spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


spacer gif
     Home     Help     Feedback     Subscriptions     Archive     Search     Table of Contents    

First published online December 14, 2006
Journal of Experimental Biology 210, 91-96 (2007)
Published by The Company of Biologists 2007
doi: 10.1242/jeb.02627
This Article
Right arrow Summary Freely available
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Zundelevich, A.
Right arrow Articles by Ilan, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Zundelevich, A.
Right arrow Articles by Ilan, M.

Chemical versus mechanical bioerosion of coral reefs by boring sponges - lessons from Pione cf. vastifica

A. Zundelevich1,*, B. Lazar2 and M. Ilan1,{dagger}

1 Department of Zoology, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 69978, Israel
2 Institute of Earth Sciences, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem 91904, Israel


Figure 1
View larger version (175K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 1. Pione cf. vastifica spicules and erosion scars. (A) All three types of spicules. The longest one is a tylostyle. (B) An acantho microxea. (C) An acantho microrhabd. (D) Wall of sponge excavation in coral, covered with erosion scars. (E) A few erosion scars of different shapes. Of note are the projections in the center of some of them, where no substrate dissolution occurred. (F) A single erosion scar with a small projection in the middle. Signs of penetration beneath the projection are evident in its perimeter (arrowheads). Arrow indicates the area assumed to have been chemically removed.

 

Figure 2
View larger version (6K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 2. Abundance of Pione cf. vastifica at different depths (mean ± s.d.). a, b and c show statistically different groups (ANOVA and LSD a-posteriori test; P<0.001).

 

Figure 3
View larger version (5K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 3. Surface area of individual Pione cf. vastifica at different depths (mean + s.d.).

 

Figure 4
View larger version (5K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 4. Chemical boring rate of Pione cf. vastifica in different months (mean + s.d.), (ANOVA, P<0.05).

 

Figure 5
View larger version (5K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 5. Pione cf. vastifica chemical boring rate during the day and at night (mean + s.d.).

 

Figure 6
View larger version (7K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 6. Pione cf. vastifica rates of chemical boring versus mechanical boring by individual sponges (mean ± s.d.).

 




© The Company of Biologists Ltd 2007