ArticlePDF Available

Underwater cards for assessing coral health on Indo-Pacific reefs. Coral reef targeted research and capacity building for management program: Currie Communications

Authors:
Underwater Cards for Assessing Coral Health on
Indo-Pacific Reefs
spine
Underwater Cards for
Assessing Coral Health on Indo-Pacific Reefs
Roger Beeden1,2, Bette L. Willis1, Laurie J. Raymundo3, Cathie A. Page1, Ernesto Weil4.
Coral Disease
Coral reefs are under increasing stress globally from a number of
causes, including climate warming, poor water quality and over-fishing.
Disease outbreaks not only result in coral loss, but they also cause
significant changes in community structure, species diversity and reef-
associated organisms.
Coral diseases potentially impact both well-managed and unmanaged
reefs. However, strategies for dealing with disease outbreaks are
currently non-existent. The increasing frequency with which diseases
influence and alter reef communities means they must be considered
and incorporated into management plans.
The CRTR Disease Working Group
The CRTR Disease Working Group has been funded by the Coral Reef
Targeted Research & Capacity Building for Management Program
(CRTR) to advance understanding of coral disease in a number of
key areas.
In particular, the CRTR Disease Working Group’s research is providing
a greater understanding of the ways in which coral diseases can alter
reef function and the conditions under which outbreaks may occur.
Documenting abundance and prevalence of disease and monitoring
changes in disease through time are key steps in understanding how
factors like ocean warming and deteriorating water quality may affect
disease dynamics.
To assist with our objectives, the CRTR Disease Working Group has
produced these Underwater Cards for Assessing Coral Health on
Indo-Pacific Reefs so that recreational, professional and scientific divers can
all assist with gathering information on the occurrence of coral diseases.
By using these cards, you can:
Learn to identify Indo-Pacific coral diseases and survey techniques
for measuring coral disease prevalence;
Gather information on the distribution and abundance of coral
diseases on local reefs;
Monitor the health of local coral reefs and identify potential drivers
of disease abundance;
Contribute to a world-wide data base on coral disease;
Help to conserve the world’s coral reefs.
How to use these cards
These cards start with a decision tree for assessing the health status
of Indo-Pacific corals. The decision tree is colour coded to assist with
navigation through the cards. After reviewing all disease descriptions
and images to gain an overview of the range of signs of disease and
compromised health, the following steps will enable you to assess
the health status of a coral. Note that a variety of factors other than
disease (e.g. predation, grazing) cause lesions.
1. Decide if a coral shows signs of tissue loss (red section), tissue
discolouration (blue section), anomalous growth (green section)
or some other sign of compromised health (yellow section).
2. At each level in the key for the coloured section selected,
decide which category best describes the signs observed.
3. Go to the appropriate coloured section in this card set to
check disease images and descriptions.
4. Record your observations on the data sheet provided at
the end of this card set.
1 ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies and School of Marine and Tropical Biology, James Cook University, Townsville, Qld, 4811, Australia. 2 Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority,
Townsville, Qld, 4810, Australia. 3 University of Guam, Guam. 4 Department of Marine Sciences, University of Puerto Rico, Puerto Rico.
The CRTR Program is a partnership between the Global Environment
Facility, the World Bank, The University of Queensland (Australia),
the United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) and approximately 50 research institutes and other third-parties
around the world.
CRTR Program Project Executing Agency, Centre for Marine Studies, Gerhmann Building, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Qld 4072, Australia
Telephone: +61 7 3346 9942 Facsimile: +61 7 3346 9987 Email: info@gefcoral.org Internet: www.gefcoral.org
How to use these cards
Indo-Pacific Coral Health – Decision Tree
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Tissue Loss – Predation
1a. Predation (PRD) – e.g. fish, snail, starfish feeding scars
Tissue Loss – Non-Predation – Coloured Band Diseases
2a. Skeletal Eroding Band (SEB)
2b. Black Band Disease (BBD)
2c. Brown Band Disease (BrB)
Tissue Loss – Non-Predation – No overlying band of coloured material
3a. Ulcerative White Spots (UWS) – focal tissue loss
3b. White Syndromes (WS) – irregular tissue loss
3c. Atramentous Necrosis (AtN) – grey-black material overlies irregular area of tissue loss
Tissue Discolouration – White
4a. Bleaching (BL) – environmentally induced partial or whole colony bleaching
4b. Focal Bleaching (FBL) – early stage of UWS or unexplained spots
4c. Non Focal Bleaching (NFBL) – unusual bleaching patterns, e.g. patches, stripes
Tissue Discolouration – Non White
5a. Pigmentation Response (PR) – coral response to a challenge (not a disease)
5b. Trematodiasis (TR)
Growth Anomalies
6a. Explained Growth Anomalies
6b. Unexplained Growth Anomalies
Compromised Health
7a. Pigmentation Response (see 5a. above)
7b. Unusual Bleaching Patterns (see 4c. above)
7c. Competition – Aggressive Overgrowth – e.g. cyanobacteria,
Terpios and Cliona sponges, red filamentous algae
7d. Sediment Damage
7e. Flatworm Infestation
Diseases in Other Reef Organisms
8a. Examples for Crustose Coralline Algae & Gorgonians
Indo-Pacific – Decision Tree
spine
1a. Predation
Crown-Of-Thorns Starfish (COTS)
(Acanthaster planci)
Adult COTS are up to 80cm in diameter,
covered in numerous sharp 4-5cm spines
and have up to 21 arms;
Australia: COTS are typically grey with
tinges of red on their spines and body;
Asia Pacific: COTS may be more brightly
coloured – bright blue or purple varieties;
COTS feed directly on living coral tissue;
Feeding usually starts from the colony edge
on plates or colony base on branches;
Feeding causes rapid tissue loss, exposing
large patches of white skeleton.
Key ID characteristics:
Feeding scar often has a scalloped
border on plate corals;
Border may show visible strings
of tissue and mucus;
Starfish usually seen in area
(check under nearby colonies);
Feeding scars on neighbouring colonies.
Commonly confused with:
White syndromes, which typically advance
more slowly, so white areas smaller;
Bleached areas, which still have
tissue present;
Drupella scars, which expose smaller
areas of white skeleton.
Tissue Loss – Predation
1
1a. Predation
Drupella (Drupella cornus)
Drupella cornus snails may vary in colour
from pink 1 to dark red 2 when they are
covered with encrusting coralline algae;
Feeds at night from base of branches
or edge of colony;
Tissue loss typically slower than for
COTS (Acanthaster planci) predation;
Tissue loss from base upward, exposing
small patches of white skeleton when
snail densities are low;
Typically prefers Acropora species.
Key ID characteristics:
Feeding scar often has irregular border –
shredded strings of tissue may be visible;
Drupella snails usually shelter under
colony or near base during day;
Drupella snails are often found on
neighbouring colonies if not immediately
visible beside the feeding scars.
Commonly confused with:
COTS scars, which are larger areas of
white skeleton;
Bleached areas, which still have tissue
present;
White syndromes, which tend to have
more regular fronts.
2
2
1
1
1
Tissue Loss – Predation
1
spine
1a. Predation
Coralliophila (Coralliophila sp.)
Coralliophila sp. snails typically have
a violet or purple aperature;
Snails are typically sedentary and are
firmly attached to the coral;
Coralliophila sp. cause little coral
tissue loss, but may drain energy
resources required to heal the wound
over extended periods of time;
Feeding wounds may be a potential
entry point for disease causing
organisms.
Key ID characteristics:
A characteristic small ovoid feeding
wound is typically present if the snail
is removed from the coral; 1
Typically found feeding on Porites,
particularly branching species.
Commonly confused with:
Drupella snails, which move as they feed
exposing areas of white skeleton.
1
1
1
1
Tissue Loss – Predation
1a. Predation/Grazing
Fish Bites
Distinctive, regular scars: gouges, scrapes
“bite” marks that may involve damage to
coral skeleton;
Scars typically white if relatively fresh;
Scars may become colonised by algae.
Key ID characteristics:
Parrotfish scars
Large scrapes sometimes focused along
colony ridges or growth anomaly tissue; 1
Common on massive Porites.
Trigger/Pufferfish scars
Small regular, paired rectangular
bite marks; 2
Less damaging to coral than parrot
fish bites.
Damselfish scars
Irregular patches of tissue loss colonized
by algae farmed by damselfish; 3
Common on branching Acropora species.
Butterflyfish scars
Butterflyfish use their narrow elongated
mouth to selectively remove coral polyps;
Feeding scars may not be clearly evident;
Butterflyfish may transfer diseases to
the coral.
Commonly confused with:
Usually easy to identify.
1
2
3
1
Tissue Loss – Predation
spine
Coloured Band Diseases
Skeletal Eroding
Band (SEB)
Colony Polyp
Branch Microscope
Black Band
(BBD)
Brown Band
(BrB)
Tissue Loss – Non-Predation
2
Coloured Band Diseases
2a. Skeletal Eroding Band (SEB)
Diffuse, speckled black or dark green
band at tissue-skeleton interface;
Exposed skeleton behind tissue front
speckled by empty “housings” of the
boring ciliate, Halofolliculina corallasia;
Exposed skeleton eroded in appearance;
Diffuse, scattered patches of ciliates on
bare skeleton without band formation
may indicate secondary infection.
Key ID characteristics:
Black “specks” often clustered
within corallites; 1
Sessile ciliates within “housings”
comprise band;
Microscopically, two “antenna-like”
pericytostomial wings visible; 2
Empty, black “housings” left behind
as the disease front advances, creating
speckling; 3
Relatively slow rate of progression
(~0-6mm/day);
Common throughout the Indo-Pacific,
affecting a wide range of coral families.
Commonly confused with:
Black Band Disease, which does
not have speckled appearance.
1
32
Tissue Loss – Non-Predation
2
spine
Coloured Band Diseases
2b. Black Band Disease (BBD)
Discrete, dark band at interface between
live tissue and exposed skeleton, at times
directly overtopping live tissue; 1
Band colour can vary from black
to reddish-brown;
Exposed skeleton is white (no speckling)
behind band;
Skeleton distant to tissue front becomes
progressively brown as colonized by
fouling community.
Commonly confused with:
Skeletal Eroding Band (SEB), which is
differentiated by speckled appearance
of exposed skeleton; 2
Dark bands between competing corals. 3
Key ID characteristics:
Microscopically, thread-like cyanobacteria
and bacteria comprise black band;
Moderate rate of progression (~4-8mm/day
on staghorns; ~1-4mm/day on plates);
Common throughout the Indo-Pacific,
affecting a wide range of coral families.
BBD
SEB
3
1
1
2
Tissue Loss – Non-Predation
2
Coloured Band Diseases
2c. Brown Band Disease (BrB)
Discrete brown band at interface between
live tissue and extensive areas of exposed,
white skeleton;
Bands composed of ciliates and vary from
light to dark brown with ciliate density;
Narrow white band may be present
between live coral tissue and brown band;
Skeleton distant to tissue front becomes
progressively brown as it is colonized by
the fouling community; indicates
progressive tissue loss.
Key ID characteristics:
Mobile ciliates (Class: Oligohymenophora;
subclass: Scuticociliatia) visible under a
microscope and may contain engulfed
zooxanthellae giving brown appearance;
Rapid rate of progression (20-100mm/day
recorded);
Affects a wide range of families throughout
the Indo-Pacific, but commonly affects
staghorn and plating species of Acropora.
Commonly confused with:
White syndromes (WS) when ciliate
densities are low. Check for brown tinges
macroscopically or ciliates microscopically.
Tissue Loss – Non-Predation
2
spine
No Distinct Band
(of overlying material)
Focal Tissue Loss
3a. Ulcerative White Spots (UWS)
Multifocal patterns of tissue loss that
expose spots of bare white skeleton;
Lesions typically small (<1cm diameter),
regularly ovoid and may start as bleached
spots; a coral may contain both bleached
lesions and lesions devoid of tissue;
Lesions may coalesce to create larger
patches of tissue loss.
Key ID characteristics:
No signs of associated micro-organisms
at live tissue-bare skeleton interface;
Commonly affects Porites, but also
Montipora, Echinopora, favids and
Heliopora.
Commonly confused with:
Focal bleaching, which is distinguished
by the presence of tissue in white areas.
Irregular Tissue Loss
3b. White Syndromes (WS)
Diffuse patterns of tissue loss that expose
bands or patches of bare white skeleton
abutting live tissue.
Tissue Loss – Non-Predation
3
No Distinct Band
White Syndromes (WS) cont...
Potentially caused by a range of pathogens
and/or environmental stressors;
May be visible colour gradient from
bare white skeleton to brown as fouling
community develops – indicates
progressive tissue loss;
Margins of lesions may be linear,
irregular or annular (ring-like).
Key ID characteristics:
No signs of associated micro-organisms
at live tissue-bare skeleton interface;
Apopotosis (programmed cell death)
may be involved;
Tissue loss may progress rapidly
(20mm/day);
Tissue bordering WS lesion may
be coloured by coral pigmentation
response; 1
Commonly affects plate species of
Acropora and a range of other genera.
Commonly confused with:
Brown band (BrB), particularly
when ciliate densities are low.
Look for brown tinges;
Bleaching, which is distinguished
by the presence of tissue;
Atramentous necrosis, which
develops distinctive grey film;
Ulcerative White Spots, on
massive Porites, which are
small, multi-focal lesions.
1
Tissue Loss – Non-Predation
3
spine
No Distinct Band
Irregular Tissue Loss
(with overlying material)
3c. Atramentous Necrosis
(AtN) (Black Death)
Multifocal patterns of tissue loss that
expose spots or patches of bare white
skeleton subsequently colonized by
a distinctive dark fouling community;
Lesions typically start as small (<1cm
diameter) bleached spots, which may
coalesce to create larger patches of
tissue loss; 1
In the final stages, lesions may develop
a white film overlying black deposits
giving them a grayish appearance.
Key ID characteristics:
Black sulphurous-smelling deposit
accumulates under white film of bacterial
filaments giving lesions a greyish-black
appearance;
Commonly affects Montipora but also
recorded on Acropora, Echinopora,
Fungia, Merulina and Turbinaria.
Early stages commonly confused with:
Multifocal bleaching, which is distinguished
by the presence of tissue;
Ulcerative white spots, which do not result
in characteristic grey-black lesions;
White syndromes, which do not result
in characteristic grey-black lesions.
Day 1 Day 20
1
Tissue Loss – Non-Predation
3
spine
4a. Bleaching
(environmentally induced)
Partial/Whole Colony
Colony to reef-wide loss of symbiotic
algae (zooxanthallae);
Associated with environmental stress
(e.g. thermal, light, salinity).
4b. Focal Bleaching
Spots
Multifocal patterns of bleaching
scattered over colony;
Borders between bleached patches
and healthy tissue are often discrete;
May be the first stage of Ulcerative
White Spot or Atramentous necrosis;
Commonly recorded on Porites,
Montipora and Acropora.
Key ID characteristics:
Coral is alive, hence polyps visible;
Skeleton is not eroded nor colonized
by algae because tissue is present.
Commonly confused with:
Ulcerative White Spot, which is
distinguished by the absence
of tissue;
Atramentous necrosis (Black Death),
which is distinguished in final stages
by characteristic grey-black lesion.
Tissue Discolouration – White-Bleaching
4
spine
4c. Non Focal Bleaching
(unusual bleaching patterns)
Patches
Unusual, diffuse patterns of bleaching that
do not appear to be a specific response
to thermal or other environmental stress;
Borders between bleached patches and
typically coloured tissue are often discrete;
Recorded on massive species of Porites.
Stripes
Unusual, diffuse patterns of bleaching that
do not appear to be a specific response to
thermal or other environmental stress;
Borders between bleached stripes and
tissue with typical colouration are often
discrete;
Recorded on Pachyseris.
Key ID characteristics:
Coral is alive, hence polyps will be visible;
Skeleton is not eroded nor colonized by
algae because tissue is present.
Commonly confused with:
White syndromes, which are distinguished
by the absence of tissue in white areas.
Tissue Discolouration – White-Bleaching
4
Tissue Discolouration
Non-White
5a. Pigmentation Response
Coral tissue bordering lesion is brightly
coloured, typically:
pink or purple in Porites sp.; 1
blue in Acropora sp.; 2
Lesion may be swollen or thickened;
Pigmentation may form lines, bumps,
spots, patches or irregular shapes
depending on cause of lesion;
Lesion may be caused by borers,
competitors, algal abrasion, fish
bites, breakages, etc.
Key ID characteristics:
Pigmentation appears to be a type
of “inflammation” response mounted
by coral;
Pigmented tissues typically associated
with a healing response rather than
progressive tissue loss;
Suggests coral health is compromised,
but is not itself a sign of disease.
1
2
Tissue Discolouration – Non-White
5
spine
Tissue Discolouration
Pigmentation Response cont...
Commonly confused with:
Trematodiasis, which is distiguished
by encysted trematodes.
5b. Trematodiasis
Multifocal, distinct pink to white small
(1-2mm) areas of tissue swelling;
Swelling of one or a few polyps in response
to encysted parasitic trematode; 1
Trematode cysts are often clustered;
Life cycle – Trematode cysts are eaten by
butterflyfish then excreted and eaten by
a gastropod which then infects the coral;
Only recorded on Porites to date.
Key ID characteristics:
Heavy infestations result in reduced growth
and reproduction of the coral host.
Commonly confused with:
Pigmentation response, but distinguished
by distinct small nodules of tissue swelling
and presence of trematode cyst when
examined microscopically.
1
Tissue Discolouration – Non-White
5
6a. Explained
Growth Anomalies
Invertebrate Galls
Focal to multifocal skeletal deformations
associated with an invertebrate
e.g. crab, 1
barnacle; 2
Deformations are typically raised and
caused by skeletal depositions around
resident invertebrate in unusual patterns
that are characteristic for each invertebrate.
Key ID characteristics:
Invertebrate may be present inside
the gall or within the colony;
Galls have characteristic shapes
and features that are usually easy
to identify;
Crab galls are commonly observed
on Seriatopora and Stylophora.
Commonly confused with:
Other growth anomalies.
2
1
Growth Anomalies
6
spine
6b. Unexplained
Growth Anomalies
Enlarged Structures
Focal to multifocal, circular to irregularly
shaped lesions comprising abnormally
arranged, enlarged skeletal elements
(corallites, ridges, valleys);
Typically protudes above colony surface
and surface rugosity visibly differs from
healthy tissue;
Pigmentation may be normal or slightly
pale (suggesting reduced zooxanthellae
densities);
Tissue may die in irregular patches, and
bare skeleton may be colonized
by epibionts;
Includes gigantism and areas of
accelerated growth.
Irregular White Plaques
Focal to multifocal, circular to irregularly
shaped lesions comprising abnormally
arranged, often highly disorganized skeletal
elements (corallites, ridges, valleys);
Pigmentation may be normal, lighter
(reduced zooxanthellae) or completely
absent (loss of zooxanthellae);
Corallites smaller, fewer than in healthy
tissues, or absent, resulting in structure
resembling a white plaque;
Includes chaotic polyp development.
Growth Anomalies
6
7c. Competition
Aggressive Overgrowth
Live coral tissue overgrown by a
vartiety of organisms
Cyanobacteria
Mats or tufts of fine algal filaments
that attach to surface of coral and
smother tissue;
Algae (cyanobacteria) may vary widely
in colour – dark grey, reddish orange
and yellow;
Bubbles of photosynthesis/respiration
products may be present in the algal
mats. 1
Sponges
Terpios and Cliona sponges
progressively kill and overgrow
exposed coral skeleton;
A zone of white exposed skeleton
between sponge and coral may
be evident. 2
Red Filamentous Algae
Filaments embed in surface mucus
and accumulate sediment;
Tissue adjacent to filaments may bleach.
2
1
Compromised Health
7
spine
Multiple Compromised
Health Signs
Combination of algal filaments,
pigentation response, surface mucus
and accumulated sediment. 3
7d.Sediment Damage
Diffuse area of tissue loss associated with
fine sediment accumulating in hollows
on coral surface and on coral polyps
and tissue;
Common in turbid water.
Key ID characteristics:
Sediment deposition visible;
May be accompanied by mucus secretion
and pigmentation response.
Commonly confused with:
Usually easy to identify.
7e.Flatworm Infestation
Surface of coral covered by mobile,
ovoid, brown flatworms, notably in the
genus Waminoa;
Brown colouration due to endosymbiotic
dinoflagellates.
Key ID characteristics:
Microscopically the brown flatworms are
speckled white.
Commonly confused with:
Usually easy to identify.
3
3
Compromised Health
7
8a. Diseases Affecting
Other Reef Organisms
Crustose Coralline Algae
Coralline Lethal Orange Disease (CLOD)
Characteristic orange band.
Crustose Coralline
Algae (CCA)
Black Fungal Disease
Commonly confused with:
Usually easy to identify.
ISIS Gorgonians
Black necrosing syndrome
Black/grey necrotic tissue;
Tissue necrosis and loss;
Skeleton exposed as necrotic
tissue is lost.
Commonly confused with:
Usually easy to identify.
Diseases in Other Reef Organisms
8
spine
Underwater Cards –
Options for Recording & Reporting Observations of Coral Disease
Recording & Reporting
Qualitative observations of coral disease
At the simplest level, it is useful to photograph and / or record
details of corals that are diseased or show signs of compromised
health. The following data could be recorded:
Date & Recorder:
Site/Habitat/Depth:
Disease/compromised health sign:
Growth form/Genus/species of coral:
Photo name(s) & number(s):
Additional observations (e.g. #corals/species affected):
Quantifying observations of coral disease
Disease abundance: Recording the number of cases of disease
per unit area without recording all healthy corals gives a measure
of disease abundance. To quantify disease abundance:
1. Select an appropriate area (e.g. 20m x 2m belt transect);
2. Select appropriate replication (e.g. 3 belt transects per site);
3. Record all corals showing signs of disease or compromised
health on the data sheet at the end of this guide;
4. Calculate mean (± SE) number of disease cases per 40m2.
Disease prevalence: Recording the number of cases of disease and
the total number of healthy corals per unit area gives a measure of
disease prevalence. This is a better, but more time consuming way
of quantifying disease.
1. Select an appropriate area (e.g. 20m x 2m belt transect);
2. Select appropriate replication (e.g. 3 belt transects per site);
3. Record all corals showing signs of disease or compromised
health and all healthy corals on the following data sheets;
4. Calculate mean (± SE) percent of corals that are diseased
per 40m2.
Disease incidence: Tagging and monitoring the number of
diseased corals in a given area through time identifies the number of
new cases of disease per unit time and gives a measure of disease
incidence or spread throughout the population.
1. Select an appropriate area (e.g. 10m x 10m quadrat) ;
2. Select appropriate replication (e.g. 3 quadrats per site);
3. Tag all diseased colonies within quadrats;
4. Monitor quadrats regularly (e.g. monthly),
tagging all new cases of disease;
5. Calculate mean (± SE) # of new disease cases per unit time.
Disease progression: Tagging and photographing corals through
time enables rates of disease progression across corals to be
calculated.
1. Tag replicate diseased corals at study site;
2. Photograph each diseased coral with a scale bar
and at a standard angle;
3. Re-photograph tagged corals at regular intervals
(e.g. weekly or monthly) ;
4. Measure linear spread of disease front or progressive
area of tissue loss from images;
5. Calculate mean (± SE) rate of disease progression.
We are grateful to the following people for images reproduced in these Cards: David Abrego, Greta Aeby, Shelley Anthony, Roger Beeden, Doug Fenner,
Mike Flavell, Great Barrier Marine Park Authority, Mohammed Mohammed, Cathie Page, Laurie Raymundo, Maria Rodrigues, Kathryn Rosell, Emily Smart (Fantasea
Cruises), Yui Sato, David Stewart, Meir Sussman and Bette Willis. We thank Greta Aeby, Andy Bruckner, Drew Harvell and Thierry Work for invaluable discussions
during the genesis of these Cards. We thank the CRTR Program for its support and for funding this publication, and the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef
Studies for funding the majority of research underpinning these cards. Product code: CRTR 002/2008
© Coral Reef Targeted Research and Capacity Building for Management Program, 2008. Editorial design and production: Currie Communications, Melbourne, Australia, June 2008.
spine
Family Genus Colony Shape FISH DRU COR COTS SEB BBD BrB UWS WS AtN % Spots Patches Stripes
Acroporidae Acropora tabular (plates)
corymbose (pillows)
digitate (finger like)
bottlebrush
clumping
bushy
staghorn
Montipora encrusting
Pocilloporidae Pocillopora clumps – branches
Stylophora blunt branches
Seriatopora spiky branches
Poritidae Porites massive
branching
Alveopora (12 tentacles)
Goniopora (24 tentacles)
Faviidae Favia
Montastrea
Favites
Echinopora
Platygyra
Goniastrea
Cyphastrea
Diploastrea
(record other favids) 1
2
Other (record genus if known & describe)
Photo number(s)
(Take 3 photos: colony, branch & close up)
GPS coordinates: Depth (m) Ave: m Depth (m) Max: m Timed Swim/Dive: mins
Tissue Loss
Known Predator/ Grazer
Fish
Grazer Coralli-
ophila
Drupella COTS Coloured Band Diseases
Name:
Date:
Reef:
Non-Predation (i.e. Disease)
No Distinct Band
2. Bleaching
Whole/
partial
colony
Non-Focal
(unusual patterns)
Focal
Tissue Discolouration
Family Genus Colony Shape PR TR IG ES IWP CY SP RA SD RW Healthy Coral Unknown Scars
Acroporidae Acropora tabular (plates)
corymbose (pillows)
digitate (finger like)
bottlebrush
clumping
bushy
staghorn
Montipora encrusting
Pocilloporidae Pocillopora clumps – branches
Stylophora blunt branches
Seriatopora spiky branches
Poritidae Porites massive
branching
Alveopora (12 tentacles)
Goniopora (24 tentacles)
Faviidae Favia
Montastrea
Favites
Echinopora
Platygyra
Goniastrea
Cyphastrea
Diploastrea
(record other favids) 1
2
Other (record genus if known & describe)
Photo number(s)
(Take 3 photos: colony, branch & close up)
GPS coordinates: Water temp: ˚C
Non-White
Pigment
Response Tremat-
odiasis Invert
Galls Invert
Galls
Enlarged
structures Tremat-
odiasis
Name:
Date:
Reef:
Growth Anomalies
Overgrowth
Irreg.
white
plaques
Red.
Filament
Algee
Sediment
damage Flatworm
Infestation
Compromised Health
Exp Unexplained
Cyanob-
acteria Sponges
... Whereas the identification of a coral disease requires specialised training 65 , its manifestation or the effects of unspecified stress result in changes in the usual coloration or patterns which can be easily identified. This indicator may alert practitioners of the need to introduce adaptive measures e.g., to avoid diffusion of the disease through removal of infected fragments 31 or the removal of predators, thus ensuring a successful management of nurseries. ...
... The damages inflicted to corals by predators can be identified even in the absence of predators by looking at the scars ( 65 ) or by spotting the organism, although in some situations it might not be possible to determine the cause of the injury. sites, yet the disease is rapidly spreading. ...
... Since the first report of coral disease in the Maldives 20 five disease have been found in the region 158,159 . Key to effective management is an early detection of the disease; here we offer a tool edited from Beeden et al. 65 • Skeletal Eroding Band (SEB). Recognised by black specks clustered within corallites. ...
... Coral compromised health is an unhealthy condition of coral that was not infectious but will leave a wound on coral that potentially damage the host. (Beeden et al., 2008a) gave 5 categories of coral compromised health they were: pigmentation response, unusual bleaching patterns, competition and aggressive overgrowth by another benthic organism, sediment damage and flat infestation (Beeden et al., 2008a;Raymundo et al., 2008). The sediment from terrestrial suggested can bring bacteria that identified as the cause of necrosis on coral tissue (Nugues and Robert, 2003). ...
... Coral compromised health is an unhealthy condition of coral that was not infectious but will leave a wound on coral that potentially damage the host. (Beeden et al., 2008a) gave 5 categories of coral compromised health they were: pigmentation response, unusual bleaching patterns, competition and aggressive overgrowth by another benthic organism, sediment damage and flat infestation (Beeden et al., 2008a;Raymundo et al., 2008). The sediment from terrestrial suggested can bring bacteria that identified as the cause of necrosis on coral tissue (Nugues and Robert, 2003). ...
... The presence of sediments on surface coral colony will interfere with the coral metabolism due to coral polyps covered by sediment. The sediment damage caused by high sedimentation rates can also interfere with coral reproduction (Beeden et al., 2008a). One research on Acropora digitifera showed that high sedimentation on corals affects the success of coral fertilization and disrupts coral larvae attachment to the substrate (Gilmour, 1999). ...
... Coral compromised health is an unhealthy condition of coral that was not infectious but will leave a wound on coral that potentially damage the host. (Beeden et al., 2008a) gave 5 categories of coral compromised health they were: pigmentation response, unusual bleaching patterns, competition and aggressive overgrowth by another benthic organism, sediment damage and flat infestation (Beeden et al., 2008a;Raymundo et al., 2008). The sediment from terrestrial suggested can bring bacteria that identified as the cause of necrosis on coral tissue (Nugues and Robert, 2003). ...
... Coral compromised health is an unhealthy condition of coral that was not infectious but will leave a wound on coral that potentially damage the host. (Beeden et al., 2008a) gave 5 categories of coral compromised health they were: pigmentation response, unusual bleaching patterns, competition and aggressive overgrowth by another benthic organism, sediment damage and flat infestation (Beeden et al., 2008a;Raymundo et al., 2008). The sediment from terrestrial suggested can bring bacteria that identified as the cause of necrosis on coral tissue (Nugues and Robert, 2003). ...
... The presence of sediments on surface coral colony will interfere with the coral metabolism due to coral polyps covered by sediment. The sediment damage caused by high sedimentation rates can also interfere with coral reproduction (Beeden et al., 2008a). One research on Acropora digitifera showed that high sedimentation on corals affects the success of coral fertilization and disrupts coral larvae attachment to the substrate (Gilmour, 1999). ...
Article
Full-text available
An epizootic of scleractinian coral became high attention by the scientist in these 3 decades. The environment factor changing altered the number of microbes in coral and compromising their health. Prigi Bay has been located in southern Java and connecting with the Indian Ocean. Many compromising health factors that are causing diseased coral such as competition (red filamentous algae, cyanobacteria, sponge, and flatworm), sedimentation damage and raising sea temperature (bleaching). The survey was conducted in 3 stations using belt transect 100 x 1 m in 7 m depth. Coral health data was obtained by underwater photography. The result showed that high cover percentage of coral was be found in station 2 (48.16%), the highest coral compromised health relevancy was 75.69% in station 3 that caused by sediment damage. The Pearson Correlation value for NO 3 was 0.520, NO 2 was 0.630 and sedimentation was 0.343. These environmental factors have a strong correlation to the compromised health prevalence.
... The scleractinian corals were identified to genus level using Corals of the World (Veron 2000) and the World Register of Marine Species (WoRMS). All scleractinian corals were further categorized into diseased and compromised colonies, according to categories outlined in Beeden et al. (2008) and Raymundo et al. (2008) (Table 1). ...
... Disease prevalence was measured based on the proportion of each healthy, diseased, or compromised corals to the total measured population of coral colonies. It was quantified as: Table 1 The identification of coral diseases and signs of compromised health used in reef surveys adapted following Beeden et al. (2008) and Raymundo et al. (2008) Disease/compromised health sign Code Descriptions ...
Article
Full-text available
Coral disease outbreaks continue to reduce coral populations in the Caribbean and Indo-Paciic reefs. However, there is limited research on coral diseases in Malaysian reefs, despite being exposed to multiple natural and anthropogenic threats. The present study aims to determine coral health and disease prevalence using coral video transect method among three reef areas with varying levels of coastal development and tourism activity in Tioman Island Marine Park, Malaysia. A total of 16,884 coral colonies were observed, the majority of which was healthy (64.4% ± 3.1) compared to diseased (5.9% ± 1.0) and compromised (29.7% ± 3.1). Reef sites with the highest concentration of tourism exhibited a high prevalence of coral diseases and signs of compromised health. Among the six identiied coral diseases, yellow band disease/YBD (1.89% ± 0.9) had the highest prevalence, followed by ulcerative white spots/UWS (1.25% ± 0.2) and white syndrome/WS (0.82% ± 0.2). Meanwhile, algal and sponge overgrowth/AGO (11.39% ± 2.5), sediment necrosis/SN (7.55% ± 0.9), predation scars/PS (6.08% ± 0.7) and physical damage/PD (2.29% ± 0.9) were the most prevalent among the eight identiied states of coral compromised health. Altogether, 33 scleractinian genera were inluenced, with Fungia predominantly exposed to YBD (> 30% colonies), while Porites and Acropora were afected by UWS and WS (11-20% colonies), respectively. Overall, the severity of coral diseases and signs of compromised health, which is greater across the west coast and ofshore areas compared to the east coast area, might be inluenced by coastal development and tourism activities.
... Hard coral specimens were documented down to the genus level, according to Veron (2000). To identify hard coral with BrBD infections, we used the Handbook of Underwater Cards for Assessing Coral Health on Indo-Pacific Reefs (Beeden, Willis, Raymundo, Page, & Weil, 2008). Acropora sp. with a BrBD infection is characterized by a brown circular band on their branches. ...
Article
Full-text available
The coral reefs’ condition in most regions in Indonesia has been declining due to coral diseases, such as Brown Band Disease (BrBD). A treatment for BrBD involves the use of biological control agents that have antagonistic properties against disease-causing agents. This study aimed to isolate bacteria from healthy hard coral, those associated with BrBD, and those that had bioactivities against BrBD. Sampling and identification of corals and BrBD were carried out in March 2015 at the Marine National Park of Karimunjawa. Bacteria from healthy and infected corals were isolated and purified. The isolates were subjected to antipathogenic assay using overlay and agar diffusion methods. Finally, molecular identification of active bacteria was carried out using the 16S rRNA gene amplification. As many as 57 bacterial isolates were obtained from healthy coral, as well as four bacterial isolates from coral with BrBD symptoms. A total of 15 bacterial isolates (26%) showed antipathogenic activity against BrBD-associated bacteria. Three isolates with the strongest antipathogenic activities, i.e., GAMSH 3, KASH 6, and TAPSH 1 were identified by 16S rRNA gene sequences. The results showed that they were aligned to Virgibacillus marismortui (97%), Oceanobacillus iheyensis (97%), and Bacillus cereus (96%), respectively.
... Based on the literature, those genera capable of producing large amounts of mucus may be less susceptible to damage from exposure to oil. Production of mucus is generally a stress response (Beeden et al. 2008, Erftemeijer et al. 2012) and may aid removal of oil and toxicants and provide these corals with a level of resilience. However, excess production of mucus resulting from hydrocarbon exposure may also lead to enhanced bacterial growth and degradation of the coral tissue (Loya & Rinkevich 1980, Peters et al. 1981) as well as being energetically costly (see Davies & Hawkins 1998 for review). ...
Article
Full-text available
Marine invertebrates and macrophytes are sensitive to the toxic effects of oil. Depending on the intensity, duration and circumstances of the exposure, they can suffer high levels of initial mortality together with prolonged sublethal effects that can act at individual, population and community levels. Under some circumstances, recovery from these impacts can take years to decades. However, effects are variable because some taxa are less sensitive than others, and many factors can mitigate the degree of exposure, meaning that impacts are moderate in many cases, and recovery occurs within a few years. Exposure is affected by a myriad of factors including: type and amount of oil, extent of weathering, persistence of exposure, application of dispersants or other clean-up measures, habitat type, temperature and depth, species present and their stage of development or maturity, and processes of recolonisation, particularly recruitment. Almost every oil spill is unique in terms of its impact because of differing levels of exposure and the type of habitats, communities and species assemblages in the receiving environment. Between 1970 and February 2017, there were 51 significant oil spills in Australia. Five occurred offshore with negligible likely or expected impacts. Of the others, only 24 of the spills were studied in detail, while 19 had only cursory or no assessment despite the potential for oil spills to impact the marine environment. The majority were limited to temperate waters, although 10 of the 14 spills since 2000 were in tropical coastal or offshore areas, seven were in north Queensland in areas close to the Great Barrier Reef. All four spills that have occurred from offshore petroleum industry infrastructure have occurred since 2009. In Australia, as elsewhere, a prespill need exists to assess the risk of a spill, establish environmental baselines, determine the likely exposure of the receiving environment, and test the toxicity of the oil against key animal and plant species in the area of potential impact. Subsequent to any spill, the baseline provides a reference for targeted impact monitoring.
... WS was first recognized during the survey conducted in March 2018. The gross lesion on observed coral was similar toWS's detailed by (Beeden et al., 2008a). Briefly, WS has resulted irregular tissue loss in coral, the pattern is not concentrating on coral surface (focal) but diffuse marking of tissue loss that exposes bare white skeleton meeting live tissue. ...
Article
Full-text available
White syndrome disease (WS) has led to extensive damage to coral reef in Indo-Pacific area. The emergingof WS first reported from Philippine and Australia affected Acroporidae and Pocilloporidae coral.Subsequently, it was reported on other regions in Indo-Pacific. Underwater monitoring at Nature ReservePulau Sempu (NR Pulau Sempu) unveiled that WS affects foliouse coral, Echinopora lamellosa, rather othercorals. The disease prevalence was 23.11% on average for 2 months period, whereas the incidence was19.67%. E. lamellosa colonies in NR Pulau Sempu have been found in shallow in very dense population. Thepathogens, which cause WS, easily transmits from diseased coral into health that caused width spread ofWS in these corals. This study, overall, has confirmed that WS is now impacting reef in west part of theIndian Ocean. In addition, WS also affects on wide range of species not only on Acropora, Montipora andPocillopora corals but also Echinopora and may be infected on the other coral in different wide regions.
... The color of syndrome is bare white skeleton to brown because develop of algae. Often deriving from a small lesion front and escalating to a band front across the entire colony (Beeden et al., 2008). ...
Article
Full-text available
Coral reef at nature reserve Pulau Sempu has been provided food for marine biota and became livelihood for fishermen who are living at coast nearby. Coral reef at this island can be found in periphery of island and concentrated on Sempu strait (north part area). Folious coral Echinopora lamellosa are distributed well in Sempu bay with local name Kondang Buntung (Depan). The previous study showed the coral percentage of NR Pulau Sempu was stagnant on 26-34% of average of their life coral cover. Coral disease has role to decrease of coral cover in the world one of them is white syndrome that only be reported from Indo-Pacific area. The aim of this research was to observe white syndrome disease growth rate at E. lamellosa which has degraded their coral cover at NR Pulau Sempu for 2 months. To calculate white syndrome rate, we used sequence photographed that be taken twice (early and end of month) then calculated wide area using ImageJ. Growth rate of white syndrome was obtained from difference of width area. The result of this research showed the average of white syndrome disease was 0.077 cm 2 / day. Environment factor suggested have important role to increase growth rate of white syndrome in this island, increasing sea surface temperature triggered virulence bacteria in coral fast proliferation and caused increase of white syndrome growth rate. White syndrome in E. lamellosa from NR Pulau Sempu still on normal categorized compared by other Indo-Pacific area.
... The overarching goal of this study is to begin to establish baseline levels of coral health and disease levels in the Myeik Archipelago of Myanmar and associate these levels with anthropogenic influences. (Beeden et al., 2008), which allow the data from this study to be directly compared to other coral disease datasets collected globally. Specifically, within each 20 m 2 belt transect, every scleractinian coral over 5 cm in diameter was identified to genus and further classified as either diseased (i.e. ...
Book
Full-text available
This report of 220 pages written by nearly 90 authors clearly presents the summation of an enormous amount of data and information on 19 of the 23 nations and states of the Pacific and outlines both the problems and stresses on these thousands of reefs, and the potential that these reefs will prove to be the reservoir of coral reefs for the world in the immediate future with the largest threat being global climate change. Although the following chapters illustrate that coral reefs in the wider Pacific are facing many threats and have shown significant losses of coral reef structure, this report clearly demonstrates that Pacific reefs without much doubt contain the best coral reefs systems in the world and should remain in that position for the immediate decades to come.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.