Yes this was discussed in an earlier thread here, but here's a short recap with some additional details (if I am wrong about anything please correct me):
There was a correction made to that Fabricius article 1 year later. What was reported as an uptake of phytoplankton in MICROgrams should have been NANOgrams.
1 microgram = 1000 nanograms
That is a huge difference. That's like saying I ate 1000 steaks instead of 1 steak. Because of this mistake, they changed their method of analyzing algae uptake. They measured the change in chlorophyll concentration in seawater rather than in the coral itself. Based on this method they extrapolated that Dendronephthya hemprichi was taking up algae at a rate much higher than was necessary for their needs. Ok, I know this is peer reviewed science, but I don't like their method and I wouldn't put my money on such an extrapolation. It almost seems like they had to find a new way to support their old hypothesis.
Jens Kallmeyer and Claude have reported that Dendronephthya consume phytoplankton much smaller than what we are able to culture.
Widding and Schlichter published an article in 2001 that pretty much refuted Fabricius' findings using radioactive labeling of carbon in algae to measure actual incorporation into the tissues of Dendronephthya. Personally I find this method much more appropriate than measuring cholorophyll concentration in seawater. Their research found that there must be something other than phytoplankton providing the energy needs. Phytoplankton makes up at most 25-30% of energy requirements. They proposed that the remainder would be things like mucus, detritus, etc...