A quick and reliable menthol-induced bleaching protocol for the Caribbean staghorn coral, Acropora cervicornis


Abstract

Corals and dinoflagellate algae form a unique mutualistic symbiosis that provides the energetic and structural foundation for shallow coral reef ecosystems. Despite the long success of this partnership in oligotrophic seas, coral reefs are in decline due to increasing threats from rising seawater temperatures and disease, both of which can lead to bleaching and mortality. To better understand the mechanisms that underpin this mutualism, it may be necessary to dismantle the coral-algal symbiosis. Previous studies have experimentally bleached corals using thermal stress, photosynthetic inhibitors (DCMU), and menthol. We compared lab-induced bleaching of staghorn coral Acropora cervicornis by menthol treatment to traditional thermal stress. The larger aim was to adapt existing bleaching protocols to this important coral species used in restoration as a guide for future studies. Bleaching in corals treated with menthol or exposed to elevated temperature stress (31°C) was monitored by measuring photosynthetic activity determined by Fv/Fm using pulse-amplitude modulated (PAM) fluorescence and compared to untreated conspecifics. Corals were also monitored for symbiont density and overall health using the CoralWatch Coral Health Chart card throughout the experiment. We found that A. cervicornis bleached in response to both menthol treatment and thermal stress, but menthol treatment was more effective at reducing algal symbiont photosynthetic capacity (Fv/Fm) without negatively affecting the health of the coral. Our results indicate that menthol treatment at 0.38 mM rendered staghorn coral aposymbiotic within fourteen days without any visual or physiological damage to the coral. This study provides a simple and effective menthol-bleaching treatment protocol for future studies on staghorn coral.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].