Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40877604›Full record

ArticleCommunications biology2025

Species-specific retention vs. recovery of coral thermal tolerance following nursery propagation.

Sebastian Szereday, Kok Lynn Chew, Christian R Voolstra

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Communications biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

3 authors.

Sebastian SzeredayNon-profit enterprise for coral reef research and restoration, Coralku Solutions, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. sebastian@coralku.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3918-122X
Kok Lynn ChewNon-profit enterprise for coral reef research and restoration, Coralku Solutions, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0001-8527-1920
Christian R VoolstraDepartment of Biology, University of Konstanz, Konstanz, Germany. christian.voolstra@uni-konstanz.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4555-3795

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Thermal screening of coral source material is likely crucial to enhancing long-term restoration success under ocean warming. It is unclear, however, whether reef-based donor colonies retain their thermal tolerance in a nursery environment. Here, we used CBASS acute thermal assays to compare standardized thermal tolerance thresholds (ED50s) of donor colonies from Acropora cytherea and Acropora florida from two sites in Pulau Lang Tengah, Malaysia to their 'nursery propagules' reared in a common garden coral nursery over 365 days. CBASS assays of reef-based donors and their nursery counterparts were conducted in parallel and over two seasons to assess retention of thermal tolerance following nursery rearing. After 6 months, average ED50s of A. cytherea nursery corals were significantly lower compared to their reef-based donor colonies, but such difference disappeared after 365 days. By comparison, no such differences were measurable for A. florida and thermal tolerances were retained. Further, we did not observe trade-offs between growth and thermal thresholds for either species. Based on our findings, in situ thermal tolerance differences are likely adaptive and, consequently, either retained or recovered in longer-term restoration settings. Our findings further imply that thermal screening should be conducted prior to nursery propagation to avoid selection based on long-term acclimation artifacts.

Indexed as

AnthozoaCoral ReefsThermotoleranceAcclimatizationAnimalsMalaysiaSpecies Specificity

Identifiers

PMID40877604
PMCPMC12394514

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.