Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42678530›Full record

ArticleOecologia2026

Bottom-up control of coral reef sponges: for better and for worse.

Janie Wulff

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Oecologia, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Janie WulffDepartment of Biological Science, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, 32306-4295, USA. wulff@bio.fsu.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0009-5874-0208

Funding

National Science Foundation 0550599
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Controversy over whether coral reef sponges are controlled bottom-up or top-down has distracted attention from more nuanced questions about what circumstances promote either bottom-up or top-down control, and how coral reef ecosystems are affected by what controls their sponges. Experiments now suggest that predators do not control coral reef sponges in their home habitat, shifting attention to effects of variations in sponge food supply. Comparing growth and survival of eleven of the most common and ubiquitous Caribbean coral reef sponge species on reefs in Belize and Panama differing in water column richness revealed faster sponge growth (by factors of 1.79-3.22 depending on the species) in the more picoplankton/nutrient-rich water at the Panama site. This could: a) benefit reefs by increasing positive effects of sponges, or b) harm reefs by sponges overgrowing corals. 'Sponges' is not a homogeneous category, so the balance between benefit and harm to reefs by increases in 'sponges' depends on both the species involved and environmental context. Predictions are complicated because sponge responses to increased nutrients/picoplankton are not monotonic: moderate increases boost sponge growth rates, but very dense blooms can devastate reef sponge populations. The same sponge species which grew faster in a somewhat richer water column (2 times as much picoplankton) lost nearly 2/3 of their biomass during a dense (8 times denser than normal) cyanobacteria bloom on the Belize Barrier Reef, reducing their unique positive functional roles of promoting water column clarity, symbiont habitat, food for charismatic megafauna, coral survival, and reef regeneration.

Indexed as

Coral ReefsPoriferaAnimalsAnthozoaBelizeEcosystemPanamaCyanobacteria bloomsNutrient overloadSponge functional rolesSponge growth ratesSponge mass mortality

Identifiers

PMID42678530
PMCPMC13534227

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.