ArticlePloS one2025
Tandem reef restoration using corals and sea urchins: Building complex habitat for herbivores.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Amidst the decline of coral reef ecosystems, restoration practitioners are expanding their focus to incorporate key reef community components, such as grazers, to improve site conditions and the long-term survivorship of restored corals. We investigated the use of hatchery-propagated Diadema antillarum as well as two other locally abundant urchin species, Lytechinus variegatus and Echinometra viridis, for coral-urchin tandem reef restoration in Florida, USA. Urchins were deployed onto reef plots at various stages of Acropora cervicornis restoration and provided artificial cement refuges to evaluate retention and herbivory rates. Retention of urchins was low and variable among species. After 42 days, retention was 22% for E. viridis, 7% for D. antillarum, and 0% for L. variegatus. Retention was influenced by plot complexity (restoration state) and was significantly higher in high-complexity plots for D. antillarum and E. viridis. Within plots, refuge types did not have a significant influence on urchin retention. A reduction in macroalgal cover was only observed on plots with relocated E. viridis when densities were maintained > 0.4 urchins m-2. A second deployment of D. antillarum, with urchins caged for a month prior to release, resulted in significantly higher urchin retention. Within cages, grazing and the consumption of coral tissue were influenced by urchin density. At low urchin densities (4 urchins m-2) macroalgae cover remained high and corals were overgrown by algae. At intermediate densities (12 urchins m-2) algae were reduced and the growth of corals was maximized. At the highest densities (40 urchins m-2), algal cover was reduced but urchins caused tissue mortality as a result of over-grazing, highlighting the importance of maintaining relocated urchins at adequate densities to maximize the benefits of tandem restoration. Thus, if retention can be improved and urchins maintained at intermediate densities, the tandem restoration of corals and sea urchins could increase the efficacy of reef restoration.
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.