The role of coral colony health state in the recovery of lesions

Abstract

Coral disease literature has focused, for the most part, on the etiology of the more than 35 coral afflictions currently described. Much less understood are the factors that underpin the capacity of corals to regenerate lesions, including the role of colony health. This lack of knowledge with respect to the factors that influence tissue regeneration significantly limits our understanding of the impact of diseases at the colony, population, and community level. In this study, we experimentally compared tissue regeneration capacity of diseased versus healthy fragments of
Gorgonia ventalina
colonies at 5 m and 12 m of depth. We found that the initial health state of colonies (i.e., diseased or healthy) had a significant effect on tissue regeneration (healing). All healthy fragments exhibited full recovery regardless of depth treatment, while diseased fragments did not. Our results suggest that being diseased or healthy has a significant effect on the capacity of a sea fan colony to repair tissue, but that environmental factors associated with changes in depth, such as temperature and light, do not. We conclude that disease doesn’t just compromise vital functions such as growth and reproduction in corals but also compromises their capacity to regenerate tissue and heal lesions.

Full text

Submitted 13 July 2015
Accepted 3 December 2015
Published 5 January 2016
Corresponding author
Claudia P. Ruiz-Diaz, claudiapatricia-
ruiz@gmail.com
Academic editor
Robert Toonen
Additional Information and
Declarations can be found on
page 10
DOI 10.7717/peerj.1531
Copyright
2016 Ruiz-Diaz et al.
Distributed under
Creative Commons CC-BY 4.0
OPEN ACCESS
The role of coral colony health state in
the recovery of lesions
Claudia P. Ruiz-Diaz1,2, Carlos Toledo-Hernandez2, Alex E. Mercado-Molina2,3,
María-Eglée Pérez4,5and Alberto M. Sabat3
1Environmental Sciences, University of Puerto Rico, San Juan, Puerto Rico
2Sociedad Ambiente Marino SAM, San Juan, Puerto Rico
3Department of Biology, University of Puerto Rico, San Juan, Puerto Rico
4Department of Mathematics, University of Puerto Rico, San Juan, Puerto Rico
5Center for Tropical Ecology and Conservation, CATEC, Río Piedras Campus, University of Puerto Rico,
San Juan, Puerto Rico
ABSTRACT
Coral disease literature has focused, for the most part, on the etiology of the more
than 35 coral afflictions currently described. Much less understood are the factors
that underpin the capacity of corals to regenerate lesions, including the role of
colony health. This lack of knowledge with respect to the factors that influence
tissue regeneration significantly limits our understanding of the impact of diseases
at the colony, population, and community level. In this study, we experimentally
compared tissue regeneration capacity of diseased versus healthy fragments of
Gorgonia ventalina colonies at 5 m and 12 m of depth. We found that the initial
health state of colonies (i.e., diseased or healthy) had a significant effect on tissue
regeneration (healing). All healthy fragments exhibited full recovery regardless of
depth treatment, while diseased fragments did not. Our results suggest that being
diseased or healthy has a significant effect on the capacity of a sea fan colony to repair
tissue, but that environmental factors associated with changes in depth, such as
temperature and light, do not. We conclude that disease doesn’t just compromise
vital functions such as growth and reproduction in corals but also compromises their
capacity to regenerate tissue and heal lesions.
Subjects Ecology, Environmental Sciences, Marine Biology
Keywords Lesion recovery, Sea fans corals, Environmental factors, Recovery techniques,
Coral diseases, Temperature, Healthy state, Depth, Water motion, Health condition
INTRODUCTION
Most of the present-day coral reef habitats no longer exhibit the complex community
structure that was commonly observed several decades ago. This is particularly evident in
the Caribbean where the most important reef species such as the coral-building Caribbean
Acropora palmata,A. cervicornis and the Orbicella complex (formerly Montastraea), and
the predatory reef fish and herbivores such as the black sea urchins and sea fan corals,
have dramatically decreased in abundance (Kim & Harvell, 2002). These losses have
not just changed the seascape of the reefs, but have also caused important ecological
alterations to coral survival, growth and reproductive schedules at local and regional
How to cite this article Ruiz-Diaz et al. (2016), The role of coral colony health state in the recovery of lesions. PeerJ 4:e1531; DOI
10.7717/peerj.1531

scales (Sutherland, Porter & Torres, 2004;Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2007;Weil, Cróquer &
Urreiztieta, 2009;Burns & Takabayashi, 2011;Ruiz-Diaz et al., 2013).
Of the myriad of stressors affecting the viability of corals, disease is currently ranked at
the top of the list. Coral diseases are typically diagnosed based on changes in the normal
coloration of corals and by the appearance of lesions (partial tissue mortality). Under
severe circumstances, such as when a pathogen is highly virulent or the coral host is
immune-suppressed, disease-induced lesions can increase in size quickly, killing the
colony. However, given a strong immune response, diseased-induced wounds can be
contained and either persist for a prolonged period (if the colony is able to contain the
disease but not regenerate new tissue) or are temporary (if the colony is able to regenerate
tissue over the whole lesion) (Ruiz-Diaz et al., 2013).
Several studies have identified wound characteristic as a major factor affecting the
rate at which a colony can regenerate new tissue and eliminate a lesion. For instance,
several studies agree that regeneration rate decreases with an increase in lesion size (Bak
& Steward-Van, 1980;Oren et al., 2001;Kramrsky-Winter & Loya, 2000). Other studies
suggest that the area/perimeter ratio of a lesion largely governs the rate of wound healing
process (Lirman, 2000). Further studies suggest that wound position within the colony
(i.e., lesions at the edge of the colony vs. lesion at the center of the colony) determine the
wound healing process (Meesters, Bos & Gast, 1992).
Many researchers have also linked the ongoing environmental degradation experienced
by most coral reefs with the advent of coral diseases, which currently is one of the main
sources of lesions on corals. For instance, in a study by Toledo-Hernández, Sabat & Zuluaga-
Montero (2007), the capacity of corals to recover from diseases (i.e., lesion recovery)
was correlated with turbidity and/or sedimentation. Corals in areas with high turbidity
and sedimentation had higher frequencies of disease-induced lesions and larger lesions
compared to corals in less degraded habitats. Higher water temperature has been linked to
the progression of lesions caused by black band disease, which affects several coral species in
the Caribbean and the Great Barrier Reef (Kuta & Richarson, 2002;Haapkylä et al., 2011).
Similarly, nutrient enrichment increased the severity of aspergillosis of Gorgonia ventalina
and yellow band disease on Orbicella annularis and O. franksi (Bruno et al., 2003). Muller
& Woesik (2009) showed that white-plague lesion significantly decreased on Corpophyllia
natans shaded from solar radiation when compared to C. natans without shading. Although
results from these studies have been useful in advancing our understanding of the healing
process on corals, we still lack comprehensive knowledge of how other factors such as the
health state of a colony baring lesion, affect the healing process. However, progress has
been made. For instance, Fine, Oren & Loya (2002) (working with bleached scleractinian
corals) and Ruiz-Diaz et al. (in press) (working with diseased gorgonians) have shown that
diseased corals regenerate man-made lesions slower than man-made lesion inflicted on
healthy-looking corals.
Initiatives to mitigate the effects of coral disease lack information about factors
affecting the recovery of corals from disease-induced lesions. While we do have some
understanding about the factors that make a coral vulnerable to disease (i.e., abnormally
high temperature and sedimentation among others) we lack understanding regarding
Ruiz-Diaz et al. (2016), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.1531 2/13

how the health condition of the coral affects its recovery. The objective of this study is to
experimentally test if the health state and variability in environmental factors correlated
with depth, significantly influence lesion regeneration on the sea fan G. ventalina. To do
this, we established eight nursery lines at two depths within the same reef (four nursery
lines per depth, 5 m and 12 m). Each nursery line consisted of four fragments from two
healthy and two diseased G. ventalina colonies. We scraped tissue from some of the healthy
fragments and scraped the diseased area of the diseased fragments and followed their
recovery through time. Concomitantly, we measured the temperature and light intensity at
both depths (5 m and 12 m) to document differences in these factors between depths. We
hypothesized that fragments from healthy colonies would regenerate new tissue at a faster
rate than those from diseased colonies because, at the start of the experiment, diseased
colonies are expected to have an activated immune response and thus fewer resources to
allocate to tissue regeneration than healthy ones. We also reasoned that, independent of
health state, tissue recovery rate at 12 m would be slower than at 5 m due to reduced light
availability.
METHODS
Study site
The experiment was conducted in Cayo Largo reef (CL) from April to August 2013. CL is
located 6.5 km off the northeastern coast of Puerto Rico (N18◦19.0904200W65◦35.0107500 ).
CL is a patch reef with a coral assemblage dominated by large colonies of Gorgonia ventalina,
Pseudopterogorgia acerosa and small colonies of the Orbicella annularis, Acropora palmata
and Porites astreoides (for further description of the study area, see Hernández-Delgado et
al. (2006)). The tissue samples were collected under permit 2012-IC-086 issued to Claudia
P. Ruiz Diaz, University of Puerto Rico (UPR) Rio Piedras campus, given by the Puerto
Rico Department of Natural Resources, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
Experimental design
Nursery lines
A total of eight nursery lines, each of 2.7 m in length and 1 m above the bottom, were
established at two depths: 5 m and 12 m (hereafter shallow and deep zones, respectively)
at CL (Fig. 1). Four of these nursery lines were established at the shallow zone and the
remaining four at the deep zone. To setup the nursery lines, we collected tissue fragments
from 16 sea fan colonies (fragment donor colonies) inhabiting an area of about 800 m2
and at depths between 1–1.5 m. Given that sea fans do not exhibit asexual reproduction,
selected colonies are assumed to be genetically distinct from each other. Eight of the
fragment donor colonies were diagnosed as healthy i.e., fans showing no visual sign of
disease or tissue purpling; the remaining eight donor colonies were diagnosed as diseased
i.e., fans showing an area colonized by fouling organisms, mainly algae, with a purple tissue
ring surrounding the over grown (Fig. 2). Once collected, each health fragment was split
in two identical halves of approximately 165.5 cm2, one of which was placed on a shallow
nursery line and the other on a deep nursery line. Diseased fragments were split so that
the lesion represented approximately 16% of the total surface area of each fragment. Once
Ruiz-Diaz et al. (2016), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.1531 3/13

Figure 1 Nursery line of the Gorgonia ventalina fragments with treatment enumerated. 1, 5, 9, 13,
are healthy fragments (HF). Numbers 2, 6, 10 and 14 are scrapped healthy fragments (HFS). Numbers 3,
7 and 15 are diseased fragments (DF). Numbers 4, 8, 12 and 16 are scrapped diseased fragments (DFS).
Light green represents healthy tissue, black oval represents exposed skeleton from experimental scraping,
and violet oval represents lesion.
split, one half-fragment from the same donor colony was placed at a shallow nursery lines
and the other half at a deep nursery line. Once fully assembled, each nursery line consisted
of four colony fragments (two healthy and two diseased) separated by 30 cm each (Fig. 1).
Note that no two fragments from the same colony were placed in the same nursery line
nor at the same depth.
Tissue scraping
Tissue scraping was performed to measure the capacity of fragments to regenerate tissue
under contrasting health states and environmental conditions. We scraped tissue from one
of the healthy and diseased fragments per nursery line, per depth (hereafter HFS and DFS,
respectively) (Fig. 1). In the case of HFS fragments, the equivalent of ten percent of the
total surface area was scraped from the center of the fragment. For DFS fragments, the total
injured area (the area overgrown by fouling organisms plus the purpled tissue) was scraped.
Scraping was performed using a metal bristle brush and resulted in the exposure of the
axial skeleton in both cases. The remaining healthy and diseased fragments, (hereafter HF
and DF respectively), were not subjected to any tissue scraping (Fig. 1). HF fragments were
used as sentinels. Tissue mortality in these fragments would signal either an adverse effect
of fragmentation or too harsh environmental conditions both of which would invalidate
Ruiz-Diaz et al. (2016), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.1531 4/13

Figure 2 Example of wound-healing process. Close-up pictures of scraped healthy individuals showing
the healing process over the course of the experiment.
the experiment. HFS and DFS fragments were included to address the main objective of
the study, which is to test the effect of health state on tissue generation. DF are disease
fragments with filamentous algae or other fouling growing in the expose skeleton. They
were added to the experiment to measure the ‘‘natural’’ regeneration rate of tissue growing
over skeleton covered by fouling organisms or/and pathogen(s).
Ruiz-Diaz et al. (2016), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.1531 5/13

Tissue regeneration estimates
To document the progression of the wound-healing process, close-up pictures of each
fragment were taken every two weeks between April and August 2013 or until lesions
healed completely. Lesions were deemed healed (fully recovered), if the bare skeleton was
completely covered by healthy tissue. The percent area of the lesion that did recovered
at the end of the experiment was estimated by subtracting the area without soft tissue
measured at the end of the experiment to the area (bared axial skeleton) measured at the
beginning of the experiment, just after scraping the lesion. Image analysis software (Sigma
Scan Pro Image Analysis version 5.0 Software) was used to measure all individual and clone
fragments. These measurements were validated using in situ measurements.
Environmental variables
To quantitatively determine if environmental conditions differed at each depth (5 m and
12 m), we measured the water temperature and light intensity. Temperature and light were
measured using one Hobo Pendant temperature/light data logger 64k-UA-002-64 (Onset
Company) at each depth. Data loggers were secured in place using metal rods and a zip tie.
Temperature measurements were recorded every 15 min for 14 days from April 26 to May
3, May 16 to June 7, June 28 to July 12, and August 9 to August 23, 2013. Light intensity
data was obtained only during the first 10 days after the loggers were placed, as seaweeds
typically colonize the logger and affect the readings (C Ruiz-Diaz, pers. obs., 2013).
Statistical analysis
Lesion recovery was expressed as the rate at which tissue regenerated (in cm2) through
time. This can be represented as the slope of a linear regression with time (in days) in
the x-axis and lesion area in the y-axis (log transformed) (Meesters, Bos & Gast, 1992). To
determine whether depth (5 m and 12 m) and fragment treatments (DF DFS, and HFS)
had an effect on the tissue regeneration through time, the slope of each fragment was
analyzed using a repeated measure ANOVA, as fragments from the same colony (placed
at the shallow and deep nursery lines) are not independent from each other. Statistical
analyses were performed using R version 3.1 (R Core Team 2014).
RESULTS
Environmental variables and recovery
Light intensity and temperature showed statistical differences between depths (see Table 1).
Average temperature at 5 m was 28.555 ±0.012 ◦C (mean ±SE), while at 12 m it was
28.334 ±0.006 ◦C. Average light intensity at 5 m was 11203.55 ±459.410Lux, while at 12 m
it was 3429.36 ±129.11Lux.
Tissue recovery
All the healthy sentinel fragments (HF) survived the experiment without any necrosis; in
fact, fragments increased in size at both depths. The results from the repeated measure
ANOVA analysis performed showed that tissue recovery was only affected by fragment’s
health state (F2,15 =5.477, p=0.0317). Depth (F1,15 =3.587, p=0.095) and the interaction
between depth and health state showed no significant differences (F5,15 =3.915, p=0.065;
Ruiz-Diaz et al. (2016), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.1531 6/13

Table 1 t-test statistics for light intensity and temperature for different time periods for both the shal-
low and deep sites. The experimental period lasted between April 26 to August 23, 2014.
April 26–May 3 May 16–June 7 June 28–July 12 August 9–August 23
Light intensity t=15.13 t=15.52 t=17.58 t=17.53
df =363.40 df =992.63 df =902.61 df =897.81
p<0.001 p<0.001 p<0.01 p<0.001
Temperature t=10.42 t=17.50 t=12.87 t=26.72
df =838.22 df =3541.62 df =2274.34 df =3051.96
p<0.001 p<0.001 p<0.01 p<0.001
Figure 3 Boxplots showing the slopes (rate at which tissue regenerated through time) between health
state treatments (healthy and diseased) and fragments. The boxplot median is represented by the bold
line, the extremes of the box are the 1st and 3rd quartile and the whiskers are the maximum and mini-
mum. DF, diseased fragments; DFS, diseased fragments scrapped; HFS, healthy fragments.
Fig. 3B). The results of the Tukey HSD analysis showed significant differences between
DFS and HFS (diff = 0.020, p=0.001) and DFS and DF (diff = 0.015, p=0.016).
DISCUSSION
Coral colonies are very vulnerable to tissue loss due to predation, pathogens, and abrasion,
among other factors. Failure to regenerate lost tissue could impair their survivorship by
allowing potentially harmful organisms to settle in the exposed skeleton, further infecting
healthy areas of the corals. Repair failure could also affect other vital function of corals such
the heterotrophic feeding and ultimately growth, in addition to reproduction, as loss of
polyps will negatively affect such activities. Thus, tissue regeneration should be of utmost
importance in order for coral colonies to reduce the risk of diseases, thereby improving
their survivorship, competitive capacity and ultimately reproduction and somatic growth.
Numerous researchers have studied the link between environmental factors, and the
frequency and severity of coral diseases. In fact, some of these studies have argued that
as climate change continues to exacerbate these factors, so will be the physiological stress
associated with it, and that consequently the frequency and severity of coral disease, will also
Ruiz-Diaz et al. (2016), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.1531 7/13

increase (Kuta & Richarson, 2002;Haapkylä et al., 2011;Cróquer et al., 2006;Williams et
al., 2014). In comparison, studies addressing how the health state of corals affects the coral’s
capacity to repair are by far less common (however, see Mascarelli & Bunkley-William, 1999;
Fine, Oren & Loya, 2002;Ruiz-Diaz et al., in press). This study is an attempt to address this
knowledge gap by documenting the relationship between the recovery dynamics of healthy
and diseased coral colonies and environmental factors such as temperature, light intensity
while controlling for genetic variability.
Effect of the state of coral health on lesion recovery
This study shows that the health state of colonies (i.e., being diseased or healthy) has a
significant effect on the tissue repair capacity of sea fans. All healthy fragments, regardless
of the depth where they were placed (thus regardless of temperature and light regimes),
exhibited full recovery whereas diseased fragments did not. Furthermore, scraped healthy
fragments healed faster than scraped diseased fragments (i.e., on average 78 days vs. 97 days,
respectively). It is possible that genetic differences among colonies, which may have lead to
different levels of susceptibility to disease in the first place, might have lead to the observed
differences in healing rate. However, the result is that unscraped diseased fragments (DF)
healed at a significantly slower rate than scraped ones (DFS) supports that tissue with
lesion cannot heal as fast as tissue without a lesion even if they come from the same colony.
In other words, growing tissue over a skeleton covered with fouling organisms is a slower
process because it is more costly, as the coral is competing for space and also allocating
resources into tissue regeneration. By contrast, scraped fragments can allocate resources
into tissue regeneration.
The results of the experiment agree with our initial hypothesis, which stated that
the health state does affect the capacity of fragments to recover. In fact, our results
show that being diseased negatively affects the capacity of fragments to recover. These
results also concur with several authors who have argued that the diseased condition
negatively affects the tissue regeneration capacity of corals. For instance, Mascarelli &
Bunkley-William (1999) compared the rates of tissue regeneration of Orbicela annularis
corals under contrasting health conditions (healthy and artificially bleached fragments)
and reported that healthy ramets did not just heal completely but also recovered faster than
diseased ones. By contrast, two of the bleached ramets died, and the remaining fragments
did not exhibit full recovery. Likewise, Ruiz-Diaz et al. (in press) scraped naturally occurring
lesions from sea fan colonies and as control scraped the equivalent of 10% of the surface
area of healthy sea fan colonies, and found that tissue recovery was significantly slower in
diseased fans when compared to healthy fans. A plausible explanation for these differences
is that diseased colonies have fewer resources to invest into tissue repair as their resources
were already compromised by the immune response prior to scraping (Nagelkerken et
al., 1997). Further evidence in support of this explanation of resource limitation would
have been obtained by contrasting regeneration rates of healthy fragments from diseased
colonies with that of diseased and healthy fragments from healthy colonies; however, we
did not included healthy fragments from diseased colonies in our experimental design.
Corals, like all living organisms, have finite resources to allocate into several vital functions
Ruiz-Diaz et al. (2016), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.1531 8/13

such as growth, reproduction, immune defense or lesion regeneration. Given these resource
constraints, the allocation of resources into certain vital functions, such as immune defense,
means that fewer resources could be available for lesion regeneration (Oren et al., 2001).
Several studies conducted on a variety of corals support this hypothesis. For instance,
Petes et al. (2003) working on sea fan coral G. ventalina reported reproductive suppression
in diseased colonies, presumably due to a shift in resource allocation from reproduction
to immunity. Similarly, Palmer, Bythell & Willis (2010) suggest that Porites sp. invests
considerably more resources into immune constituents such as melanin biosynthesis than
A. millepora. This investment of resources into immunity provides Porites with a higher
disease and bleaching resistance. By contrast, A. millepora invests more resources into
growth compared to Porites, although at a cost in reduced immunity, as acroporids are
among the corals most susceptible to bleaching and disease.
Effect of depth on lesion recovery
One of the main concerns of the scientific community is that changes in environmental
conditions could induce physiological stress on corals (Alker et al., 2004). These stresses
could impair vital life history traits such as grow, reproduction or even the capacity of corals
to recover after a disturbance. In our study, however, environmental factors associated
with changes in depth, showed no evident effects on the capacity of sea fan fragments
to regenerate tissue, even though, the parameters measured were statistically different
between depths. Our failure to detect depth effects could have several explanations, not
necessarily mutually exclusive. For instance, it could be possible that the difference
in environmental factors recorded between 5 m and 12 m were not sufficient to
induce physiological stresses on the fragments, thereby not precluding their capacity
to regenerate tissue. Alternatively, it could be that there was a depth effect but it
manifested on other life history traits such as reproduction or somatic growth, in which
case we were not able to detect it. It is also plausible to argue that sea fans are rather
tolerant to changes in environmental conditions. Indeed, Ruiz-Diaz et al. (in press) found
no differences in tissue recovery of in G. ventalina inhabiting reefs with contrasting
water quality.
CONCLUSIONS
Diseases of corals not just compromise vital functions such as growth and reproduction, but
also compromise their recovery capacity. Arguably, resources invested against pathogens
could also be the same driving the tissue repair as stated by limited budget theory proposed
by Oren et al. (2001). This raises questions regarding the sharing of resources and resource
depletion. For instance, in the eventuality of two simultaneous but different immunological
insults, how corals should prioritize its resources to respond to both events? How intense
should a disturbance be in order to induce immune responses that affect several life history
traits? It that regard, it could be possible that the environmental conditions in this study
may have indeed caused stress on the sea fan fragments, but these stresses were manifested
in other vital functions such as reproduction or growth which were not studied in this
work. Our study also shows that sea fans are very robust corals which can tolerate variable
Ruiz-Diaz et al. (2016), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.1531 9/13

environmental conditions; this may explain why this species thrives relatively well in many
coral reefs across Puerto Rico regardless of environmental degradation.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Ruber Rodríguez and Francisco J. Soto for field assistance, and Paul Furumo, Molly
Ramsey, Cheryl Woodley and Misaki Takabayashi for their critical reviews.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND DECLARATIONS
Funding
This study was supported in part by institutional funds of the UPR-RP, UPR Sea Grant
(NOAA award NA10OAR41700062, project R-92-1-10) and UPR-Sea Grant (Seedmoney)
to C.P.R-D and the Puerto Rico Center for Environmental Neuroscience (NSF grant HRD
#1137725). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision
to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Grant Disclosures
The following grant information was disclosed by the authors:
UPR-RP, UPR Sea Grant: NA10OAR41700062.
UPR-Sea Grant (Seedmoney) to C.P.R-D and Puerto Rico Center for Environmental
Neuroscience: #1137725.
Competing Interests
The authors declare there are no competing interests.
Author Contributions
•Claudia P. Ruiz-Diaz performed the experiments, analyzed the data, contributed
reagents/materials/analysis tools, wrote the paper, prepared figures and/or tables,
reviewed drafts of the paper, guided all the work of the manuscript.
•Carlos Toledo-Hernandez and Alberto M. Sabat conceived and designed the experiments,
performed the experiments, analyzed the data, contributed reagents/materials/analysis
tools, wrote the paper, reviewed drafts of the paper.
•Alex E. Mercado-Molina conceived and designed the experiments, performed the
experiments, wrote the paper, reviewed drafts of the paper.
•María-Eglée Pérez performed the experiments, contributed reagents/materials/analysis
tools, reviewed drafts of the paper.
Field Study Permissions
The following information was supplied relating to field study approvals (i.e., approving
body and any reference numbers):
The tissue samples were collected under permit 2012-IC-086 issued to Claudia P. Ruiz
Diaz, University of Puerto Rico (UPR) Rio Piedras campus, given by the Puerto Rico
Department of Natural Resources, Common Wealth of Puerto Rico.
Ruiz-Diaz et al. (2016), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.1531 10/13

Data Availability
The following information was supplied regarding data availability:
The research in this article did not generate any raw data.
Supplemental Information
Supplemental information for this article can be found online at http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/
peerj.1531#supplemental-information.
REFERENCES
Alker AP, Kim K, Dube DH, Harvell CD. 2004. Localized induction of a generalized re-
sponse against multiple biotic agents in Caribbean sea fans. Coral Reefs 23:397–405
DOI 10.1007/s00338-004-0405-y.
Bak RPM, Steward-Van YS. 1980. Regeneration of superficial damage in the scleractinian
corals Agaricia agaricites F. Purpurea and Porites astreoides.Bulletin of Marine Science
30:883–887.
Bruno JF, Petes LE, Harvell CD, Hettinger A. 2003. Nutrient enrichment can increase
the severity of coral diseases. Ecology Letters 6:1056–1061
DOI 10.1046/j.1461-0248.2003.00544.x.
Burns JHR, Takabayashi M. 2011. Histopathology of growth anomaly affecting the coral,
Montipora capitata: implications on biological functions and population viability.
PLoS ONE 6:e28854 DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0028854.
Cróquer A, Bastidas C, Lipscomp D, Rodríguez-Martínez RE, Jordan-Dahlgren E, Guz-
man HM. 2006. First report of folliculinid ciliates affecting Caribbean scleractinian
corals. Coral Reefs 25:187–191 DOI 10.1007/s00338-005-0068-3.
Fine M, Oren U, Loya Y. 2002. Bleaching effect on regeneration and resource translo-
cation in the coral Oculina patogonica.Marine Ecology Progress Series 234:119–125
DOI 10.3354/meps234119.
Haapkylä J, Unsworth RKF, Flavell M, Bourne DG, Schaffelke B, Willis BL. 2011.
Seasonal rainfall and runoff promote coral disease on an inshore reef. PLoS ONE
6:e16893 DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0016893.
Hernández-Delgado EA, Toledo-Hernández C, Claudio GH, Lassus J, Lucking MA,
Fonseca J, Hall K, Rafols J, Horta H, Sabat AM. 2006. Spatial and taxonomic
patterns of coral bleaching and mortality in Puerto Rico during year 2005. In:
Satellite tools and bleaching response workshop: Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. St.
Croix, US Virgin Islands. Washington, D.C.: NOAA, 16 pp.
Hoegh-Guldberg O, Mumby PJ, Hooten AJ, Steneck RS, Greenfield P, Gomez E,
Harvell CD, Sale PF, Edwards AJ, Caldeira K, Knowlton N, Eakin CM, Iglesias-
Prieto R, Muthiga N, Bradbury RH, Dubi A, Hatziolos ME. 2007. Coral reefs
under rapid climate change and ocean acidification. Science 318:1737–1742
DOI 10.1126/science.1152509.
Kim K, Harvell CD. 2002. Aspergillosis of sea fan corals: disease dynamics in the florida
keys. In: Porter JW, Porter K, eds. The Everglades, Florida Bay, and coral reefs of the
Florida Keys: an ecosystem handbook. Boca Raton: CRC Press 813–824.
Ruiz-Diaz et al. (2016), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.1531 11/13

Kramrsky-Winter E, Loya Y. 2000. Tissue regeneration in the coral Fungia granu-
losa: the effect of extrinsic and intrinsic factors. Marine Biology 137:867–873
DOI 10.1007/s002270000416.
Kuta KG, Richarson LL. 2002. Ecological aspects of black band disease of corals:
relationships between disease incidence and environmental factors. Coral Reef
21:393–398.
Lirman D. 2000. Lesion regeneration in the branching coral Acropora palmata: effects of
colonization, colony size, lesion size and lesion shape. Marine Ecology Progress Series
197:209–215 DOI 10.3354/meps197209.
Mascarelli PE, Bunkley-William L. 1999. An experimental field evaluation of healing
in damaged, unbleached and artificially bleached star coral, Montastraea annularis.
Bulletin of Marine Science 65:511–586.
Meesters EH, Bos A, Gast JG. 1992. Effect of sedimentation and lesion position on coral
tissue regeneration. Proceedings of 7th International Coral Reef Symposium 2:671–678.
Muller EM, Woesik RV. 2009. Shading reduces coral-disease progression. Coral Reef
28:757–760 DOI 10.1007/s00338-009-0504-x.
Nagelkerken I, Buchan K, Smith G, Bonair K, Bush P, Garzon-Ferreira J, Botero
L, Gayle P, Harvell C, Heberer C, Kim K, Petrovic C, Pors L, Yoshioka. 1997.
Widespread disease in Caribbean sea fans: II. Patterns of infection and tissue loss.
Marine Ecology Progress Series 160:255–263 DOI 10.3354/meps160255.
Oren U, Benayahu Y, Lubinevsky H, Loya Y. 2001. Colony integration during regenera-
tion in the stony coral Favia Favus.Ecology 82:802–813
DOI 10.1890/0012-9658(2001)082[0802:CIDRIT]2.0.CO;2.
Palmer CV, Bythell JC, Willis BL. 2010. Levels of immunity parameters underpin
bleaching and disease susceptibility of reef corals. FASEB Journal 24:1935–1946
DOI 10.1096/fj.09-152447.
Petes LE, Harvell CD, Peters EC, Webb MaH, Mullen KM. 2003. Pathogens compromise
reproduction and induce melanization in Caribbean sea fans. Marine Ecology Progress
Series 264:167–171 DOI 10.3354/meps264167.
Ruiz-Diaz CP, Toledo-Hernández A, Mercado-Molina C, Sabat A. 2015. Scraping and
extirpating: two strategies to induce recovery of diseased sea fans Gorgonia ventalina.
Marine Ecology In press.
Ruiz-Diaz CP, Toledo-Hernández C, Sabat A, Marcano M. 2013. Immune re-
sponse to a pathogen in corals. Journal of theoretical Biology 332:141–148
DOI 10.1016/j.jtbi.2013.04.028.
Sutherland KP, Porter JW, Torres C. 2004. Disease and immunity in Caribbean and
Indo-Pacific zooxanthellate corals. Marine Ecology Progress Series 266:273–302
DOI 10.3354/meps266273.
Toledo-Hernández C, Sabat AM, Zuluaga-Montero A. 2007. Density, size structure and
aspergillosis prevalence in Gorgonia ventalina at six localities in Puerto Rico. Marine
Biology 152:527–535 DOI 10.1007/s00227-007-0699-8.
Ruiz-Diaz et al. (2016), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.1531 12/13

Weil E, Cróquer A, Urreiztieta I. 2009. Yellow band disease compromises the reproduc-
tive output of the Caribbean reef-building coral Montastrea faveolata (Anthozoa,
Scleractinia). Diseases Aquatic Organisms 87:45–55 DOI 10.3354/dao02103.
Williams GJ, Price NN, Ushijima, Aeby GS, Callahan S, Davy SK, Gove JM, Johnson
MD, Knapp IS, Shore-Maggio A, Smith JE, Videau P, Work TM. 2014. Ocean
warming and acidification have complex interactive effects on the dynamics of a ma-
rine fungal disease. Proceedings of Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 281:20133069
DOI 10.1098/rspb.2013.3069.
Ruiz-Diaz et al. (2016), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.1531 13/13