Elkhorn and Staghorn

[Anonymous]

Are they reef building corals?

 

[Anonymous]

Are they reef building corals?

i would think so.

 

[Unarce]

I think pretty much any coral that creates a hard, calcium carbonate skeleton would be considered a reef building coral.

 

[Anonymous]

From what I've read, not all "hard" corals are considered reef building corals (down not only to skeleton, but also habit). These would count though.

 

[Anonymous]

i believe elkhorn coral forms what the hobby calls Tonga branch live rock.

 

[Anonymous]

1976

2001

 

[Anonymous]

1971

2001

 

[Anonymous]

i believe elkhorn coral forms what the hobby calls Tonga branch live rock.

Wrong ocean.

 

[Anonymous]

>...Are they reef building corals?

Yes, they are. Other coral genus may contributes more to the reef-building, such as Porites, and some scientists also consider non-coral as important part of reef building, such as some coralline algae and macroalgae.

 

[Mouse]

Damn Galleon, i thought youd left your brain in your reef tank for a moment. Sad story you have there, and as a dive instructor for the last 8 years i have to agree. The hard coral gardens of the past have vanished, and all you get now is crappy wavy softy gardens, damn this actually makes me so angry. There must have been a million people pointing out the very same thing since the detereoration first started, even the likes of Jaque Custoe, but does anyone listen, nope, is anything done, nope, are we still pouring sewerage and raw chemicals into the sea, yup.

Damn humanity, damn it all

Im also suprised that no one else has picked up on your findings, and for a reef forum thats pretty poor.

I personally blame the 80's greed culture and disposable ethics. They all knew, they could have done something, but instead they left it to us. The 80's sucked ass, bigger, faster, harder, more more more. But what weve actually achived is death, destruction, deterioration, waste waste waste and more filthy waste.

venting over, you can all remove the asbestos now (another great 80's cost cutting example, fuggin bean counters)

 

[Mouse]

And just for those of you on the verge of crying, we'll never see this again. Those pics in 1971 were probably 100 years in the building, and 10 years to destroy it, so unless we fix things now, and i live to 126, and can still dive, im afraid the show is over.

 

[Mouse]

Just to top it off, has anyone noticed that now a days when it rains, it smells like a dirty fish tank, remember when rain smelt good, full of live Ions.

 

[Anonymous]

>...Are they reef building corals?

Yes, they are. Other coral genus may contributes more to the reef-building, such as Porites, and some scientists also consider non-coral as important part of reef building, such as some coralline algae and macroalgae.

Actually, no they aren't. They build rubble and sand, not reef. Hence the pictures. Despite the tremendous amount of elkhorn and staghorn in them, there is no positive reef accretion from it. They are essentially the coral equivalent of weeds. They take advantage of favorable conditions and overgrow the true reef builders, like the star corals and brain corals you see in those photos. There are large chunks of time where major reef accretion is going on but there are no elkhorn or staghorn to be found.

 

[Anonymous]

And just for those of you on the verge of crying, we'll never see this again. Those pics in 1971 were probably 100 years in the building, and 10 years to destroy it, so unless we fix things now, and i live to 126, and can still dive, im afraid the show is over.

More like about 71 years in the making. Flow from the everglades was stopped around then, the turbidity of the water flowing across keys reefs drastically dropped and created favorable conditions for these weeds (staghorn, elkhorn, porites) to take over for what looks to be the first time in over 600 years. The reefs as we saw them in the 70's are far from the reefs that the Keys have been in most of their time before then. Between African dust and the Florida Bay crash leading to increased turbidity and organic nutrients, conditions aren't so favorable anymore.

 

[Anonymous]

>...Are they reef building corals?

Yes, they are. Other coral genus may contributes more to the reef-building, such as Porites, and some scientists also consider non-coral as important part of reef building, such as some coralline algae and macroalgae.

Actually, no they aren't. They build rubble and sand, not reef. Hence the pictures. Despite the tremendous amount of elkhorn and staghorn in them, there is no positive reef accretion from it. They are essentially the coral equivalent of weeds. They take advantage of favorable conditions and overgrow the true reef builders, like the star corals and brain corals you see in those photos. There are large chunks of time where major reef accretion is going on but there are no elkhorn or staghorn to be found.

Yeah, that's what I read too, but I guess I twisted a little when I replied to your question It really depends on your definition of reef, and yours is pretty much standard in the academica. As far as this hobby is concerned, anything that sucks up calcium is "reef" building

 

[GSchiemer]

FWIW, by any definition, Acropora palmata (AKA Elkhorn Coral) IS a reef-building coral. In fact, it's THE PRIMARY reef-building coral in the Caribbean. Unfortunately, it's becoming rarer and rarer and has been proposed as a candidate for the Endangered Species Act. To dismiss it as a "weed" is really doing it an injustice. A quick search on the internet will support my contentions. Here is a comment from a web site discussing A. palmata as it relates to reefs off of Puerto Rico:

Elkhorn coral thickets reduce incoming wave energy, offering critical protection to coastlines. Loss of this species may negatively affect shorelines with mangrove and grass bed habitats that rely on calm water provided by these effective reef barriers. Fringing reefs with Elkhorn thickets, like those found in Rincón, are also particularly important to coastal communities and the beach as they form a buffer that protects shorelines from erosion during storms. The loss of Elkhorn thickets results in higher wave action reaching coastal environments, and this can lead to erosion and loss of nearshore grassbeds and mangroves. In Rincón, the Elkhorn thickets front a narrow sandy beach. There is high wave action during winter. This is associated with offshore transport of sand, which accumulates among the corals on fringing reefs and in the surrounding area. Without the presence of a large stand of Elkhorn coral, it is likely that much more sand will be carried offshore during periods of high wave action, and the beaches may eventually disappear.

Greg

 

[Anonymous]

FWIW, by any definition, Acropora palmata (AKA Elkhorn Coral) IS a reef-building coral. In fact, it's THE PRIMARY reef-building coral in the Caribbean.

Totally false. Have you ever looked at a coral reef core?

To dismiss it as a "weed" is really doing it an injustice.

Nobody is dismissing anything, just simply stating how it reacts and responds to environmental changes and favorable conditions. Weed is a good analogy.

A quick search on the internet will support my contentions. Here is a comment from a web site discussing A. palmata as it relates to reefs off of Puerto Rico:

Web site information is worth what you pay for it. Mostly nothing. Also, your search does not mention the reef building capabilities (or lack there of) of elkhorn coral at all.

 

[Mihai]

OMG, those pics almost make me cry...
M.

 

[Anonymous]

GSchiemer, many corals are called "reef-building" corals. But when it come to the how significant each species is (in term of weight, for example), I think many other corals beat them hands down. Porites for example.

 

[Anonymous]

Alright, you fellows are hard to please.

http://www.hawaii.edu/coral/coral_id.htm

Many hard (AKA stony) corals are hermatypic (reef-building) or zooxanthellate, meaning that they contain symbiotic unicellular algae (zooxanthellae) and live in shallow, warm waters where they secrete massive skeletons that form the physical structure of coral reefs.

Ahermatypic (non-reef-building) or azooxanthellate corals are not reef-building, and they can be either hard or soft corals; hard, ahermatypic corals lack zooxanthellae and have much smaller skeletons than hermatypic species. Most soft corals are ahermatypic because they don't secrete a skeleton that can become part of the reef.

The major reef-building corals are mostly scleractinians, but also include the Hydrozoan fire corals (Millepora spp.) and an octocoral, the blue coral (in the order Helioporacea, which contains just one species, Heliopora coerulea, found only in the Indo-Pacific). These three orders of hard, hermatypic corals can all be major reef-builders, depending on the locality,

Taking a core sample of a significant/major reef-building coral, a Porites, I think.