First published online February 13, 2009
Journal of Experimental Biology 212, 662-667 (2009)
Published by The Company of Biologists 2009
doi: 10.1242/jeb.022624
Phototropic growth in a reef flat acroporid branching coral species
Paulina Kaniewska1,*,
Paul R. Campbell2,
Maoz Fine3 and
Ove Hoegh-Guldberg1
1 ARC Centre of Excellence, The University of Queensland, Centre for Marine
Studies, St Lucia, QLD 4072, Australia
2 Queensland Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries, Horticulture and
Forestry Science, Indooropilly Research Centre, QLD 4068, Australia
3 Faculty of Life Sciences, Bar-Ilan University, The Interuniversity Institute
for Marine Science, Eilat, POB 469, Eilat 88103, Israel
View larger version (25K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 1. Experimental design of the four frames deployed at Harry's Bommie (4 m) at
Heron Island (23°27.625'S, 151°55.759'E), Great Barrier
Reef. Arrows point to individual seedling trays (replicates) each containing
two Acropora pulchra branches. These were exposed to randomly
positioned treatments of 0, 30, 50, 80 or 100% light reduction, or clear,
blue, red or green filters.
|
|
View larger version (12K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 2. Underwater spectral scan (black line) of ambient PAR at Harry's Bommie (4
m), Heron Island (23°27.625'S, 151°55.759'E), at the site
where experimental frames with corals were deployed. Coloured lines represent
transmission characteristics of the coloured filters used in the experiment;
blue (LEE Medium Blue 132), green (LEE Dark Green 124) and red (LEE Bright Red
026).
|
|
View larger version (72K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 3. Acropora pulchra axial corallite development after 8 weeks. (A)
Axial corallite developed at previous tip end of branch. (B) Axial corallite
developed at previous basal end of branch. (C) Axial corallite clearly
developed at basal end of branch. (D) Tissue regeneration over cut surface
without axial corallite development. Scale bar, 1 cm.
|
|
View larger version (11K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 4. Acropora pulchra axial corallite growth as a function of light
availability in (A) horizontally positioned branches (23 branches in control
treatment and 20 branches in side-light treatment) and (B) vertically
positioned branches (22 branches in control treatment, 23 branches in
top-light treatment). Error bars represent standard error of the mean. CW and
CE are horizontally positioned branches from control aquaria with light
available from all directions, where CW refers to the cut end facing west (the
light direction in treatment aquaria); CE refers to the cut end facing east
(away from the light direction in treatment aquaria). CU and CD are vertically
positioned branches from control aquaria where CU refers to the cut end facing
up (the light direction in treatment aquaria) and CD to the cut end facing
down (away from the light direction in treatment aquaria). TL and TS are
branches from treatment aquaria where TL refers to the cut end facing the
light direction and TS to the cut end facing away from the light. Results of
post-hoc tests (Fisher LSD test) for differences between different
treatments are indicated; horizontal lines link groups that do not
significantly differ (P>0.05) from each other.
|
|
View larger version (10K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 5. Axial corallite growth in Acropora pulchra (16 replicates for each
treatment but nested within frame, N=4) as a function of (A) light
intensity (0, 30, 50, 80 or 100% light reduction) and (B) light quality (blue,
red, green or clear). Error bars represent the standard error of the mean.
Results of post-hoc tests (Fisher LSD test) for differences between
different treatments are indicated; horizontal lines link groups that do not
significantly differ (P>0.05) from each other.
|
|
CiteULike 
Complore 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us 
Digg 
Reddit 
Technorati 
Twitter What's this?
© The Company of Biologists Ltd 2009
