2010. Following these disturbances, coral cover increased from 2010 to 2018. Although there was a rapid and widespread recovery of corals, reefs at 17 m depth recovered more slowly than reefs at 10 m depth. We investigated the drivers of different rates of coral recovery between depths from 2010 to 2018 using a combination of time-series data on coral recruitment, density, growth, and mortality in addition to field experiments testing for the effects of predation. Propagule abundance did not influence recovery, as the density of coral recruits (spat <6 months old) did not differ between depths. However, mortality of juvenile corals (≤5 cm diameter) was higher at 17 m, leading to densities of juvenile corals 3.5 times higher at 10 m than at 17 m depth. Yet, there were no differences in the growth of corals between depths. These results point to an early life stage bottleneck after settlement, resulting in greater mortality at 17 m than at 10 m as the likely driver of differential coral recovery between depths. We used experiments and time-series data to test mechanisms that could drive different rates of juvenile coral mortality across depths, including differences in predation, competition, and the availability of suitable substratum. The results of these experiments suggested that increased coral mortality at 17 m may have been influenced by higher intensity of fish predation, and higher mortality of corals attached to unfavorable substratum. In contrast, the abundance of macroalgae, a coral competitor, did not explain differences in coral survival. Our work suggests that top-down processes and substratum quality can create bottlenecks in corals that can drive rates of coral recovery after disturbance.

Indexed as

AnthozoaCoral ReefsAnimalsPolynesiaPopulation Dynamicscorallivorycoral recruitmentcoral reefsdemographic processesherbivorypost‐settlement effectspredationresilience

Identifiers

PMID39869054
PMCPMC11771621

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.