Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 September 2024 | 16(9): 25831–25842

 

ISSN 0974-7907 (Online) | ISSN 0974-7893 (Print) 

https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.9078.16.9.25831-25842

#9078 | Received 07 April 2024 | Final received 11 July 2024 | Finally accepted 28 August 2024

 

 

Successful establishment of a coral nursery for active reef restoration in Kavaratti Island, Lakshadweep archipelago

 

C.A. Riyas 1, K.K. Idreesbabu 2, Rajeev Raghavan 3 & S. Sureshkumar 4

 

 1 Research and Environmental Education Foundation, Agatti Island, UT of Lakshadweep 682553, India.

1,2 Department of Science and Technology, Kavaratti Island, UT of Lakshadweep 682555, India.

 3 Department of Fisheries Resource Management, Kerala University of Fisheries and Ocean Studies, Panangad, Kochi, Kerala 682506, India.

 4 Faculty of Ocean Science and Technology, Kerala University of Fisheries and Ocean Studies,

 Panangad, Kochi, Kerala 682506, India.

1 riyasaqua@gmail.com, 2 idreesbabu@gmail.com, 3 rajeevraq@hotmail.com, 4 suresh@kufos.ac.in (corresponding author)

 

 

 

Editor: M. Nithyanandan, Kuwait Institute for Scientific Research (KISR), Salmiya, Kuwait.           Date of publication: 26 September 2024 (online & print)

 

Citation: Riyas, C.A., K.K. Idreesbabu, R. Raghavan & S. Sureshkumar (2024). Successful establishment of a coral nursery for active reef restoration in Kavaratti Island, Lakshadweep archipelago. Journal of Threatened Taxa 16(9): 25831–25842. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.9078.16.9.25831-25842

  

Copyright: © Riyas et al. 2024. Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. JoTT allows unrestricted use, reproduction, and distribution of this article in any medium by providing adequate credit to the author(s) and the source of publication.

 

Funding: Department of Science and Technology, Lakshadweep Administration, Government of India,

and a grant (Grant-In-Aid General-40). No additional funding specific to this work has been availed from other sources.

 

Competing interests: The authors declare no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

 

Author details: C.A. Riyas is a marine researcher and conservationist, currently working as a Project Officer at the Department of Science and Technology, Lakshadweep. He is pursuing a PhD in Coral Reef Studies at the Kerala University of Fisheries and Ocean Studies (KUFOS) and is a certified SCUBA diver with over 400 dives. As a founding member of ‘REEF,’ a non-governmental organisation dedicated to marine conservation, Riyas is committed to the preservation of Lakshadweep’s ecosystems, with a particular focus on coral reef protection and restoration. His work is integral to advancing marine conservation in the region. K.K Idreesbabu is a scientist at the Department of Science and Technology, Lakshadweep and holds over two decades of experience in the field. He is notably the first individual from Lakshadweep to earn a PhD in Coral Reef Studies. His research focuses on coral reef conservation, marine biodiversity, and shoreline management, and his efforts in coral reef restoration have received international recognition. Idreesbabu’s contributions have been instrumental in promoting sustainable marine conservation practices in the region. Rajeev Raghavan is an assistant professor at the Kerala University of Fisheries and Ocean Studies, Kochi, India and the South Asia Chair of the IUCN’s Freshwater Fish Specialist Group and the IUCN Freshwater Fish Red List Authority Coordinator for Asia and Oceania. His areas of interest include aquatic conservation, fish systematics, molecular ecology, extinction risk assessment and inland fisheries. S. Sureshkumar is a professor of Biological Oceanography and currently serves as the Dean at the Kerala University of Fisheries and Ocean Studies, Cochin. With more than 25 years of experience in teaching and research, his expertise spans marine biology, aquatic ecology, coastal processes, and the impacts of climate change. Sureshkumar is also actively involved in academic governance, serving on various academic bodies of Universities in India, and acting as an adjudicator for doctoral theses. His contributions have significantly advanced the understanding of marine and coastal ecosystems of Lakshadweep.

 

Author contributions: SS and KKI – conceptualisation, design of work and supervision. CAR – Field work, coordination, data collection and manuscript writing. RR, KKI and SS manuscript review, editing and comments.

 

Acknowledgements:  The authors gratefully acknowledge the Department of Environment and Forest, Lakshadweep Administration, for necessary permissions during the study period. Ms Raziya Beegum M.K (Technical Officer), Mr C.N. Mueenudheen, Mr B. Mohammed Nowshad, Ms Mariyambi P.C and Ms Sabeena M for their support in the field; research dive team, Mr Syed Abdullakoya, Mr Abdu Raheem, Mr Sharafudheen, Mr Ilthuthmish Nasarulla, Mr Saheerali, Mr Kaleel, and Mr Thabsheer of DST, without whom this work could not have been possible.

 

 

Abstract: The achievements in successfully establishing coral nurseries using asexually reproduced transplants in Kavaratti Island, Lakshadweep archipelago are presented. During the present study, the survival and growth of 180 fragments of corals fixed on concrete blocks with iron frames laid over a 40 m2 area near reefs inside the lagoon of Kavaratti atoll were assessed. Significant differences in growth were observed between acroporid and non-acroporid corals after two years of transplantation. Acropora muricata (31.1 ± 0.4 cm) and Isopora palifera (15.9 ± 3.4 cm) displayed the highest and lowest growth rates among acroporid corals and Pocillopora damicornis (481.9 ± 68.4 cm3) and Hydnophora microconos (33.4 ± 15.7 cm3) had the highest and lowest rates, among non-acroporid corals. A diverse fish assemblage comprising 21 species belonging to 10 families was observed at the transplantation site, with Chromis viridis and Dascyllus aruanus being the dominant species. The success achieved in this study makes it an ideal approach to be used elsewhere in the Lakshadweep archipelago and the wider Indian Ocean region to develop underwater tourism and promote science-based management and restoration of coral reefs.

 

Keywords: Acropora, Arabian Sea, artificial substrate, atoll, coral fragments, coral nursery, coral reef, Indian Ocean, lagoon, transplantation.

 

 

 

Introduction

 

Despite being of the most spectacular, productive, and biologically diverse marine ecosystems (Odum & Odum 1955; Connell 1978; Moberg & Folke 1999), coral reefs face unprecedented threats from various natural and anthropogenic stressors (Wilkinson 1998; Obura et al. 2022), including deteriorating water quality, destructive fishing methods, over-exploitation of reef fauna, emerging diseases, and climate change (Hoegh-Guldberg 1999; Bellwood et al. 2004; Halpern et al. 2019; Schartup et al. 2019; Issifu et al. 2021). Almost half of the world’s coral reef ecosystems are now degraded (IPBES 2019), many reefs in southern Asia, and the Pacific region continue to decline steadily (Burke et al. 2011), and others like the western Indian Ocean region are predicted to have high risk of collapse within the next 50 years (Obura et al. 2022). Additionally, the catch-per-unit effort of coral reef-associated fishes has been declining by 60% since the 1950s, and the capacity of reefs to provide critical ecosystem service declined by 50% during the same period (Eddy et al. 2021). The prospects for coral reef ecosystems and their resources appear bleak in the coming future.

Around the world, damaged coral reef communities recover very slowly, particularly when there are changes in benthic morphology or chronic degradation in prevailing environmental conditions (Roth et al. 2018). The complete recovery of the reef to pre-existing ecological community structure and ecosystem services may extend to hundreds or even thousands of years without active intervention by resource managers (Hein et al. 2020). Despite its limitations and reservations (Omori 2019; Boström-Einarsson et al. 2020), coral reef restoration efforts are accelerating worldwide to offset the rate of reef health declines (Boström-Einarsson et al. 2020; Suggett & van Oppen 2022). The primary objective of coral restoration is to transplant fast-growing and healthy coral fragments, to rebuild dead reefs to their original state, or as nearly as possible to the original state, and thus increase the live coral coverage (Ramesh et al. 2020). Massive corals are also recommended for transplantation due to their lower susceptibility to damage and mortality, which can ultimately produce the habitat required for fish and other coral morphologies (Ammar et al. 2013). While fast-growing corals are ideal candidates for active reef restoration, they are highly susceptible to bleaching-related impacts and mortality. Therefore, any active restoration should focus on both branching and non-branching corals to achieve fruitful results (Ramesh et al. 2020).

The Lakshadweep archipelago, part of the Laccadive-Maldives-Chagos group of islands, comprise 12 atolls, three reefs, five submerged banks, and ten inhabited islands (Kaladharan & Anasukoya 2020). Lakshadweep reefs are the only atolls among the Indian reefs. The coral reefs of this archipelago have been threatened and destroyed by a range of stressors, including regular bleaching events, cyclonic disturbance, and anthropogenic interventions (Riyas et al. 2020). These threats necessitate the development and implementation of active coral restoration programs. In the Lakshadweep archipelago, transplantation of corals can help create habitats that provide alternative livelihoods for the fishing community and, in particular, serve as an ideal management strategy for aquarium fish collectors without damaging prime coral colonies in the reef. The present study aims to develop an effective transplantation method for establishing a coral nursery in the Kavaratti lagoon of the Lakshadweep archipelago, focusing on the use of fast-growing coral species to facilitate the rapid restoration of degraded reefs. Also, it aims to understand the composition and abundance of reef fish assemblages that colonize near the transplantation site based on the growth and survival of transplanted fragments.

 

 

Materials and Methods

 

Study site

Kavaratti Island (10.558°N 72.623°E), part of the Lakshadweep archipelago, is located off the southwestern coast of India (Image 1). The area of Kavaratti lagoon is approximately 3.63 km2, and most parts of its seabed are covered by coral sand, dead corals, and rubbles, together with well-developed live coral communities near the inner reef slope adjacent to the restoration site. The total cover of the live coral community at Kavaratti Atoll was estimated to be 21.7% (Idreesbabu et al. 2017). The selected location for attempting the restoration experiments is a 2.5-m-deep area within the lagoon of the Kavaratti Atoll, consisting of a sandy bottom (Image 2). The coral fragments were collected from different donor sites or locations of the lagoon including the intertidal zone, inner reef lagoon, and reef crest of the atoll, to obtain different fragments grown in different conditions and locations in the lagoon. The donor sites were approximately 500 m to 2.5 km away from the transplantation site.

 

Selection of the donor and recipient sites

This restoration effort focused on using indigenous healthy corals found in the shallow lagoons of Kavaratti islands because of their natural resilience to the local environment. The long-term success and resilience of transplanted corals rely heavily on genetic diversity. Accordingly, using donor sites with high genetic diversity is preferable to enable transplanted corals to adjust to changing environmental conditions. Coral species were chosen from the donor site because of their rapid growth and abundance.

The recipient site chosen for the transplantation had environmental conditions with minimal signs of stressors, such as pollution, sedimentation, or overfishing to maximize the survival and growth of the transplanted corals. In the same way, a nearby site that has been damaged by coral fragmentation was also taken into consideration as a potential donor site.

 

Artificial substrate

Coral nursery units were made of angle bars and iron mesh (2 × 2 × 0.5 m). Concrete blocks (25 x 20 cm) were used as the artificial substrate for coral fixing (Image 3a). To increase the durability of the coral nursery unit and prevent the early onset of rust and corrosion, food-grade epoxy paint was applied and allowed to dry for three days before deployment. A total of 10 iron frames (4 m2) were arranged at the restoration site.

 

Coral transplantation

Coral fragments available around the lagoon were used for transplantation, as they were grown in the local environment. Branches of acroporid and non-acroporid corals that naturally grew on artificial substrates, such as concrete structures and buoys in the lagoon, were pruned to obtain coral fragments. Collected coral fragments were transferred underwater using plastic baskets by scuba diving. They were identified up to the species level using an underwater coral finder following Kelley (2009). Selected and sized nubbins were then fixed on rectangular cement blocks using plastic cable ties and these blocks were fixed into the deployed iron mesh frame. Twenty coral fragments each measuring 7–11 cm in length were fixed in each iron mesh frame. The number of coral fragments, species, and size used at the beginning are provided in Tables 1 and 2. The debris, algae, and sand particles deposited on the transplanted fragments were removed weekly for the first two months and fortnightly thereafter using a soft brush. Survival and growth rates were monitored monthly from January 2016 until January 2018.

 

Data collection and analysis

The growth rate of the massive corals was reported as colony height (h) in centimeters (cm) and approximate colony volume (V), calculated using a formula V = r2h, of which ‘r’ was calculated from length (l) and width (w) as (l＋w) /4 (Yucharoen et al. 2013). The total growth rate of acroporid coral was measured to the nearest centimeter and compared between species. Seawater temperature was recorded using a Hobo data logger (HOBO Pendant UA-002-64) and the turbidity data was obtained from a data buoy deployed in Kavaratti, as part of a joint initiative by the Department of Science and Technology and the National Institute of Oceanography, Goa. The survival rate was calculated based on the percentage of corals that survived the initial fixing. Survival of coral transplants (expressed as the percentage of the live individuals which survived the initial fixed) was recorded monthly. Belt transects (Brock 1954) measuring 10 x 5 m which were placed horizontally to the coral restoration site were used to quantify the density of associated fish species. Fish species were identified primarily using Kuiter (2014) and Allen & Steene (2007). Further, the fishes were identified to species-level taxonomy following Fricke et al. (2023).

 

 

Results

 

Growth rates of transplanted corals monitored for two years revealed higher annual values for acroporid, than non-acroporid corals. Growth rate varied widely between species (Tables 1 & 2), with the highest growth rates observed in Acropora muricata (31.1 ± 0.4 cm, n = 25), A. hyacinthus (21.7 ± 1.5 cm, n = 14) and, A. gemmifera (17.5 ± 2.8 cm, n = 10) (Table 1, Figure 1), and lowest growth rates in Pocillopora damicornis (481.9 ± 68.4 cm3, n = 12), P. grandis (273.12 ± 36.1 cm3, n = 12), and Echinopora lamellosa (95.1 ± 21.3 cm3, n = 8) (Table 2, Figure 2). A comparison of the mean initial lengths of the acroporid fragments showed no significant variation (F = 2.75; P >0.01) however the final growth showed a significant variation (F = 162.91; P <0.01). This denotes variation in the growth of different species selected for the study even though the initial sizes are uniform. In non-acroporids, the initial nubbins taken significantly varied in volume (F = 6.06; P <0.01), and the final growth of the fragments also varied significantly (F = 372.82; P <0.01).

During the study period, water temperature (Figure 3) varied between 25.90C (in August 2018) and 31.60C (in May 2016), and turbidity (Figure 4) between 0.6 NTU (in February 2018) and 6.3 NTU (in July 2018).

The underwater visual census showed the presence of a diverse fish assemblage at the transplantation site, with around 21 species belonging to 10 families. The major families of fish represented at the transplantation site included Acanthuridae, Balistidae, Chaetodontidae, Holocentridae, Labridae, Monacanthidae, Pomacentridae, Scorpaenidae, Serranidae, and Zanclidae (Table 3). The numbers of Chromis viridis and Dascyllus aruanus were higher than other species, suggesting that the transplantation site acts as a good spawning ground, as Pocillopora sp. and Acropora sp. were preferred as a breeding space. The health of the transplanted corals could also be ascertained from the occurrence of coral-feeding fishes of the genus Chaetodon and herbivorous fishes such as those belonging to the family Acanthuridae. The results indicated that fish diversity varied based on the nature of the benthic substrate at the transplantation site, the species composition of the corals, as well as the dietary preferences of the fish.

 

 

Discussion

 

Scientific transplantation, the most expensive and effective method for coral rehabilitation, has been extensively applied as a management option in many countries of the world (Rinkevich 2005; Ferse 2010; Garrison & Ward 2012), while research on coral restoration have been carried out in more than 56 countries (Boström-Einarsson et al. 2020). Most projects on coral restoration are conducted in the USA, Philippines, Indonesia and Thailand, with the majority of these involving coral fragmentation, or transplantation of coral fragments (Boström-Einarsson et al. 2020). These restoration programs have successfully accelerated the recovery of degraded coral reefs due to natural and anthropogenic disturbances. However, they are limited to particular environmental conditions such as substrate type, sexual recruits and sheltered zones (Edwards & Gomez 2007; Edwards 2010; Rinkevich 2014). Different countries have developed many alternative techniques over the last few decades, which involve directly fixing coral colonies and fragments onto a reef substrate, which is the most commonly practiced technique (Boström-Einarsson et al. 2020). Although the coral fragment technique used for coral restoration is common worldwide, this study is unique in that it has used such a large number of coral nubbins with long-term monitoring for the first time through the Department of Science and Technology, Lakshadweep Administration.

All transplanted coral species in the present study showed reasonable growth rates, and an ability to self-attach to concrete blocks and augmented polyps within the lagoon. Between the groups, acroporid corals displayed a faster growth rate than non-acroporid corals, suggesting that fast-growing acroporid corals are more favourable for providing quick coral reef ecosystem services. The structural morphology of Acropora facilitates the provision of food, shelter, and breeding sites for many organisms in the marine ecosystem, and plays a critical overall role in creating a healthy ecosystem in the sea, as well as in the formations of islands, and for coastal protection (Bruckner 2002). It is for these reasons that most global restoration projects focus on fast-growing, branching, acroporid corals (Boström-Einarsson et al. 2020).

 

Growth rates of coral in the present study are considered high compared to those observed in the Red Sea, and Pacific (Lizcano-Sandoval et al. 2018; Mahmoud et al. 2019). Varying growth rates have been reported for corals from many parts of the world, for example, coral Davis reef (0.67 cm/month; Oliver et al. 1983), Solitary Islands (0.80 mm/month; Harriott 1999), Thailand (0.28 cm/month; Putchim et al. 2008), Maldives (0.48 cm/month, Clark & Edwards 1995), and Gulf of Kachchh, India (0.33 cm/month; Kumar et al. 2016, Gulf of Mannar, India (0.79 cm/month; Ramesh et al. 2020). Idreesbabu et al. (2017) first studied the restoration of corals in the Lakshadweep archipelago and observed a mean growth of 14.85 cm/year for Acropora muricata, which was relatively lower than those observed in the present study (i.e., 15.55 cm/year). The comparatively higher growth rate obtained during the present study could be due to the better management and conducive physicochemical parameters prevalent in the region (Davidson et al. 2019).

The global mean survival rate of restored corals is 66% (Boström-Einarsson et al. 2020), with survival depending on various factors. Survival rates across all nursery fragments in our study ranged from 64% to 99%. Acroporid corals showed higher survival rates (between 90% and 99%) compared to non-acroporid corals (between 64% and 89%) indicating an improved survival rate compared to the global average (Figure 5). Our results reveal a higher success rate of transplantation efforts and good health of transplanted corals even after two years. This high survival is likely due to the size of coral fragments and coral species capable of resisting environmental factors used for transplantation. Fragment size is a critical parameter to consider in reef restoration, as it influences the survival and growth of a coral transplant in the new environment (Sam et al. 2021). The initial size of the coral fragments used in our study ranged from 7 cm to 11 cm. Perhaps, the high survival rate obtained in this study indicates that we have used the optimal size of coral fragments for transplantation, as observed previously (Shafir et al. 2010).

Our study also highlights that successful coral transplantation depends on the selected species, and other key environmental factors, such as temperature and turbidity at the study site. In the Lakshadweep archipelago, the sea surface temperature usually increases between the summer months of March and May (Shenoi et al. 1999). In our study, the water temperature showed an increasing trend from March to May, with a gradual decline from the last week of May, due to the onset of the monsoon showers (Figure 3). Turbidity rates at the study sites increased from April and extended till August, mostly due to high wave action, high precipitation and water runoff during the monsoon. The data obtained from the ongoing coral reef monitoring program of Department of Science and Technology, shows that salinity, pH and dissolved oxygen (DO) in Kavaratti Island ranged 31.44–37.81 psu, 7.90–8.40, 3.02–4.88 ppm with average values of 35.14 psu, 8.18, and 3.94 ppm, respectively, which may also have influenced the coral transplantation. Physical parameters such as temperature, salinity, water motion, sedimentation and turbidity also influence the survival of transplanted coral, and reef health (Yap et al. 1998; Ferrier-Pages et al. 1999; Mohamed & Mohamed 2005; Ramesh et al. 2019; Howlett et al. 2021)

The diverse fish population at the transplantation site indicates that the ‘site’ mimics conditions on a natural reef (Rilov & Benayahu 2000), and offers a habitat which not only constitutes a shelter, but also acts as a potential breeding ground for fishes and other marine organisms (Ulfah et al. 2020). Breeding habitats in the transplantation site were preferred for live baits such as Chromis viridis and Dascyllus aruanus, particularly among the branching coral of Acropora and Pocillopora. Populations of Chromis viridis and Dascyllus aruanus were higher than those of other fish species, indicating that the transplanted site serves as their favorable spawning ground (Goren 1992). As a fundamental objective, coral restoration targeted at reef recovery should consider re-establishing breeding populations of corals (Cruz & Harrison 2017).

Furthermore, an array of reef fishes consistently inhabits the transplantation site, which functions as a significant feeding area. This phenomenon can be attributed to the presence of diverse marine organisms including sponges, molluscs, and algae within the transplantation site. Consequently, numerous fish species reliant on these organisms for sustenance and other essential requirements are known to establish their habitats within this area. At the transplantation site, initial sightings included fish species from the family Labridae, such as Thalassoma lunare and Halichoeres scapularis. Labrids are invertebrate-eating fish species that are often found looking for food in concrete cracks or substrate surfaces. Similarly, herbivorous fish from the family Acanthuridae were observed throughout the transplantation site, exhibiting greater abundance during the initial stages of transplantation. These fish primarily feed on algae present within the site and are frequently encountered close to transplantation sites. Acanthuridae contributes to a certain extent in mitigating algae proliferation, thus aiding in the facilitation of coral growth during the initial stages of transplantation. The abundance of herbivorous fish is a good indicator of a healthy reef (Abelson et al. 2016). Pomacentridae was another major family that had a high abundance in the transplantation site. Fishes of family Pomacentridae including Chromis viridis and Dascyllus aruanus, were predominantly observed following the establishment of branching corals such as Acropora. This trend can be attributed to the feeding behaviour of these fish, which utilize the water column for foraging, and seek refuge within coral reefs to evade attacks from carnivorous fish (Kuiter & Tonozuka 2001). The families Chaetodontidae, Balistidae, and Scorpaenidae were observed during the later stage of transplantation. The live coral cover condition at each age of transplantation shows the differences in the reef fish species community (Ulfah et al. 2020). This fish aggregation could also attract visitors and researchers to this location and highlight the importance of artificial reefs for marine restoration.

Coral transplantation tool can also be applied for underwater tourism while promoting a science-based coral reef management option for coral restoration (Edwards & Clark 1999). Transplantation of corals are also suggested to provide alternative livelihood (Young et al. 2012) for the fishing community (Bowden-Kerby 2003) as they depend on this site for the collection of live bait for tuna fishing and spearfishing during the southwest monsoon in this atoll. The transplantation site can, directly and indirectly, reduce the pressure on fragile natural coral growth through substitute aquaculture, community-based ecotourism, and increased environmental education, awareness and community stakeholder associations. The technique described in the article can easily be transferred to local communities, and imparting training to the fishers can be adopted using local expertise. Therefore, it is suggested that the development of coral transplantation sites can influence ecosystem services and indirectly benefit the livelihood of the fishing community. Therefore, the implementation of the coral restoration programme in all the islands of Lakshadweep is recommended for improved ecosystem services and enhanced livelihood opportunities.

 

 

Conclusion

 

The coral transplantation on artificial substrates in the shallow lagoon off the Lakshadweep archipelago has shown promising results in establishing a coral nursery, promoting coral growth and providing a habitat for marine life. The establishment of a coral nursery has led to increased fish aggregation, contributing to enhanced biodiversity and ecosystem resilience. These findings highlight the potential of this restoration technique as a valuable tool in reef conservation efforts for vulnerable ecosystems such as those found in the Lakshadweep archipelago. However, the use of artificial substrates instead of transplanting corals directly onto degraded reefs may present certain limitations, such as differences in the ecological interactions between the artificial and natural environments, potential changes in the structural complexity, and the long-term stability and durability of the artificial substrates. Additionally, the artificial substrates may not fully replicate the conditions necessary for the growth and survival of certain coral species. Continued monitoring and research are essential to assess the long-term effectiveness and sustainability of this approach.

 

 

Table 1. Size (Mean ± SD) of transplanted acroporid corals in Kavaratti lagoon, Lakshadweep archipelago, after two years (January 2016 until January 2018).

Coral species

Number of fragments (N)

Initial size (cm)

Size after two years (cm)

Growth rate

(cm/2years)

Acropora austera

15

7.64 ± 1.2

24.7 ± 0.9

17.08 ± 1.04

Acropora digitifera

15

7.3 ± 0.9

23.9 ± 0.8

 16.6 ± 1.3

Acropora gemmifera

10

7.7 ± 2.9

25.2 ± 2.8

 17.5 ± 2.8

Acropora hyacinthus

14

9 ± 1.5

30.6 ± 1.6

 21.7 ± 1.5

Acropora muricata

25

8.2 ± 2.6

39.3 ± 2.7

 31.1 ± 0.45

Acropora tenuis

11

6.53 ± 0.7

22.6 ± 0.5

 16.22 ± 0.6

Isopora palifera

10

9.4 ± 2.5

25.3 ± 3

 15.9 ± 3.4

 

 

Table 2. Volume (Mean ± SD) of transplanted non-acroporid corals in Kavaratti Lagoon, Lakshadweep archipelago, after two years (January 2016 until January 2018).

Coral species

Number of fragments (N)

Initial volume (cm3)

Volume after 2 years (cm3)

Growth rate

(cm3/2years)

Echinopora lamellosa

8

18.6 ± 8.9

113.7 ± 50.5

95.1 ± 21.3

Gardineroseris planulata

8

8.8 ± 1.2

42.5 ± 29.3

33.7 ± 11.5

Hydnophora microconos

8

29.5 ± 8.6

62.9 ± 27.7

33.4 ± 15.7

Lobophyllia hemprichii

10

33.6 ± 19.8

68.8 ± 29.1

35.2 ± 9.5

Platygyra daedalea

12

24.1 ± 9.9

61.99 ± 31.2

37.89 ± 14.9

Pocillopora damicornis

12

20.04 ± 11.5

502.008 ± 115.9

481.9 ± 68.4

Pocillopora grandis

12

29.2 ± 13.8

302.321 ± 53.36

273.12 ± 36.1

Porites lobata

10

15.7 ± 11.9

49.2 ± 36.2

33.5 ± 23.5

 

 

Table 3. List of fish species observed at the coral transplantation site in Kavaratti Lagoon, Lakshadweep archipelago, and their numbers.

Family

Species

Number of

 fishes

Acanthuridae

Acanthurus triostegus

5

 

Ctenochaetus striatus

20

Balistidae

Rhinecanthus aculeatus

2

Chaetodontidae

Chaetodon trifascialis

4

 

Chaetodon auriga

2

 

Chaetodon trifasciatus

10

 

Chaetodon falcula

2

Holocentridae

Sargocentron diadema

3

 

Neoniphon sammara

6

Labridae 

Thalassoma lunare

2

 

Halichoeres scapularis

5

 

Gomphosus varius

2

 

Labroides dimidiatus

2

Monacanthidae

Oxymonacanthus longirostris

3

Pomacentridae

Chromis viridis

415

 

Dascyllus aruanus

30

 

Chrysiptera unimaculata

5

 

Centropyge multispinis

2

Scorpaenidae

Pterois volitans

4

Serranidae

Epinephelus hexagonatus

2

Zanclidae

Zanclus cornutus

2

 

 

For images & figures – click here for full PDF

 

 

References

 

Abelson, A., U. Obolski, P. Regoniel & L. Hadany (2016). Restocking herbivorous fish populations as a social-ecological restoration tool in coral reefs. Frontiers in Marine Science 3: 138. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2016.00138

Allen, G.R. & R. Steene (2007). Indo-Pacific Coral Reef Field Guide. Tropical Reef Research. Ecology Progress Series 15: 265–274

Ammar, M.S.A., F.A.H.M.Y. El-Gammal, M. Nassar, A. Belal, W. Farag, G. El-Mesiry & A. Shaaban (2013). Current trends in coral transplantation an approach to preserve biodiversity. Biodiversitas Journal of Biological Diversity 14(1): 43–53. https://doi.org/ 10.13057/biodiv/d140107

Bellwood, D.R., T.P. Hughes, C. Folke & M. Nystrom (2004). Confronting the coral reef crisis. Nature 429: 827–833. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02691

Boström-Einarsson, L., R.C. Babcock, E. Bayraktarov, D. Ceccarelli, N. Cook, S.C. Ferse & I.M. McLeod (2020). Coral restoration– a systematic review of current methods, successes, failures and future directions. PloS ONE 15(1): e0226631. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0226631

Bowden-Kerby, A. (2003). Coral transplantation and restocking to accelerate the recovery of coral reef habitats and fisheries resources within no-take marine protected areas: hands-on approaches to support community-based coral reef management 1–15.

Brock, V.E. (1954). A preliminary report on a method of estimating reef fish populations. Journal of Wildlife Management 18: 297–308.

Bruckner, A.W. (2002). Proceedings of the Caribbean Acropora workshop: potential application of the United States Endangered Species Act as a Conservation Strategy. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Technical Memorandum National Marine Fisheries Service – Office of Protected Resources - 24 Silver Spring, MD 184 pp.

Burke, L., K. Reytar, M. Spalding & A. Perry (2011). Reefs at Risk Revisited. World Resources Institute, Washington DC, 72 pp.

Clark, S. & A.J. Edwards (1995). Coral transplantation as an aid to reef rehabilitation: evaluation of a case study in the Maldive Islands. Coral Reefs 14: 201–213. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00334342

Connell, J.H. (1978). Diversity in tropical rain forests and coral reefs. Science 199(4335): 1302–1310. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.199.4335.1302

Cruz dela, D.W & P.L. Harrison (2017). Enhanced larval supply and recruitment can replenish reef corals on degraded reefs. Scientific Reports. Springer 7: 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-016-0028-x

Davidson, J., A. Thompson, M. Logan & B. Schaffelke (2019). High spatio-temporal variability in Acroporidae settlement to inshore reefs of the Great Barrier Reef. PLoS ONE 14(1): e0209771.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0209771

Eddy, T.D., V.W. Lam, G. Reygondeau, A.M. Cisneros-Montemayor, K. Greer, M.L.D. Palomares, J.F. Bruno, Y. Ota & W.W. Cheung (2021). Global decline in capacity of coral reefs to provide ecosystem services. One Earth 4(9): 1278–1285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2021.08.016

Edwards, A.J. & S. Clark (1999). Coral transplantation: a useful management tool or misguided meddling?. Marine Pollution Bulletin 37(8–12): 474–487. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0025-326X(99)00145-9

Edwards, A.J. & E.D. Gomez (2007). Reef restoration concepts and guidelines: making sensible management choices in the face of uncertainty, pp. 10–24. In: Coral Reef Targeted Research and Capacity Building for Management Program. St. Lucia, Queensland, Australia, 38 pp.

Edwards, A.J. (2010). Reef Rehabilitation Manual. The Coral Reef Targeted Research and capacity building for management program, Queensland, Australia, 166 pp.

Ferse, S.C. (2010). Poor performance of corals transplanted onto substrates of short durability. Restoration Ecology 18(4): 399–407. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-100X.2010.00682.x

Ferrier-Pages, C., J.P. Gattuso & J. Jaubert (1999). Effect of small variations in salinity on the rates of photosynthesis and respiration of the zooxanthellate coral Stylophora pistillata. Marine Ecology Progress Series 181: 309–314. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps181309

Fricke, R., W.N. Eschmeyer & R. van der Laan (eds.) (2023). Eschmeyer’s Catalogue of Fishes. 15.02.2023 http://researcharchive.calacademy.org/research/ichthyology/catalog/fishcatmain.asp 

Garrison, V.H. & G. Ward (2012). Transplantation of storm-generated coral fragments to enhance Caribbean coral reefs: a successful method but not a solution. Revista de Biología Tropical 60(S1):  59–70. https://doi.org/10.15517/rbt.v60i0.19845

Goren, R. (1992). Benthic communities on artificial substrata at Eilat (Red Sea). M.Sc. Thesis. Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv (in Hebrew, English summary).

Halpern, B.S., M. Frazier, J. Afflerbach, J.S. Lowndes, F. Micheli & C. O’Hara (2019). Recent pace of change in human impact on the world’s ocean. Science Reporter 9(1): 11609. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-47201-9

Harriott, V.J. (1999). Coral growth in subtropical eastern Australia. Coral Reefs 18: 281–291. https://doi.org/10.1007/s003380050195

Hein, M.Y., I.M. McLeod, E.C. Shaver, T. Vardi, S. Pioch, Boström-Einarsson, M. Ahmed & G. Grimsditch (2020). Coral Reef Restoration as a strategy to improve ecosystem services: a guide to coral restoration methods. Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Environment Programme, 72 pp. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2021.618303

Hoegh-Guldberg, O. (1999). Climate change, coral bleaching and the future of the world’s coral reefs. Marine and Freshwater Research 50: 839–866. https://doi.org/10.1071/MF99078

Howlett, L., E.F. Camp, J. Edmondson, N. Henderson & D.J. Suggett (2021). Coral growth, survivorship and return-on-effort within nurseries at high-value sites on the Great Barrier Reef. PloS ONE 16(1): e0244961. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0244961

Idreesbabu, K.K., C.A. Riyas, M.K.R. Beegum, B. Meena, M.P.I. Nasarulla & T.M. Sharafudheen (2017). Annual Report. Intensification and Developing Reef Restoration Technology. Department of Science & Technology, Administration of Union Territory of Lakshadweep, 66 pp.

IPBES, W. (2019). Intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Summary for Policy Makers of the Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. IPBES Secretariat, Bonn, Germany.

Issifu, I., J.J. Alava, V.W. Lam & U.R. Sumaila (2021). Impact of ocean warming, overfishing and mercury on European fisheries: a risk assessment and policy solution framework. Frontiers in Marine Science 8: 770805. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2021.770805

Kaladharan, P. & A. Anasukoya (2020). Plastic pollution in the islands of Laccadive archipelago and its possible impact on the atoll ecosystem. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of India 62(1): 119–122. https://doi.org/10.6024/jmbai.2020.62.1.2159-0x

Kelley, R. (2009). Coral Finder: Indo-Pacific Underwater Identification Guide. BYOGUIDES, Townsville, Australia, 30 pp.

Kuiter, R.H. (2014). Fishes of the Maldives: Indian Ocean, Cairns, Atoll Editions, Australia, 296 pp.

Kuiter, R.H. & T. Tonozuka (2001). Pictorial Guide to Indonesian Reef Fishes. Zoonetics, Seaford, Australia.

Kumar, J.S.Y., C. Satyanarayana, K. Venkataraman & K. Chandra (2017). Studies on survival and growth rate of transplanted Acroporidae in Gulf of Kachchh Marine National Park, India. Journal of Coastal Conservation 21(1): 23–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11852-016-0465-5

Lizcano-Sandoval, L.D., E. Londono-Cruz & F.A. Zapata (2018). Growth and survival of Pocillopora damicornis (Scleractinia: Pocilloporidae) coral fragments and their potential for coral reef restoration in the tropical eastern Pacific. Marine Biology Research 14(8): 887–897. https://doi.org/10.1080/17451000.2018.1528011

Mahmoud, A.M., A.D. Mahmoud, N.M. Hussein, M. El-Metwally, M.M. Maaty, Omar, M.Y. Seraj & T. Mohammed (2019). Survivorship and growth rates for some transplanted coral reef building species and their potential for coral reef rehabilitation in the Red Sea. Egyptian Journal of Aquatic Biology and Fisheries 23(2): 183–193. https://doi.org/10.21608/EJABF.2019.30291

Moberg, F. & C. Folke (1999). Ecological goods and services of coral reef ecosystems. Ecological Economics 29(2): 215–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(99)00009-9

Mohamed, T.A.A. & A.M. Mohamed (2005). Some ecological factors affecting coral reef assemblages off Hurghada, Red Sea, Egypt. Egyptian Journal of Aquatic Research 31: 133–145

Obura, D., M. Gudka, M. Samoilys, K. Osuka, J. Mbugua, D.A. Keith, S. Porter, R. Roche, R. van Hooidonk, S. Ahamada, A. Araman, J. Karisa, J. Komakoma, M. Madi, I. Ravinia, H. Razafindrainibe, S. Yahya & F. Zivane (2022). Vulnerability to collapse of coral reef ecosystems in the western Indian Ocean. Nature Sustainability 5(2): 104–113. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00817-0

Odum, H.T. & E.P. Odum (1955). Trophic structure and productivity of a windward coral reef community on Eniwetok Atoll. Ecological Monographs 25(3): 291–320. https://doi.org/10.2307/1943285

Oliver, J.K., B.E. Chalker & W.C. Dunlap (1983). Bathymetric adaptations of reef building corals at Davies Reef, Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Long–term growth-responses of Acropora formosa (Dana, 1846). Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 73: 11–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0981(83)90003-5

Omori, M. (2019). Coral restoration research and technical developments: what we have learned so far. Marine Biology Research 15(7): 377–409. https://doi.org/10.1080/17451000.2019.1662050

Putchim, L., N. Thongtham, A. Hewett & H. Chansang (2008). Survival and growth of Acropora sp. in mid-water nursery and after transplantation at Phi Phi Islands, Andaman Sea, Thailand. Proceeding of the 11th International Coral Reef Symposium, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, 7–11 July 2008 Session No. 24. 1258–1261.

Ramesh, C.H., S. Koushik, T. Shunmugaraj & M.V.R. Murthy (2019). Factors Affecting Coral Reefs in Mandapam Group of Islands in Gulf of Mannar, India. Journal of Wildlife Research 7(02): 16–22.

Ramesh, C.H., S. Koushik, T. Shunmugaraj & M.V.R. Murthy (2020). Seasonal studies on in situ coral transplantation in the Gulf of Mannar Marine Biosphere Reserve, southeast coast of Tamil Nadu, India. Ecological Engineering 152–105884. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2020.105884

Rilov, G. & Y. Benayahu (2000). Fish assemblage on natural versus vertical artificial reefs: the rehabilitation perspective. Marine Biology 136(5): 931–942. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002279900250

Rinkevich, B. (2005). Conservation of coral reefs through active restoration measures: recent approaches and last decade progress. Environmental Science & Technology 39(12): 4333–4342. https://doi.org/10.1021/es0482583

Rinkevich, B. (2014). Rebuilding coral reefs: does active reef restoration lead to sustainable reefs? Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 7: 28–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2013.11.018

Riyas, C.A., K.K. Idreesbabu, N. Marimuthu & S. Sureshkumar (2019). Impact of the Tropical Cyclone Ockhi on ecological and geomorphological structures of the small low-lying Islands in the central Indian Ocean. Regional Studies in Marine Science 33: 100963. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rsma.2019.100963

Roth, F., F. Saalmann, T. Thomson, D.J. Coker, R. Villalobos, B.H. Jones, C. Wild & S. Carvalho (2018). Coral reef degradation affects the potential for reef recovery after disturbance. Marine Environmental Research (142): 48–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2018.09.022

Sam, S.Q., C.S.L. Ng, Y.P. Kikuzawa, T.C. Toh, W.T. Sim & L.M. Chou (2021). Influence of fragment size on post transplantation growth and survival of domed scleractinian corals. Marine Biology Research 17(4): 327–340. https://doi.org/10.1080/17451000.2021.1957934

Schartup, A., C. Thackray, A. Qureshi, C. Dassuncao, K. Gillespie & A. Hanke (2019). Climate change and overfishing increase neurotoxicant in marine predators. Nature 572: 648–650. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1468-9

Shafir, S., A. Edwards, B. Rinkevich, L. Bongiorni, G. Levy & L. Shaish (2010). Constructing and managing nurseries for asexual rearing of corals, pp. 49–71. In: Edwards, A. (Ed.). Reef Rehabilitation manual. Coral reef targeted research & capacity building for management program. St. Lucia, Australia.

Shenoi, S.S.C., D. Shankar & S.R. Shetye (1999). On the sea surface temperature high in the Lakshadweep Sea before the onset of the southwest monsoon. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 104(C7): 15703–15712. https://doi.org/10.1029/1998JC900080

Suggett, D.J. & M.J. van Oppen (2022). Horizon scan of rapidly advancing coral restoration approaches for 21st century reef management. Emerging Topics in Life Sciences 6(1): 125–136. https://doi.org/10.1042/ETLS20210240

Ulfah, I., S. Yusuf, R.A. Rappe, A. Bahar, A. Haris, J. Tresnati & A. Tuwo (2020). Coral conditions and reef fish presence in the coral transplantation area on Kapoposang Island, Pangkep Regency, South Sulawesi. In: IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science  473(1): 012058. IOP Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/473/1/012058

Wilkinson, C.R. (1998). Status of Coral Reefs of the World. Australian Institute of Marine Sciences, Cape Ferguson, Queensland, western Australia, 184 pp.

Yap, H.T., R.M. Alvarez, H.M. Custodio III & R.M. Dizon (1998). Physiological and ecological aspects of coral transplantation. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 229(1): 69–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-0981(98)00041-0

Young, C.N., S.A. Schopmeyer & D. Lirman (2012). A Review of reef restoration and coral propagation using the threatened genus Acropora in the Caribbean and western Atlantic. Bulletin of Marine Science 88: 1075–1098. https://doi.org/10. 5343/bms.2011.1143

Yucharoen, M., S. Thammachote, A. Jaroenpon, S. Lamka & N.Thongtham (2013). Coral transplantation in turbid waters at Rad Island, Phuket, Thailand. Galaxea Journal of Coral Reef Studies 15(Supplement): 343–350. https://doi.org/10.3755/galaxea.15.343