1. Coral Interactions in the 120 Tank Sean Reagan and Anna Sewell

2. Introduction

3. Focus of Our Research Observe growth and interactions of propagated coral species. o Exposure to lighting o Currents o Direct feeding o Competition Montipora digitata Montipora capricornis Porites branneri Euphyllia ancora (vs. M. digitata)

4. Montipora digitata: o Found from Western Indian Ocean to the Great Barrier Reef (McBirney, Carrie, and Brough) o Shallow, well-lit waters (McBirney, Carrie, and Brough) o Unique Montipora species - finger branches instead of encrusting whirling vase patterns (Fishlore). Background: M. digitata

5. Euphyllia ancora: o Found in Pacific & Indian Oceans, Red Sea (Dakin 2003) o Aggressive Scleractinian coral with anemone-like polyps (Dakin 2003) o Sweeper tentacles with nematocysts (Dakin 2003) Background: E. ancora

6. Montipora capricornis: o Commonly found in the Pacific Ocean (Fish Channel) o Hermatypic coral (Fish Channel) Background: M. capricornis

7. Porites Branneri: o A scleractinian coral with colonies consisting of encrusting plates (Aronson, Bruckner, Moor, Precht, Weil 2008) o Primarily found in the Caribbean, but is also Indo-Pacific (Borneman 2001) o Low susceptibility to bleaching (Borneman 2001) Background: P. branneri

8. 1. As the Euphyllia ancora and the Montipora digitata continue to grow and compete for space in the tank, how will their interactions affect each other? 2. Will the M. digitata and M. capricornus fragments grow more at more intense light levels than those that are on the bottom of the tank further from the light? 3.What is the average growth rate of the P. branneri throughout the tank over a certain amount of time? 4. Will direct feeding of M. digitata and M. capricornus fragments cause them to grow at a quicker rate than those of indirect feeding? 5. If a powerhead is directed towards a P. branneri colony, will it grow more rapidly than those that are not in the direct current of the powerhead? Research Questions

9. The "IUNC Redlist" indicated the P. branneri was more commonly found in waters with higher currents. Complete Encyclopedia of the Saltwater Aquarium talked about the E. ancora's aggressiveness and rapid growth rate. No prior tests could be found on the effects of lighting levels on these corals, multiple sources said they were more common in very shallow waters. No published research about direct feeding of corals versus non-direct of the M. digitata and M. capricornis. Background Research

10. "The closer the M. digitata and the M. capricornis are to the light, the more the fragments of the two species will grow. If the M. digitata and E. ancora corals continue to grow at their current rates, they will further come into contact with each other and more of the M. digitata's branches will be bleached. Additionally, the more the P. branneri is in the path of the powerhead's current, the more rapidly it will grow. Finally, direct feeding of the M. capricornis and M. digitata coral fragments will result in a faster growth rate than those of indirect feeding." Hypothesis

11. Methods

12. Research Plan 120 Tank Montipora digitata, Montipora capricornis, Porites branneri, Euphyllia ancora corals/fragments Supplies: o Underwater camera/cameraphone o Ruler o Powerheads, Coral rack holders o Brine/Mysis shrimp for feeding o Adequate tank lighting o Tank maintenance equipment and fragmenting equipment

13. Lighting: o 4 M. digitata fragments (2 for top rack & 2 for the bottom of tank) and 3 M. capricornis fragments (2 top and 1 bottom) taken in late November. o Both sets of corals measured (in inches) as accurately as possible every two weeks to see change in growth. o Pictures taken during every measurement. Euphyllia & Digitata Competition: o Daily observations made regarding competition o Pictures taken every two weeks o When new branch of M. digitata was exposed to Euphyllia we made note to see how long before bleaching The Experiments

14. Feeding o Moved the Right M. digitata and M. capricornis fragments to a different rack at the same light level on the opposite glass side. o Directly fed approximately 1 pipette of food to these fragments, while the other M. digitata and M. capricornis fragments continued to indirectly feed. o All of the fragments were measured once a week over the course of four weeks o Pictures taken during measurements. P. branneri Current Study: o Placed a powerhead in close proximity to a P. branneri colony having it blow directly at it. o Used a marker/sharpie and traced the starting point of the colony on the glass. o Took note of growth progress in daily observations. The Experiments

15. Results

16. Review of E. ancora and M. digitata Competition Beginning: October/November o Parts of the M. digitata branches had begun to bleach o By November, a second and third branch had begun to bleach.

17. October/November Images Review of E. ancora and M. digitata Competition

18. Middle: December/January/February o E. ancora successfully killed the closest M. digitata branch and turned it black.  Now covered in red algae o E. ancora continues to attack other branches, which have bleached/turned black o Clipped the dead branches off the M. digitata to see if the competition continued Review of E. ancora and M. digitata Competition

19. December/January/February Images Review of E. ancora and M. digitata Competition

20. End: March/April o On 3/11 turned the M. digitata so now new branches are facing the E. ancora. By 3/18 two branches had already bleached. o By April the damage the E. ancora had done was very clear. Review of E. ancora and M. digitata Competition March and April Images

21. March/April Images Review of E. ancora and M. digitata Competition

22. Top Left M. digitata fragment GR before dropping: 0.01011 (in/d) GR after dropping: 0.01040 (in/d) Review of M. digitata and M. capricornis Growth Rates: Light Levels bottom left digitata frag = closest to glass, bottom right digitata frag = farthest from the glass

23. Top Right M. digitata fragment GR before dropping: 0.01085 (in/d) GR after dropping: 0.01168 (in/d) Review of M. digitata and M. capricornis Growth Rates: Light Levels

24. Top Left M. capricornis fragment GR before dropping: 0.004817 (in/d) GR after dropping: 0.004544 (in/d) Review of M. digitata and M. capricornis Growth Rates: Light Levels

25. Top Right M. capricornis fragment GR before dropping: 0.007293 (in/d) GR after dropping: 0.007684 (in/d) Review of M. digitata and M. capricornis Growth Rates: Light Levels

26. Bottom Left M. digitata fragment GR: 0.01048 (in/d) Review of M. digitata and M. capricornis Growth Rates: Light Levels

27. Bottom Right M. digitata fragment GR before dropping: -0.01336 (in/d) GR after dropping: 0 (in/d) Review of M. digitata and M. capricornis Growth Rates: Light Levels

28. Bottom M. capricornis fragment GR before dropping: -0.001557 (in/d) GR after dropping: 0 (in/d) Review of M. digitata and M. capricornis Growth Rates: Light Levels

30. Coral FragmentGR Before Dropping (in/d)GR After Dropping (in/d) Top Left M. digitata0.010110.01040 Top Right M. digitata0.010850.01168 Top Left M. capricornis0.0048170.004544 Top Right M. capricornis0.0072930.007684 Bottom Left M. digitata0.01048n/a Bottom Right M. digitata-0.013360 Bottom M. capricornis-0.0015570

31. Troubleshooting o The fragments on the bottom were stung by neighboring corals, which made it difficult to decide if the corals were bleaching from competition for from the light level.  We decided they were ultimately bleaching from the competition, but their extremely pale color resulted from the low light intensity they received. o Very difficult to measure because they were not straight and could measure at a variety of different points  Why we have some discrepancies in our data. o Moved our bottom fragments to an area that we could not get to without getting stung by E. ancora, so measurements had to end. Review of M. digitata and M. capricornis Growth Rates: Light Levels

32. Review of M. digitata and M. capricornis Growth Rates: Direct Feeding Fed M. digitata fragment GR before dropping: 0.01184 (in/d) GR after dropping: 0.01224 (in/d)

33. Review of M. digitata and M. capricornis Growth Rates: Direct Feeding Fed M. capricornis fragment GR before dropping: 0.02077 (in/d) GR after dropping: 0.02126 (in/d)

34. Review of M. digitata and M. capricornis Growth Rates: Direct Feeding Not Fed M. digitata fragment GR: 0.01679 (in/d)

35. Review of M. digitata and M. capricornis Growth Rates: Direct Feeding Not Fed M. capricornis fragment GR before dropping: 0.0002415 (in/d) GR after dropping: 0 (in/d)

36. Review of M. digitata and M. capricornis Growth Rates: Direct Feeding Coral FragmentGR Before Dropping (in/d)GR After Dropping (in/d) Fed M. digitata0.011840.01224 Fed M. capricornis0.020770.02126 Not Fed M. digitata0.01679n/a Not Fed M. capricornis0.00024150 Coral FragmentInitial Size (in)Final Size (in) Fed M. digitata4.54.75 Fed M. capricornis2.753 Not Fed M. digitata4.755.125 Not Fed M. capricornis2.5

37. Troubleshooting We did not have the new rack for very long and therefore could not collect very much data. Difficult to measure. Review of M. digitata and M. capricornis Growth Rates: Direct Feeding

38. Traced the growth of the different P. branneri colonies for a few months with expo marker. Ultimately we had to end this part of our experiment because our traces were constantly erased by people in tank room and we were unable to collect sufficient and reliable data. P. branneri: Average Rate of Growth.

39. Worked to determine whether the P. branneri grew the best/most in the strongest water current (with a powerhead placed in front) and the weakest water current (behind a powerhead). Throughout the year, we traced the weakest water current P. branneri colony and began tracing the strongest water current P. branneri in January. P. branneri: Average Growth in Different Water Currents

40. Realized that approximately half of the strong water current colony was actually dead, so decided that the colony was not well enough to support/reject our hypothesis of P. branneri growth in different water currents. Continued to outline the colonies and observed the colonies' growth and death. Review of M. digitata and M. capricornis Growth Rates: Direct Feeding

41. Strongest Current Review of M. digitata and M. capricornis Growth Rates: Direct Feeding

42. Weakest Current Review of M. digitata and M. capricornis Growth Rates: Direct Feeding

43. Discussion

44. Lighting: Support hypothesis - The fragments that were closer to the lighting grew better than those on the bottom of the tank. The fragments closer to light looked healthier and had a more vibrant color than the ones on the bottom. Reflections on Hypothesis: Light Levels Coral FragmentAmount Grown (in inches) Top Left M. digitata1.25 Top Right M. digitata1.5 Top Left M. capricornis 0.75 Top Right M. capricornis 1 Coral FragmentAmount Grown (in inches) Bottom Left. M. digitata 0.875 Bottom Right M. digitata -1 (or 0 with dropping) Bottom M. capricornis -0.25 (or 0 with dropping)

45. Competition: Support hypothesis - The Euphyllia did end up up bleaching digitata further and more than once. It appeared that the M. digitata had no effect on the E. ancora Supported by the Complete Encyclopedia of the Saltwater Aquarium, which talked about the E. ancora's aggressiveness and rapid growth rate. Reflections on Hypothesis: Competition

46. Powerhead: Neither support nor reject hypothesis, P. branneri colony grew in some parts but not in others. Not a good colony to study because many parts of it were killed by an unknown cause of death. Reflections on Hypothesis: Water Current

47. Feeding: As of now, we support hypothesis with M. capricornis, but reject with M. digitata. If we continue research, our stance on our hypothesis may change. Reflections on Hypothesis: Direct Feeding Coral FragmentAmount Grown (in inches) Fed M. digitata0.25 Fed M. capricornis0.25 Coral FragmentAmount Grown (in inches) Not Fed M. digitata0.375 Not Fed M. capricornis0

48. Measuring digitata frags, hard to read Measurements being erased with P. branneri colonies Powerhead current was too strong killing portions of the P. branneri Not enough time to measure feeding tests (worked past April 19) Challenges to Research

49. More time for feeding the corals Accurately track of the average growth rate of the P. branneri colonies. Continued to measure the coral fragments on the bottom of the tank/ measure the symbiodinium gain/loss due to lighting levels. More accurate system of measuring then the ruler. To Make Our Data More Complete...

50. Importance of sunlight: o Polluted and murky waters are most likely a HUGE reason why corals are bleaching and dying in our oceans. o Especially with these two species of corals, THE MORE EXPOSURE TO LIGHTING THE BETTER. (Possibly consider brighter lights on almost all the tanks for the new tank room) E. ancora should not be near corals that can't protect themselves. In the oceans most corals probably stay far away Good for coral propagators to know about lighting and aggression when propagating their corals. Importance of Results

51. Experimenting with different types of light Continue direct feeding vs. indirect (we were onto something but just ran out of time) Plenty of other competition taking place throughout tanks Find a better way to measure the growth of the P. branneri and find the average growth Is there a point where there can be too much lighting? Future Directions for Research

52. Works cited slide McBirney, Carrie, and Clarice Brough. “Velvet Finger Montipora.” Animal-World. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Sept. 2012.. “Montipora Digitata Coral” Fishlore. n.d Web. http://www.fishlore.com/coral/montipora-digitata-coral.html “Plate Montipora.” Fish Channel. Bowtie, n.d. Web. 26 Sept. 2012.. Dakin, Nick. Complete Encyclopedia of the Saltwater Aquarium. Buffalo: Firefly, 2003. Print. ARKive. Wildscreen, n.d. Web. 26 Sept. 2012..http://www.arkive.org/ Veron, Jen. Corals of the World. Vol. 3. Townsville MC: Australian Institute of Marine Science, 2000. Print. Aronson, R., Bruckner, A., Moore, J., Precht, B. & E. Weil 2008.~Porites branneri. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.1..www.iucnredlist.org Borneman, Eric H. Corals: Selection, Husbandry, and Natural History. Neptune City: T.F.H. Publications, 2001. Print. Pages 235-238. Calfo, Anthony Rosario. Book of Coral Propagation: Reef Gardening for Aquarists. 2nd ed. Vol. 1. Monroeville: Reading Trees, 2009. Print. Pages 171-174.