Non-Native Corals in Reefs

[Litter Box]

I am fully aware of the ill effects of an invasive species on environments that a particular species is not native to. The first one that comes to my mind is Lion Fish found in the Carribean and Atlantic in the US.

Most of us here on this board have corals in our tanks from all over the world. To a degree, they live in relative harmony. However, some grow faster than others and if left unchecked, certain corals could probably dominate a given tank. Reeftanks are a different animal from the real thing obviously as they are mostly a "œcontrolled environment."

My question is, could anybody think of the deleterious effects of lets say for instance Figi SPS being planted off the coast of Florida, Hawaiian islands or say Belize to form a reef? It's probably likely someone has tried this somewhere, but I'd like to hear some thoughts on if something like this were tried.

It's nice to think that some spectacular reefs could be established with some of the wildest colors around the world judging by some of the corals we keep in this hobby, but I am sure there is a major drawback to this. Maybe a native coral could become extinct due to slower growth, chemical warfare or even an invasive pest typical of sharing a symbiotic relationship with a non-native species. You name it. That is what I am looking for. I want to hear some ideas on how something so innocent sounding could turn terribly bad for a given area.

I don't want anybody to read into this that "œI am looking to start my own wild reef" because waters where I am are not even remotely warm enough for such a stunt. It's just simple observation that the reefs in the waters I have had a chance to dive in just don't seem to match up to the diversity I've seen in magazines, internet and pictures of the Great Barrier Reef, Figi, etc.

It has always intrigued me that after all this time, corals from some parts of the world have not naturally made their way over to different parts of the globe somehow.

Jason

 

[GhostCon1]

They more than likely have, just they evolved into something different from what you would associate it with in another area. Also, many of those animals may have tried to move forward, but because of their natural environment they physically cannot survive in a new place because of temperature, light, natural predators in a new area that may not be able to live with them in their natural habitat, and now we have differing levels of pollution in areas as well.

And, if you want a really good example of non native species introduction devastating its new home, simply look at Australia and cane toads, fire ants in the southern United States, or take a look at the Great Lakes. There is quite a few animals that have been introduced there as a result of hitchiking off of cargo ships. One animals in the Great Lakes I can think of is the zebra mollusk (I think it's zebra, may be something else).

 

[rwb500]

i think the OP is very aware of what an invasive species can do, like he said. he is wondering, and i am too now, could invasive corals cause much harm?

 

[GhostCon1]

All you would have to do is look at past examples of other animals. There is a reason why certain corals grow in certain places, I for one hope we never have to find out because I would not ever want to lose any more of our reefs than we already have. Sorry if I derailed this a little bit. I saw a tie in with what he was asking and what I posted though

 

[Antonais1391]

couldn't it potently have good effects?? if reef building sps spies built new mini ecosystems for fish and such??

 

[Gary Majchrzak]

i think the OP is very aware of what an invasive species can do, like he said. he is wondering, and i am too now, could invasive corals cause much harm?

heck yeah!


Hitch-hikers and pathogens (as well as the non-native corals) could be introduced and have disasterous results.
It's even taboo to introduce native corals that have been exposed to non native ones back into their native waters.

no aquarium specimen(s) should EVER be released into the wild.

 

[AuroraDrvr]

Tubastrea spp. corals are invasive to the Atlantic/Caribbean. They're not detrimental, for the simple reason there is nothing native that the species competes with. But if you start introducing, say various Acropora spp. then it becomes an issue as they'll compete with the native Elkhorn and Staghorn.

 

[Beaun]

there is a difference between invasive and non-native. We have several non-native species that are becoming naturalized, in that they are not invasive and now play a role in the ecosystem. So I think it is important to distiguish between the two. Of couse, we dont know what will be invasive and what is simply non-native untill it is already released.

 

[Gary Majchrzak]

Tubastrea spp. corals are invasive to the Atlantic/Caribbean. They're not detrimental, for the simple reason there is nothing native that the species competes with. But if you start introducing, say various Acropora spp. then it becomes an issue as they'll compete with the native Elkhorn and Staghorn.

if you don't know what you're talking about it's better not to post anything.

Dendrophylliids already naturally exist in the tropical Atlantic.
Introducing Pacific species would cause direct competition with them... and even without any Atlantic species, introducing non-native species would be detrimental to the existing ecosystem.

 

[JHemdal]

Gary,

Actually, Todd is partially correct. Tubastrea was determined to be an invasive species, but one that had been in the Tropical Western Atlantic so long that many previous researchers had considered it naturally ocurring. The other Atlantic Dendrophyliids don't share the same niche, so there is no direct competition - between THOSE animals.
He is incorrect, however, in saying they are not detrimental. Not detrimental to divers who like to see them, but detrimental to the other critters whose plankton they eat, and would otherwise be growing on the same piece of real estate. Is the magnitude of this detriment great? Hard to say - there are NO environmental studies that pre-date their introduction, but my guess is that it has been minimal, although there is a photo by Colin that shows a Tubastrea living on a sponge - and that is obviously harming the sponge colony.

The pathogens you mentioned are the big issue. I've been involved in a captive breeding program for some extinct African fishes. We can't send them back to Africa because of the fear that they may have been exposed to a strain of Mycobacteria that is not present in Africa....the risk of introducing a disease is just too great.


The take home message is to NEVER translocate animals (or plants, or microbes).....


Jay

 

[carlosR]

This kind of thinking is one of those good ideas that can go terribly wrong and has many times. I'm thinking of the introduction of starlings into the US. Seemed like a good, literary idea at the time. Living on the Flathead Indian Reservation there are lots of Tribal folks think they have suffered the ultimate invasion of a non-native species!
There are too many environmental factors we cannot know. I think about the butterfly effect and the storm resulting from one little event.

 

[Litter Box]

i think the OP is very aware of what an invasive species can do, like he said. he is wondering, and i am too now, could invasive corals cause much harm?

Very true. I am very aware of the detrimental effects of invasive species that GhosCon1 listed amoungst others, but I wondered about the effects of non-native corals in different ecosystems that probably most haven't considered.

Even if non-evasive, just non-native, I was hoping to spark some conversation on what the ill effects could or couldn't be.

I apologize if my original post wasn't clear.

 

[Litter Box]

Not detrimental to divers who like to see them, but detrimental to the other critters whose plankton they eat, and would otherwise be growing on the same piece of real estate. Is the magnitude of this detriment great? Hard to say - there are NO environmental studies that pre-date their introduction, but my guess is that it has been minimal, although there is a photo by Colin that shows a Tubastrea living on a sponge - and that is obviously harming the sponge colony.

The pathogens you mentioned are the big issue. I've been involved in a captive breeding program for some extinct African fishes. We can't send them back to Africa because of the fear that they may have been exposed to a strain of Mycobacteria that is not present in Africa....the risk of introducing a disease is just too great.


The take home message is to NEVER translocate animals (or plants, or microbes).....


Jay

These are the comments I was hoping to generate with this post.

The nature of our hobby is introduce various species of corals fish that are not native to one another and view them for our pleasure. Unfortunately, to the laymen, it might be easy to assume that "if they work together in my tank, why wouldn't they live harmoniously in the ocean?" Next thing you know, it becomes a huge problem the waters.

 

[GhostCon1]

I think the simple reason why everything works so well in our reef tanks is because we are playing the part of the all knowing care taker, in general, we all know what will and what wont work within our tanks because we research things. If something drastically impacts something for the worse, we remove something to preserve another.

We don't put peaceful corals next to aggressive ones because we don't want the aggressive ones to kill off the peaceful ones. We don't put predators in with smaller fish that will be eaten, etc.

In the wild, there is no 'care taker' per se, just Mother Nature and survivial of the fittest. Whoever outcompetes, outlives. Whoever can't take the heat, becomes extinct.

 

[zachfishman]

I think the simple reason why everything works so well in our reef tanks is because we are playing the part of the all knowing care taker, in general, we all know what will and what wont work within our tanks because we research things. If something drastically impacts something for the worse, we remove something to preserve another.

We don't put peaceful corals next to aggressive ones because we don't want the aggressive ones to kill off the peaceful ones. We don't put predators in with smaller fish that will be eaten, etc.

In the wild, there is no 'care taker' per se, just Mother Nature and survivial of the fittest. Whoever outcompetes, outlives. Whoever can't take the heat, becomes extinct.

Very true, a perfect example I observe is the presence of Briareum here in SFL (the boring brown kind). With the proficiency that GSP takes over our aquaria, you'd think it'd do so here too (in our area of dirtier water and low coral cover). That being said, I can't imagine the accidental introduction of xenia going too well - with our waters as choc full of phytoplankton as they are.

 

[The Reef Expert]

if you don't know what you're talking about it's better not to post anything.

Dendrophylliids already naturally exist in the tropical Atlantic.
Introducing Pacific species would cause direct competition with them... and even without any Atlantic species, introducing non-native species would be detrimental to the existing ecosystem.

Have you ever thought about pheasants in north America? They fill an ecological niche that they dont compete with anything else.:spin1:

 

[zachfishman]

Here in SFL, I often think about what would happen if I slipped a frag of blue-tipped stag or even a Euphyllid onto the reef. Supposing it survived and spread, my best guess is that it would only locally displace native species to a minimal extent, rather than contributing to raising coral cover on our reefs. This would slightly (and unnaturally) raise coral species richness in the area, but thin out existing populations even more so then they currently are.

A weedy soft coral on the other hand, one that thrives in dirty water with high phyto (*cough* xenia *cough") would likely:

1. Spread to detrimental levels.
2. Incite a massive (and expensive) containment and removal effort.
3. Add yet another reason for the legal restriction of our hobby.
4. Reach critical mass and then melt away over the course of one year leaving the scientific community dumbfounded while we snicker on the RC boards.

 

[AuroraDrvr]

if you don't know what you're talking about it's better not to post anything.

So why you posting then?

Dendrophylliids already naturally exist in the tropical Atlantic.
Introducing Pacific species would cause direct competition with them... and even without any Atlantic species, introducing non-native species would be detrimental to the existing ecosystem.

Please show me where I mentioned that Dendrophyllidds as a family, were invasive? To directly quote myself, "Tubastrea spp. corals are invasive..." Tubastrea spp., specifically Tubastraea coccinea & T. tagusensis are invasive. NOAA, along with other organizations/agencies recognize these species as invasive to the Western Atlantic.

He is incorrect, however, in saying they are not detrimental. Not detrimental to divers who like to see them, but detrimental to the other critters whose plankton they eat, and would otherwise be growing on the same piece of real estate. Is the magnitude of this detriment great? Hard to say - there are NO environmental studies that pre-date their introduction, but my guess is that it has been minimal, although there is a photo by Colin that shows a Tubastrea living on a sponge - and that is obviously harming the sponge colony.

You're right. I read reports that leaned either way, non-detrimental vs. detrimental. I did not think about the real-estate/food issues however. After doing a bit more reading, it seems the main issue that native corals face is tissue loss, caused by as you mentioned, fighting for the same real-estate.

 

[Gary Majchrzak]

I'll stick by my previous post. I never accused anyone of saying anything, Aurora

Dendrophylliids already naturally exist in the tropical Atlantic.
Introducing Pacific species would cause direct competition with them... and even without any Atlantic species, introducing non-native species would be detrimental to the existing ecosystem.

 

[Gary Majchrzak]

worthy of repeating:

worthy of repeating:

Gary,

Actually, Todd is partially correct. Tubastrea was determined to be an invasive species, but one that had been in the Tropical Western Atlantic so long that many previous researchers had considered it naturally ocurring. The other Atlantic Dendrophyliids don't share the same niche, so there is no direct competition - between THOSE animals.
He is incorrect, however, in saying they are not detrimental. Not detrimental to divers who like to see them, but detrimental to the other critters whose plankton they eat, and would otherwise be growing on the same piece of real estate. Is the magnitude of this detriment great? Hard to say - there are NO environmental studies that pre-date their introduction, but my guess is that it has been minimal, although there is a photo by Colin that shows a Tubastrea living on a sponge - and that is obviously harming the sponge colony.

The pathogens you mentioned are the big issue. I've been involved in a captive breeding program for some extinct African fishes. We can't send them back to Africa because of the fear that they may have been exposed to a strain of Mycobacteria that is not present in Africa....the risk of introducing a disease is just too great.


The take home message is to NEVER translocate animals (or plants, or microbes).....


Jay

exactly.