Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2024 Jan 3;19(1):e0295283. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0295283

Effects of surface geometry on light exposure, photoacclimation and photosynthetic energy acquisition in zooxanthellate corals

Tomás López-Londoño 1,2,*, Susana Enríquez 2, Roberto Iglesias-Prieto 1,2
Editor: Erik Caroselli3
PMCID: PMC10763928  PMID: 38170717

Abstract

Symbiotic corals display a great array of morphologies, each of which has unique effects on light interception and the photosynthetic performance of in hospite zooxanthellae. Changes in light availability elicit photoacclimation responses to optimize the energy balances in primary producers, extensively documented for corals exposed to contrasting light regimes along depth gradients. Yet, response variation driven by coral colony geometry and its energetic implications on colonies with contrasting morphologies remain largely unknown. In this study, we assessed the effect of the inclination angle of coral surface on light availability, short- and long-term photoacclimation responses, and potential photosynthetic usable energy. Increasing surface inclination angle resulted in an order of magnitude reduction of light availability, following a linear relationship explained by the cosine law and relative changes in the direct and diffuse components of irradiance. The light gradient induced by surface geometry triggered photoacclimation responses comparable to those observed along depth gradients: changes in the quantum yield of photosystem II, photosynthetic parameters, and optical properties and pigmentation of the coral tissue. Differences in light availability and photoacclimation driven by surface inclination led to contrasting energetic performance. Horizontally and vertically oriented coral surfaces experienced the largest reductions in photosynthetic usable energy as a result of excessive irradiance and light-limiting conditions, respectively. This pattern is predicted to change with depth or local water optical properties. Our study concludes that colony geometry plays an essential role in shaping the energy balance and determining the light niche of zooxanthellate corals.

Introduction

The combination of the symbioses with photosynthetic dinoflagellates and colonial integration is thought to be a key factor for the ecological and evolutionary success of corals in tropical coral reef ecosystems [1,2]. The nutritional symbiosis allows this group of sessile benthic animals to efficiently use solar radiation as major source of energy, conferring important metabolic advantages in the predominantly oligotrophic environments in which they evolved [3,4]. On the other hand, colony integration allows resource translocation from source to sink sites according to metabolic needs [58], contributing to their competitive dominance over other benthic invertebrates by strengthening colony-wide fitness and stress resistance [911].

Colony integration in corals led to the evolution of a complex array of morphologies under the influence of environmental factors [9]. Changes in colony morphology and surface geometry have important implications on the light interception capacity and the consequent photosynthetic energy acquisition by the whole colony, allowing different coral species to thrive in particular light environments along depth gradients. Until now, the effect of morphology on light interception and energy acquisition has remained largely descriptive and qualitative, albeit with a few notable exceptions including studies primarily focused on branching species from Pacific coral reefs, which have utilized mathematical models based on geometrical laws and proxies for assessing photosynthetic capacity [1216]. The light interception at a particular colony surface area is mediated by the cosine of the angle between the direction of incident irradiance and that particular surface, a phenomenon based on geometrical relations usually referred as the Lambert’s Cosine Law [12,17]. This law states that there is an angle dependent reduction in the amount of light energy intercepted by a surface, following a cosine function. Such physical law may explain why coral species tend to adopt horizontal plate-like morphologies in light-limited environments, such as caves and deep-water, in order to maximize light interception, and branching or foliaceous morphologies in high-light environments to facilitate light attenuation and reduce the coral surface area exposed to intense irradiance and thus the potential of photoinhibition [12,13,15].

Contrasting light climates elicit diverse photoacclimation responses in zooxanthellate corals, as in all primary producers, to minimize the imbalance between the absorbed energy and the energy that can be incorporated through photochemistry or dissipated by photoprotective mechanisms [18]. Readjustments of the photosynthetic apparatus of the zooxanthellae occur over both short- and long-term time scales. In the short-term, the energy imbalance can lead to, e.g., reductions in the energy transfer efficiency to the photosystem II (PSII), which is the protein complex responsible for the release of oxygen and electrons from photosynthetic water oxidation. In the long-term, the energy imbalance can lead to changes in the density of light-harvesting pigments and/or electron-consuming sinks, affecting the photosynthetic electron flow capacity [18,19]. Extensive documentation exists regarding the change in photoacclimatory responses of corals exposed to environmental gradients, primarily focusing on the variation associated with bathymetric differences and species-specific physiological capabilities of symbiotic dinoflagellates [2024]. Recent research has also highlighted significant variation of photoacclimatory responses associated with seasonal changes in light and temperature [25,26]. Despite these significant advancements in understanding photoacclimation responses in corals, there is a dearth of detailed descriptions regarding changes in the inclination angle of coral surfaces and the associated local light climate. Moreover, the broader implications of these changes for the overall energetic performance of entire coral colonies have not been thoroughly explored.

The amount of light that reaches coral colonies directly affects the photosynthetic activity of in hospite zooxanthellae and the costs of repair photodamaged PSII reaction centers, which in turn determines the photosynthetic usable energy that can be translocated to their coral host [27]. Both high- and low-light conditions have the potential to constrain the translocation of usable energy (i.e., carbon-rich photosynthates) and the overall energetic performance of coral holobionts. In areas from coral colonies exposed to high-light intensities, the reduction in the translocation of photosynthetic usable energy can occur due to increased costs of PSII repair in the photosynthetic apparatus of the zooxanthellae. Conversely, in areas exposed to low-light intensities, such reductions may arise as a consequence of diminished photosynthetic activity and photosynthetically fixed energy [27]. Crucially, a uniform pattern in the rates of PSII photodamage as a function of light exposure has been observed across experiments involving multiple coral species subjected to varying intensity and quality of light [27,28]. The consistency of these trends emphasizes the pivotal role of light intensity in determining the rates of PSII photodamage. Moreover, it implies that the energy costs associated with repairing PSII reaction centers from photodamage as a function of light exposure may be similar among coral and zooxanthellae species. This assumption aligns with the fundamental principle that diurnal recovery of photochemical efficiency is driven by the equilibrium between PSII damage and repair rates [29]. Given the substantial influence of colony morphology on light acquisition, it is plausible that gradients of photosynthetic usable energy exist within colonies, shaped by varying trade-offs between photosynthetic productivity and the costs of repairing PSII from photodamage.

The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of the inclination angle of coral colony surfaces on light exposure, short- and long-term photoacclimatory responses, and the acquisition potential of photosynthetic usable energy. For this purpose, we conducted an in-situ experiment with small samples of the coral species Orbicella faveolata exposed to different inclination angles. Although this species can form colonies with massive and complex morphologies, the predominant flat morphology at the meso-scale limits the formation of significant surface light gradients, making it an ideal system to study local photoacclimation associated with coral surface inclination. Our findings revealed substantial variations in light availability and photoacclimation responses resulting from changes in coral surface inclination, similar to those commonly observed along depth gradients. Furthermore, we documented here the impact of surface inclination on local productivity, energetic demands and energy fluxes within coral colonies.

Materials and methods

Sampling design

Twenty coral fragments of the species Orbicella faveolata, each approximately 5x5 cm2 in size, formed the basis for this experimental study. The experimental coral fragments were collected from random colonies at similar depth of 5 m in La Bocana Reef, Puerto Morelos, Mexico (20° 52’ 33.60" N, 86° 51’ 2.29" W). The selected donor colonies were spaced at least 5 m apart, potentially originating from different genotypes. The experimental fragments had been used for data collection with non-invasive techniques in previous projects, and had remained undisturbed on a flat, horizontal surface at a constant depth of 5 m for at least one year before conducting the experiment. This ensured that all fragments had a similar photoacclimation state at the beginning of the experiment, as confirmed by comparative analysis of the maximum quantum yield of charge separation of photosystem II (PSII), as well as potentially similar Symbiodiniaceae community composition dominated by Symbiodinium spp., Breviolum spp., and/or Cladocopium spp. [28,30]. Experimental corals were glued with underwater epoxy (Z-Spar A-788 epoxy) to PVC couplers and fixed to a panel at 3 m depth over a seagrass bed to naturally reduce the upwelling irradiance. Coral samples were initially acclimated for two weeks at an intermediate angle of exposure to downwelling irradiance of 45°, and then evenly distributed across five inclination settings: 0° (horizontal), 25°, 45°, 65° and 90° (vertical). The panel was oriented in a north-south direction to ensure a symmetrical diurnal cycle around noon time. The experimental conditions were maintained for one year (April 2014 –April 2015). Temperature at the experimental site was continuously monitored at 5 min intervals throughout the experimental period with HOBO pendant dataloggers (UA-002–64, Onset Computer Corporation, USA) attached to the PVC panel. Massive coral colonies in their natural habitat at 5 m depth were also used for some analyses. Photoacclimatory responses of both experimental corals and colonies in their natural habitat, were assessed by using non-destructive techniques only.

Quantum yield of charge separation of PSII

Chlorophyll a (Chl a) fluorescence was recorded daily in all coral fragments (N = 20, n = 4 per inclination setting) after adjusting the inclination settings, using a submersible pulse amplitude modulated fluorometer (Diving-PAM, Walz, Germany; saturation light pulse width 0.6s of >4500μmol quanta m-2 s-1). The maximum (Fv/Fm) and the effective (ΔF/Fm’) quantum yields of PSII were respectively recorded at dusk and at local noon until a steady state of PSII photochemical activity was detected, which required approximately 10 days. The stability of PSII photochemical activity was confirmed by the complete recovery of the maximum quantum yield of charge separation of PSII (Fv/Fm), at each inclination setting during a diurnal cycle analysis. This diurnal variation of the quantum yield of PSII was measured from dawn to dusk (06:00–19:00) on a cloudless day at the end of the photoacclimatory period. Measurements of Fv/Fm and ΔF/Fm’ were also recorded on coral surfaces along an inclination gradient of three massive O. faveolata colonies in their natural habitat at a constant depth of approximately 5 m. In situ data were collected along transects facing north laid from top to bottom of the colonies, controlling the inclination angle with a buoyancy device attached to a customized protractor. Only flat coral areas with measurable, consistent inclination angles between 0° and 90° were considered in this analysis to ensure measurement accuracy. All Chl a fluorescence measurements were collected after a few seconds of dark adaptation to relax the photochemical quenching (qP), achieved by attaching an opaque hose that extended 1 cm beyond the tip of the fiber optics cable. The maximum excitation pressure over PSII (Qm) was calculated as Qm = 1 - [(ΔF/Fm’ at noon) / (Fv/Fm at dusk)]. As calculated here, Qm serves as a proxy for the amount of excessive energy absorbed and dissipated as heat, or non-photochemical quenching (NPQ) at noon [31].

The incident photosynthetic radiation at each inclination setting was also recorded when measuring ΔF/Fm’ on the experimental fragments, using the cosine-corrected micro-quantum sensor of the Diving-PAM previously calibrated against a reference quantum sensor (LI- 1400; LI-COR, USA). The sensor was carefully positioned perpendicular to the coral surface at each inclination setting (i.e., pointing in the direction of the normal surface) with the help of a custom-made guiding panel. The relative variation in the direct and diffuse components of irradiance was determined on a single day at noon, following Kirk (17). At each inclination setting, three replicates of the total incident photosynthetic radiation were recorded (Et), each one immediately followed by another measurement of the diffuse irradiance (Edf) obtained by placing a black panel at a constant distance of 10 cm above the sensor to remove the direct irradiance (Edr). Finally, Edr was calculated as Et—Edf.

Optical properties of coral tissues

The light absorption capacity of intact corals was determined spectrophotometrically following the technique initially developed by Shibata [32] and subsequently modified [33]. The reflectance (R) spectra of all experimental corals (N = 20, n = 4 per inclination setting) were measured 10 months after adjusting the inclination settings, using a modular spectrophotometer (Flame-T-UV-VIS, Ocean Optics Inc.). The fraction of incident light absorbed by the coral tissue, absorptance (A), was calculated as A = 1—R, assuming that the light transmitted through the coral skeleton is negligible [33]. The absorptance peak of chlorophyll a (Chl a) at 675 nm (A675) was used as a proxy of relative changes in Chl a content, considering that light absorption at this wavelength has minimal interference from accessory algal and animal pigments [33]. The minimum quantum requirement of photosynthesis (1/Φmax) was calculated based on the amount of light being absorbed and used to drive photosynthesis in the linear increase of the P vs E curve at sub-saturating irradiance (see below). The ratio of absorbed light in the PAR range, or photosynthetic usable radiation (PUR), was calculated by multiplying the light emission spectrum of the lamp used in the P vs E curves characterizations by the in vivo absorption spectrum of corals [34,35].

Photosynthetic parameters

Photosynthetic parameters derived from P vs E (photosynthesis vs irradiance) curves were obtained from 15 experimental corals, 12 months after exposing the samples to the experimental conditions. For the analysis, three coral samples from each inclination setting that maintained predominantly flat surfaces were selected, avoiding the formation of internal light and productivity gradients during measurements. Photosynthesis and respiration rates were measured using a fiber-optic oxygen meter system (FireSting, Pyroscience) with a custom-made acrylic chamber filled with filtered seawater (0.45 μm), which was maintained under constant agitation using magnetic stirrers. Water temperature was maintained at 28°C using an external circulating water bath (Isotemp, Fisher Scientific, USA). Ten levels of irradiance (0, 37, 65, 97, 147, 232, 361, 479, 677 and 904 μmol quanta m-2 s-1) were supplied at 10 min intervals with a dimmable LED (Philips, China) and a combination of neutral density filters. To control for photosynthesis and respiration of micro-organisms and biofilm, we covered the non-living portions of corals with black plasticine and repeated the P vs E curve protocol with filtered seawater without corals. Photosynthetic parameters were calculated as in González-Guerrero, Vásquez-Elizondo (35), normalized to coral surface area estimated with the aluminum foil technique [36]. Briefly, the respiration rates (R) were calculated by averaging the dark respiration rates obtained before illumination (RD) and after exposing the corals to the maximum level of irradiance (RL). Maximum photosynthetic rates (Pmax) were calculated using the averaged values of photosynthesis obtained above the saturating irradiance (Ek). The compensating irradiance (Ec) corresponded to the light intensity at which the rate photosynthesis matched the rate of respiration. The slope of the linear increase of photosynthesis at sub-saturating irradiance (or photosynthetic efficiency, α), was calculated using least-square regression analyses. This last parameter was also used for the calculation of 1/Φmax, correcting the incident irradiance on the coral surface (E) for the absorbed light (A).

Local irradiance regimes

Data of sea surface irradiance (E0) recorded by a nearby (~100 m) meteorological station (Estación Meteorológica de la Unidad Académica de Sistemas Arrecifales Puerto Morelos, SAMMO) were used to characterize the temporal variation of solar energy and light-driven processes according to the inclination angle of coral samples (n = 143 days). Total downwelling irradiance at the experimental depth of 3 m (Ez) was calculated following the Lambert-Beer law (Ez = E0 e-Kd z) [17], using a vertical attenuation coefficient for downwelling irradiance (Kd) of 0.20 m-1 [37]. Subsequently, local available irradiance at each inclination setting (Eθ) was estimated using correction factors, which were derived from empirical measurements of local irradiance at noon (1.00 at 0°, 0.85 at 25°, 0.58 at 45°, 0.34 at 65°, and 0.09 at 90°). The proportion of daily light integral (DLI) corresponding to sub-compensating (below Ec), compensating (between Ec and Ek), and saturating light intensities (above Ek) were also calculated for each inclination setting using the mean values of the P vs E curve parameters. The daytime period during which the light intensity exceeded the compensating irradiance (Hcom) and saturating irradiance (Hsat) were calculated as in Dennison and Alberte [38]. Hcom was used as descriptor of the daytime period (in hours) during which irradiance was enough for photosynthesis to compensate the respiratory demands of the coral holobiont, while Hsat was used as descriptor of the amount of time (in hours) during which irradiance exceeded the maximum photosynthetic capacity of corals.

Light-driven processes

Based on the availability of light and the mean values of the P vs E curve parameters at each inclination setting, we estimated the relative change in coral productivity. The photosynthetic productivity (Pg) over diurnal cycles was estimated following Jassby and Platt [39] as: Pg = Pmax tanh (α Eθ/ Pmax). We assumed that not all algal photosynthates are translocated to their coral hosts, considering the energy expenditure of the zooxanthellae associated with repairing its photosynthetic apparatus from photodamage which is proportional to light availability [27]. We used the same mathematical model outlined in López-Londoño, Gómez-Campo (27) to assess the relative change in photosynthetic usable energy supplied by the zooxanthellae to their coral host (PUES) in relation to light exposure based on the inclination angle of coral surfaces. This model assumes that the primary factor contributing to the maintenance costs in the symbiotic zooxanthellae is the light-induced damage of PSII, along with the subsequent synthesis of proteins required for their continual re-assembly. The change in PSII half-time (PSII t1/2) as a function of light exposure was calculated with the power function: PSII t1/2 = MEΔ, where M represents the maximum theoretical value of PSII t1/2, E represents the estimated light exposure at each inclination setting, and Δ denotes the rate of change of PSII t1/2 with light availability. The values employed in this analysis for M and Δ were 28.10 and -0.50, respectively, derived from experiments conducted with the Caribbean coral Porites astreoides [27]. Despite our study being centered on a different coral species, we chose these values due the notable similar trends observed in the rates of PSII photodamage with light exposure in experiments involving several coral species [27,28]. The consistency of this pattern highlights the paramount influence of light intensity on the rates of photodamage and consequent costs of PSII repair, which appear to be highly consistent among coral species and in hospite zooxanthella types. The costs of repair from photodamage (Ca) were determined as percentage of the total amount of photosynthetically fixed energy (Pg) over a diurnal cycle (12 hours of daylight), through the relation: Ca = (12 / PSII t1/2) R, where R represents the relative energy cost of protein turnover for the reassembly of PSII reaction centers (R = 15% as in López-Londoño, Gómez-Campo (27)). The PUES at each inclination setting was calculated by subtracting the estimated costs of repair from the photosynthetic output of the zooxanthellae (PUES = PgCa) [27].

Data analysis

Simple linear regression models were used to explore the explanatory power of coral surface inclination angle on the variation of local irradiance and coral physiology and optics. An analysis of covariance was conducted to test for differences in the linear regression describing the association of photosynthetic parameters with coral surface inclination in experimental samples and intact colonies in their natural habitat (interaction of parameters with inclination angle of coral surfaces). Pearson-product correlation analyses were conducted to explore the type and magnitude of the relationship between some variables (respiration vs photosynthetic rates, and maximum quantum yield of PSII vs minimum quantum requirement). Analyses were conducted using R version 4.2.2 [40].

Results

Coral samples of Orbicella faveolata were exposed to contrasting light climates by adjusting the inclination angle of the coral surface, which spanned from 0° (fully horizontal orientation) to 90° (fully vertical orientation). Maximum irradiance recorded at local noon available for horizontally oriented corals was 735.67 ± 68.67 (mean ± standard deviation) μmol quanta·m-2·s-1, while for vertically oriented corals it was 71.04 ± 8.06 μmol quanta·m-2·s-1. In relative units, the available irradiance for corals at 0° and 90° inclination angles was estimated as 55% and 5% of the incident irradiance at sea surface (%ES), respectively. A linear regression analysis revealed that surface inclination angle explained 95% of the variation in maximum irradiance available for the experimental corals (Fig 1A; R2 = 0.95, p < 0.001). The direct and diffuse components of local irradiance exhibited opposite patterns with respect to coral surface inclination (Fig 1B). In vertically oriented corals, the diffuse component accounted for most of the available irradiance (81%), while for horizontally oriented corals, it was the direct component that contributed the most to the available irradiance (86%). A strong positive correlation was found between the direct component of local irradiance and the cosine of the angle of coral surface (r(3) = 0.99, p < 0.001). Temperature at the experimental site during the experimental period was 28.72 ± 1.76°C.

Fig 1. Variation in the local light climate with the inclination angle of coral surface.

Fig 1

(A) Box plots of the peak irradiance at local noon with a linear regression describing the relationship between irradiance and surface inclination. The top right insert depicts the predicted pattern of diurnal variation of irradiance for each inclination setting, indicating the relative positions of the compensating irradiance (Ec) and saturating irradiance (Ek). The bottom-left insert shows the PVC structure used in the experiment to adjust the inclination angle of coral samples. (B) Relative variation of the diffuse and direct components of total irradiance. Cosine functions were used to illustrate the relationship between the direct and diffuse components of irradiance with surface inclination.

Quantum yield of charge separation of PSII

After nearly five days of acclimation to the inclination gradient, the maximum excitation pressure over photosystem II (PSII) at noon (Qm) was found to be more than five times higher in horizontally oriented corals (0.56 ± 0.08) than in vertically oriented corals (0.10 ± 0.04) (Fig 2A). Absolute values of the maximum (Fv/Fm) and effective (ΔF/Fm’) quantum yields of PSII over the diel cycle showed a gradual reduction of the PSII photochemical activity after dawn, reaching minimum ΔF/Fm’ values at midday and then gradually recovering at dusk until reaching former dawn Fv/Fm levels in all inclination settings. However, important differences were observed in the maximum reductions of ΔF/Fm’ at noon relative to maximum Fv/Fm values at dusk/dawn along the inclination gradient, being much more pronounced in horizontally oriented corals (average reduction of 62%) compared to vertically oriented corals (average reduction of 13%) (Fig 2B, see S1 Table for all parameters estimates). During the initial acclimation phase to the experimental conditions, corals in certain inclination settings, primarily those at intermediate inclination angles, did not reach a clearly defined steady-state in the photochemical activity of PSII. This phenomenon coincided with a gradual temperature increase observed during this initial photoacclimation phase (Fig 2A).

Fig 2. Variation in chlorophyll a fluorescence parameters with coral surface inclination.

Fig 2

(A) Maximum excitation pressure over PSII (Qm) recorded before and after exposure to the experimental conditions until a steady state of PSII photochemical activity was detected. The diurnal variation in temperature (daily mean) is depicted using a gray dashed line, while a linear regression of the temperature variation is presented as a solid line.(B) Diurnal oscillation of the maximum (Fv/Fm) and effective (ΔF/Fm’) quantum yield of the PSII. The linear associations of Qm and Fv/Fm with coral surface inclination are shown in plots (C) and (D) respectively, for the experimental samples at 3 m depth (solid squares and continuous lines) and field measurements on coral colonies in their natural habitat at 5 m depth (empty squares and discontinuous lines). Error bars in all graphs are SE.

Significant linear associations between all photosynthetic descriptors derived from chlorophyll a (Chl a) fluorescence measurements and coral surface inclination angle were also found, both for colonies under natural environmental conditions and for the experimental samples. Linear regression analyses indicated that the inclination angle of coral surface explained 78% of the Qm variation in experimental corals at 3 m depth and 63% of the within-colony variation in natural environments at 5 m depth (R2 = 0.78, p < 0.001 and R2 = 0.63, p < 0.001, respectively) (Fig 2C). Coral surface inclination also explained 68% of the within-colony variation of Fv/Fm in natural environments (R2 = 0.68, p < 0.001) and 36% of the Fv/Fm variation in experimental samples (R2 = 0.36, p < 0.001) (Fig 2D). The covariance analysis (condition by angle interaction) indicated that the pattern of change in both Qm and Fv/Fm as a function of coral surface inclination was similar in natural environments and experimental conditions (F(1,91) = 1.95, p = 0.17 and F(1,91) = 0.001, p = 0.97, respectively).

Optical properties of coral tissues

Variation in coral absorptance at 675 nm (A675), which corresponds to the peak absorption wavelength of chlorophyll a (Chl a), was employed as a non-destructive proxy to assess changes in Chl a content in the experimental corals. This proxy indicated that coral pigmentation also varied as a function of the inclination angle of coral surfaces. Linear regression analysis revealed that the inclination angle accounted for only 21% of the variation in A675, with a marginal level of significance (R2 = 0.21, p = 0.042). The greatest reductions in A675 were observed in horizontal and slightly inclined coral samples (0.83 ± 0.06 at 0° and 0.84 ± 0.07 at 25°), which is consistent with a decrease in pigment content. In contrast, the highest values were observed in corals at intermediate and greater inclination angles (0.90 ± 0.02 at 45° and 90°), suggesting maximum content of photosynthetic pigments in these samples (Fig 3A).

Fig 3. Variation in optical properties of the coral tissues and associated photosynthetic descriptors with coral surface inclination.

Fig 3

(A) Boxplots describing the variation in coral absorptance at 675 nm (A675), and (B) minimum quantum requirements for oxygen evolution (1/Φmax) with coral surface inclination. The insert in (B) depict the linear relationship between 1/Φmax and maximum quantum yield of PSII (Fv/Fm), with error bars as SE.

The inclination angle of the coral surface explained 40% (R2 = 0.40, p = 0.011) of the variation in the minimum quantum requirement of photosynthesis (1/Φmax). On average, the values of this parameter were 63% lower in vertically oriented corals exposed to the lowest irradiance (18.31 ± 3.79 quanta O2-1) compared to horizontally oriented corals exposed to the highest levels of direct sunlight (29.90 ± 10.27 quanta O2-1) (Fig 3B). Furthermore, a significant negative correlation was observed between the averaged values of 1/Φmax and Fv /Fm at each inclination setting (r(3) = -0.98, p = 0.002) (Fig 3B).

Photosynthetic parameters

Photosynthetic parameters derived from the P vs E curves were also variable in experimental corals, and a significant portion of this variation was found to be explained by the surface inclination angle. Linear regression analyses indicated that the inclination angle explained 48%, 32%, and 38% of the respective variation in the slope of the linear increase in photosynthesis at sub-saturating irradiance (or photosynthetic efficiency, α) (R2 = 0.48, p < 0.01), compensating irradiance (Ec) (R2 = 0.32, p = 0.03) and saturating irradiance (Ek) (R2 = 0.38, p = 0.01) (Fig 4A–4C). On average, α, Ec and Ek were respectively 42% lower, and 96% and 70% higher on horizontally oriented corals compared to vertically oriented ones. No significant association was observed between the variation in maximum photosynthesis (Pmax) and respiration rates (R) with coral surface inclination (R2 = 0.01, p = 0.75 and R2 = 0.01, p = 0.67, respectively). However, a strong positive correlation (Pearson-product) was found between Pmax and R, regardless of coral surface inclination (r(13) = 0.76, p < 0.001) (Fig 4D). Similarly, a strong positive correlation was detected between the dark respiration rates obtained before illumination (pre-illumination respiration, RD) and after exposing the corals to the maximum level of irradiance (post-illumination respiration, RL) (r(13) = 0.61, p = 0.01).

Fig 4. Variation in photosynthetic parameters with the inclination angle of coral surface.

Fig 4

(A-C) Boxplots describing the variation of three photosynthetic parameters (α, Ec and Ek), along with linear regressions showing the association between each parameter and coral surface inclination. (D) Linear association between Pmax and R of all coral samples analyzed in this study.

Local irradiance regimes

During 143 days of irradiance data and assuming a constant photoacclimatory condition in the experimental samples, the daily light integral (DLI) received by corals in horizontal position was estimated to be 17.07 ± 4.36 mol quanta m-2 d-1, while for corals in vertical position, the DLI was reduced to 1.62 ± 0.41 mol quanta m-2 d-1. The different components of the DLI which corresponded to sub-compensating (below Ec), compensating (between Ec and Ek) and saturating irradiance (above Ek) exhibited high variability along the inclination gradient (Fig 5A and 5B). Nearly 1/3 of the DLI experienced by horizontally oriented corals at 0° exceeded Ek, corresponding to solar energy absorbed in excess by the photosynthetic apparatus of the zooxanthellae. The amount of excess solar energy absorbed gradually decreased with increasing coral surface inclination until reaching negligible values in corals at an inclination angle of 65°, where it represented less than 1% of the DLI.

Fig 5. Local irradiance regimes and light-driven processes according to coral surface inclination.

Fig 5

(A) Description of a diurnal cycle of solar irradiance (E), indicating the relative positions of the compensating irradiance (Ec) and saturating irradiance (Ek), and the daytime periods of light intensities exceeding Ec (Hcom) and Ek (Hsat) [modified from [38]]. (B) Estimated daily light integral (DLI) at each inclination setting, indicating the relative proportions corresponding to sub-compensating, compensating, and saturating irradiance. Error bars describe standard deviations. (C) Estimated relative changes in light-induced processes affecting the energy balance of coral holobionts. PUES: photosynthetic usable energy supply; Pg: gross productivity of the zooxanthellae; Ca: metabolic costs of maintenance associated with zooxanthellae photosynthesis. Polynomial regressions were used to depict the relationships of these parameters with surface inclination angle.

In contrast, most of the DLI available for vertically oriented corals at 90° (90%), corresponded to sub-compensating levels of irradiance (i.e., below Ec) (Fig 5B). Accordingly, the estimated periods of daytime when light intensity exceeded the compensating irradiance (Hcom) and saturating irradiance (Hsat), were highly variable along the inclination gradient. On average, the Hcom period for corals in horizontal position accounted for approximately 70% of the daytime (9.85 ± 1.60 h), while for vertically oriented corals it was reduced to 30% (4.16 ± 1.78 h). Notably, on some days, corals at inclination angles of 65° and 90° experienced light-limiting conditions throughout the entire day, where irradiance levels never reached Ec. The Hsat period for horizontally oriented corals comprised 48% of the daytime (6.70 ± 2.18 h), whereas for corals at 65° it was reduced to 3% (0.44 ± 0.69 h). The DLI analysis indicated that vertically oriented corals never reached maximum photosynthetic capacity.

Light-driven processes

The estimated photosynthetic production (Pg) exhibited the highest values in corals at inclination angles of 25° (0.17 ± 0.03 mol O2 m-2 d-1) and 0° (0.15 ± 0.03 mol O2 m-2 d-1), while the lowest values were observed in corals at an inclination angle of 90° (0.04 ± 0.001 mol O2 m-2 d-1) (Fig 5C). The estimated energy costs of repair from photodamage for the symbiotic algae (Ca), expected to be proportional to light availability [27], ranged between 49% and 15% of the photosynthetically fixed energy at both ends of the inclination gradient. Consequently, the photosynthetic usable energy supplied (PUES) by the symbiotic algae to their coral host followed a unimodal pattern across the inclination gradient, being higher in coral surfaces at 25° and 45° inclination angles. The PUES calculated for fully vertically oriented corals exhibited the lowest values along the experimental inclination gradient (Fig 5C).

Discussion

Colony surface geometry generates, within a single depth, a diverse array of local light climates that led to significant variation in the photoacclimatory responses of the coral holobiont and in significant differences in the photosynthetic usable energy supplied (PUES) by the symbiotic algae to their coral host. Increasing the inclination angle of coral surface results in a proportional reduction of light availability, influenced by relative changes in the diffuse and direct components of total irradiance. The strong positive correlation between the direct component of irradiance and the cosine of the angle of coral surface confirms that coral surfaces behave as a cosine-corrected light collectors at this scale [33], in accordance with Lambertian cosine law [17]. While changes in light availability are commonly associated with depth gradients and the optical properties of the water column, the impact of colony surface geometry on light availability for the holobiont is often overlooked, albeit with a few notable exceptions in studies predominantly conducted on branching species from Pacific coral reefs [1216]. The extremes within the light intensity gradient observed in this study as a result of changes in colony surface inclination were comparable to the estimated changes in downwelling irradiance across depths separated by approximately 40 m in clear waters [41] or between open habitats and groove formations [42]. Consistent with previous studies [12,13,15], the results of this research provide compelling evidence that the light gradients taking place along broad depth ranges can also manifest within a single colony, and that this variation is modulated by colony morphology. The variability in these local light climates elicits comparable photoacclimation responses to optimize the balance between absorbed light energy, photosynthetic capacity, photodamage and repair processes, and the translocation of photosynthetic energy by the symbiotic algae to their coral host.

After nearly 10 days of exposure to the experimental conditions, all corals exhibited a complete recovery of the maximum quantum yield of PSII (Fv/Fm) at the end of the day relative to former dawn levels at each inclination setting, which supports the notion that the PSII had already undergone stable photoacclimation to the local light climate associated with each inclination setting. The light gradient experimentally induced by changing coral surface inclination resulted in contrasting levels of PSII excitation pressure, which is one of the first chloroplastic redox signal to trigger photoacclimatory changes in primary producers [18,43]. Samples with higher inclination angles exposed to lower light intensities (at 65° and 90°) exhibited minimal diurnal oscillations in PSII quantum yields and, consequently, minimal values of maximum excitation pressure over PSII (Qm). This pattern suggests that even during periods of maximum irradiance most PSII reaction centers remain open, indicating light-limited photosynthesis and low energetic contribution by the symbiotic zooxanthellae to their coral host [31]. In contrast, coral samples with lower inclination angles (at 0° and 25°) exposed to higher levels of direct sunlight exhibited substantial diurnal oscillations in PSII quantum yields, reflected in higher values of Qm. This indicates that during peak-irradiance periods, a significant portion of PSII reaction centers becomes closed due to the high rate of energy absorbed (i.e., light dose), requiring maximum induction of photoprotective mechanisms to dissipate as heat the excess of absorbed energy [31,44]. The absence of a clearly defined steady-state in the photochemical activity of PSII in certain experimental conditions, especially at intermediate inclination angles, may be attributed to the influence of gradual increases in both light exposure and temperature during the spring season, when Qm measurements were recorded [26].

Accordingly, variation in Fv/Fm along the inclination gradient reflects a variable proportion of photoinactive PSII reaction centers that are not involved in photochemistry but are better suited to dissipate excessive excitation energy [29,45]. The accumulation of these photoinactive PSII reaction centers is associated with a diurnal balance between the rates of PSII damage and repair under specific light climates. For instance, when the rates of PSII damage exceeds those of repair, there is accumulation of photodamage which is reflected in reductions of Fv/Fm. The observed linear association between Fv/Fm and surface inclination angle suggests that the subpopulation of photoinactive PSII accumulated in the algal photosynthetic apparatus may be inversely proportional to the inclination angle of coral surface, resulting in maximum photoprotection on horizontal surfaces and maximal photochemical efficiency on vertical surfaces. The consistency between the patterns obtained in experimental samples and in coral colonies within their native environments suggests that the short-term photoacclimation responses related to the photochemical efficiency of PSII induced by changes in coral surface inclination, likely reflect natural processes occurring in coral colonies with complex geometries [29,43]. It is worthy to remark that these photoacclimation responses are attributed exclusively to variations in total light intensity, rather than changes in light quality (e.g., UV wavelengths) [45] or other environmental conditions (e.g., temperature) [46], due to the consistent experimental depth maintained in our study. This underscores the paramount influence of light intensity on photoacclimation responses linked to accumulation of photodamage, in addition to well-known effect of UV exposure on photosynthetic processes, which can be more pronounced at shallow depths [45,47].

The induction of long-term photoacclimatory responses in coral samples was supported by the observed variation in their in vivo optical properties (absorptance/pigmentation) and photosynthetic potential (P vs E curve parameters). Although the relationship between light absorption capacity (A675) and coral surface inclination angle was weak, it still indicated a reduction in pigment content in coral samples with lower inclination angles that were exposed to higher levels of direct sunlight, and that exhibited higher PSII excitation pressure. Such inferred changes in pigmentation along the inclination gradient are consistent with the induction of a photoacclimatory response to reduce excitation pressure on PSII in high light environments and to maximize the light harvesting capacity in low light conditions. Coral samples exposed to higher inclinations (above 45°) displayed similar A675 values close to 0.9, which is the maximum light absorption capacity (i.e., absorptance) at 675 nm documented for O. faveolata [48]. This suggests that the light absorption capacity of coral holobionts exposed to higher inclinations was already close to its maximum and minimally influenced by further changes in pigment content. This restricted variation of A675 at its maximum value may explain the limited capacity of this proxy for explaining the pigment content variation in the experimental corals. All these findings highlight the importance of absorptance variation associated with changes in pigmentation as a crucial photoacclimatory response to modulate light dose, not only for coral colonies located at different depths [20,21,23] but also for coral surfaces within a single colony exhibiting contrasting inclination.

Comparative analyses of the P vs E curve parameters revealed clear linear associations of the inclination angle of the coral surface with the photosynthetic efficiency (α), compensating irradiance (Ec), and saturating irradiance (Ek). The pattern of variation in these parameters is similar to that observed in corals growing under contrasting light climates along depth gradients [20,21,23], being directly associated with the observed changes in absorptance/pigmentation and quantum yield efficiency of PSII. Several outcomes result from the link between these parameters and coral surface inclination. Firstly, the enhanced photosynthetic efficiency (α) in coral surfaces with greater inclination angles leads to more rapid increases in photosynthetic rates with increasing light availability. Secondly, the lowered compensating irradiance (Ec) in coral surfaces with greater inclination angles and limited light availability enhances their capacity to achieve positive energy balances over extended periods of the daytime. Lastly, the elevated saturating irradiance (Ek) in horizontal or slightly inclined coral surfaces exposed to higher levels of direct sunlight leads to reductions in the proportion of daytime when irradiance exceeds the maximum photosynthetic capacity, minimizing the accumulation of excessive energy absorbed that cannot be used in photosynthesis and must be dissipated through photoprotective mechanisms. Both Ec and Ek are very sensitive to changes in the photosynthetic efficiency (Ec = R/α and Ek = Pmax/α). Therefore, variations in these photosynthetic parameters along the inclination gradient primarily are likely attributed to changes in the absorption cross-section of the coral surface and/or the number of PSII reaction centers in the photosynthetic apparatus of the zooxanthellae, which directly influence light utilization efficiency [18,49]. It is worth noting that these optical and photosynthetic properties should be attributed to the coral holobiont (the coral animal + symbiotic algae + coral skeleton) rather than exclusively to Symbiodiniaceae.

The strong correlation between Pmax and R, independent of the inclination angle of the coral surface, suggests that both parameters responded similarly to the local environmental conditions, although did not vary linearly along the inclination gradient examined in this study. The constraints of a limited sample size at each inclination setting and our commitment to non-destructive techniques in our experiment, prevented a more in-depth analysis of the observed correlation between Pmax and Rd along the experimentally induced light gradient. It is also worth highlighting that potential variations in symbiont cell density, cell size, algal genotype and/or coral tissue thickness (i.e., biomass), among other structural traits not accounted for in this study, can be important underlying factors for the strong correlation between both Pmax and R, and between the minimum (before illumination, RD) and maximum (after exposing corals to the maximum level of irradiance, RL) rates of respiration. These strong correlations may indicate that some of these unaccounted coral traits play a crucial role in determining the maximum metabolic activity and photosynthetic potential among samples, as has been observed in corals acclimated to contrasting coral reef habitats [21,42,50] and seasons [25,26].

The analysis of the interplay between photosynthetic parameters and optical properties of coral holobionts offers a unique opportunity to assess an essential descriptor of photosynthetic performance: the minimum quantum requirement of photosynthesis (1/Φmax), which measures the minimum number of absorbed photons required to evolve one molecule of O2 [34,35]. Analyses of this parameter revealed a clear pattern of change within the experimental corals, showing an inverse relationship with the inclination angle of coral surfaces (i.e., as the inclination angle increased, the values of 1/Φmax decreased), mirroring the variation observed in several coral species in response to changes in depth [21,51]. This trend indicates that coral surfaces with high inclination angles and reduced light availability become more efficient at using the absorbed light energy for photosynthesis than coral surfaces with low inclination angles and maximum light exposure. Furthermore, the correlation between 1/Φmax and Fv/Fm reinforces the fundamental role of the accumulation of photodamaged PSII reaction centers associated with light exposure in influencing the photosynthetic quantum efficiency of corals.

Analyses of the diurnal variation in irradiance along the inclination gradient revealed contrasting effects on the photosynthetic performance of coral holobionts. Coral surfaces with low inclination angle, directly exposed to downwelling irradiance, received sufficient light to reach maximum photosynthesis during nearly half of the daytime. The estimated photosynthetic productivity of these coral surfaces remained relatively constant regardless of slight changes in the inclination angle and light exposure. This plateau in photosynthetic productivity occurs after reaching maximum photosynthetic capacity determined by the hyperbolic response of photosynthesis to light availability, where further increases in productivity are not observed once photosynthesis is light-saturated [52]. As a result, a considerable proportion of the daily light dose absorbed by horizontal and nearly horizontal coral surfaces cannot be utilized for photosynthetic energy conversion but, instead, represents excess excitation energy that can be harmful for the photosynthetic apparatus of the zooxanthellae [27,43]. Conversely, coral surfaces with higher inclination angles and reduced light exposure may only receive enough light to exceed the compensating irradiance during brief periods of the day and may never reach their maximum photosynthetic capacity. Moreover, our results suggest that coral surfaces with greater inclination angles can sustain positive energy balances only over short time periods when the photosynthetically fixed carbon exceeds the holobiont respiratory requirements. It is important to note that our analysis of the photosynthetic performance of corals as a function of the inclination angle of coral surfaces is based on photosynthetic parameters normalized to surface area. However, considering potential variations in unaccounted coral traits, different normalizations beyond surface area (e.g., to host protein, symbiont cell density or size, chlorophyll content) can yield distinct patterns of coral adjustments with significant differences for the beneficial effects on host productivity, depending on the bio-optical and bio-physical characteristics of both the coral host and its algal symbionts [24,26,48].

The non-linearity between light availability, photosynthetic production, and costs of repair from photodamage can result in contrasting levels of photosynthetic usable energy supplied by the zooxanthellae to their host (PUES), depending on the geometry of coral colonies. While photosynthetic production follows a hyperbolic response to light intensity, the amounts of absorbed light energy and the costs of repair from photodamage increase proportionally with light availability [27,52]. This energetic imbalance explains the predicted decrease in PUES in both vertically and horizontally oriented coral surfaces, similar to changes along depth gradients [27]. The predicted pattern of change in PUES as a function of the inclination angle exhibits a unimodal shape, mediated by two contrasting processes: 1) in horizontally oriented surfaces, exposure to intense irradiance amplifies the metabolic costs of maintenance in the zooxanthellae, limiting the amount of energy that can be translocated to their host; and 2) as the inclination angle increases, the reductions in light availability and photosynthetic activity lead to decreases in the amount of energy fixed in photosynthesis. In the shallow experimental site of our study, corals can achieve maximum energetic output from the zooxanthellae and energetic performance at intermediate surface inclination angles. However, with increasing depth, the optimal inclination angles for energetic performance tend to approach the horizontal orientation due to the reduction in the excess of solar energy absorbed relative to the maximum photosynthetic capacity. Heterotrophic feeding plays a fundamental role in corals’ nutrition supplying a significant portion of essential elements that cannot be acquired through autotrophy [3,53]. Some coral species are even able to increase their metabolic reliance on heterotrophy to compensate for reduced photosynthesis under low-light conditions, such as deep areas, caves, or turbid environments [54,55]. Therefore, although our study could not incorporate this crucial aspect of the coral-algae symbiosis, its potential effect on the variation of energy budgets and fluxes within coral colonies cannot be discharged.

In our study, we used small coral samples detached from the original colony. In this sense, it is important to note that under natural conditions, coral colonies with complex morphologies are physiologically integrated, enabling the translocation of energetic products from source to sink sites, such as growing tips and regenerating areas [58]. This translocation allows maintaining the highest calcification rates in tips of branching corals, which typically have low zooxanthellae densities and rates of net primary productivity [5,8]. In massive corals, the growth of colony margins and tissue regeneration is similarly promoted by the translocation of photosynthetic products from the most productive areas of the colony [6,7]. Our study was focused on the photoacclimation variability of individual samples and did not directly assess within-colony translocation. However, the evidence from previous studies indicates that the intracolonial translocation of photosynthetically derived energy products may be a common feature among colonial corals, occurring from highly productive source sites to regions with higher metabolic demands. Our results align with the evidence that coral colonies with complex geometries exhibit great heterogeneity in terms of local productivity, energetic demands and energy fluxes, which supports the importance of colony integration and the translocation of energetic products in enhancing the overall performance of the entire coral colony [911].

In shallow, high-light environments, horizontal coral surfaces, which are typically located in the central areas of colonies, may not coincide with the most productive regions of the colony due to the increased energy costs of repair from photodamage in the zooxanthellae, which ultimately affects the amount of photosynthetic usable energy supplied to their coral host (PUES) [27]. The greater extension and calcification commonly observed in these areas [56] potentially result from photosynthetic energetic products imported from other more productive source sites within the colony. On the other hand, coral surfaces with a large inclination angle and reduced productivity may also act as energy sinks within the colony. Survival of these surfaces would require energetic subsidies from more productive areas of the colony due to their extremely low levels of PUES locally available. As depth increases, these low-productivity areas with greater inclination angles are predicted to experience negative photosynthetic energy balances constantly, becoming increasingly less productive and more costly to maintain for the colony. The reduced productivity of colony surfaces with greater inclination angles, along with their partial dependence on other parts of the colony for energy, may partially explain their higher vulnerability to reduced light penetration associated with increased water turbidity [57] (Fig 6A), disease outbreaks such as the recent stony coral tissue loss disease [58], as well as environmental perturbations, including heat stress [59,60] (Fig 6B).

Fig 6. Coral colonies of O. faveolata affected by environmental perturbations.

Fig 6

(A) Partial mortality observed in a coral colony in the Varadero Reef, an area experiencing elevated anthropogenic turbidity [57]. (B) Bleached and non-bleached regions within a colony during the widespread bleaching event that occurred in the Caribbean in 2010. It is noteworthy that in both conditions, the most affected areas are the low-productivity colony surfaces with the larger inclination angles.

Overall, the combination of water optical properties [16,57,61], substrate type and landscape architecture [42,62], determines the balance between direct and diffuse components in the local light field at specific depths. The vertical attenuation coefficient for downwelling irradiance (Kd), a proxy of the water optical properties, is influenced by the concentration and composition of dissolved and particulate materials, which can absorb and scatter light as it travels through the water. As light penetrates deeper into the water column, there is an increased likelihood of scattering, resulting in an increased proportion of the diffuse component (i.e., the light coming from aside) with depth [17]. This effect may favor light interception and energy acquisition in non-horizontal surfaces of coral colonies located at intermediate depths, where light is still not limited [16,41]. Additionally, different substrates have varying reflectance and absorption properties, further influencing the local light regime experienced by benthic photosynthetic organisms, and thus their primary productivity [42,62]. We acknowledge that all these factors along with others, can contribute to the complexity of underwater light fields [63] as well as the diversity of coral responses under apparently similar environmental stressors. However, the framework of this study specifically focuses on investigating the effect of variations in light availability associated with surface inclination on the photoacclimatory response of coral holobionts, minimizing the potential influence of other biotic and abiotic conditions that can also modulate colony light availability.

In conclusion, our study provides solid support that colony geometry determines light availability, holobiont physiology and photosynthetic energy acquisition in zooxanthellate corals. Previous research has shown that variations in photoacclimation responses of coral holobionts can be linked to changes in the composition of symbiotic zooxanthellae along environmental gradients [22,31,59,64]. Most corals with broad bathymetric distributions, including O. faveolata, exhibit changes in the symbiont community composition which presumably allow them to photoacclimate to particular local light environments, both across depths and within colonies [30,59]. Thus, part of the observed variation in holobiont physiological parameters within and between inclination settings, can potentially be attributed to changes in Symbiodiniaceae community composition or other factors related to particular metabolic conditions of experimental samples. However, a significant portion of this variation can be solely attributed to the inclination angle of the coral surface and the associated light climate experimentally induced in this study. This indicates that light energy availability remains a major driver of variation in coral holobiont physiology. Our study provides clear evidence that contrasting photoacclimatory responses, light climates and energy balances can occur within a single colony at a constant depth. Therefore, studying the entire coral colony and its metabolic gradients should be a research priority to enhance our understanding of colonial responses to environmental cues and the role of colony morphology and energetic economy on the vertical distribution of species and niche diversification in coral reefs.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Parameters associated with the local light climate and the photoacclimatory responses of corals exposed to the five inclination settings (0°, 25°, 45°, 65°, and 90°).

Values correspond to the mean ± S.D. (sample size).

(XLSX)

Acknowledgments

We thank Claudia T. Galindo-Martínez, Kelly Gómez-Campo, Luis A. González-Guerrero, Ricardo I. Cruz-Cano, Nancy Escandón-Flores, Nadine Schubert and Darren Brown for their valuable assistance during field activities and laboratory analysis. We also thank the Servicio Académico de Monitoreo Meteorológico y Oceanográfico (SAMMO), from the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, for providing the data of sea surface irradiance. The National Commission on Aquaculture and Fisheries (CONAPESCA) for research permit (DGOPA 08606.251011.3021). We also thank the DGAPA-UNAM for the financial support of a sabbatical period at PSU to SE with a PASPA fellowship.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files. Additionally, the data relevant to this study are available from figshare at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.24599499.v1.

Funding Statement

TLL was supported by a scholarship from the Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología (CONACYT) from México and by Pennsylvania State University startup funds to RIP. Research funding for SE and RIP was provided by CONACYT-Mexico (Project 129880, Conv-CB-2009). A PASPA fellowship from the DGAPA-UNAM supported the visit of SE to the Biology Department at Pennsylvania State University. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. There was no additional external funding received for this study.

References

  • 1.Barbeitos MS, Romano SL, Lasker HR. Repeated loss of coloniality and symbiosis in scleractinian corals. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2010;107(26):11877–82. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0914380107 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Frankowiak K, Wang XT, Sigman DM, Gothmann AM, Kitahara MV, Mazur M, et al. Photosymbiosis and the expansion of shallow-water corals. Sci Adv. 2016;2(11):e1601122. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.1601122 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Trench RK. Nutritional potentials in Zoanthus sociathus (Coelenterata, Anthozoa). Helgoländer wiss Meeresunters. 1974;26(2):174–216. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Muscatine L, Falkowski PG, Porter JW, Dubinsky Z. Fate of photosynthetic fixed carbon in light-adapted and shade-adapted colonies of the symbiotic coral Stylophora pistillata. Proc R Soc B. 1984;222(1227):181–202. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Gladfelter EH, Michel G, Sanfelici A. Metabolic gradients along a branch of the reef coral Acropora palmata. Bull Mar Sci. 1989;44(3):1166–73. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Oren U, Rinkevich B, Loya Y. Oriented intra-colonial transport of 14C labeled materials during coral regeneration. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 1997;161:117–22. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Oren U, Brickner I, Loya Y. Prudent sessile feeding by the corallivore snail Coralliophila violacea on coral energy sinks. Proc R Soc Lond B. 1998;265(1410):2043–50. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Conlan JA, Humphrey CA, Severati A, Francis DS. Intra-colonial diversity in the scleractinian coral, Acropora millepora: identifying the nutritional gradients underlying physiological integration and compartmentalised functioning. Peerj. 2018;6:e4239. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Jackson JBC. Morphological strategies of sessile animals. In: Larwood G, Rosen BR, editors. Biology and Systematics of Colonial Organisms. 11. London and New York: Academic Press; 1979. p. 499–555. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Campoy AN, Addamo AM, Machordom A, Meade A, Rivadeneira MM, Hernández CE, et al. The origin and correlated evolution of symbiosis and coloniality in scleractinian corals. Front Mar Sci. 2020;7. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Edmunds PJ, Johnson KW, Burgess SC. Branching coral morphology affects physiological performance in the absence of colony integration. Biol Lett. 2022;18(12):20220414. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2022.0414 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Anthony KRN, Hoogenboom MO, Connolly SR. Adaptive variation in coral geometry and the optimization of internal colony light climates. Funct Ecol. 2005;19(1):17–26. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Hoogenboom MO, Connolly SR, Anthony KRN. Interactions between morphological and physiological plasticity optimize energy acquisition in corals. Ecology. 2008;89(4):1144–54. doi: 10.1890/07-1272.1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Kaniewska P, Anthony KRN, Hoegh-Guldberg O. Variation in colony geometry modulates internal light levels in branching corals, Acropora humilis and Stylophora pistillata. Mar Biol. 2008;155(6):649–60. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Kaniewska P, Anthony K, Sampayo E, Campbell P, Hoegh-Guldberg O. Implications of geometric plasticity for maximizing photosynthesis in branching corals. Mar Biol. 2014;161(2):313–28. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Lesser MP, Mobley CD, Hedley JD, Slattery M. Incident light on mesophotic corals is constrained by reef topography and colony morphology. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2021;670:49–60. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Kirk JTO. Light and photosynthesis in aquatic ecosystems. Third ed. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2011. 649 p. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Huner NPA, Öuist G, Sarhan F. Energy balance and acclimation to light and cold. Trends Plant Sci. 1998;3(6):224–30. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Iglesias-Prieto R, Trench RK. Acclimation and adaptation to irradiance in symbiotic dinoflagellates. II. Response of chlorophyll-protein complexes to different photon-flux densities. Mar Biol. 1997;130(1):23–+. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Porter JW, Muscatine L, Dubinsky Z, Falkowski PG. Primary production and photoadaptation in light-adapted and shade-adapted colonies of the symbiotic coral, Stylophora pistillata. Proc R Soc Lond B. 1984;222(1227):161–80. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Lesser MP, Mazel C, Phinney D, Yentsch CS. Light absorption and utilization by colonies of the congeneric hermatypic corals Montastraea faveolata and Montastraea cavernosa. Limnol Oceanogr. 2000;45(1):76–86. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Warner ME, LaJeunesse TC, Robison JD, Thur RM. The ecological distribution and comparative photobiology of symbiotic dinoflagellates from reef corals in Belize: potential implications for coral bleaching. Limnol Oceanogr. 2006;51(4):1887–97. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Mass T, Einbinder S, Brokovich E, Shashar N, Vago R, Erez J, et al. Photoacclimation of Stylophora pistillata to light extremes: metabolism and calcification. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2007;334:93–102. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Hennige S, Suggett D, Warner M, McDougall K, Smith D. Photobiology of Symbiodinium revisited: bio-physical and bio-optical signatures. Coral Reefs. 2009;28(1):179–95. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Winters G, Beer S, Zvi BB, Brickner I, Loya Y. Spatial and temporal photoacclimation of Stylophora pistillata: zooxanthella size, pigmentation, location and clade. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2009;384:107–19. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Scheufen T, Kramer WE, Iglesias-Prieto R, Enriquez S. Seasonal variation modulates coral sensibility to heat-stress and explains annual changes in coral productivity. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):4937. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-04927-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.López-Londoño T, Gómez-Campo K, Hernández-Pech X, Enríquez S, Iglesias-Prieto R. Photosynthetic usable energy explains vertical patterns of biodiversity in zooxanthellate corals. Sci Rep. 2022;12(1):20821. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-25094-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Hennige SJ, McGinley MP, Grottoli AG, Warner ME. Photoinhibition of Symbiodinium spp. within the reef corals Montastraea faveolata and Porites astreoides: implications for coral bleaching. Mar Biol. 2011;158(11):2515–26. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Skirving W, Enríquez S, Hedley JD, Dove S, Eakin CM, Mason RAB, et al. Remote sensing of coral bleaching using temperature and light: progress towards an operational algorithm. Remote Sens. 2018;10(1):18. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Kemp DW, Thornhill DJ, Rotjan RD, Iglesias-Prieto R, Fitt WK, Schmidt GW. Spatially distinct and regionally endemic Symbiodinium assemblages in the threatened Caribbean reef-building coral Orbicella faveolata. Coral Reefs. 2015;34(2):535–47. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Iglesias-Prieto R, Beltrán VH, LaJeunesse TC, Reyes-Bonilla H, Thomé PE. Different algal symbionts explain the vertical distribution of dominant reef corals in the eastern Pacific. Proc R Soc Lond B. 2004;271:1757–63. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2004.2757 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Shibata K. Pigments and a Uv-Absorbing Substance in Corals and a Blue-Green Alga Living in Great-Barrier-Reef. Plant Cell Physiol. 1969;10(2):325–&. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Enríquez S, Méndez ER, Iglesias-Prieto R. Multiple scattering on coral skeletons enhances light absorption by symbiotic algae. Limnol Oceanogr. 2005;50(4):1025–32. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Cayabyab NM, Enríquez S. Leaf photoacclimatory responses of the tropical seagrass Thalassia testudinum under mesocosm conditions: a mechanistic scaling-up study. New Phytol. 2007;176(1):108–23. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.González-Guerrero LA, Vásquez-Elizondo RM, López-Londoño T, Hernán G, Iglesias-Prieto R, Enríquez S. Validation of parameters and protocols derived from chlorophyll a fluorescence commonly utilised in marine ecophysiological studies. Funct Plant Biol. 2022;49(6):517–32. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Marsh JA. Primary Productivity of Reef-Building Calcareous Red Algae. Ecology. 1970;51(2):255–63. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Enríquez S, Pantoja-Reyes NI. Form-function analysis of the effect of canopy morphology on leaf self-shading in the seagrass Thalassia testudinum. Oecologia. 2005;145(2):235–43. doi: 10.1007/s00442-005-0111-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Dennison WC, Alberte RS. Photosynthetic responses of Zostera marina L. (eelgrass) to in situ manipulations of light-intensity. Oecologia. 1982;55(2):137–44. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Jassby AD, Platt T. Mathematical formulation of the relationship between photosynthesis and light for phytoplankton. Limnol Oceanogr. 1976;21:540–7. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2015. [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Vermeij MJA, Bak RPM. How are coral populations structured by light? Marine light regimes and the distribution of Madracis. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2002;233:105–16. [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Anthony KRN, Hoegh-Guldberg O. Variation in coral photosynthesis, respiration and growth characteristics in contrasting light microhabitats: an analogue to plants in forest gaps and understoreys? Funct Ecol. 2003;17:246–59. [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Maxwell DP, Falk S, Huner NPA. Photosystem-II excitation pressure and development of resistance to photoinhibition .1. Light-harvesting complex II abundance and zeaxanthin content in Chlorella vulgaris. Plant Physiol. 1995;107(3):687–94. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Hoegh-Guldberg O, Jones RJ. Photoinhibition and photoprotection in symbiotic dinoflagellates from reef-building corals. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 1999;183:73–86. [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Takahashi S, Badger MR. Photoprotection in plants: a new light on photosystem II damage. Trends Plant Sci. 2011;16(1):53–60. doi: 10.1016/j.tplants.2010.10.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Warner ME, Fitt WK, Schmidt GW. Damage to photosystem II in symbiotic dinoflagellates: A determinant of coral bleaching. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999;96(14):8007–12. doi: 10.1073/pnas.96.14.8007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Lesser MP. Depth-dependent photoacclimatization to solar ultraviolet radiation in the Caribbean coral Montastraea faveolata. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2000;192:137–51. [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Scheufen T, Iglesias-Prieto R, Enríquez S. Changes in the number of symbionts and Symbiodinium cell pigmentation modulate differentially coral light absorption and photosynthetic performance. Front Mar Sci. 2017;4:309. [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Iglesias-Prieto R, Trench RK. Acclimation and adaptation to irradiance in symbiotic dinoflagellates.1. Responses of the photosynthetic unit to changes in photon flux-density. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 1994;113:163–75. [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Hennige SJ, Smith DJ, Walsh S-J, McGinley MP, Warner ME, Suggett DJ. Acclimation and adaptation of scleractinian coral communities along environmental gradients within an Indonesian reef system. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 2010;391(1–2):143–52. [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Wyman KD, Dubinsky Z, Porter JW, Falkowski PG. Light-absorption and utilization among hermatypic corals: a study in Jamaica, West-Indies. Mar Biol. 1987;96(2):283–92. [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Long SP, Humphries S, Falkowski PG. Photoinhibition of photosynthesis in nature. Annu Rev Plant Physial Plant Mol BioI. 1994;45:633–62. [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Houlbrèque F, Ferrier-Pagès C. Heterotrophy in tropical scleractinian corals. Biol Rev. 2009;84(1):1–17. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-185X.2008.00058.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Anthony KRN, Fabricius KE. Shifting roles of heterotrophy and autotrophy in coral energetics under varying turbidity. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol. 2000;252(2):221–53. doi: 10.1016/s0022-0981(00)00237-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Hoogenboom M, Rodolfo-Metalpa R, Ferrier-Pagès C. Co-variation between autotrophy and heterotrophy in the Mediterranean coral Cladocora caespitosa. J Exp Biol. 2010;213(14):2399–409. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Medellín-Maldonado F, López-Pérez A, Ruiz-Huerta L, Carricart-Ganivet JP. Understanding corallite demography to comprehend potential bias in sclerochronology: Analysis of coral modular growth by micro-computed tomography. Limnol Oceanogr. 2022;67(12):2665–76. [Google Scholar]
  • 57.López-Londoño T, Galindo-Martínez CT, Gómez-Campo K, González-Guerrero LA, Roitman S, Pollock FJ, et al. Physiological and ecological consequences of the water optical properties degradation on reef corals. Coral Reefs. 2021;40(4):1243–56. [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Alvarez-Filip L, González-Barrios FJ, Pérez-Cervantes E, Molina-Hernández A, Estrada-Saldívar N. Stony coral tissue loss disease decimated Caribbean coral populations and reshaped reef functionality. Commun Biol. 2022;5(1):440. doi: 10.1038/s42003-022-03398-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Rowan R, Knowlton N, Baker A, Jara J. Landscape ecology of algal symbionts creates variation in episodes of coral bleaching. Nature. 1997;388(6639):265–9. doi: 10.1038/40843 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Kemp DW, Hernandez-Pech X, Iglesias-Prieto R, Fitt WK, Schmidt GW. Community dynamics and physiology of Symbiodinium spp. before, during, and after a coral bleaching event. Limnol Oceanogr. 2014;59(3):788–97. [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Pérez-Castro MÁ, Eyal G, Leyte-Morales GE, Hinojosa-Arango G, Enríquez S. Benthic characterization of mesophotic communities based on optical depths in the southern Mexican Pacific Coast (Oaxaca). Diversity. 2023;15(4):531. [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Brakel WH. Small-scale spatial variation in light available to coral-reef benthos: quantum irradiance measurements from a Jamaican reef. Bull Mar Sci. 1979;29(3):406–13. [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Ackleson SG. Light in shallow waters: A brief research review. Limnol Oceanogr. 2003;48(1):323–8. [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Pettay DT, Wham DC, Smith RT, Iglesias-Prieto R, LaJeunesse TC. Microbial invasion of the Caribbean by an Indo-Pacific coral zooxanthella. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2015;112(24):7513–8. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1502283112 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Erik Caroselli

Transfer Alert

This paper was transferred from another journal. As a result, its full editorial history (including decision letters, peer reviews and author responses) may not be present.

21 Aug 2023

PONE-D-23-21541Effects of surface geometry on light exposure, photoacclimation and photosynthetic energy acquisition in zooxanthellate coralsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. López-Londoño,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. All the reviewers considered the manuscript interesting, but they provided several questions that shoud be addressed before the manuscript can be accepted (see comments below).. 

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 05 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Erik Caroselli

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf.

2. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why.

3. Thank you for stating in your Funding Statement:

“TLL was supported by a scholarship from the Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología (CONACYT) from México and by Pennsylvania State University startup funds to RIP. Research funding for SE and RIP was provided by CONACYT-Mexico (Project 129880, Conv-CB-2009). A PASPA fellowship from the DGAPA-UNAM supported the visit of SE to the Biology Department at Pennsylvania State University. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

Please provide an amended statement that declares *all* the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now.  Please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement.

Please include your amended Funding Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

5. Please update your submission to use the PLOS LaTeX template. The template and more information on our requirements for LaTeX submissions can be found at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/latex.

6. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

“The National Commission on Aquaculture and Fisheries 578 (CONAPESCA) for research permit (DGOPA 08606.251011.3021). We also thank the DGAPA[1]579 UNAM for the financial support of a sabbatical period at PSU to SE with a PASPA”

We note that you have provided additional information within the Acknowledgements Section that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. Please note that funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

“TLL was supported by a scholarship from the Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología (CONACYT) from México and by Pennsylvania State University startup funds to RIP. Research funding for SE and RIP was provided by CONACYT-Mexico (Project 129880, Conv-CB-2009). A PASPA fellowship from the DGAPA-UNAM supported the visit of SE to the Biology Department at Pennsylvania State University. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: I Don't Know

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Review of López-Londoño

This is a nice study that explores the effects of inclination of coral tissue/skeleton surface on the ability of corals to utilize sunlight. The basic message of the paper – that the ability to use sunlight is important in shallow-water corals and this need reflects their shapes and distribution – is very well known and their results will not come as a surprise to most coral biologists. Nevertheless, this is a nice study that deserves to be published. I would package my comments as “requires modest revision”.

My major criticism of the work is that it seems to overlook the seminal work by Len Muscatine, Jim Porter, and Peter Davies (and their peers) that laid the foundations of modern understanding of coral nutrition. Critically, the symbiodinium algae fix CO2 into photosynthetically fixed carbon, a fraction of which is translocated to the animal host, where some fraction is metabolized through aerobic respiration to liberate ATP that is the source of metabolic energy that fuels chemical and mechanical work; the rest is stored as a food reserve (i.e., lipid) or lost from the coral as mucus or DOC. This paper conflates all these processes and does not recognize the true complexity of the biology at play. The reliance on the PUES acronym says it all and sows the seeds of confusion: biologically, I would argue that the algae are supplying carbon to the animal host and that only a fraction turns into energy after it has been respired. The whole heterotrophic side of the nutritional equation argues strongly for tempering the interpretation of the effects of inclination angle on the energy budgets of corals.

Other issues to address:

1. Please provide more information on the 20 fragments. Critically, it is important to know whether these are 20 host genotypes or some combination of clone mates.

2. Line 132 – specify type of sensor (not type of meter)

3. Line 159 – describe what “constant agitation” means. I really hope there were control trials completed with seawater alone.

4. Please remove all inference and interpretation from results section.

Reviewer #2: 108 – Where do these fragments come from? 20 different colonies (i.e., genotypes)? Orbicella is famous for hosting multiple symbiont species, varying from colony to colony.

115 - Why facing North? The time of year would impact the direction/aspect that the rotation should have been performed? South in the winter, North in the summer depending on the azimuth angle of the sun in the sky? Please add context by providing the dates that the experiment was conducted.

121 – Can you define reaching a steady state? The Qm values in figure 2 only appear to be steady in the 90 degree angle. The 45 degree angle could be characterised as trending upwards?

131 – Specify how the PAR sensor was positioned. I.e., matching the inclination angle with the sensor pointing in the direction of the surface normal (perpendicular?)

133 – This is an interesting approach. Can you provide a reference for this and please elaborate? What was the distance between the black panel and the sensor?

136 – Please contextualise these values. Is 06:00 dawn? 19:00 1 hr after sunset? Etc

188 – This is the section with the most limitations. Extrapolating the repair rates from a study on Porites asteroides (your ref 26) where protein synthesis inhibitors were used, to the present study, is dubious. The genetic identity and light harvesting strategies of Symbiodiniaceae among P. asteroides versus O. fav from Puerto Morelos are distinct (e.g., Hennige et al 2011 Marine Biology) and this must be caveated in this section.

315 – I would caution offering these interpretations in the results section and shift this (and similar comments in above results sections) to the discussion.

396 – Can you please characterise the components of Qm that can be derived from the equation in terms of qP versus NPQ? Does Qm explicitly tell us that the photosynthetic activity is negligible?

408 – Some discussion of this finding in the context of the many studies which have found this across depth / optical depth (e.g., Hennige et al 2008 MEPS) is warranted.

478 – Please present some discussion on how normalising O2 rates of evolution and consumption / A675 to per symbiont cell might affect your narrative. That symbiont cells were not enumerated poses strong limitations on the interpretability and as such multiple scenarios must be explored in the discussion. Both symbiont chl content and density can change across the surface of a colony or across depth / light gradients. How is this expected to alter productivity? These two differing pathways of acclimation could underpin why your inclination angle P:R rates had low correlation?

Reviewer #3: The authors explain in the photoacclimation concept, concerning their research question, by describing some of the key papers in the field. When citing papers 12-15 that are on similar subject and share similar properties, it would be good for the reader to have elaborated examples of what was found in these specific studies and how this current study takes a different angle to further increase the knowledge. The authors deployed fragments of Faveolata coral (representing flat and branching morphologies) on an underwater table in different light exposure angles. They found that at shallow depth, parts of the coral that have more direct exposure may be photoinhibited during some hours of the day while shaded parts are in chronic stress of light energy deficiency. The idea of measuring photoacclimation in different angles of exposure to light has many advantages over depth depended since it excludes all other factors as spectrum, temperature, currents, etc. The results of this study to my knowledge do not reflect the photoacclimation occur with depth gradient, as some important factors as UV-B present in 3m have a vast influence over photoacclimation.

The conclusion is interesting and can be in some degree concluded from the results. While a great work of integrating plenty of sources of data was done- Some notes and questions were raised while reading this MS:

Methods:

How was the angle of the natural colonies at 5m measured? Since not always these big corals are based on a level ground.

Line 174: "were used to characterize the temporal variation of solar energy and light-driven processes according to the inclination angle of coral samples (n = 143 days)".- were there light sensors at each inclination angle during these days that measures intensity from the different angles of the sun during the day?

PAM fluorometry is important and widely used, however a very sensitive and complicated tool. In order to extract yield value there is a need for Fv/Fm calculation of the raw data, small inaccuracy in measurements (which might happen under circumstances of diving and the need in such a stable hold of the sensor), can lead to a much bigger error after any other extrapolation of values calculated from Fv/Fm. Therefor we should be very caraful and criticizing in interpreting results derived from any further extrapolation. Also there is no added value in calculating additional parameters from the value given by the PAM. It is obvious that effective yield decreases corresponding to light. There are number of reasons for FV/Fm to decrease under high light intensity (like short term photoacclimation processes), which do not reflect solely pressure that leads to damage.

Furthermore: line 195: "The amount of photosynthetic usable energy supplied (PUES) was calculated by subtracting the estimated costs of repair (Ca) from the photosynthetic output of the zooxanthellae (Pg)". There is a difference in making conclusions based on direct measurements rather than on assumptions based on calculation and estimations. Please explain why it is important to estimate the PUES. The reader could better rely on these numbers if it is compared to other studies that could measure similar numbers and maybe on a more direct method. I would suggest sticking as close as possible to the directly measured data.

Was the excitation pressure calculated from night and day values measured at each day? Is there a measurement done prior day 1?

Yield was measured for the initial 10 days, chl estimation after 10 months, photosynthesis after 12 months. How can we assimilate any connection between the parameters? This study states that its goal is to measure short and long term photoacclimation, however how can we conclude that when the short and long term methods were different? Especially when these were in different seasons. For example: photoacclimation was significant in O2 production 12 months after the experiment started, while PSII yield after a few days according to Fig 2b and average numbers in the supplementary data shows minimal differences between treatments, although the author states that this parameter is stable.

Results:

Is there an explanation to why in the diel cycle the yield is higher in dawn than during dusk?

An important figure would be the change in effective and night PSII yield of each angle vs. acclimation days.

Line280: Do these number have units? What is the calculation?

are the calculations in Fig 5 correspond to the photosynthetic parameters of each angle?

It is very confusing that the DLI calculation is in decimal numbers, assuming that the reader notices that it is not true hour: minute calculation then they should have to make the conversion themselves.

Line 356: what are these percentages mean? How come the 90 degrees angle also spend 15% for damage if it does not attain enough light barely for compensation?

Statistics is not my strongest side, however a question rises whether the right method is used? since almost in all parameters the P value was significant while the R2 is not as high.

High chloropyll content and zooxanthellae doubling in low light locations in the colony requires high energy demand, it is known that the (line 42) "colony integration allows resource translocation from source to sink sites according to metabolic needs [5-7]." Would the authors suggest that the polyps located in high light exposure provides this energy for the high demand polyps although they provide much less energy to the cumulative budget of the colony even after the long term photoacclimation has completed?

Can the authors summaries the calculation of the daily (day + night) energy budget of each angle, considering the DLI light availability X diurnal PSII yield? And is that in compliance with the difference in P vs E?

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2024 Jan 3;19(1):e0295283. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0295283.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


9 Oct 2023

A major concern raised by the reviewer 1 was related to our analysis of the photosynthetic usable energy supplied by the zooxanthellae to coral hosts (PUES). The reviewer wrote: My major criticism of the work is that it seems to overlook the seminal work by Len Muscatine, Jim Porter, and Peter Davies (and their peers) that laid the foundations of modern understanding of coral nutrition. Critically, the symbiodinium algae fix CO2 into photosynthetically fixed carbon, a fraction of which is translocated to the animal host, where some fraction is metabolized through aerobic respiration to liberate ATP that is the source of metabolic energy that fuels chemical and mechanical work... This paper conflates all these processes and does not recognize the true complexity of the biology at play... The whole heterotrophic side of the nutritional equation argues strongly for tempering the interpretation of the effects of inclination angle on the energy budgets of corals.

Authors’ reply: We totally agree with the reviewer that coral nutrition is a complex biological process in which heterotrophy plays an essential role. Indeed, in our study we don’t question the significance of heterotrophic metabolism for corals as our aim was not the estimation of all the energy budget components. Instead, our analysis centers on assessing the relevance of the variations of the autotrophic component, estimated as photosynthetic usable energy. This variability follows a consistent and predictable pattern with respect to light availability. Other factors influencing coral energy budgets, such as heterotrophy, are more difficult to predict through our quantitative model as they are more dependent on species-specific life history strategies, and do not follow a uniform pattern with changes in light availability (reviewed by Kahng et al. 2019). We have substantially expanded the Discussion section in relation to this point to prevent such misunderstanding [lines 860-866].

In response to the reviewer's comment regarding our familiarity with prior literature, we cannot agree with his/her opinion and wish to clarify that we are well-acquainted with the seminal works of Porter, Spencer-Davies, Len Muscatine, and earlier foundational contributions by Bob Trench (1974), which laid the groundwork for our understanding of coral nutrition. In fact, we have to remark that in Muscatine et al. (1984), for instance, the calculation of the fractional contribution of photosynthetically fixed carbon translocated by the zooxanthellae to the coral host was based on the oxygen production/consumption of the holobiont, using quotients that were independent of light availability. This concept has persisted and is still widely accepted, partly due to the prevailing assumption that photoprotective mechanisms, such as non-photochemical quenching (NPQ), efficiently dissipate the excess of excitation energy absorbed without incurring in significant metabolic maintenance costs for the photosynthetic activity of the symbionts. Yet, as demonstrated in our earlier work (López-Londoño et al. 2022), light intensity has an crucial effect on the rates of photodamage and in consequence on the costs of PSII repair in the zooxanthellae, ultimately affecting the amount of photosynthates translocated to their host [lines 99-108].

Our responses to particular comments from reviewer 1:

This is a nice study that explores the effects of inclination of coral tissue/skeleton surface on the ability of corals to utilize sunlight. The basic message of the paper – that the ability to use sunlight is important in shallow-water corals and this need reflects their shapes and distribution – is very well known and their results will not come as a surprise to most coral biologists. Nevertheless, this is a nice study that deserves to be published. I would package my comments as “requires modest revision”.

Authors’ reply: We thank the reviewer for his/her positive comments and would like also to note that the effect of coral morphology on light interception and energy acquisition has remained largely descriptive and qualitative, albeit with a few notable exceptions including studies primarily focused on branching species from Pacific coral reefs, which have utilized mathematical models based on geometrical laws and proxies for assessing photosynthetic capacity (e.g., Anthony et al. 2005; Hoogenboom et al. 2008; Kaniewska et al. 2008; Kaniewska et al. 2014; Lesser et al. 2021). To the best of our knowledge, no empirical evidence is yet available in the literature that explores in detail simultaneous alterations in photoacclimation responses and photosynthetic energy acquisition, encompassing both primary productivity and associated costs of maintenance of the photosynthetic activity, in relation to the inclination angle of coral surfaces.

Please provide more information on the 20 fragments. Critically, it is important to know whether these are 20 host genotypes or some combination of clone mates.

Authors’ reply: We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion and have updated the Methods section, clarifying that the experimental coral fragments had been collected from random colonies at a consistent depth of 5 m within La Bocana Reef. The selected donor colonies were spaced at least 5 m apart, potentially originating from different genotypes. The experimental fragments had been used for data collection with non-invasive techniques in previous projects and had remained undisturbed on a flat, horizontal surface at a constant depth of 5 m for at least one year before conducting the experiment. This ensured that all fragments had a similar photoacclimation state and potentially similar Symbiodiniaceae community composition at the beginning of the experiment [lines 179-188].

specify type of sensor (not type of meter)

Authors’ reply: We have clarified that the incident photosynthetic radiation was recorded at every inclination setting using the cosine-corrected micro-quantum sensor of the diving-PAM, previously calibrated against a reference quantum sensor (LI- 1400; LI-COR, USA) [lines 246-249].

describe what “constant agitation” means. I really hope there were control trials completed with seawater alone.

Authors’ reply: We have clarified in the text of the revised manuscript that the filtered seawater was maintained under constant agitation using magnetic stirrers, in order to facilitate a more rapid oxygen exchange across the diffusive boundary layer of the sample surface and prevent the underestimations of metabolic rates. We also indicated how we controlled for photosynthesis and respiration of micro-organisms and biofilm [lines 291-297].

Please remove all inference and interpretation from results section.

Authors’ reply: We thank the reviewer for this recommendation. We have removed all these inferences and interpretation.in the Results section of the revised manuscript.

A major concern raised by reviewer 2 was: This is the section with the most limitations [our analysis of PUES]. Extrapolating the repair rates from a study on Porites asteroides (your ref 26) where protein synthesis inhibitors were used, to the present study, is dubious. The genetic identity and light harvesting strategies of Symbiodiniaceae among P. asteroides versus O. fav from Puerto Morelos are distinct (e.g., Hennige et al 2011 Marine Biology) and this must be caveated in this section.

Authors’ reply: We appreciate the useful reference that the reviewer brings to our attention (Hennige et al. 2011); we have thoroughly reviewed and expanded our Introduction section [lines 99-108] in light of this reference. Importantly, we do not think that the findings of Hennige et al. (2011) are in contradiction to our current or previous (López-Londoño et al. 2022) analyses; on the contrary, they serve to further substantiate our conclusions. Much like the discovery by Hennige et al. that “gross photoinhibition” as a function of light availability did not exhibit significant differences between P. astreoides and O. faveolata (Figure 2a), we have also observed remarkably similar trends in the rates of PSII photodamage in experiments involving multiple coral species exposed to various intensities of both natural and artificial light, and both with and without the UV component (Figure 1, confidential data: Gómez-Campo et al., in preparation). The consistency of this pattern, even when comparing contrasting coral species and variations in the spectral composition of light, underscores the paramount influence of light intensity on the rates of photodamage and subsequent costs of PSII repair, which appear to be highly consistent among coral species and in hospite zooxanthella types. This observation aligns with the underlying principle that the diurnal recovery of the maximum PSII photochemical efficiency is driven by the balance between the rates of damage and repair to PSII (Skirving et al. 2018). In this sense, it is essential to acknowledge that our approach does not disregard the fact that various coral and/or Symbiodiniaceae species can exhibit distinct photoacclimation capabilities, enabling them to thrive in specific light environments. This subject has been the focus of extensive research in our laboratories and by other researchers over recent decades (Iglesias-Prieto and Trench 1994,1997; Hoegh-Guldberg and Jones 1999; Iglesias-Prieto et al. 2004; Enríquez et al. 2005; Warner et al. 2006; Hennige et al. 2008a; Hennige et al. 2008b; Scheufen et al. 2017a).

Furthermore, we believe that the approach used by Hennige et al. (2011) is not suitable for parameterizing the costs of PSII repair and integrating this parameter into the PUES model, as corals were exposed to three light intensities during 2-h after inhibiting the synthesis of the D1 protein with CAP, essential for PSII repair. In contrast, in our previous work we parameterized the PSII damage accumulation as a function of total light exposure during diurnal cycles (12 h). Our PUES model relies on the estimation of the costs of PSII repair as a function of the amplitude of dial oscillations of irradiance and its variation across depth/surface inclination gradients.

Our responses to particular comments from reviewer 2:

Where do these fragments come from? 20 different colonies (i.e., genotypes)? Orbicella is famous for hosting multiple symbiont species, varying from colony to colony.

Authors’ reply: We appreciate the reviewer’s comment. We have updated the Methods, clarifying that the experimental coral fragments were collected from random colonies located at a constant depth of ~5 m, potentially originating from different genotypes. The experimental fragments had remained undisturbed on a flat, horizontal surface at a constant depth of 5 m for at least one year before conducting the experiment. This ensured that all fragments had a similar photoacclimation state at the beginning of the experiment, as well as potentially similar Symbiodiniaceae community composition dominated by Symbiodinium spp., Breviolum spp., and/or Cladocopium spp. (Hennige et al. 2011; Kemp et al. 2015) [lines 179-188].

Why facing North? The time of year would impact the direction/aspect that the rotation should have been performed? South in the winter, North in the summer depending on the azimuth angle of the sun in the sky? Please add context by providing the dates that the experiment was conducted

Authors’ reply: We agree with the reviewer comment that the time of year would impact the direction/aspect that the rotation should have been performed. However, we made a deliberate decision to maintain the panel in the same position to minimize any potential disturbances that could affect the photoacclimative condition and the survivorship of our samples. Therefore, in order to prevent misinterpretations, we have clarified in the revised manuscript that the panel was oriented in a north-south direction to ensure a symmetrical diurnal cycle around noon time. The dates that the experiment was conducted were also included in the Methods section [lines 193-207].

Can you define reaching a steady state? The Qm values in figure 2 only appear to be steady in the 90 degree angle. The 45 degree angle could be characterised as trending upwards?

Authors’ reply: We appreciate the reviewer's observation. We have now updated the Methods section to clarify that the steady state of PSII photochemical activity was confirmed through the complete recovery of the maximum PSII photochemical efficiency (Fv/Fm) at each inclination setting during diurnal cycle analysis [lines 219-221]. In the Results [lines 402-406] and Discussion sections [lines 631-634], we have emphasized that corals in certain experimental settings did not achieve a steady-state Qm, which may be attributed to the gradual increases in both light exposure and temperature characteristic of the spring season. This inference is supported by a reference and an updated version of Figure 2A.

Specify how the PAR sensor was positioned. I.e., matching the inclination angle with the sensor pointing in the direction of the surface normal (perpendicular?)

Authors’ reply: We have clarified that the PAR sensor was carefully positioned perpendicular to the coral surface at each inclination setting (i.e., pointing in the direction of the normal surface) with the help of a custom-made guiding panel [lines 249-251].

This is an interesting approach. Can you provide a reference for this and please elaborate? What was the distance between the black panel and the sensor?

Authors’ reply: We have provided a reference supporting our approach and clarified that three replicates of the total incident photosynthetic radiation were recorded (Et), each one immediately followed by another measurement of the diffuse irradiance (Edf) obtained by placing a black panel at a constant distance of 10 cm above the sensor to remove the direct irradiance (Edr) [lines 252-255].

Please contextualise these values. Is 06:00 dawn? 19:00 1 hr after sunset? Etc

Authors’ reply: We have clarified that the quantum yield of PSII in the experimental corals was measured over a diurnal cycle from dawn to dusk (06:00-19:00) on a cloudless day [lines 221-223].

I would caution offering these interpretations in the results section and shift this (and similar comments in above results sections) to the discussion.

Authors’ reply: We thank the reviewer’s suggestion and have revised the Results section, removing inferences and interpretation.

Can you please characterise the components of Qm that can be derived from the equation in terms of qP versus NPQ? Does Qm explicitly tell us that the photosynthetic activity is negligible?

Authors’ reply: We are unable to characterize the components of Qm. This limitation arises from the protocol of exposing samples to brief periods of dark adaptation before each measurement in order to relax qP, as outlined in Iglesias-Prieto et al. (2004). We realized that this specific detail was absent from the Methods section, and we have since included it in the updated version of our manuscript [lines 229-242]. Furthermore, we acknowledge the reviewer's observation that low Qm values near 0 in vertically oriented corals do not explicitly indicate ‘negligible photosynthetic activity' of the symbiotic algae, but instead, they suggest that even during periods of maximum irradiance most PSII reaction centers remain open, indicating light-limited photosynthesis, as outlined by Iglesias-Prieto et al. (2004). The reliability of this parameter aligns consistently with the vertical distribution of coral species (Iglesias-Prieto et al. 2004; López-Londoño et al. 2021; Alvarez-Filip et al. 2022; Prada et al. 2022). We have revised both the Results and Discussion sections by replacing the term 'negligible photosynthetic activity' with 'low photosynthesis at the peak of irradiance' for improving text clarity.

Some discussion of this finding in the context of the many studies which have found this across depth / optical depth (e.g., Hennige et al 2008 MEPS) is warranted.

Authors’ reply: We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion; however, we believe that placing a strong emphasis on the effect of depth/optical depth in clear vs turbid environments is beyond the scope of our study which is focused on the effect of colony geometry on light interception and energy acquisition. Nevertheless, we have expanded our discussion when addressing the complex interplay between photoacclimation responses along inclination gradients and depth gradients, following patterns that can be influenced by water optical properties, substrate type and landscape architecture [lines 958-974].

Please present some discussion on how normalising O2 rates of evolution and consumption / A675 to per symbiont cell might affect your narrative. That symbiont cells were not enumerated poses strong limitations on the interpretability and as such multiple scenarios must be explored in the discussion. Both symbiont chl content and density can change across the surface of a colony or across depth / light gradients. How is this expected to alter productivity? These two differing pathways of acclimation could underpin why your inclination angle P:R rates had low correlation?

Authors’ reply: We acknowledge the reviewer's suggestion; however, our study did not encompass the measurement of variables requiring destructive techniques, such as symbiont density/size/ID, host protein, and pigmentation. As a result, identification of specific variables underlying the P:R correlation is limited by our experimental approach and we hesitate to correlate it with specific variables. Nevertheless, we have expanded our Discussion emphasizing that different normalizations beyond surface area (e.g., to host protein, symbiont cell/ID/size, chlorophyll content), can result in different patterns of host productivity depending on the bio-optical and bio-physical characteristics of both the coral host and algal symbionts (Hennige et al. 2009; Scheufen et al. 2017a; Scheufen et al. 2017b) [lines 829-835].

Our responses to comments from reviewer 3:

The authors explain in the photoacclimation concept, concerning their research question, by describing some of the key papers in the field. When citing papers 12-15 that are on similar subject and share similar properties, it would be good for the reader to have elaborated examples of what was found in these specific studies and how this current study takes a different angle to further increase the knowledge.

Authors’ reply: We appreciate the thoughtful comments provided by the reviewer. A brief description of what previous studies have found has now been included in the updated version of the manuscript [lines 48-53]. We have also highlighted how study provides a unique perspective to advance our comprehension of photoacclimation responses in corals as a function of the surface inclination angle and their broader implications on the energetic performance of entire colonies [lines 78-82 and 109-174].

The authors deployed fragments of Faveolata coral (representing flat and branching morphologies) on an underwater table in different light exposure angles. They found that at shallow depth, parts of the coral that have more direct exposure may be photoinhibited during some hours of the day while shaded parts are in chronic stress of light energy deficiency. The idea of measuring photoacclimation in different angles of exposure to light has many advantages over depth depended since it excludes all other factors as spectrum, temperature, currents, etc.

Authors’ reply: We appreciate the reviewer’s comment. We would like to note that O. faveolata typically forms massive colonies and thus does not represent flat or branching morphologies. However, the predominant flat morphology at the meso-scale that limits the formation of significant surface light gradients, was an essential trait of this species that allowed us to study local photoacclimation responses associated with coral surface inclination.

The results of this study to my knowledge do not reflect the photoacclimation occur with depth gradient, as some important factors as UV-B present in 3m have a vast influence over photoacclimation.

Authors’ reply: We agree with the reviewer that UV-B is an important environmental factor at 3m depth and acknowledge the variable effect that UV-B can have on photoacclimation and PSII photodamage, as outlined by, e.g., Takahashi et al. (2010). In this sense, we have expanded our discussion to briefly address this variable effect [lines 663-669]. However, it’s important to note that UV-B not only affect the photosynthetic activity by damaging PSII reaction centers, but also other cellular processes by damaging essential molecules such as proteins, lipids, and DNA. Therefore, the influence of UV-B extends beyond its effects on photosynthetic processes, encompassing broader cellular functions. In our study, we focused on the impact of PAR, as we have observed remarkably similar trends in the rates of PSII photodamage in experiments involving multiple coral species exposed to various intensities of both natural and artificial light, both with and without the UV component (Figure 1, confidential data: Gómez-Campo et al., in preparation). The consistency of this pattern, even when considering contrasting coral species and variations in the spectral composition of light, underscores the paramount influence of light intensity on the rates of photodamage and subsequent costs of PSII repair, which appear to be highly consistent among coral species and in hospite zooxanthella types. This consistency and the fact that the spectral composition of light was nearly constant in our experiments, supports that the observed photoacclimation responses and physiological performance of corals along inclination and depth gradients can be attributed exclusively to changes in total PAR, not light quality.

The conclusion is interesting and can be in some degree concluded from the results. While a great work of integrating plenty of sources of data was done- Some notes and questions were raised while reading this MS:

Authors’ reply: We appreciate the reviewer’s comments and suggestions.

How was the angle of the natural colonies at 5m measured? Since not always these big corals are based on a level ground.

Authors’ reply: In situ data were collected along transects facing north laid from top to bottom of three massive colonies of O. faveolata, controlling the inclination angle with a buoyancy device attached to a customized protractor. We have clarified that only flat coral areas with measurable, consistent inclination angles between 0� and 90� were considered in this analysis to ensure measurement accuracy [lines 227-229].

[Data of sea surface irradiance recorded by a nearby meteorological station] were used to characterize the temporal variation of solar energy and light-driven processes according to the inclination angle of coral samples (n = 143 days)".- were there light sensors at each inclination angle during these days that measures intensity from the different angles of the sun during the day?

Authors’ reply: We did not have light sensors deployed at each inclination setting. We relied on sea surface irradiance data recorded by a nearby meteorological station to assess the temporal variation of solar energy. The total downwelling irradiance at our experimental depth (3 meters), was calculated based on the Lambert-Beer law (Ez = E0 e-Kd z). Subsequently, we employed correction factors, derived from empirical measurements of local irradiance at noon, to calculate the local available irradiance at each inclination setting [lines 313-321].

PAM fluorometry is important and widely used, however a very sensitive and complicated tool. In order to extract yield value there is a need for Fv/Fm calculation of the raw data, small inaccuracy in measurements (which might happen under circumstances of diving and the need in such a stable hold of the sensor), can lead to a much bigger error after any other extrapolation of values calculated from Fv/Fm. Therefor we should be very caraful and criticizing in interpreting results derived from any further extrapolation.

Authors’ reply: We appreciate the thoughtful comments provided by the reviewer. We are well-acquainted with the sensitivity and intricacies of the PAM fluorometry technique, given our pioneering work in utilizing this technique on several marine primary producers and our extensive contributions to this field through numerous academic papers. In our study, we used standard protocols and controlled experimental conditions aimed at minimizing potential noise in our analyses.

Also there is no added value in calculating additional parameters from the value given by the PAM. It is obvious that effective yield decreases corresponding to light. There are number of reasons for FV/Fm to decrease under high light intensity (like short term photoacclimation processes), which do not reflect solely pressure that leads to damage.

Authors’ reply: We respectfully disagree with the reviewer’s suggestion regarding the value of calculating additional parameters from the PAM data. Qm serves as a useful proxy for assessing the physiological performance and the excessive energy absorbed and dissipated as heat (NPQ), already used and tested in several published studies (e.g., Iglesias-Prieto et al. 2004; Warner et al. 2006; Warner et al. 2010; López-Londoño et al. 2021; Prada et al. 2022). Its simplicity allows for reliable indications of whether photosynthetic rates are within the range of acute light-limitation (values close to 0) and near full saturation and potential photoinhibition (values close to 1), particularly when calculated as Qm at the diurnal peak of irradiance. This information is not so clearly derived from the values of Fv/Fm or the diurnal oscillations of �F/Fm’, independent of their clear connection with light availability. Furthermore, the reliability of this parameter aligns consistently with the vertical distribution of coral species (Iglesias-Prieto et al. 2004; López-Londoño et al. 2021; Prada et al. 2022). Either in this study or in previous ones, we never assume that the diurnal oscillation of Fv/Fm is exclusively linked to photodamage.

The amount of photosynthetic usable energy supplied (PUES) was calculated by subtracting the estimated costs of repair (Ca) from the photosynthetic output of the zooxanthellae (Pg). There is a difference in making conclusions based on direct measurements rather than on assumptions based on calculation and estimations. Please explain why it is important to estimate the PUES. The reader could better rely on these numbers if it is compared to other studies that could measure similar numbers and maybe on a more direct method. I would suggest sticking as close as possible to the directly measured data.

Authors’ reply: We appreciate the thoughtful feedback provided by the reviewer. While we did not directly quantify the photosynthetic usable energy supplied (PUES), our approach for estimating this parameter relies on robust physiological evidence derived from direct characterizations [lines 99-108]. Direct measurements of the energy expenditure of the zooxanthellae linked to the repair of PSII from photodamage as a function of light exposure are practically non-existent in the literature. Research partially connected to this subject has primarily resorted to bulk stable isotopes for assessing coral trophic ecology and the relative dependence on photosynthesis with respect to heterotrophy (e.g., Houlbrèque and Ferrier-Pagès 2009; Conti-Jerpe et al. 2020; Lesser et al. 2022). Other studies have documented the role of non-photochemical quenching to protect the photosynthetic apparatus of the zooxanthellae and optimize energetic performance (e.g., Brown et al. 1999; Hoegh-Guldberg and Jones 1999; Lesser and Gorbunov 2001; Hennige et al. 2008a; Warner et al. 2010; Suggett et al. 2011). To our knowledge, the study by López-Londoño et al. (2022) likely stands as one of the pioneering efforts in this regard.

Was the excitation pressure calculated from night and day values measured at each day? Is there a measurement done prior day 1?

Authors’ reply: The maximum excitation pressure over PSII (Qm) was calculated based on measurements of the maximum (Fv/Fm) and the effective (ΔF/Fm’) quantum yields of photosystem II (PSII) respectively recorded at dusk and at local noon on the same days. We have updated the Results section, including in the Figure 2A the measurements of Qm recorded during four days before adjusting the inclination angles.

Yield was measured for the initial 10 days, chl estimation after 10 months, photosynthesis after 12 months. How can we assimilate any connection between the parameters? This study states that its goal is to measure short and long term photoacclimation, however how can we conclude that when the short and long term methods were different? Especially when these were in different seasons. For example: photoacclimation was significant in O2 production 12 months after the experiment started, while PSII yield after a few days according to Fig 2b and average numbers in the supplementary data shows minimal differences between treatments, although the author states that this parameter is stable.

Authors’ reply: We appreciate the thoughtful comments provided by the reviewer. It's important to note that our primary objective was to assess the correlation between short-term (e.g., quantum yield of PSII) and long-term (e.g., pigmentation, photosynthetic parameters) photoacclimation responses in relation to the inclination angle of coral surface. This was more important than exploring potential correlations among physiological parameters, considering the inherent time differences involved in these measurements. To further clarify our experimental approach, we would like to remark that:

- The consistency between the patterns of the quantum yield of PSII obtained in experimental samples and in coral colonies within their native environments suggests that the short-term photoacclimation responses induced by adjusting the inclination angle of coral surfaces, likely reflect natural processes occurring in coral colonies [lines 659-663].

- All measurements were carried out under similar seasonal conditions, with most physiological parameters assessed during the spring of 2014 and 2015, and the optical properties of the coral tissue in late winter of 2015. Our study did not aim to investigate seasonal variations in physiological parameters but differences among the photoaclimatory conditions induced by changes in the inclination angle of coral surfaces.

- Given that we conducted measurements for each physiological parameter with minimal time intervals (e.g., same day for the quantum yield of PSII, within a few days for the photosynthetic parameters derived from PE curves), our comparative analysis of each photoacclimation response along the inclination gradient is well-founded.

- The apparent lack of a steady-state Qm in some experimental settings may be attributed to the gradual increases in both light exposure and temperature characteristic of the spring season [lines 631-634].

Is there an explanation to why in the diel cycle the yield is higher in dawn than during dusk?

Author’s reply: We have now updated the Results and Discussion sections, clarifying that corals in certain experimental settings did not achieve a steady-state Qm, which may be attributed to the gradual increases in both light exposure and temperature characteristic of the spring season [lines 631-634]. This natural, uncontrollable variations in environmental conditions could account for the slightly higher values of Fv/Fm at dusk relative to dawn in some inclination settings. This inference is supported by our published findings referenced and the updated Figure 2A.

An important figure would be the change in effective and night PSII yield of each angle vs. acclimation days.

Authors’ reply: We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. We feel that including the figure depicting the changes in Qm clearly illustrates the effect of coral surface inclination on the PSII excitation pressure under maximum irradiance. It’s important to highlight that this parameter has already been used and tested in several published studies (Iglesias-Prieto et al. 2004; Warner et al. 2006; Warner et al. 2010; López-Londoño et al. 2021; Prada et al. 2022). Its simplicity allows for reliable indications of whether photosynthetic rates are within the range of acute light-limitation (values close to 0) or near full saturation and potential photoinhibition (values close to 1) at the diurnal peak of irradiance (noon). This information is not so clearly derived from the values of Fv/Fm or the diurnal oscillations of �F/Fm’, independent of their clear connection with light availability. Furthermore, the reliability of this parameter aligns consistently with the vertical distribution of coral species (Iglesias-Prieto et al. 2004; López-Londoño et al. 2021; Prada et al. 2022).

Do these number have units? What is the calculation? are the calculations in Fig 5 correspond to the photosynthetic parameters of each angle?

Authors’ reply: Values of Absorptance at 675nm, A675, have no units as this parameter represents the relative fraction (or percentage) of the amount of incident light absorbed (EA/EI). The unitless nature of this parameter is indicated in the Supplementary Table. The Figure 5 is derived from analysis using the mean values of the P vs E curve parameters at each inclination setting. This information has been included in the Methods section [lines 333-334].

It is very confusing that the DLI calculation is in decimal numbers, assuming that the reader notices that it is not true hour: minute calculation then they should have to make the conversion themselves.

Authors’ reply: The units of the daily light integral (DLI) are mol quanta m-2 d-1. There was an error in the absolute values reported in Figure 5B, and appreciate the reviewer’s comment, which allowed us correcting it in the updated version.

what are these percentages mean? How come the 90 degrees angle also spend 15% for damage if it does not attain enough light barely for compensation?

Authors’ reply: The costs of repair from photodamage (Ca) are calculated in percentage of the total amount of photosynthetically fixed energy (Pg), as has been indicated in the Methods section [lines 338-340]. The rates of PSII photodamage exhibit a non-linear relationship with light exposure (López-Londoño et al. 2022). Consequently, even exposure to low light intensities (e.g., below the compensating irradiance, Ec) results in minimal photodamage to PSII reaction centers, incurring associated repair costs.

Statistics is not my strongest side, however a question rises whether the right method is used? since almost in all parameters the P value was significant while the R2 is not as high.

Authors’ reply: The linear regression models were used for estimating the relationships between dependent variable (physiological parameters) and the independent variable (inclination angle of coral surface). The p-value and R2 offer distinct insights into the performance of these linear models: the p-values inform the model’s significance level, while the R2 inform how well the model fits the data, essentially measuring the proportion of variation in the dependent variable explained by the independent variable. It's essential to note that there is no predetermined relationship between p-value and R2.

High chloropyll content and zooxanthellae doubling in low light locations in the colony requires high energy demand, it is known that the (line 42) "colony integration allows resource translocation from source to sink sites according to metabolic needs [5-7]." Would the authors suggest that the polyps located in high light exposure provides this energy for the high demand polyps although they provide much less energy to the cumulative budget of the colony even after the long term photoacclimation has completed?

Authors’ reply: Our data suggest that when considering both primary productivity (Pg) and the cost of repair from photodamage (Ca), polyps situated in high light-exposed areas of the colony, such as horizontal surfaces, may not necessarily be the most productive as a result of the increased energy costs of repair from photodamage in the zooxanthellae. Consequently, we propose that the greater extension and calcification commonly observed in these areas might result from the importation of energy products from other, more productive source sites within the colony, where the balance between Pg and Ca yields maximum energetic output (e.g., in coral surfaces with an inclination angle between 25° and 45°) [lines 942-953].

Can the authors summaries the calculation of the daily (day + night) energy budget of each angle, considering the DLI light availability X diurnal PSII yield? And is that in compliance with the difference in P vs E?

Authors’ reply: Our energy budget analyses were centered on light-driven processes. Given that we did not observe a significant relationship between respiration rates and the inclination angle of the coral surface, we cannot definitively assert that metabolic processes during the night impact in a different way the energy budget of corals according to the inclination angle. The relationships of the DLI with the maximum quantum yield of PSII (Fv/Fm) and other physiological parameters can be inferred from figures 2B-2D and 3B (insert).

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Erik Caroselli

8 Nov 2023

PONE-D-23-21541R1Effects of surface geometry on light exposure, photoacclimation and photosynthetic energy acquisition in zooxanthellate coralsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. López-Londoño,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Two of the three reviewers have endorsed publicatoin of the manuscript. Please provide a revised versionafter considering the last comments by Reviewer 3.  Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 23 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Erik Caroselli

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I liked the first submission and had only small suggested. These have been addressed very well. I am happy to recommend publication.

Reviewer #2: I am satisfied with the responses of the authors and thank them for addressing my concerns. I recommend that this article progress to publication.

Reviewer #3: the renovated manuscript is much more cleare and presents the idea and provides enough supporting data. however some minor issues are still raised in the attached file.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: renamed_0f052.docx

PLoS One. 2024 Jan 3;19(1):e0295283. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0295283.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


13 Nov 2023

The reviewer wrote: The conclusion of this paper is rather simple and important. In order to derive that, it is enough to understand only part of the results. I question some methods/calculations used here, some were used for the first time with no reference or direct measurement to assure its accuracy and some calculations and extrapolations of the data are known from previous studies but are not significant for the purpose of this study.

The authors should think carefully if using these data will strength or weakens the study, especially when the title of this study mentions photoacclimation and photosynthesis, and the derivations like PUES and Ca are not central for the final conclusion.

Authors’ reply: We appreciate the reviewer's acknowledgment of the key conclusion in our paper. Regarding the suggestion that only a portion of the results adequately supports our conclusions, and that including the PUES analysis may weaken our study as it is not significant for the purpose of this study, we appreciate the reviewer's opinion but respectfully disagree. Our study comprises three integral components—changes in light exposure, photoacclimation, and photosynthetic energy acquisition with the inclination angle of coral surfaces, each supported by corresponding sections in the Methods and Results. It's essential to note that changes in photosynthetic energy acquisition cannot be reliably inferred solely from alterations in light exposure and photoacclimation status without considering the energy costs of repair from photodamage for the in hospite zooxanthellae. In our previously published work (López-Londoño et al., 2022), we detailed the changes in photodamage rates and the associated costs of photorepair in relation to varying light exposure levels. While we recognize that an in-depth examination of the intricate dynamics of PSII photodamage and repair processes in response to light exposure extends beyond the scope of our current study, it is important to note that the fundamental patterns have already been documented in our earlier publication. Furthermore, we are currently preparing a new manuscript that delves into a comprehensive analysis of the rates of photodamage and the related costs of photorepair in symbiotic zooxanthellae, expanding upon our previous findings and exploring these processes in greater depth.

Concerning the inquiry about certain methods/calculations used in our study to estimate the relative change in PUES, we have revised the Methods section to offer a more comprehensive description of the equations and values employed in this analysis, along with the rationale for selecting these values [lines 230-254].

The reviewer wrote: The title of this study should be more specific to the coral used for this study Orbicella faveolata, and not zooxanthellae corals?

Authors’ reply: We value the reviewer's suggestion but respectfully disagree. The light interception at a specific colony surface area is governed by geometrical relations, which exert a consistent influence on all corals and even non-living surfaces. Our primary objective in this analysis is to depict broader patterns of change in photoacclimation and energetic performance that are dictated by these geometrical relations, rather than confining the study to providing species-specific absolute values.

The reviewer wrote: This study concludes that colony geometry plays an essential role in shaping the energy balance. what is missing here is the deduction of this conclusion to the actual morphologies in nature. If these corals form vast colonies, then what percentage of the colony suffers from excessive irradiance and light-limiting conditions according to its angles?

Authors’ reply: We appreciate the insightful observation provided by the reviewer. We concur with the reviewer's acknowledgment that the percentage of the colony surface at a specific inclination angle significantly influences the energetic performance of the entire colony within a given light climate along the depth gradient. However, our study's conclusion is that "colony geometry determines light availability, holobiont physiology, and photosynthetic energy acquisition in zooxanthellate corals”. In line with this, we propose that "studying the entire coral colony and its metabolic gradients should be a research priority to enhance our understanding of colonial responses to environmental cues and the role of colony morphology and energetic economy on the vertical distribution of species and niche diversification in coral reefs." This direction not only aligns with our findings but also resonates with the comment made by the reviewer, underscoring its relevance and potential impact in the field.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewer.docx

Decision Letter 2

Erik Caroselli

20 Nov 2023

Effects of surface geometry on light exposure, photoacclimation and photosynthetic energy acquisition in zooxanthellate corals

PONE-D-23-21541R2

Dear Dr. López-Londoño,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Erik Caroselli

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Erik Caroselli

8 Dec 2023

PONE-D-23-21541R2

Effects of surface geometry on light exposure, photoacclimation and photosynthetic energy acquisition in zooxanthellate corals

Dear Dr. López-Londoño:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Erik Caroselli

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. Parameters associated with the local light climate and the photoacclimatory responses of corals exposed to the five inclination settings (0°, 25°, 45°, 65°, and 90°).

    Values correspond to the mean ± S.D. (sample size).

    (XLSX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: renamed_0f052.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewer.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files. Additionally, the data relevant to this study are available from figshare at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.24599499.v1.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES