I haven't read the whole thing yet, but I've read enough to know that the data, and the assumptions drawn from it, are flawed. It is an interesting study, but we can't assume that H. magnifica in its natural habitat would show the same growth rate, frequency of division, or "mortality" that they showed in this study. All of the anemones in this study were transplanted to areas where H. magnifica did not exist. Why were there no magnifica in these areas prior to the study? Maybe it was the number of predators, amount of food, flow, temperature, or an endless number of other possibilities. All of which could have an impact on growth, rate of division, and mortality.
It's also been documented that large solitary H. magnifica can simply appear in areas where there previously were no magnifica and as they saw in this study, magnificas can simply disappear from an area they have been for years. This leads scientists to believe that they simply unattach and drift to new locations. In this study, the assumption was made that if a magnifica could not be located, it was dead. The evidence does not support this assumption. Especially when the anemone was moved to a new location by the researchers before it disappeared.
