Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2024 Feb 28;19(2):e0296902. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0296902

Algal symbiont diversity in Acropora muricata from the extreme reef of Bouraké associated with resistance to coral bleaching

Cinzia Alessi 1,2,*, Hugues Lemonnier 1,2, Emma F Camp 3, Nelly Wabete 1, Claude Payri 1,2, Riccardo Rodolfo Metalpa 1,2,4
Editor: Anderson B Mayfield5
PMCID: PMC10901360  PMID: 38416713

Abstract

Widespread coral bleaching has generally been linked to high water temperatures at larger geographic scales. However, the bleaching response can be highly variable among individual of the same species, between different species, and across localities; what causes this variability remains unresolved. Here, we tracked bleached and non-bleached colonies of Acropora muricata to see if they recovered or died following a stress event inside the semi-enclosed lagoon of Bouraké (New Caledonia), where corals are long-term acclimatized to extreme conditions of temperature, pH and dissolved oxygen, and at a nearby control reef where conditions are more benign. We describe Symbiodiniaceae community changes based on next-generation sequencing of the ITS2 marker, metabolic responses, and energetic reserve measures (12 physiological traits evaluated) during the La Niña warm and rainy summer in 2021. Widespread coral bleaching (score 1 and 2 on the coral colour health chart) was observed only in Bouraké, likely due to the combination of the high temperatures (up to 32°C) and heavy rain. All colonies (i.e., Bouraké and reference site) associated predominantly with Symbiodinaceae from the genera Cladocopium. Unbleached colonies in Bouraké had a specific ITS2-type profile (proxies for Symbiodiniaceae genotypes), while the bleached colonies in Bouraké had the same ITS2-type profile of the reef control colonies during the stress event. After four months, the few bleached colonies that survived in Bouraké (B2) acquired the same ITS2 type profiles of the unbleached colonies in Bouraké. In terms of physiological performances, all bleached corals showed metabolic depression (e.g., Pgross and Rdark). In contrast, unbleached colonies in Bouraké maintained higher metabolic rates and energetic reserves compared to control corals. Our study suggests that Acropora muricata enhanced their resistance to bleaching thanks to specific Symbiodiniaceae associations, while energetic reserves may increase their resilience after stress.

Introduction

Coral reefs are one of the most biodiverse and complex ecosystems on the planet that provide ecosystem goods and services to support healthy marine ecosystems [1]. However, coral reefs are degrading worldwide because of global climate change [24]. Elevated seawater temperatures induced by anthropogenic global warming are primarily responsible for increasing the frequency of bleaching events, which have a high likelihood of happening during one of the El Niño–Southern Oscillation phases (ENSO) [5]. Coral bleaching [6] is characterized by the loss of algal symbionts (and/or pigmentation) in response to local environmental conditions, causing variations in the coral color [7,8]. Corals experiencing bleaching are particularly vulnerable since they cannot rely on the Symbiodiniaceae photosynthetic carbon for their daily metabolic requirements [9,10]. Some corals can rely on the acquisition of heterotrophy carbon, thus capturing particles and/or assimilation of dissolved inorganic and organic compounds [11,12]. In general, excess in autotrophic and heterotrophic carbon can be stored in the host as energy reserves like lipids that normally represent 10–40% of total biomass [1315]. However, autotrophy depletion forces bleached corals to rely on stored lipids, carbohydrates, or protein reserves to satisfy their carbon requirements until bleaching recovery occurs [16]. Bleached corals are unstable and their likelihood of survival depends on bleaching severity, duration of the event, nutritional plasticity (e.g., ability to shift between heterotrophy and autotrophy), and energy reserves achieved prior to bleaching [17]. In some cases, surviving corals can rapidly adjust their thermal tolerance within and between host generations by shuffling their microalgal symbiont with a more stress-tolerant species [1820]. Indeed, some symbiont species such as Durusdinium trenchii have been described as more resilient than others under elevated temperature, even if less efficient in terms of carbon translocated to the host [21,22]. In other cases, the coral host can adjust its thermal tolerance by expressing stress resistance genes [23,24] and promoting genetic adaptation to local environments [18,24,25]. The bleaching threshold can be interspecific and intraspecific depending on environmental memory and thermal tolerance of both the coral host and algal symbiont [8,26,27], leaving the exact triggers of bleaching still unsolved. Recently, studies are focusing on natural extreme reef environments inhabited by corals, such as the sheltered bay of Palau [2830], reef tide pools on Kimberly [31,32], semi-enclosed lagoons [3335], and mangrove environments [20,36,37] to understand the phenotypic plasticity, and the remarkable resilience of corals inhabiting such natural laboratories to chronic and acute environmental disturbances [32,38]. Notwithstanding such resilience, during a warm and rainy period associated with La Niña (January 2021) a partial bleaching and mortality of corals, mostly Acroporidae, were observed in the semi-enclosed lagoon of Bouraké in New Caledonia, but not in other localities of New Caledonia. A similar bleaching and mortality event during an extreme wet period was recently documented for a mangrove-coral location on the Great Barrier Reef [39]. Bouraké shelters a healthy reef that is chronically exposed to daily variations in pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen, and salinity [34]. This severe bleaching event was the first to be recorded after 2016, when a mass coral bleaching event impacted entire reefs in New Caledonia [40], while only a mild paling of corals was observed in Bouraké (Rodolfo-Metalpa, in situ observations). There is increasing work being undertaken to reveal diverse strategies undertaken by these corals to survive under chronic disturbances [20,33,38,41,42], yet what intraspecific stress-induced physiological response of extreme corals (i.e., corals that live at the edge of their environmental limits [43,44], occur during a stress event remains entirely unexplored.

The aim of this study was therefore to explore potential mechanisms underlying the physiological plasticity of corals that live in extreme and fluctuating conditions during a period of acute stress (i.e., elevated temperatures and La Niña in 2021). We took advantage of a natural bleaching event to investigate possible shifts in the endosymbiont community and key physiological indicators of metabolic response in Acropora muricata comparing healthy and bleached corals from Bouraké with healthy colonies from a reference. To assess the physiological responses during the stress event we quantified algal symbiont physiology (cell density, chlorophyll a concentration, photosynthetic efficiency (e.g., Maximum quantum yield and the maximum rETR), Symbiodiniaceae photosynthesis and holobiont respiration) and coral host energy reserves during the bleaching event and four months post bleaching. We also investigated symbiont community dynamics using next-generation sequencing of the ITS2 marker for both Bouraké and reference corals at the two time points.

Methods

Study sites and environmental parameters

Two study sites were selected, B2 in Bouraké and the reference site R1, which is situated 1.5 km from Bouraké [33] (S1 Fig, see supporting information). Seawater temperature was measured at both sites (ca. 2 m depth) from December 2020 to May 2021, using HOBO water temperature Pro V2 sensors set at 10-minutes logging intervals. At both sites, the physio-chemical environmental variability, coral species composition, and coral species abundances have been monitored since 2016 and described by [34]. Daily variations in pH and oxygen (DO) in Bouraké are connected to the tidal cycle, and their regular oscillations have been reported in several studies [3335,45] suggesting variations are consistent over time. Studies reported a chronic range in pHT from 8.06 to 7.23, and regular fluctuations in DO between 7.10 and 2.28 (mg L-1 h-1) [34,35]. Therefore, pH and DO were not monitored during the following study. Data on rain were taken by Meteo France at the nearby Bouraké station.

Colonies selection, coral bleaching and mortality assessments

Study sites were visited on the 6th December 2020, and no visual signs of bleaching were observed. On revisiting the sites in early January 2021, coral bleaching and mortality were observed in Bouraké (S1 Fig), but not at the reference site. Additional observations were made in early February at the reference site R1, and no bleaching was observed. Coral bleaching and mortality were assessed on the 18th of January 2021 (T1, Bleaching) and on the 5th May 2021 (T2, Post bleaching) in B2 and R1. At each site, three 10 m permanent transects, each separated by at least 5 m, were set out. A 50 x 50 cm PVC quadrat was positioned on transects at 1 m intervals and photographed using an underwater camera (Canon G16 with Fantasea underwater case). Coral genus and health status were assessed on each photo using a Photo Quad with 40 random points in each quadrat. We identified four main categories: healthy coral cover (i.e., score 3–6 of the coral colour health chart); bleached coral cover (i.e., score 1 and 2); recently dead coral cover (i.e., dead corals with visible white skeletons not covered by algae); and dead coral cover (i.e., dead corals with skeletons covered by algae). Based on the species list previously made at the two sites [34], the main coral species affected by bleaching and mortality were identified in the field. Acropora muricata was selected as the model species to track physiological changes during the bleaching and post-bleaching for two reasons: 1) it was one of the most affected species; 2) the Symbiodiniaceae community of this species was already described for Bouraké’s population by Camp et al. [33]. In Bouraké (B2), 15 pigmented colonies (score 5 or 6 of the coral colour chart, hereafter defined as Bouraké Zoox, BZ) and 15 bleached colonies (score 1 or 2 of the coral colour chart, hereafter Bouraké Bleach, BB) of A. muricata were tagged in January (T1). In contrast, at the reference site R2 only nine pigmented colonies belonging to the same species were found and labelled (hereafter Reference Zoox, RZ). Colonies were at the same depth, with a similar diameter (40 to 50 cm), and with no signs of mortality at the time of the colony selection. Four fragments (4–5 cm in length each) were sampled from the centre of each colony and from each study site at both T1 and T2. Fragments from each colony were kept in individual zip bags containing native seawater and transported to the nearby field lab (Research station ADECAL-IFREMER in St. Vincent). One fragment per colony was preserved in ethanol for the Symbiodiniaceae genotyping; one fragment was used to measure photosynthetic efficiency, and then it was frozen at -80°C and stored for further analyses on lipids, carbohydrates, and biomass; one fragment was used to measure metabolic rates, and then chlorophyll, Symbiodiniaceae and total proteins contents; while the last fragment was weighed and transplanted back to the sampling sites to assess the corals growth rate (see below).

Growth rate

At each time point, T1 and T2, and at each site, B2 and R1, one fragment from each colony was transplanted at their original site in a common garden experiment, and its growth rate was measured after three weeks. However, the number of replicates of the BB category was reduced from 15 to 3 in T2 because of the high mortality of bleached colonies during and after the bleaching. The buoyant weight technique [46] was used to weigh fragments in a Sartorius ENTRIS 224i-1S electronic balance (readability 0.1 mg) in seawater of known density which was calculated from temperature and salinity. Then, each fragment was mounted on an individual labelled PVC support, weighed again, and secured on concrete blocks at their original site of collection. Three weeks later, nubbins were collected and weighed. Dry skeleton weight was calculated using the density of pure aragonite (2.94 g cm-3), and growth rate was calculated as the change in dry weight of the coral skeleton between the initial and the final weight and expressed in mg g-1 d-1.

Photosynthetic efficiency, Symbiodiniaceae photosynthesis, and respiration

One fragment from each colony and from each site was dark adapted for 30 minutes in native seawater from each respective study site, and at a room temperature of 26°C. For each measurement the DIVING-PAM optical fiber was placed perpendicularly to the coral surface, ca. 1 cm below the axial corallite, and at a fixed distance of 5 mm to the fragment’s surface using a plastic spacer. Rapid Light Curves (RLCs) were applied using the internal program of the DIVING-PAM (Walz, Germany) that provides a sequence of nine-light steps with light intensities increasing from 5 to 1800 μmol photons m-2 s-1 (settings: measuring light 8, saturating intensity 8, saturating width 0.8 s, gain 3 and damping 2). Each illumination period lasted 10 s and finished with a saturating pulse that measured the effective quantum yield (ΔF/Fm’). Maximum quantum yield (Yieldmax) was measured at the first light step. The maximum rETR (rETRmax) was calculated by multiplying the effective quantum yield by each light intensity. After measurements, coral fragments were frozen and then used to measure lipids, carbohydrates, and biomass (see below).

Another coral fragment was used to measure the net coral photosynthesis (Pn) and dark respiration (Rdark) rates. Fragments were incubated in 100 ml glass beakers filled with native filtered seawater (1 μm) constantly mixed using magnetic stir bars. Beakers were hermetically closed using transparent plastic film to avoid any oxygen exchange with air. Each beaker was equipped with an oxygen sensor spot (SP-PSt6-NAU, PreSens, Germany), and oxygen concentration was measured with a polymer optical fiber and Fibox 4 (PreSens) at the beginning and at the end of the light and dark incubations, respectively [35,47]. The incubation temperature represented the mean value (± SD) measured in the field by the deployed HOBO temperature loggers (ca. 29.7 ± 1.13°C at T1, from January 1st to January 17th, and ca 26 ± 1.21°C at T2, from April 20th to May 1st). Temperatures were kept stable using a temperature-controlled water bath. Two control beakers containing only filtered native seawater were run in parallel to account for the background oxygen change by microorganisms in the seawater. Light irradiance was provided by LED lights (Mitras LX6100, GHL Germany) at 190 μmol photons m-2 s-1 and measured with LI-193 Spherical Quantum Sensor (LI-COR, USA). After 50 minutes of incubation in the light, Pn rates were measured. Then, the light was switched off, and the corals were given 15 minutes to acclimate to darkness before measuring their respiration rates for a further 50 minutes. Pn and Rdark rates were corrected for background oxygen changes measured in the control beakers and scaled for the water volume. Gross photosynthetic (Pgross) rates were determined by adding the dark respiration to Pn, while Pg:R was calculated by multiplying Pgross for 12h and Rdark for 24 h. All rates were normalized for surface area, which was obtained with the wax dipping method [48,49].

Biomass, lipids, carbohydrates, and Symbiodiniaceae parameters

One coral fragment 2–3 cm in length from each tagged colony was freeze-dried and weighed. The surface areas were measured using the aluminium foil technique [50], and the skeleton was then ground to powder in an agate mortar [51]. Tissue biomass was measured by drying a sub-sample of the powder, pooling skeleton, animal tissue, and algal endosymbionts for 24 h at 60°C, followed by burning for 5 h at 450°C. The difference between dry and burned weight was the ash-free dry weight, which was standardized to the surface area of the sub-sample to obtain the biomass [52,53]. Another coral powdered sub-sample was used to determine soluble lipids in the pool of skeleton, animal tissue, and algal endosymbionts. According to Folch [54], the coral powder was weighed and then mixed with 1 ml of dichloromethane: methanol solution (2:1 ratio), followed by two successive cycles of centrifugation at 3500 g for extraction in 0.75% NaCl. The lipid extract was dried to constant weight and standardized to the biomass. Carbohydrates were also extracted using a sub-sample of the same coral powder. Milli-Q water was added to the ground coral sub-sample after being weighed, and the resulting slurry was centrifuged twice (5000 g, for 10 min) to separate the animal tissue from the rest of the sample. Carbohydrates were extracted following Bove and Bauman [50,55] and Masuko et al., [56] Lipids and carbohydrates were normalized to the biomass to account for the lack of Symbiodiniaceae in bleached colonies at T1.

The tissue of the fragments used for photosynthetic measurements was removed using an air pick in 22 ml of filtered seawater (Whatman GF/F) to quantify the Symbiodiniaceae density, chlorophyll content, and protein content. The slurry was then homogenized using a grinder potter, and a sub-sample (2 ml) was taken for the determination of the symbiont density per surface area. For that, Symbiodiniaceae were counted in six replicates for each coral on a hemocytometer (Neubauer) under a microscope. Chlorophyll content was measured using 10 ml of the coral slurry centrifuged at 6000 g for 10 min at 4°C. The supernatant was discarded, and 10 ml of pure acetone added to the pellet and left for 24 h in darkness at 4°C. Absorbance was measured at 630, 663, and 750 nm using a spectrophotometer (Evolution 201 UV-Visible, Thermo Fisher Scientific). Total chlorophyll (a + c2) concentrations were calculated using the equation of Jeffrey and Humphrey [57]. Proteins were extracted by mixing 500 μl subsample of the coral slurry (animal tissue and algal endosymbiont) with 500 μl of NaOH 0.5 N. Then, samples were incubated in the autoclave for 5 h at 60°C. Soluble proteins were determined by adding a sample aliquot (25 μl) to a BCA Protein Assay Kit (Interchim) and using bovine serum albumin as a standard. Absorbance was set at 562 nm and soluble proteins were measured using a spectrophotometer (Evolution 201 UV-Visible, Thermo Fisher Scientific). Total chlorophyll and soluble proteins were normalized to surface unit.

Symbiodiniaceae DNA extraction, PCR amplification and sequencing

Coral fragments of ca. 2 cm length were preserved in absolute ethanol for genotyping of Symbiodiniaceae based on amplicon sequencing of the Ribosomal Internal Transcribed Spacer 2 (ITS2). Total coral holobiont DNA (i.e., Symbiodiniaceae, polyp and associated microorganisms DNAs) was extracted using a 2% CTAB-based protocol adapted from [58]. The quantity and quality of extracted DNA were checked using a NanoDrop 2000 spectrophotometer (Thermo Fisher Scientific, MA). Extracted DNA was then diluted to a range of 30–70 ng μL-1 for PCR amplification. The Symbiodiniaceae nuclear DNA ribosomal internal transcribed spacer (ITS2) region was amplified with the forward primer ITS2-DINO [5’-TCGTCGGCAGCGTCAGATGTGTATAAGAGACAGGTGAATTGCAGAACTCCGTG-3’] [59] and reverse primer ITS2Rev2 [5’-GTCTCGTGGGCTCGGAGATGTGTATAAGAGACAGCCTCCGCTTACTTATATGCTT-3’] [60]. The underlined segments represent Illumina adapter overhangs (Illumina, San Diego, CA, USA). The PCRs were conducted in 25 μL reactions using 12.5 μL of AmpliTaq 360 Master Mix, 1 μL of each 10 μM primer mix, 1 μL of 360 GC Enhancer, 2 μL of DNA template and DNAse-free water to adjust the reaction volume. The amplification cycle was set and adjusted from Arif et al. [61] as follows: 94°C for 15 min; 35 cycles each at 95°C for 30 s, 49°C for 1 min, and 72°C for 30 s; and a final extension at 72°C for 10 min. To check for amplification success, 3 μL of each PCR product were run on a 1% agarose gel. The resulting amplicons were sequenced using the Illumina MiSeq platform (2 x 300 bp) (Australian Genome Research Facility, Victoria, Australia, average sequencing depth: 97252). Returned demultiplexed FASTQ files were analyzed via the SymPortal analytical framework [62]. The SymPortal framework predicts ITS2-type profiles from specific sets of defining intragenomic ITS2 sequence variants (DIVs) based on genetically differentiated Symbiodiniaceae taxa. Quality control was assessed using Mother 1.39.5 [63], BLASTC suite of executables [64] and minimum entropy decomposition [65] to predict Symbiodiniaceae taxa from the ITS2 marker.

Statistical analyses

Seawater temperature daily means were compared between study sites (Bouraké and R1) using one-way ANOVA. Multivariate two-way PERMANOVAs (9999 permutations) were performed to test changes in relative abundance in ITS2 sequences and predicted ITS2-type profiles among categories (BZ, BB, RZ) and time points (T1 and T2), and also to test changes in the holobiont physiological traits (biomass, soluble lipids, soluble proteins, carbohydrates, Pgross, Rdark, Pg:R chlorophyll, Symbiodiniaceae, rETRmax, and Yieldmax). The growth rate was not included in the physiological traits because of the limited number of transplanted replicates that survived at T1. Data were normalized, and a square root transformation was applied prior to the construction of the Bray-Curtis and Euclidean distance resemblance matrix for the analyses on Symbiodiniaceae, and physiological profiles, respectively. The PERMDISP test for homogeneity of the dispersion [66] was also done using distances to centroids and with p values obtained using 999 permutations of residuals. PERMANOVA was performed setting categories (three levels: BB, BZ, and RZ) and time (two levels: bleaching (T1) and post-bleaching (T2)) as fixed effects. When significant differences were found, a post hoc pairwise test was run. The major contribution to the variability among categories and time points was suggested by similarity percentage analysis (SIMPER), and data visualization was based on non-parametric multidimensional scaling (nMDS) plot. In addition to the multivariate analysis, differences in the phenotypic traits among categories were also assessed separately for each time point using multivariate one-way PERMANOVAs (9999 permutations) after having checked the homogeneity of variance (PERMDISP, centroids, and p-value at 999 permutations). PERMANOVA is a robust non-parametric test that can be applied in balanced and unbalanced designs, although, in the presence of heterogeneity of variance, it is considered to be reliable in balanced design only [67,68]. PERMANOVA and pairwise analyses were also used on energetical reserves (e.g., carbohydrates, biomass, lipids, and proteins) of the few colonies that survived at T2 between time points. ANOVA was performed with R software (v.3.4.3), whereas PERMANOVA pairwise and SIMPER analyses were performed using Primer software V6. All raw sequence data as fastq read files are accessible under NCBI Sequence Read Archive (SRA), under NCBI’s BioProject: PRJNA1020910), and data are available at DOI: 10.5061/dryad.05qfttf8z.

Results

Environmental temperature and rainfall regime

The average daily temperature from December 2020 to May 2021 were significantly different between sites (one-way ANOVA, F1,362 = 10.966 p = 0.001) and ranged from 21.37°C to 32.89°C in Bouraké (mean ± SD = 27.32 ± 2.02°C), and from 22.08°C to 30.95°C at the reference site R1 (mean ± SD = 26.94 ±1.56°C) (Fig 1). During the four months of observation, the daily seawater maximum temperature exceeded 30°C during 75 days in Bouraké and only 12 days in R1. Daily average temperature exceeded 30°C only in Bouraké, over 14 days between January (bleaching peak) and the end of February 2021.

Fig 1. Temperature profiles for Bouraké and the control reef site.

Fig 1

Daily average temperature (solid line) and daily temperature range (shaded area) measured in Bouraké (B2), and the reference reef site (R1) from the 1st of December 2020 to the 31st of May 2021. Sampling activities were undertaken on the 18th of January (T1) and on the 5th May (T2) 2021. Temperature drops were recorded during periods of intense rain fall, starting from the beginning of January (first 15 days). Episodic heavy rain events were recorded during the passage of the tropical storm Lucas (3rd and 4th February 2021), and the cyclone Niran (4th-5th March 2021).

Concomitantly to the first heat wave in January 2021, New Caledonia experienced three events of exceptionally strong precipitations, which marked the beginning of a period of frequent episodes of rainfall events linked to La Niña, likely the most intense since the year 1981 (source: Meteo France). In addition, during the four months of observation, tropical storm Lucas (3-4/02/2021) and cyclone Niran (5-6/03/2021) hit New Caledonia and passed close to our study sites. A total of 300 mm of precipitation was measured in the Bouraké region (including the study site and nearby reference site) from the 30th of December 2020 to the 18th of January 2021, which was 5.3-fold higher than the average precipitation measured from 1981–2010 during the same period (S2 Fig).

Coral bleaching and mortality

In January 2021 (T1), 47.5% of corals in Bouraké were visually healthy (e.g., high pigmentation), while 33.2% were found bleached. The remaining corals were already dead, with 16.2% of them categorized as recently dead (i.e., no signs of polyp extroversion, but the skeleton was still white, and the coral not fully repopulated by epiphytes algae and encrusting organisms), while only 2.9% were recognized as old coral mortality (Fig 2). The most affected coral genus was Acropora with 36.82% of the coral cover bleached (out of 85.4% of total cover for this genus). Minor percentages were found for Montipora spp. (1% bleached cover out of 10.8% of total coral cover), and less than 1% of bleached colonies for Porites spp. and Pocillopora spp., which together represented the remaining 3.8% of total coral cover. No coral bleaching was observed at the reference site R1 and, more generally, in the same geographical area.

Fig 2. Coral cover response to bleaching in Bouraké.

Fig 2

The percentages of healthy (score above 3 on the coral color health chart), bleached (score 1 and 2 of the coral color health chart), dead, and recently dead corals in Bouraké (B2), during the bleaching event (January 18th 2021), and four months post bleaching 5th May 2021 (T1, and T2, respectively). No data were presented for the reference site (R1) as no bleached colonies were observed. Values are mean ± SD per transect (n = 3).

In May 2021 (T2), most of the bleached corals recovered, resulting in 71% of corals fully pigmented. However, old coral mortality increased up to 23.5% and recently dead corals decreased to 5.3%, respectively. Concerning the tagged colonies in Bouraké, mortality was very high for the bleached colonies (BB) and little for the unbleached “healthy” ones (BZ). Indeed, only three BB colonies survived, although they had between 20 and 50% partial mortality. In contrast, only 20% of the 15 BZ colonies completely died, while some surviving colonies showed signs of partial mortality (S1 Table). The three surviving BB colonies, during recovery returned their normal pigmentation (e.g., color card from 3 to 5) and increased their Symbiodiniaceae density in T2 (see below). No signs of mortality were recorded on the tagged colonies in R1, although four colonies were lost after the passage of the cyclone Niran.

Effect of stress on the holobiont physiological traits

Two-way PERMANOVA showed that physiological profiles significantly differed between coral categories, sampling times, and their interaction (Table 1, S4 Fig).

Table 1. Two-way PERMANOVA on physiological traits of Acropora muricata (biomass, total lipids, total protein, carbohydrates, chlorophyll, Pgross, Rdark, Yieldmax, and Pg:R), between coral conditions (BZ, BB, and RZ) and sampling times (T1 and T2).

Source df SS MS Pseudo-F p Unique perms
Categories (C) 2 2.915 1.457 6.174 <0.001 9938
Time (T) 1 5.993 5.983 25.389 <0.001 9937
C x T 2 2.665 1.332 5.645 <0.001 9952
Residuals 35 8.261 0.236

The data plot (nMDS) showed clear separations in all colony categories between times (S3 Fig), which was confirmed by the pairwise analysis (Table 2). At T1, SIMPER analysis suggested Symbiodiniaceae density, rETRmax, Pg:R and carbohydrates to be the physiological traits that mainly explained the largest variance between BB and the remaining coral categories, while the main differences between RZ and BZ were caused by differences in Yieldmax, carbohydrates, and lipids (Table 2). At T2, SIMPER analysis showed that carbohydrates, proteins, and biomass were the physiological traits of the three surviving BB colonies which mostly explained the difference with RZ (Table 2).

Table 2. Pairwise analysis on the two-way PERMANOVA testing for the holobiont physiological traits between coral categories (BZ, BB, RZ) and sampling times (T1 and T2).

Similarities percentage analysis (SIMPER) was used to identify which physiological traits explained the largest portion of the variance. P-values in bold are significant.

PAIRWISE and SIMPER
Category T P Average Diss. % Contribution
T1 vs T2 BZ 3.660 0.001
BB 2.943 0.007
RZ 2.879 <0.001
Category x T1 (Bleaching)
BB vs BZ 3.447 <0.001 34.3% 18.3% Symbio.
16.78% Pg:R
11.2% rETRmax
BB vs RZ 2.79 <0.001 33.3% 19.3% Pg:R
16.2% Symbio.
10.5% rETRmax
BZ vs RZ 1.916 0.009 13.6% 18.6% Carbo.
15.3% Yieldmax
12.8% Lipids
Category x T2 (Post-bleaching)
BB vs BZ 0.891 0.584 11.0%
BB vs RZ 1.775 0.011 13.6% 20.3% Carbo.
12.6% Biomass
10.8% Proteins
BZ vs RZ 3.153 <0.001 15.0% 22.5% Carbo.
13.3% Biomass
12.3% R

Carbohydrates, biomass, and respiration were the physiological traits contributing most to the variance between BZ and RZ. One-way PERMANOVAs were run separately for T1 and T2, highlighting differences in each physiological trait among categories. Pairwise comparisons revealed that during the bleaching event at T1, all traits in BB were significantly affected compared to BZ and RZ, except for proteins, and biomass where no differences among categories were found (Fig 3; Table 3).

Fig 3. Holobiont physiological traits.

Fig 3

Physiological traits (mean ±SD) in BB (Yellow, Bouraké bleached), BZ (Red, Bouraké healthy), and RZ (Brown, reference healthy) colonies of Acropora muricata, during bleaching (T1) and post bleaching (T2). Asterisks above barplots indicate the significance of post-hoc tests when one-way PERMANOVA was significant (* = 0.01, ** = 0.001, *** = < 0.001). At T1, the number of replicates were n = 15 for BB and BZ and n = 9 for RZ, while at T2 replicates were n = 3, n = 12, and n = 6 for BB, BZ, and RZ, respectively.

Table 3. One-way PERMANOVA between coral categories (BB, BZ, RZ) for each coral phenotypic trait at T1 (bleaching), and T2 (post-bleaching).

P-values in bold are significant.

Time T1 (bleaching)
Trait df SS MS Pseudo-F p Permutations
Pgross (2,36) 1.793 0.896 54.75 < 0.001 9946
Rdark (2,36) 0.233 0.116 9.98 <0.001 9955
Pgross:R (2.36) 1.670 0.835 27.83 <0.001 9947
Chl (2,18) 892.6 444.320 21.81 <0.001 9952
Symbio. (2,18) 8.791 4.395 227.3 <0.001 9955
Yieldmax (2,32) 0.076 0.038 9.15 0.001 9957
rETRmax (2,32) 158.82 79.4 17.49 <0.001 9937
Biomass (2,36) 1.429 0.714 2.22 0.126 9954
Lipids (2,36) 0.102 0.051 3.63 0.036 9951
Proteins (2,18) 0.096 0.048 2.96 0.075 9951
Carbo. (2,36) 0.281 0.14 10.90 <0.001 9946
Calcif. (2,21) 6.178 3.089 21.57 <0.001 9960
T2 (Post-bleaching)
Pgross (2,18) 0.125 0.062 1.37 0.279 9945
Rdark (2,18) 0.022 0.011 0.49 0.635 9940
Pgross:R (2,18) 0.106 0.053 4.43 0.025 9951
Chl (2,18) 1.1E6 5.9E6 1.63 0.245 9943
Symbio. (2,18) 7.290 3.645 8.47 0.002 9948
Yieldmax (2,18) 0.001 0.006 2.96 0.082 9939
rETRmax (2,18) 1.883 0.941 0.57 0.546 9963
Biomass (2,18) 8.887 4.443 3.97 0.039 9960
Lipids (2,18) 0.043 0.021 1.50 0.258 9929
Proteins (2,18) 0.177 0.088 4.60 0.022 9951
Carbo. (2,18) 0.171 0.085 11.16 0.001 9927
Calcif. (2,18) 2.009 1.004 0.26 0.784 9960

Healthy colonies BZ showed significantly greater rETRmax (38%), Yield (20%), chlorophyll (44%), Symbiodiniaceae density (32%), and carbohydrates (65%) when compared to RZ (Fig 3D, 3F, 3G and 3M), but lower growth rate (35%) and Pgross:Rdark (26%) (Fig 3G and 3N; S3 Table). Interestingly, the BB colonies had similar Yieldmax, carbohydrates, and protein contents compared to RZ (Fig 3F, 3I and 3M), although the bleaching conditions.

Post bleaching, at T2, only some of the initial colonies survived (i.e., n = 3, n = 12, and n = 6 for BB, BZ, and RZ, respectively). Although this resulted in limited replication, the three fully bleached colonies (BB) that survived, totally recovered, showing similarity to the other categories (i.e., BZ and RZ) in all of the physiological traits, except for carbohydrates and protein content, where values were significantly higher compared to RZ (Fig 3; S2 Table). At the same time, a few significant differences in the physiological traits were found between BZ and RZ. Indeed, BZ had lower Pgross:Rdark, but higher Symbiodiniaceae density, protein, carbohydrates, and biomass (Fig 3D, 3I, 3L and 3M; Table 3). One-way PERMANOVA was used to test if the colonies from BB and BZ that survived at T2 recovered their reserves between T1 and T2 (S3 Table; Fig 4). Data underlined the capacity of both BB and BZ to increase their biomass and protein over a four-month time window (Fig 4A and 4C), likely depleting their energy reserves since both carbohydrates and lipids were lower at T2 (Fig 4B and 4D). The RZ colonies significantly decreased their lipids and carbohydrates from T1 to T2 (Fig 4B and 4D), although there were not changes in protein and biomass (Fig 4A and 4C).

Fig 4. Trend in energetic reserves of coral over the two timepoints.

Fig 4

Changes in biomass and energetic reserves (mean ±SD) in BB (Bouraké bleached), BZ (Bouraké healthy), and RZ (reference healthy) colonies of A. muricata during bleaching (yellow) and post-bleaching (orange). Asterisks above barplots indicate the results of post-hoc tests when one-way PERMANOVA was significant (* = 0.01, ** = 0.001, *** = < 0.001). Only the colonies that survived/found were considered (n.3, 12, and 6 for BB, BZ and RZ).

Effect of stress on the Symbiodiniaceae community

Two-way PERMANOVA showed significant differences in the Symbiodiniaceae ITS2 type profiles and major sequences between sampling times, coral categories, and their interaction (Table 4; S3 and S5 Figs).

Table 4. Two-way PERMANOVA on the relative abundance of ITS2 sequence types, and major ITS2 profiles of Acropora muricata among categories (BB, BZ, and RZ) and between times (T1 and T2).

P-values in bold are significant.

Trait df SS MS Pseudo-F p Permutations
ITS2 abundances
Time (T) 1 1.7908 1.790 14.532 <0.001 9944
Categories (C) 2 13.942 6.971 56.568 <0.001 9950
T x C 2 4.2088 2.104 17.077 <0.001 9956
Residuals 54 6.6545 0.123
ITS2 profiles
Time (T) 1 11145 11457 5.4092 0.006 9950
Categories (C) 2 76424 38212 18.041 <0.001 9947
T x C 2 27745 13873 6.5996 <0.001 9942
Residuals 54 11226 2118

The nMDS showed clear separation between times in BB colonies compared to the other two categories (BZ and RZ) (S5 Fig), which was confirmed by the pairwise analysis. During the bleaching event (T1), all of the bleached colonies had 93.8% difference in their ITS2 sequences compared to the unbleached colonies in Bouraké (Table 5). SIMPER analysis suggested that the major differences in ITS2 sequences between times were due to the presence of C50b, C50p and C3, with the major profile C50b.C50p.C3.C3bm.C50f in the BB category (Table 5; Fig 5).

Table 5. Pairwise analysis on the two-way PERMANOVA testing for the ITS2 sequences and profile among coral categories (BZ, BB, RZ) and sampling times (T1 and T2).

Similarities percentage analysis (SIMPER) was used to identify which sequences explained the largest portion of the variance. P-values in bold are significant.

PAIRWISE and SIMPER
Category T P Average Diss. % Contribution
T1 vs T2 BZ 0. 9082 0.489
RZ 1.0058 0.391
BB 16.52 0.001 34.5% C50b
8.6% C3
7.7% C50p
Category *T1 (Bleaching)
BB vs BZ 27.559 <0.001 93.8% 38.5% C50b
31.2% C1b
31.1% C1
BB vs RZ 6.4014 0.001 95.1% 37.4% C50b
16.2% C21
12.0% Others
10.6% C3k
BZ vs RZ 2.9248 <0.001 48.1% 31.1% C1
20.6% C50b
8.0% C21
Category *T2 (Post-bleaching)
BB vs BZ 0.8213 0.471
BB vs RZ 4.1733 0.013 95.7% 31.9% C50b
30.5% C1
5.7%C1b
BZ vs RZ 8.388 <0.001 98.8% 30% C1
31.9% C50b
4.9% C1b

Fig 5. Recovered ITS2 sequences and predicted ITS2 type profiles.

Fig 5

A) ITS2 sequence relative abundance (%), and predicted major ITS2 type profiles of Acropora muricata for BB (Bouraké bleached), BZ (Bouraké healthy), and RZ (reference healthy) during bleaching (T1), and B) post bleaching in (T2). Results are plotted as stacked bar charts with a single column representing a sample. For each column in the stacked bar plots, the relative abundances in percentage of ITS2 sequences are plotted above the horizontal black line, whilst the predicted ITS2 profiles are plotted below. Only the most 25 major ITS2 sequences are shown, the remaining sequences are represented by “others” (pink portion of the stacked bar chart). Red asterisks indicate the colonies that were found alive at T2. Recognizable sequences (e.g., C1, C50b or C3) refer to sequences that have been used to characterize ITS2 type profiles as a part of previous analyses that have been run through the SymPortal analytical framework.

Notably one BB coral had a major type profile of C3k.C3bo.C50a.C3ba.C50q. In contrast, the BZ category was represented mostly by C1, C1b and C1c, with the major ITS2 type profile C1.C1b.C1c.C42.2.C1bh.C1br.C1cb.C3. We did not detect any of the BZ major sequences in 13 out of 15 BB colonies during the bleaching. However, one BB colony that survived the stress event had a small percentage of C1, C1b and C1c in their ITS2 major sequences at T1 (Fig 5). Two BZ colonies had a little percentage of C50b and C3bm, but their ITS2 major sequences were still dominated by C1, C1b and C1c at T1, which were absent from the major sequences at T2. The two unbleached categories (BZ and RZ) were 95.2% different from each other (Table 5). Indeed, ITS2 sequences and profiles of RZ were more diverse compared to the unbleached colonies of the Bouraké lagoon, with colonies represented by C50b, C3k, and C21 as the main ITS2 sequences in their community (Fig 5). After the bleaching (T2) the three BB colonies showed the same Symbiodiniaceae community of BZ colonies, therefore dominated by C1, C1b and C1c as major ITS2 sequences, and with the major ITS2 type profile C1.C1b.C1c.C42.2.C1bh.C1br.C1cb.C3. Notably, three BZ colonies had different ITS2 type profiles from T1 to T2 (Table 5; Fig 5).

Discussion

During January 2021, a coral bleaching event followed by moderate mortality of the family Acroporidae was observed in Bouraké but not at other localities in New Caledonia. This event occurred during a particularly warm and rainy period associated with La Niña. As a result of the topography of the Bouraké semi-enclosed lagoon, temperatures reached the extreme values of 32.89°C, nearly two degrees higher than the reference reef (T = 30.95°C), which in combination with heavy rain likely caused the observed bleaching and coral mortality. This observation was unexpected since corals inhabiting the semi-enclosed lagoon of Bouraké have been described to cope with chronic exposures to low seawater pH, deoxygenation, and warm temperatures [33]. Unfortunately, we were unable to disentangle the main causes of the bleaching, i.e., seawater warming vs freshwater input. A mangrove lagoon on the Great Barrier housing extreme corals recently experienced loss of Pocillopora acuta species due to freshwater input from heavy rain, highlighting that extreme coral systems are susceptible to periodic stress events [39]. In Bouraké, regardless of the cause of coral bleaching, it was evident that despite the more extreme environmental conditions, unbleached colonies had higher photo-physiological performances than colonies from the reference reef and a marked difference in their Symbiodiniaceae communities. In contrast, colonies that bleached in Bouraké, had a similar symbiont community to the colonies at the reference site. Interestingly, the Bouraké colonies that recovered from the stress event returned their normal physiological performances, and the Symbiodiniaceae communities were similar to the unbleached colonies. Recovery post bleaching was likely promoted by energy reserve catabolism for both bleached and unbleached corals [69,70].

Symbiont community as indicator of resistance to bleaching

Although the three coral categories (BB, BZ, and RZ) were all dominated by Cladocopium spp., we found significant differences in the main Symbiodiniaceae ITS2 type profiles and sequences between sites and among categories during the bleaching (T1). In contrast, after bleaching (T2), we only observed significant differences between sites. Indeed, the major Symbiodiniaceae ITS2 type sequences of bleached corals (BB), which were 93.82% different from unbleached colonies in Bouraké (BZ), were C50b, C3, and C50p (type profile: C50b.C50p.C3.C3bm.C50f). Interestingly, the three bleached colonies that recovered acquired the same ITS2 type profiles as the nonbleached (BZ) colonies. These results suggest two main findings: 1) Cladocopium proliferum (formerly C. goreaui/ITS2 type C1 or C1acro; [65,71]) appears to facilitate resistance to bleaching in “extreme” corals; and 2) “extreme” corals appear capable of altering their symbiont community following bleaching.

Cladocopium is one of the most diverse genera in the Symbiodiniaceae [72] with functional variation in symbiont thermal performances [73], and functional variation in gene expression across reefs [74,75]. C. proliferum has already been described as a dominant symbiont species in healthy colonies of A. muricata from Bouraké [76]. Camp et al. [76] collected coral samples housing C. proliferum in 2016, during the first documented heat wave reported in New Caledonia that caused widespread coral bleaching. It is therefore likely that corals in Bouraké, and their C. proliferum, have previously been exposed to severe thermal stress. Several heat-evolved (i.e. thermally selected) strains of C. proliferum were found to display faster growth rates and higher photosynthetic efficiency than their wild-type counterparts under elevated temperatures [77,78]. Similarly, some heat-evolved C. proliferum strains also enhanced bleaching tolerance when in symbiosis with coral larvae and recruits [79,80]. Previous studies [18,77] have also demonstrated the improved thermo-tolerance and physiological performances of corals hosting C. proliferum in controlled conditions by testing the effect of temperature only. Our data provides new ecologically relevant evidence showing that corals already hosting thermo-tolerant C. proliferum are able to better face extreme conditions, and maintain host-related physiological traits, to the combined effects of high temperature, low pH, low oxygen, and variable salinity.

The second major finding is represented by the change in the symbiont community of the bleached colonies that survived post-bleaching. This change may be due either to the switching from the original to a new, de novo symbionts uptake from the environment, and more resistant symbiont community [81], or to the shuffling of cryptic symbiont types in the existing symbiont communities proliferating post-bleaching [82,83]. In our study, C. proliferum was observed during the bleaching as a very minor species in only one of the three BB colonies that survived, suggesting a switching toward the opportunistic C. proliferum. However, the limited sample size, together with the few examples existing in the literature [84,85], does not allow us to conclude which strategy A. muricata used. Whatever the mechanism, it was suggested that bleaching can provide an adaptive ecological opportunity for corals by allowing the proliferation of more resilient symbiont species [86]. This strategy could help A. muricata to survive stress events, but on the other hand the reduction in the Symbiodiniaceae diversity after recovery, could also be a disadvantage in a multi-stress environment such as Bouraké.

Coral host physiology during and after bleaching

We found that colonies of the same species, living in the same environment in Bouraké, had a different physiological response and suffered differently during the stress period. Only three bleached BB colonies survived the stress event, while twelve out of the fifteen unbleached colonies (BZ) survived. In contrast, colonies at the reference site (R1) did not show any sign of visual bleaching during the period of stress, nor did they undergo partial mortality during the post bleaching period.

One of the main physiological expenditures affected during a period of stress, and which defines a coral’s health status is its somatic growth. Growth rate is tightly linked with photosynthesis (i.e., light-enhanced calcification; [87]), and to the efficiency of certain Symbiodiniaceae to translocate photosynthetic compounds to their hosts [88]. When a coral undergoes thermal stress, photosynthesis is first halted, and then Symbiodiniaceae are expelled, depriving the host of essential photosynthetic carbon [9]. Accordingly, we found that during T1, growth rates was slightly reduced for unbleached colonies in Bouraké, and dramatically compromised for bleached colonies compared to reference colonies. Therefore, both unbleached and bleached colonies in Bouraké underwent stress but had different plasticity in their physiological responses. We did not expect that growth rate in A. muricata was lower in Bouraké than in the reference colonies since, in a recent study, Bouraké colonies had greater calcification compared to reference corals at seawater pH ranging from 7.5 to 8.1 [45]. It is important to note that in the present study not only were corals from Bouraké chronically exposed to extreme and fluctuating seawater pH, but they also had to withstand the combination of acidification with acute and prolonged thermal stress (and likely an osmotic shock due to a decrease drop in the seawater salinity). Our findings agree with [89], who found that while growth rates of tropical coral species increased under high pCO2 conditions, they decrease drastically when corals are exposed to the combined effects of high pCO2 and high temperatures (31°C), which caused the loss of their symbionts. Similarly, another study reported 50% reduction in calcification when Stilopora pistillata was exposed to the combined effects of temperature and decreased pH [90].

In our study, all the photo-physiological traits (i.e., rETRmax, Yeldmax, Pg:R, Symbiodiniaceae and chlorophyll contents) were highly compromised in the bleached category (BB) at the time of the bleaching (T1). This is not surprising since prolonged exposure to a period of stress can cause a dysfunction between symbionts and host [91] resulting in the loss of symbionts, i.e., bleaching [9295], and the consequent loss of photosynthetic carbon available to the host [9]. Indeed, photosynthesis and respiration rates of bleached colonies were significantly compromised, suggesting that the carbon used for respiration in bleached colonies was acquired through the catabolism of energetic reserves and/or heterotrophy [96], while metabolic activities and notably dark respiration, were lowered likely to decrease the risk of mortality [17]. However, 80% of the bleached colonies died, suggesting that 1) the stress was too intense and/or persistent for the coral to survive; 2) the catabolism of energetic reserves and/or heterotrophic ability were unable to counter the impacts of the stress event. Interestingly, unbleached colonies from Bouraké (BZ) showed the highest photo-physiological performances (i.e., Symbiodiniaceae and chlorophyll contents, Yieldmax, and rETRmax) when compared to the reference site (RZ), despite the higher environmental stress in Bouraké. The high photo-physiological performances of BZ may be due to the characteristic of C. proliferum, making the holobiont more thermo-resistant and improving its basal physiology [78]. For instance Cladocopium sub-type C1 is quite efficient in fixing photosynthetic carbon and increasing nitrogen acquisition [97], which can boost the photo-physiological traits of the Symbiodiniaceae community [98100].

The three bleached colonies (BB) that survived post-bleaching fully recovered from the stress. Indeed, at T2, they had a density of Symbiodiniaceae, chlorophyll, and photosynthetic efficiency of the photosystem II (both ETRmax and Yieldmax) comparable to unbleached colonies in Bouraké (BZ). The new Symbiodiniaceae acquired may have helped the host to recover normal physiological performances. BZ colonies retained a significantly higher Symbiodinaceae density than the reference colonies (RZ), while all of the other traits including growth rate were still comparable after bleaching. The high density of Symbiodiniaceae could have induced self-shading and thus reduced the light availability [101] for photosynthesis. This might explain why the Pgross was not higher in unbleached and ex-bleached colonies of Bouraké when compared to reference colonies. This result is consistent with the photosynthetic rates measured on many coral species in Bouraké [35,45].

In terms of energetic reserves, which have been demonstrated to promote coral recovery from bleaching [16,17,70,96], we found that both lipids and carbohydrates in bleached colonies (BB) were significantly lower than the unbleached colonies in Bouraké during the stress event (T1). The finding suggests that these two were the main source of energy for bleached colonies. At the same time, unbleached colonies from Bouraké (BZ) had similar lipid content and distinctly higher carbohydrates than the reference colonies. Carbohydrates are typically acquired by autotrophy and are rapidly depleted [102,103], while lipids are longer-lasting energy reserves [14,96] that can be used to produce energetic metabolites such as ATP [104]. Carbohydrates are one of the first products of photosynthesis, and the greater concentration in BZ during the bleaching could be linked to the improved photo-physiological traits compared to the reference colonies. In agreement with previous studies [31,70,96,105], both biomass and proteins did not differ among categories of colonies during the bleaching, but they increased in Bouraké colonies after the bleaching period. Biomass is usually an indicator of coral health [96], while proteins are involved in enzymatic reactions and biomineralization of the skeleton [106], and their increase after bleaching can provide evidence of recovery from a stress event [52,107].

Conclusions

This study gives more insights into the mechanisms used by the widespread coral A. muricata to cope with and evolve in an extreme environment during an acute stress event. Indeed, while corals from Bouraké have been suggested to be resilient to acidification, deoxygenation, and warming, it is unknown if the acquired resilience will help them cope with further stress. This study provides ecological observations that complement the existing literature about the role of stress-tolerant symbionts in corals that already live at the edge of their perceived environmental limits. Our data also confirm the role of energy reserves during bleaching in “extreme” corals. First, corals use carbohydrates to cope with the stress and then lipids to compensate for the lack of autotrophic carbon. Overall, our findings sustain the hypothesis that a specific Symbiodiniaceae community can support long-term acclimatization allowing corals to persist in such harsh conditions. Natural laboratories where coral communities live under extreme conditions are becoming crucial tools because they provide precious insights on the tolerance of symbionts, corals, and host-symbiont associations. These locations also tell us which species are likely to survive under the combined effect of multiple environmental drivers (i.e., fluctuating pH, deoxygenation, and osmotic shock during a heat stress event), suggesting which species will likely persist in the future.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Mortality (%) of tagged colonies of Acropora muricata.

Bouraké healthy (BZ), Bouraké bleached (BB), and reference healthy (RZ) in May 2021 (T2) according to their initial category and origin.

(DOCX)

pone.0296902.s001.docx (13.1KB, docx)
S2 Table. Pairwise comparison on coral physiological traits.

T-test on one-way PERMANOVA for each coral physiological trait measured in Acropora muricata during the bleaching (T1) and post-bleaching (T2).

(DOCX)

pone.0296902.s002.docx (16KB, docx)
S3 Table. Pairwise comparison on metabolic reserves.

T-test on one-way PERMANOVA for each metabolic reserve (i.e., proteins, lipids, carbohydrates, and biomass) measured in Acropora muricata post-bleaching (T2). Only the colonies that survived at T2 were considered.

(DOCX)

pone.0296902.s003.docx (13KB, docx)
S1 Fig. Study sites.

A) Location of the two study sites: the Bouraké semi-enclosed lagoon (B2) and the reference site (R1). B) Photographs of Acropora spp. assemblage during the bleaching event in January 2021 at Bouraké (site B2). Satellite data were downloaded from www.georep.nc (©Georep contributors) and customized in QGIS (version 3.4.14).

(TIFF)

pone.0296902.s004.tiff (5.3MB, tiff)
S2 Fig. Rain regime.

Daily rainfall regime in Bouraké region measured from the 1st of December 2020 to the 31st May 2021. Data were recorded from Meteo France in proximity of our study sites.

(TIFF)

pone.0296902.s005.tiff (3.1MB, tiff)
S3 Fig. ITS2 rarefaction curve.

Rarefaction curve on number of sequences and number of Derived Intragenomic sequences Variance of ITS2.

(TIFF)

pone.0296902.s006.tiff (250.8KB, tiff)
S4 Fig. Physiological profiles.

Non-parametric multidimensional scaling plot (nMDS) of holobiont physiological traits in Acropora muricata measured at T1 (circles) and T2 (triangles), corresponding to the three categories of colonies BB (Green, Bouraké bleached colonies), BZ (Blue, Bouraké healthy colonies), and RZ (Black color, reference healthy colonies).

(TIFF)

pone.0296902.s007.tiff (240.8KB, tiff)
S5 Fig. ITS2 relative abundance.

Non-parmetric multidimensional scaling plot (NMDS) of the coral relative abundance of ITS2 sequence types during T1 (bleaching, circles) and T2 (post bleaching, triangles). Green corresponds to BB (Bouraké bleached colonies), blue to ZB (Bouraké healthy colonies), and black to RZ (reference R1 healthy colonies).

(TIFF)

pone.0296902.s008.tiff (222.4KB, tiff)

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Clément Tanvet, Robin Quéré, Celia Lemeu, Florence Antypas, the staff of the research station IFREMER- St. Vincent, and the staff of the Plateforme du vivant (UMR-Entropié) for hosting us during sample processing. We thank Jordi Giraud and Mahe Dumas for their help during the fieldwork, as well as Greg and Esmé for the accommodation in Bouraké. We also thank the four reviewers that helped to improve the quality of this manuscript. We are indebted to the Province Sud for coral collection permits (SuperNatural, agreement #3413–2019).

Data Availability

All raw sequence data as fastq read files are accessible under NCBI Sequence Read Archive (SRA), under NCBI's BioProject: PRJNA1020910), and data are available at DOI: 10.5061/dryad.05qfttf8z.

Funding Statement

CA was supported by a PhD fellowship from Labex CORAIL and IFREMER. The research was supported by the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Fonds Pacifique project “SuperCoraux” #6614A1. Sequencing costs and the contribution of EFC to the project were supported by a CPDRF grant awarded to EFC. Include this sentence at the end of your statement: The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Moberg F, Folke C. Ecological goods and services of coral reef ecosystems. Ecol Econ. 1999;29(2):215–33. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Hoegh-Guldberg O, Mumby PJ, Hooten AJ, Steneck RS, Greenfield P, Gomez E, et al. Coral reefs under rapid climate change and ocean acidification. Science. 2007;318(5857):1737–42. doi: 10.1126/science.1152509 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Hughes TP, Barnes ML, Bellwood DR, Cinner JE, Cumming GS, Jackson JBC, et al. Coral reefs in the Anthropocene. Nature. 2017;546(7656):82–90. doi: 10.1038/nature22901 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Cornwall CE, Comeau S, DeCarlo TM, Kornder NA, Perry CT, Pratchett MS, et al. Global declines in coral reef calcium carbonate production under ocean acidification and warming. Nature. 2021;2021(5). doi: 10.1073/pnas.2015265118 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Hughes TP, Anderson KD, Connolly SR, Heron SF, Kerry JT, Lough JM, et al. Spatial and temporal patterns of mass bleaching of corals in the Anthropocene. Science (80-). 2018;359(6371):80–3. doi: 10.1126/science.aan8048 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Glynn PW. Widespread Coral Mortality and the 1982–83 El Niño Warming Event. Environ Conserv. 1984;11(2):133–46. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Brown BE, Dunne RP, Ambarsari I, Le Tissier MDA, Satapoomin U. Seasonal fluctuations in environmental factors and variations in symbiotic algae and chlorophyll pigments in four Indo-Pacific coral species. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 1999;191:53–69. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Suggett DJ, Smith DJ. Interpreting the sign of coral bleaching as friend vs. foe. Glob Chang Biol. 2011;17(1):45–55. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Muscatine L, Cernichiari `Elsa. Assimilation of Photosynthetic Products of Zooxanthellae by a Reef Coral. 1969;137(3):506–23. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Tremblay P, Grover R, Maguer JF, Legendre L, Ferrier-Pagès C. Autotrophic carbon budget in coral tissue: A new 13C-based model of photosynthate translocation. J Exp Biol. 2012;215(8):1384–93. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.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]
  • 12.Sturaro N, Hsieh YE, Chen Q, Wang PL, Denis V. Trophic plasticity of mixotrophic corals under contrasting environments. Funct Ecol. 2021;(September):1–15. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Porter JW, Fitt WK, Spero HJ, Rogers CS, White MW. Bleaching in reef corals: Physiological and stable isotopic responses. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1989;86(23):9342–6. doi: 10.1073/pnas.86.23.9342 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Grottoli AG, Rodrigues LJ, Juarez C. Lipids and stable carbon isotopes in two species of Hawaiian corals, Porites compressa and Montipora verrucosa, following a bleaching event. Mar Biol. 2004;145(3):621–31. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Leuzinger S, Willis BL, Anthony KRN. Energy allocation in a reef coral under varying resource availability. Mar Biol. 2012;159(1):177–86. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Grottoli AG, Rodrigues LJ, Palardy JE. Heterotrophic plasticity and resilience in bleached corals. Nature. 2006;440(7088):1186–9. doi: 10.1038/nature04565 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Anthony KRN, Hoogenboom MO, Maynard JA, Grottoli AG, Middlebrook R. Energetics approach to predicting mortality risk from environmental stress: A case study of coral bleaching. Funct Ecol. 2009;23(3):539–50. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Howells EJ, Abrego D, Meyer E, Kirk NL, Burt JA. Host adaptation and unexpected symbiont partners enable reef-building corals to tolerate extreme temperatures. Glob Chang Biol. 2016;22(8):2702–14. doi: 10.1111/gcb.13250 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Quigley KM, Willis BL, Kenkel CD. Transgenerational inheritance of shuffled symbiont communities in the coral Montipora digitata. Sci Rep [Internet]. 2019;9(1):1–11. Available from: 10.1038/s41598-019-50045-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Ros M, Suggett DJ, Edmondson J, Haydon T, Hughes DJ, Kim M, et al. Symbiont shuffling across environmental gradients aligns with changes in carbon uptake and translocation in the reef-building coral Pocillopora acuta. Coral Reefs [Internet]. 2021;40(2):595–607. Available from: 10.1007/s00338-021-02066-1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Stat M, Gates RD. Clade D Symbiodinium in Scleractinian Corals: A “Nugget” of Hope, a Selfish Opportunist, an Ominous Sign, or All of the Above?. J Mar Biol. 2011;2011:1–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Lajeunesse TC, Wham DC, Pettay DT, Parkinson JE, Keshavmurthy S, Chen CA. Ecologically differentiated stress-tolerant endosymbionts in the dinoflagellate genus Symbiodinium (Dinophyceae) Clade D are different species. Phycologia. 2014;53(4):305–19. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Dixon G, Davies S, Aglyamova G, Meyer E, Bay L, Matz M. Genomic determinants of coral heat tolerance across latitudes. Science (80-). 2015;348(6242):2014–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Palumbi R, Barshis D, Traylor-Knowles N, Bay R. Mechanisms of reef coral resistance to future climate change. Coast Eng. 2014;344(6186):4354–64. doi: 10.1126/science.1251336 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Kenkel CD, Traylor MR, Wiedenmann J, Salih A, Matz M V. Fluorescence of coral larvae predicts their settlement response to crustose coralline algae and reflects stress. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci [Internet]. 2011;278(1718):2691–7. Available from: http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/cgi/doi/10.1098/rspb.2010.2344 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Hackerott S, Martell HA, Eirin-lopez JM. Coral environmental memory: causes, mechanisms, and consequences for future reefs. Trends Ecol Evol [Internet]. 2021;36(11):1011–23. Available from: doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2021.06.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Howells EJ, Ketchum RN, Bauman AG, Mustafa Y, Watkins KD, Burt JA. *** Species-specific trends in the reproductive output of corals across environmental gradients and bleaching histories. Mar Pollut Bull [Internet]. 2016;105(2):532–9. Available from: doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.11.034 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.van Woesik R, Houk P, Isechal AL, Idechong JW, Victor S, Golbuu Y. Climate-change refugia in the sheltered bays of {Palau}: analogs of future reefs. Ecol Evol [Internet]. 2012. Oct [cited 2020 Apr 20];2(10):2474–84. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/ece3.363 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Golbuu Y, Gouezo M, Kurihara H, Rehm L, Wolanski E. Long-term isolation and local adaptation in Palau’s Nikko Bay help corals thrive in acidic waters. Coral Reefs. 2016;35(3):909–18. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Kurihara H, Suhara Y, Mimura I, Golbuu Y. Potential Acclimatization and Adaptive Responses of Adult and Trans-Generation Coral Larvae From a Naturally Acidified Habitat. Front Mar Sci. 2020;7(November):1–13.32802822 [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Jung EMU, Stat M, Thomas L, Koziol A, Schoepf V. Coral host physiology and symbiont dynamics associated with differential recovery from mass bleaching in an extreme, macro-tidal reef environment in northwest Australia. Coral Reefs [Internet]. 2021; Available from: 10.1007/s00338-021-02094-x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Schoepf V, D’Olivo JP, Rigal C, Jung EMU, McCulloch MT. Heat stress differentially impacts key calcification mechanisms in reef-building corals. Coral Reefs [Internet]. 2021; Available from: 10.1007/s00338-020-02038-x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Camp EF, Nitschke MR, Rodolfo-Metalpa R, Houlbreque F, Gardner SG, Smith DJ, et al. Reef-building corals thrive within hot-acidified and deoxygenated waters. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):1–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Maggioni F, Pujo-Pay M, Aucan J, Cerrano C, Calcinai B, Payri C, et al. The Bouraké semi-enclosed lagoon (New Caledonia). A natural laboratory to study the life-long adaptation of a coral reef ecosystem to climate change-like conditions. Biogeosciences Discuss. 2021;18(18):5117–40. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Jacquemont J, Houlbrèque F, Tanvet C, Rodolfo-Metalpa R. Long-term exposure to an extreme environment induces species-specific responses in corals’ photosynthesis and respiration rates. Mar Biol [Internet]. 2022;169(6):1–15. Available from: 10.1007/s00227-022-04063-6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Camp EF, Edmondson J, Doheny A, Rumney J, Grima AJ, Huete A, et al. Mangrove lagoons of the Great Barrier Reef support coral populations persisting under extreme environmental conditions. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2019;625:1–14. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Haydon TD, Seymour JR, Raina JB, Edmondson J, Siboni N, Matthews JL, et al. Rapid Shifts in Bacterial Communities and Homogeneity of Symbiodiniaceae in Colonies of Pocillopora acuta Transplanted Between Reef and Mangrove Environments. Front Microbiol. 2021;12(October). doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2021.756091 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Camp EF, Schoepf V, Mumby PJ, Hardtke LA, Rodolfo-Metalpa R, Smith DJ, et al. The future of coral reefs subject to rapid climate change: Lessons from natural extreme environments. Front Mar Sci. 2018;5(FEB):1–21.29552559 [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Bartels N, Dilernia NJ, Howlett L, Camp EF. Stress event for “super corals” in Great Barrier Reef mangrove lagoon. Mar Biodivers [Internet]. 2023;53(5):9–10. Available from: 10.1007/s12526-023-01374-9 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Benzoni F, Houlbrèque F, André LV, Payri C. Plan d’action rapide et adaptatif en cas de blanchissement corallien: Le cas de la Nouvelle-Calédonie, épisode 2016, synthèse. Sci la Mer Biol Mar Rapp Sci Tech. 2017;67(December):1–90. [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Scucchia F, Zaslansky P, Boote C, Doheny A, Mass T, Camp EF. The role and risks of selective adaptation in extreme coral habitats. Nat Commun. 2023;14(1):1–12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Haydon TD, Matthews JL, Seymour JR, Raina JB, Seymour JE, Chartrand K, et al. Metabolomic signatures of corals thriving across extreme reef habitats reveal strategies of heat stress tolerance. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 2023;290(1992). doi: 10.1098/rspb.2022.1877 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Schoepf V, Baumann JH, Barshis DJ, Browne NK, Camp EF, Comeau S, et al. Corals at the edge of environmental limits: A new conceptual framework to re-define marginal and extreme coral communities. Sci Total Environ. 2023;884(April). doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.163688 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Jung EMU, Stat M, Thomas L, Koziol A, Schoepf V. Coral host physiology and symbiont dynamics associated with differential recovery from mass bleaching in an extreme, macro-tidal reef environment in northwest Australia. Coral Reefs [Internet]. 2021;40(3):893–905. Available from: 10.1007/s00338-021-02094-x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Tanvet C, Camp EF, Sutton J, Houlbreque F, Thouzeau G, Rodolfo‐Metalpa R. Corals adapted to extreme and fluctuating seawater pH increase calcification rates and have unique symbiont communities. Authorea. 2022;1–26. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Jokiel PL, Maragos J, Franzisket L. Coral growth: buoyant weight technique. Coral reefs: research methods. 1978. p. 529–41. [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Biscéré T, Zampighi M, Lorrain A, Jurriaans S, Foggo A, Houlbrèque F. High p CO 2 promotes coral primary production. 2019;15(20180777). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Stimson J, Kinzie RA. The temporal pattern and rate of release of zooxanthellae from the reef coral Pocillopora damicornis (Linnaeus) under nitrogen-enrichment and control conditions. J Exp Mar Bio Ecol. 1991;153(1):63–74. [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Veal CJ, Carmi M, Fine M, Hoegh-Guldberg O. Increasing the accuracy of surface area estimation using single wax dipping of coral fragments. Coral Reefs. 2010;29(4):893–7. [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Marsh JA. Ecological Society of America. Ecol Soc Am. 1970;51(2):255–63. [Google Scholar]
  • 51.McLachlan RH, Muñoz-Garcia A, Grottoli AG. Extraction of total soluble lipid from ground coral samples. Protocols.io. 2020. dx.doi.org/10.17504/protocols.io.bc4qiyvw. [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Schoepf V, Grottoli AG, Warner ME, Cai WJ, Melman TF, Hoadley KD, et al. Coral Energy Reserves and Calcification in a High-CO2 World at Two Temperatures. PLoS One. 2013;8(10). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Mclachlan R, Dobson K, Grottoli AG. Quantification of total biomass in ground coral samples. Protocolsio. 2020;1–11. [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Folch J, Lees M, Sloane Stanley GH. A simple method for the isolation and purification of total lipides from animal tissues. J Biol Chem. 1957;226(1):497–509. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Bove Baumann. Colorimetric Carbohydrate Assay for Corals. 2019;(July):17504. [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Masuko T, Minami A, Iwasaki N, Majima T, Nishimura SI, Lee YC. Carbohydrate analysis by a phenol-sulfuric acid method in microplate format. Anal Biochem. 2005;339(1):69–72. doi: 10.1016/j.ab.2004.12.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Jeffrey SW, Humphrey GF. New spectrophotometric equations for determining chlorophylls a, b, c1 and c2 in higher plants, algae and natural phytoplankton. Biochem und Physiol der Pflanz [Internet]. 1975;167(2):191–4. Available from: 10.1016/S0015-3796(17)30778-3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Mieog JC, Van Oppen MJH, Berkelmans R, Stam WT, Olsen JL. Quantification of algal endosymbionts (Symbiodinium) in coral tissue using real-time PCR. Mol Ecol Resour. 2009;9(1):74–82. doi: 10.1111/j.1755-0998.2008.02222.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Pochon X, Pawlowski J, Zaninetti L, Rowan R. High genetic diversity and relative specificity among Symbiodinium-like endosymbiotic dinoflagellates in soritid foraminiferans. Mar Biol. 2001;139(6):1069–78. [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Stat M, Pochon X, Cowie ROM, Gates RD. Specificity in communities of symbiodinium in corals from Johnston Atoll. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2009;386:83–96. [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Arif C, Daniels C, Bayer T, Banguera-Hinestroza E, Barbrook A, Howe CJ, et al. Assessing Symbiodinium diversity in scleractinian corals via next-generation sequencing-based genotyping of the ITS2 rDNA region. Mol Ecol. 2014;23(17):4418–33. doi: 10.1111/mec.12869 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Hume BCC, Smith EG, Ziegler M, Warrington HJM, Burt JA, LaJeunesse TC, et al. SymPortal: A novel analytical framework and platform for coral algal symbiont next-generation sequencing ITS2 profiling. Mol Ecol Resour. 2019;19(4):1063–80. doi: 10.1111/1755-0998.13004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Schloss PD, Westcott SL, Ryabin T, Hall JR, Hartmann M, Hollister EB, et al. Introducing mothur: Open-source, platform-independent, community-supported software for describing and comparing microbial communities. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2009;75(23):7537–41. doi: 10.1128/AEM.01541-09 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Camacho C, Coulouris G, Avagyan V, Ma N, Papadopoulos J, Bealer K, et al. BLAST+: Architecture and applications. BMC Bioinformatics. 2009;10:1–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Eren AM, Morrison HG, Lescault PJ, Reveillaud J, Vineis JH, Sogin ML. Minimum entropy decomposition: Unsupervised oligotyping for sensitive partitioning of high-throughput marker gene sequences. ISME J. 2015;9:968–79. doi: 10.1038/ismej.2014.195 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Anderson MJ. Distance-based tests for homogeneity of multivariate dispersions. Biometrics. 2006;62(1):245–53. doi: 10.1111/j.1541-0420.2005.00440.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Anderson MJ, Walsh DCI. PERMANOVA, ANOSIM, and the Mantel test in the face of heterogeneous dispersions: What null hypothesis are you testing? Ecol Monogr. 2013;83(4):557–74. [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Anderson MJ. Permutational Multivariate Analysis of Variance (PERMANOVA). Wiley StatsRef Stat Ref Online. 2017;1–15. [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Grottoli AG, Warner ME, Levas SJ, Aschaffenburg MD, Schoepf V, Mcginley M, et al. The cumulative impact of annual coral bleaching can turn some coral species winners into losers. Glob Chang Biol. 2014;20(12):3823–33. doi: 10.1111/gcb.12658 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Schoepf V, Grottoli AG, Levas SJ, Aschaffenburg MD, Baumann JH, Matsui Y, et al. Annual coral bleaching and the long-term recovery capacity of coral. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 2015;282(1819). doi: 10.1098/rspb.2015.1887 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Butler CC, Turnham KE, Lewis AM, Nitschke MR, Warner ME, Kemp DW, et al. Formal recognition of host-generalist species of dinoflagellate (Cladocopium, Symbiodiniaceae) mutualistic with Indo-Pacific reef corals. J Phycol. 2023;(November 2022):698–711. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.LaJeunesse TC, Parkinson JE, Gabrielson PW, Jeong HJ, Reimer JD, Voolstra CR, et al. Systematic Revision of Symbiodiniaceae Highlights the Antiquity and Diversity of Coral Endosymbionts. Curr Biol [Internet]. 2018;28(16):2570–2580.e6. Available from: doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2018.07.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Howells EJ, Beltran VH, Larsen NW, Bay LK, Willis BL, Van Oppen MJH. Coral thermal tolerance shaped by local adaptation of photosymbionts. Nat Clim Chang [Internet]. 2012;2(2):116–20. Available from: 10.1038/nclimate1330 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Davies SW, Ries JB, Marchetti A, Castillo KD. Symbiodinium functional diversity in the Coral Siderastrea siderea Is influenced by thermal stress and reef environment, but not ocean acidification. Front Mar Sci. 2018;5(APR):1–14.29552559 [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Parkinson JE, Banaszak AT, Altman NS, LaJeunesse TC, Baums IB. Intraspecific diversity among partners drives functional variation in coral symbioses. Sci Rep. 2015;5:1–12. doi: 10.1038/srep15667 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Camp EF, Suggett DJ, Pogoreutz C, Nitschke MR, Houlbreque F, Hume BCC, et al. Corals exhibit distinct patterns of microbial reorganisation to thrive in an extreme inshore environment. Coral Reefs [Internet]. 2020;39(3):701–16. Available from: 10.1007/s00338-019-01889-3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Scharfenstein HJ, Alvarez-Roa C, Peplow LM, Buerger P, Chan WY, van Oppen MJH. Chemical mutagenesis and thermal selection of coral photosymbionts induce adaptation to heat stress with trait trade-offs. Evol Appl. 2023;(December 2022):1–19. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Cantin NE, Van Oppen MJH, Willis BL, Mieog JC, Negri AP. Juvenile corals can acquire more carbon from high-performance algal symbionts. Coral Reefs. 2009;28(2):405–14. [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Buerger P, Alvarez-Roa C, Coppin CW, Pearce SL, Chakravarti LJ, Oakeshott JG, et al. Heat-evolved microalgal symbionts increase coral bleaching tolerance. Sci Adv. 2020;6(20):1–8. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aba2498 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Quigley KM, van Oppen MJH. Predictive models for the selection of thermally tolerant corals based on offspring survival. Nat Commun. 2022;13(1):1–13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Buddemeier RW, Fautin DG. Coral Bleaching as an Adaptive Mechanism. Bioscience. 1993;43(5):320–6. [Google Scholar]
  • 82.van Oppen MJH, Lukoschek V, Berkelmans R, Peplow LM, Jones AM. A population genetic assessment of coral recovery on highly disturbed reefs of the {Keppel} {Island} archipelago in the southern {Great} {Barrier} {Reef}. PeerJ [Internet]. 2015. Jul [cited 2020 Apr 1];3:e1092. Available from: doi: 10.7717/peerj.1092 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Goulet TL. Most corals may not change their symbionts. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2006;321(Baker 2003):1–7. [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Boulotte NM, Dalton SJ, Carroll AG, Harrison PL, Putnam HM, Peplow LM, et al. Exploring the Symbiodinium rare biosphere provides evidence for symbiont switching in reef-building corals. ISME J [Internet]. 2016;10(11):2693–701. Available from: 10.1038/ismej.2016.54 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Silverstein RN, Cunning R, Baker AC. Change in algal symbiont communities after bleaching, not prior heat exposure, increases heat tolerance of reef corals. Glob Chang Biol. 2015;21(1):236–49. doi: 10.1111/gcb.12706 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Iii RAK, Takayama M, Santos SR. The Adaptive Bleaching Hypothesis: Experimental Tests of Critical The Adaptive Bleaching Hypothesis: Experimental Tests of Critical Assumptions. 2014;(February). [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Gattuso JP, Allemand D, Frankignoulle M. Photosynthesis and calcification at cellular, organismal and community levels in coral reefs: A review on interactions and control by carbonate chemistry. Am Zool. 1999;39(1):160–83. [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Cooper TF, Berkelmans R, Ulstrup KE, Weeks S, Radford B, Jones AM, et al. Environmental factors controlling the distribution of symbiodinium harboured by the coral acropora millepora on the great barrier reef. PLoS One. 2011;6(10). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0025536 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Cameron LP, Reymond CE, Bijma J, Büscher J V., De Beer D, Guillermic M, et al. Impacts of Warming and Acidification on Coral Calcification Linked to Photosymbiont Loss and Deregulation of Calcifying Fluid pH. J Mar Sci Eng. 2022;10(8). [Google Scholar]
  • 90.Reynaud S, Leclercq N, Romaine-Lioud S, Ferrier-Pagès C, Jaubert J, Gattuso JP. Interacting effects of CO2 partial pressure and temperature on photosynthesis and calcification in a scleractinian coral. Glob Chang Biol. 2003;9(11):1660–8. [Google Scholar]
  • 91.Coles SL, Jokiel PL. Synergistic effects of temperature, salinity and light on the hermatypic coral Montipora verrucosa. Mar Biol. 1978;49(3):187–95. [Google Scholar]
  • 92.Hoegh-Guldberg O, Smith GJ. The effect of sudden changes in temperature, light and salinity on the population density and export of zooxanthellae from the reef corals Styllopora pistillata Esper and Seriatopora hystrix Dana. Genet Ceff Biol. 1989;129:279–303. [Google Scholar]
  • 93.Glynn PW. Coral reef bleaching: ecological perspectives. Coral Reefs. 1993;12(1):1–17. [Google Scholar]
  • 94.Fitt WK, Warner ME. Bleaching Patterns of Four Species of Caribbean Reef Corals. Ref Biol Bull. 1995;189(3):298–307. doi: 10.2307/1542147 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 95.Brown BE. Coral bleaching: Causes and consequences. Coral Reefs. 1997;16(SUPPL. 1):129–38. [Google Scholar]
  • 96.Rodrigues LJ, Grottoli AG. Energy reserves and metabolism as indicators of coral recovery from bleaching. Limnol Oceanogr. 2007;52(5):1874–82. [Google Scholar]
  • 97.Baker DM, Andras JP, Jordán-Garza AG, Fogel ML. Nitrate competition in a coral symbiosis varies with temperature among Symbiodinium clades. ISME J. 2013;7(6):1248–51. doi: 10.1038/ismej.2013.12 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 98.Ferrier-Pagès C, Sauzéat L, Balter V. Coral bleaching is linked to the capacity of the animal host to supply essential metals to the symbionts. Glob Chang Biol. 2018;24(7):3145–57. doi: 10.1111/gcb.14141 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 99.Grima AJ, Clases D, Gonzalez de Vega R, Nitschke MR, Goyen S, Suggett DJ, et al. Species-specific elementomes for scleractinian coral hosts and their associated Symbiodiniaceae. Coral Reefs [Internet]. 2022;41(4):1115–30. Available from: 10.1007/s00338-022-02259-2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 100.Camp EF, Nitschke MR, Clases D, Gonzalez de Vega R, Reich HG, Goyen S, et al. Micronutrient content drives elementome variability amongst the Symbiodiniaceae. BMC Plant Biol [Internet]. 2022;22(1):1–14. Available from: 10.1186/s12870-022-03512-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 101.Schrameyer V, Wangpraseurt D, Hill R, Kühl M, Larkum AWD, Ralph PJ. Light respiratory processes and gross photosynthesis in two scleractinian corals. PLoS One. 2014;9(10):1–9. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0110814 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 102.Davies PS. Effect of daylight variations on the energy budgets of shallow-water corals. Mar Biol. 1991;108(1):137–44. [Google Scholar]
  • 103.Fitt WK, Spero HJ, Halas J, White MW, Porter JW. Recovery of the coral Montastrea annularis in the Florida Keys after the 1987 Caribbean “bleaching event.” Coral Reefs. 1993;12(2):57–64. [Google Scholar]
  • 104.Kochman NR, Grover R, Rottier C, Ferrier-Pages C, Fine M. The reef building coral Stylophora pistillata uses stored carbohydrates to maintain ATP levels under thermal stress. Coral Reefs [Internet]. 2021;40(5):1473–85. Available from: 10.1007/s00338-021-02174-y [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 105.McLachlan RH, Price JT, Muñoz-Garcia A, Weisleder NL, Levas SJ, Jury CP, et al. Physiological acclimatization in Hawaiian corals following a 22-month shift in baseline seawater temperature and pH. Sci Rep. 2022;12(1):1–11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 106.Mummadisetti MP, Drake JL, Falkowski PG. The spatial network of skeletal proteins in a stony coral. J R Soc Interface. 2021;18(175). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 107.Chapron L, Schoepf V, Levas SJ, Aschaffenburg MD, Warner ME, Grottoli AG. Natural Variability in Caribbean Coral Physiology and Implications for Coral Bleaching Resilience. Front Mar Sci. 2022;8(January):1–15.35273967 [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Anderson B Mayfield

31 Aug 2023

PONE-D-23-04677Intra-clade diversity provides resistance to coral bleaching under extreme environmental conditions in Acropora muricataPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. alessi,

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.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR:Hello,

   Sorry that this has taken so long, but it was passed off to me from another editor, and that editor had only had it reviewed by your collaborators! I left their comments (reviewers #1 and 2), but of course they are more minor. Therefore, I would suggest to focus more on reviewers #3-4, who are experts in this field. 

Anderson

International Coral Reef Society

Coral Research and Development Accelerator Platform

Coral Reef Diagnostics

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 15 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,

Anderson B. Mayfield, Ph.D.

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. Please note that PLOS ONE has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, all author-generated code must be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse.

3. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

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

“We are grateful to Robin Quéré, Celia Lemeu, Florence Antypas and the staff of the research station IFREMER- St. Vincent for hosting us during the sampling. We thank Jordi Giraud and Mahe Dumas for their help during the fieldwork, as well as Greg and Esmé for the accommodation in Bouraké. We are indebted to the Province Sud for coral collection permits (SuperNatural, agreement #3413-2019). CA was supported by a PhD fellowship from Labex CORAIL and IFREMER. The research was supported by the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Fonds Pacifique project “SuperCoraux” #6614A1. Sequencing costs and the contribution of EFC to the project were supported by a CPDRF grant awarded to EFC.”

We note that you have provided funding information that is currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, 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:

“CA was supported by a PhD fellowship from Labex CORAIL and IFREMER. The research was supported by the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Fonds Pacifique project “SuperCoraux” #6614A1. Sequencing costs and the contribution of EFC to the project were supported by a CPDRF grant awarded to EFC. Include this sentence at the end of your statement: 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.

5. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript.

6. Please include a separate caption for each figure in your manuscript.

7. We note that Figure S1 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure S1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. 

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

8. Please include your tables as part of your main manuscript and remove the individual files. Please note that supplementary tables (should remain/ be uploaded) as separate "supporting information" files

9. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

Additional Editor Comments:

Hello,

Sorry that this has taken so long, but it was passed off to me from another editor, and that editor had only had it reviewed by your collaborators! I left their comments (reviewers #1 and 2), but of course they are more minor. Therefore, I would suggest to focus more on reviewers #3-4, who are experts in this field.

Anderson

International Coral Reef Society

Coral Research and Development Accelerator Platform

Coral Reef Diagnostics

[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

Reviewer #4: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: 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

Reviewer #4: 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: This study helps to improve our knowledge on the disparity of coral colony responses to marine heat waves, why within the same species, certain colonies resist better than others to heat stress? This manuscript provides crucial information allowing us to improve the forecasts about the future of coral reefs but also new useful knowledge to try to establish lines of resistant corals. In this manuscript, the results showing that the few bleached colonies that survived acquired the same ITS2 profiles of the unbleached resistant colonies are extremely interesting, they confirm the essential role of Symbiodiniaceae in resistance/resilience to heat stress and these results are essential to guide future protective measures. I also appreciated the honesty of the authors, who recognize that they cannot decipher if the bleaching was due to seawater warming or freshwater input and do not rule out any possibility.

The conclusions of this manuscript are important and innovative so I recommend it for publication, I only have minor corrections/suggestions listed below

Reviewer #2: Review

In the article entitled “Intra-clade diversity provides resistance to coral bleaching under extreme environmental conditions in Acropora muricata” Alessi et al present the results of an integrative study aiming at understanding potential mechanisms underlying the physiological plasticity of corals that live in extreme and fluctuating conditions during a period of acute stress. To address this question authors performed series of physiological characterization on the cnidarian host and Symbiodiniaceae symbiont on 15 bleached and 15 unbleached corals from an “extreme” site and 15 unbleached corals from a reference site. These data set were analyzed with appropriate bioinformatics and statistical methods and the results obtained are very interesting, welle presented and well discuss.

My conclusion is that this article deserves a publication in Plos One but see my minor comments below.

Minor comment:

- I think that the title should be moderate a little bit since a functional link between the symbiodiniaceae community composition and the phenotypic effect was not demonstrated. The term associated rather than provides would be used.

- Line 47 the sentence is a little bit confusing. Do it mean that the symbiont translocate up to 90% of its photosynthate, or that the symbiont cover up to 90% of the daily carbon needed or that because of the drastic reduction in zoox density the quantity of photosynthate carbon translocated decrease up to 90%?

- Line 249 no segments were underlined on the primers presented line 246-248

- Line 256 precise sequencing depth

- Line 372 It is important to provide basic sequencing metrics to show that the amount of sequence is enough to support the results. You can either provide a rarefaction curve in suppfile or simply a number of sequence. The OTU table or equivalent is also classically provided for metabarcoding experiments. Finally you must deposit your sequence data (FastQ files) on a public database (SRA for example).

- I don’t understand how you can link the survival of the 3 BB colonies with the change in ITS2 profile type. What is the cause what is the consequence? Do the stress have induce the change and will make the surviving BB colonies “BZ” colonies the next time, or is the change prior to the survivor to the stress event studied? For me it is quite difficult to conclude but; 1 the difference between the ITS2 profile type of the BZ and RZ at T1 and 2 the similarities between the ITS2 profile type of the BB and RZ at T1 is enough to support your conclusion. The similarities between BB and BZ at T2 is in my opinion the results of a post stress colonization enabled by free space as it was previously shown in other coral species ( for example https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12706)

- Line 562 I don’t understand how it can support adaptation (sensus heritable phenotypic trait). Do you suggest that there is a heritable basis behind the ability to change or not the symbiont community or the heterotrophic capability?

Congratulation for this very interesting work

Jeremie Vidal-Dupiol

note: I have recently decided to sign all my reviews because I believe the reviewers should be responsible for their review just as authors are responsible for their article.

Reviewer #3: This manuscript focuses on the thermal resilience of corals in New Caledonia and the links to symbiont community composition. The manuscript reports some interesting observations that suggest that a shift in the symbiont community composition, combined with internal lipid reserves, may facilitate survival under increased seawater temperatures, adding to an existing wealth of literature on this topic. Ultimately, I think that the manuscript will be acceptable, but I do have several major comments:

1) The manuscript contains a very large number of grammatical errors. I appreciate that the primary authors are not native English speakers, but I do note that one of the authors is - can you please make use of this fact and correct the English. I haven't listed all of the errors here (only some are included in my list below) as to do so would take far too long.

2) It's nice to see the authors use the old CZAR model, however they have not used it correctly. The crucial distinction between the CZAR and simply using a P:R ratio, is that the CZAR includes an estimation or measurement of photosynthate translocation from the symbionts to host. The authors don't use such a metric, so all they're really doing is presenting a daily P:R. Please adjust the manuscript accordingly.

3) This may or may not need changing, but the authors should double-check their Symbiodiniaceae nomenclature, and in particular how to refer to the various Cladocopium types. ITS2 sequence names can still be used where species names are not currently available, but there is convention around how these are stated - they might want to refer to this style guide: https://www.thelifeaquatic.net/?page_id=292

4) Of most concern is the impression given by the authors that symbiont 'switching' might be occurring in their study, yet no evidence is provided for this. It's much more likely that the shifts in symbiont community composition resulted from 'shuffling', with cryptic symbiont types in the existing symbiont communities proliferating post-bleaching, rather than de novo uptake of symbionts from the environment. That still might have happened, but there is so little evidence for this in the literature that great caution should be exercised when direct evidence cannot be provided.

Other comments

1) Line 57: The wording "by exchanging their microalgal symbiont" is too strong, as it implies symbiont switching (see my comment above)

2) Line 64: The holobiont also includes the microbiome, so adjust the definition here.

3) Line 71: "Acroporidae" shouldn't be italicized.

4) Line 74: Better as "when a mass bleaching event impacted entire..."

5) Line 79: Better as "The aim of this study was therefore..."

6) line 86: Symbiodiniaceae should start with a capital letter.

7) Line 100: Species composition of what exactly? Corals?

8) Line 104: What are the units for the DO values?

9) Line 120: Better as "...four main categories: healthy coral cover..."

10) Line 141 (and several other places): The correct word is "weighed" rather than "weighted"

11) Line 147: Why was coral mortality so high?

12) Line 149: Should be "to weigh fragments on a..."

13) Line 163: The specific PAM settings need to be stated here.

14) Line 205: What is meant by "sub-surface area"? This whole sentence is unclear.

15) Line 210 and elsewhere: All centrifuge speeds should be stated in g rather than rpm.

16) Line 222: Why were only 3 replicate cell counts measured? This is far too few - it's widely recognised that 8-10 replicate counts are needed for optimal accuracy.

17) Line 225: Should be "...10 ml of pure acetone WERE added".

18) Line 234: Better as "normalized to surface area."

19) Line 243: Unit needs to be superscripted.

20) Line 278 (and elsewhere): Should be "When significant differences..."

21) Line 289: Should this say "PERMANOVA and pairwise testing were..."?

22) Line 291: Should be "ANOVA was performed with....whereas PERMANOVA pairwise and..."

23) line 305: Should be "...since the year 1981."

24) Line 317: Better as "...no signs of polyp extroversion but the skeleton was still white and the coral not fully repopulated by algae"

25) Line 318: Should this say "old dead CORALS"?

26) Line 356: Better as "SOME of the initial colonies..."

27) Line 374 (and elsewhere0: Should be "THE data plot..."

28) Line 384 (and elsewhere): Should be "...more resilient TYPES". Be careful not to confuse the sequence nomenclature with the actual organism.

29) Line 388: Should be ""more DIVERSE compared..."

30) Line 399: Acroporidae shouldn't be italicized.

31) Line 423: Better as "which were 93.82% different..."

32) Line 427: Should be "which resulted in them being identical..."

33) lLine 437: Better as "IN the Symbiodiniaceae..."

34) Line 444: Should be "due TO the"

35) Line 448: Should be "reported IN corals"

36) Line 451: Should this say "Consistent with Davies et al."?

37) Line 453: Better as "have greater capacity to..."

38) Line 454: Should be "traitS"

39) Line 481: This sentence is a bit vague - in what way was calcification "affected"?

40) Line 487 (and elsewhere): either say "photosynthate" only or "photosynthetic carbon".

41) Line 495: Re-word as "ability was insufficient to cope with..."

42) Line 506: Should be "recovered FROM the stress"

43) Line 510: Better as "retained a significantly higher..."

44) Line 523: Should be "lipid content"

45) Line 529: What does "all more performant" mean?

46) Line 541: Better as "high load of organic carbon released..."

47) Line 552: Should be "...to cope WITH and evolve..."

48) Line 556: Should be "...UNDER the combined effect..."

49) Line 560: Should be "compensate FOR the lack..."

50) Lines 564-565: Here is another example of overstating the potential for symbiont switching rather than symbiont shuffling.

Reviewer #4: Alessi et al. observed a coral bleaching event taking place in Bourake lagoon in New Caledonia, an extreme reef exposed to highly variable environmental conditions. The sampled Acropora muricata colonies during and post-bleaching to monitor changes in symbiont community diversity, energetic stores, and various physiological parameters. The found that nearly all colonies that bleached shared the same heat-sensitive symbiont species, whereas nearly all colonies that did not bleach shared a different, putatively heat-tolerant symbiont species. Only three bleached colonies survived to the post-bleaching period, and all had transitioned to the alternate heat-tolerant symbiont species. Meanwhile, analyses of lipids, carbohydrates, lipids, proteins, biomass, photophysiology, symbiont density, chlorophyll, calcification, photosynthesis, and respiration all indicated distinct physiological characteristics for bleached vs. non-bleached vs. recovered vs. control colonies, as well as differences between colonies hosting different symbiont species. Based on these data, the authors conclude that variation in bleaching phenotypes is linked to symbiont community, which in turn influences recovery capacity among corals.

This experiment was competently performed. I don’t have any major concerns with the design or execution, although of course it is unfortunate that only three colonies survived in one of the treatments, which limits the scope of inference. The ecophysiological methods were all standard for coral studies and the statistics seemed appropriate. Overall, I feel the manuscript could be acceptable after a revision to address some of my concerns about the writing.

My issues all relate to the narrative. For one, there are dozens of studies like this with similar findings, where researchers observed a bleaching event and took samples to track coral physiology and symbiont dynamics during and post-bleaching, and found that different colonies responded differently, mediated in part by their symbiont communities. The authors, in my opinion, have not done a good job clarifying what makes this study unique, beyond the fact that it was a bleaching event in a particular lagoon in New Caledonia. Based on the title and introduction, I believe the important hook is that the Bourake site is considered an “extreme” reef, exposed to highly variable temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, and salinity (which was probably more variable than usual thanks to intense La Nina rains during the study period). However, because this is just one extreme reef, it’s hard to draw conclusions about extreme reefs in general, rather than Bourake in particular. The authors don’t really tie their results back to the extreme nature of the reef, possibly because they didn’t measure many of the relevant variables directly, so this angle of the story loses focus. Instead, the manuscript starts to feel generic, often times simply reviewing what has been determined in other, similar studies, and noting that the results here are consistent. If the manuscript were a bit shorter and placed greater emphasis on how the extreme reef conditions may have shaped results, I think it would make a clearer novel contribution.

Moreover, because the reference site also experienced intense rainfall and the sample size for recovered colonies was only three, it’s hard to be confident that the results reported here are truly representative, even of Bourake. That would be ok if the story were framed in a narrow focus, but instead the authors seem to be drawing broad conclusions about different mechanisms of thermal tolerance, from the order in which different sources of energy are being used (even though there were only two time points), to the types of symbionts present (even though colonies were already bleaching when sampled and only three bleached colonies survived), to heterotrophy (not measured), to adaptation. Unfortunately, the authors were limited because they had to build a study around an ongoing bleaching event. Some of the questions could have been better addressed via more regular sampling or aquarium experiments. These limitations could have been better acknowledged, and some of the more speculative conclusions (e.g. about heterotrophy) could have been avoided. Of course, the flip side of the argument is that these are highly ecologically-relevant observations, and creating an extreme reef in an aquarium would be incredibly challenging.

Another major issue with the writing relates to how the Symbiodiniaceae are described. After the 2018 revision by LaJeunesse et al., the field has largely moved past referring to different symbiont groups as “clades,” which are now considered genera with their own names. The authors strangely combine both clade and genus terminology, at one point talking about “Symbiodinium Clade D” instead of “Durusdinium” but at another talking about “Cladocopium” instead of “Symbiodinium Clade C.” The title itself is misleading: when I read “intra-clade diversity provides resistance to coral bleaching” I honestly though the authors were talking about diversity within a coral clade. Instead, they really mean “intra-generic diversity among coral symbionts provides resistance to coral bleaching.”

From looking at the ITS2 profiles in Figure 5 it’s clear that there are only two main symbiont species in the BZ and BB corals (with a few rarer species in some colonies). I feel the discussion could be simplified if the authors referred to them as two species or, if they prefer, phylotypes. However, it’s wrong to speak as if each sequence variant (C1, C1b, C1c) is a separate entity (as is done in line 445, for example), given that the ITS2 array for a single species contains multiple intragenomic variants in specific proportions. A few other statements betray an older view of symbiont diversity. For example, L58 states that “some symbiont clades (i.e., Symbiodinium clade D) have been described as more resilient than others under elevated temperature.” But the whole group isn’t more heat tolerant, just some species within it. Better to say “some symbiont species (e.g. Durusdinium trenchii) are more resilient than others under elevated temperature.” Another example is L384: “suggesting an early uptake of more resilient sequences.” Corals don’t uptake sequences, they uptake symbionts. I know I’m being nitpicky, but these details are important to get right, otherwise confusion spreads. I’d highly recommend browsing the review by Davies et al. (2023) in PeerJ for a summary of the state of the art in our understanding of Symbiodiniaceae diversity.

Other minor concerns: I’d recommend adding + or – symbols in front of percentages when they are reported in the text. “Zooxanthellate” is a term for a species characteristic (e.g. reef-building corals are zooxanthellate while deep sea corals are usually azooxanthellate), so I find it strange to refer to non-bleached colonies as zooxanthellate (instead, perhaps call them “healthy” or “non-bleached” or “recovered” depending on the context). Some of the figures don’t really need color and might be clearer if depicted in grayscale. Certain elements of the methods could use more introduction, such as the coral color chart and the Diving-PAM (for those who are not familiar with these techniques).

**********

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: Yes: Jeremie Vidal-Dupiol

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: 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: review .pdf

pone.0296902.s009.pdf (87.2KB, pdf)
PLoS One. 2024 Feb 28;19(2):e0296902. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0296902.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


19 Dec 2023

Reviewer #1:

- This study helps to improve our knowledge on the disparity of coral colony responses to marine heat waves, why within the same species, certain colonies resist better than others to heat stress? This manuscript provides crucial information allowing us to improve the forecasts about the future of coral reefs but also new useful knowledge to try to establish lines of resistant corals. In this manuscript, the results showing that the few bleached colonies that survived acquired the same ITS2 profiles of the unbleached resistant colonies are extremely interesting, they confirm the essential role of Symbiodiniaceae in resistance/resilience to heat stress and these results are essential to guide future protective measures. I also appreciated the honesty of the authors, who recognize that they cannot decipher if the bleaching was due to seawater warming or freshwater input and do not rule out any possibility.

The conclusions of this manuscript are important and innovative so I recommend it for publication, I only have minor corrections/suggestions listed below

REPLY: We thank Reviewer #1 for supporting our work and we addressed the minor comments below.

Abstract

- Cladocopium spp.

REPLY: The text was corrected as suggested.

Introduction

- L46 “Corals experiencing bleaching are particularly vulnerable since they lose up to 90% of the Symbiodiniaceae photosynthate carbon needed for the daily metabolic requirements (9)” Since the work of Muscatine, which now dates back to 1969!, other more recent works have been carried out , estimating in a more precise way the autotrophic C contribution to coral needs in case of bleaching e.g. Tremblay et al 2012 (in Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.)

REPLY:The reference suggested was added to the MS

- L84 the authors compared healthy and bleached corals from Bouraké with healthy colonies from a reference site but did they observe also some bleached colonies at the reference site? (even if it is in lower proportions than in Bouraké)

REPLY: No signs of bleaching were observed in A. muricata inhabiting the reference site as wrote in L xx “No coral bleaching was observed at the reference site R1 and, more generally, in the same geographical area”.

- L91 This sentence should be moved to the discussion section.

REPLY: The sentence was removed as suggested.

Methods

- L95 Are light and UV data available for the different sites?

REPLY: We agree that it would be interesting to see if a greater light penetration could be one triggering factor for the observed bleaching in Bouraké. Unfortunately, no data on light and UV from the study sites were recorded before the period of bleaching, and according to the slightly lower visibility observed in Bouraké, this would not be the case.

- L124 The authors should add some data on the presence of this species in both Bouraké and reference sites (recovery percentage or others...). This way, it might be easier to consider the consequences on a larger scale of what has been observed here in this study.

REPLY: We appreciate this comment. However, the main goal of this study was to describe the physiological responses of A. muricata and possible mechanisms of bleaching resistance. The data on corals species presence and recovery over time may be more suitable for a new manuscript exploring community evolution over time under the effect of La Niña.

- L144 Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to speak about growth rates instead of calcification rates when the buoyant weight technique is used? We usually consider that alkalinity anomaly technique and 45Ca labelling allow to estimate the calcification rates.

REPLY: We agree, the term “calcification” was changed in “growth rate”.

For the lipid measurements, is the reference 48 right?? [Folch et al (1956) A simple technique to rule out occlusion of right coronary artery aaer aortic valve surgery. Biol. Chem. 226,497- 509]

REPLY: Many thanks, the reference was changed with the right one.

Discussion

- The discussion is clear and well written, the introductory paragraph summarizes the main findings of the paper well. The observed changes in ITS2 are well related to what has been observed in previous works (Camp et al ) and are completely consistent with what has been obtained previously . The results show for the first time remarkably the ability of ITS2 sequences (C1, C1b, C1h) to allow a better resistance/resilience to heat stress. L482 the reference of Reynaud et al (2003) Interacting effects of CO2 partial pressure and temperature on photosynthesis and calcification in a scleractinian corals might be helpful for this part of the discussion

REPLY: Many thanks. We were happy that our data were consistent with previous findings. This strengthens our discussion on the potential role of the symbiotic species in facilitating the coral resistance. The reference was added as suggested.

- L540 “Heterotrophy has already been suggested to be a potential advantage for Bouraké’s corals due to the high loading of organic carbon content released” do we have any idea of the fluctuations of organic matter inside Bouraké through the year?

REPLY: Heterotrophy has been suggested by Camp et al (2017) as a potential advantage for coral to face the extreme conditions in Bouraké. Maggioni et al. (2021) showed that organic matter daily fluctuated with the tidal cycle, where the concentration of organic matter increases at low tide under the contribution of organic matter released by the mangrove mud. Unfortunately, no data are available throughout the year, and a PhD student is working on the question. Although we still believe that heterotrophy has an important role in the success of corals in Bouraké. We did not specifically measure the heterotrophic ability in this study and, as suggested by Rev 4, our data do not allow to conclude on that. Therefore, we avoid any speculation about heterotrophy in the revised version.

- Again the conclusion makes a very nice recap of the main findings

Just on comment L559 what do the authors mean by “extreme corals” the notion is not clear

REPLY: We thank Rev 1. The terms “extreme corals” or “extreme coral communities” are becoming a notion quite common to indicate corals living in (and resisting to) abnormal environmental conditions. The recent review of Schoepf et al, (2023) ‘Coral at the edge of environmental limits: A new conceptual framework to re-define marginal and extreme coral communities’ defined well the concept behind. We added the definition of the term and the reference in the introduction section of the ms.

Reviewer #2:

- In the article entitled “Intra-clade diversity provides resistance to coral bleaching under extreme environmental conditions in Acropora muricata” Alessi et al present the results of an integrative study aiming at understanding potential mechanisms underlying the physiological plasticity of corals that live in extreme and fluctuating conditions during a period of acute stress. To address this question authors performed series of physiological characterization on the cnidarian host and Symbiodiniaceae symbiont on 15 bleached and 15 unbleached corals from an “extreme” site and 15 unbleached corals from a reference site. These data set were analyzed with appropriate bioinformatics and statistical methods and the results obtained are very interesting, welle presented and well discuss.

My conclusion is that this article deserves a publication in Plos One but see my minor comments below.

REPLY: We are thankful to Dr Vidal-Dupiol for his comments and suggestions.

Minor comment:

- I think that the title should be moderate a little bit since a functional link between the symbiodiniaceae community composition and the phenotypic effect was not demonstrated. The term associated rather than provides would be used.

REPLY: We agree that we have not experimentally demonstrated that the specific association provided bleaching resistance with a certain species of algal symbiont, although our observations suggest it. Accordingly, the title was changed to “Algal symbiont diversity in Acropora muricata from the extreme reef of Bouraké associated with resistance to coral bleaching.”

- Line 47 the sentence is a little bit confusing. Do it mean that the symbiont translocate up to 90% of its photosynthate, or that the symbiont cover up to 90% of the daily carbon needed or that because of the drastic reduction in zoox density the quantity of photosynthate carbon translocated decrease up to 90%?

REPLY: We agree, the sentence was not clear. We wanted to say that the symbiont cover up to 90% of ….

The text was changed in “Corals experiencing bleaching are particularly vulnerable since they cannot account on the Symbiodiniaceae photosynthetic carbon needed for the daily metabolic requirements” to avoid confusion.

- Line 249 no segments were underlined on the primers presented line 246-248

REPLY: The segment was underlined as requested.

- Line 256 precise sequencing depth

REPLY: Done.

- Line 372 It is important to provide basic sequencing metrics to show that the amount of sequence is enough to support the results. You can either provide a rarefaction curve in suppfile or simply a number of sequence. The out table or equivalent is also classically provided for metabarcoding experiments. Finally you must deposit your sequence data (FastQ files) on a public database (SRA for example).

REPLY: Many thanks. We reported a rarefaction curve as a supplementary figure (Fig. S3) as suggested, and we made the data public through the suggested SRA (All raw sequence data as fastq read files are accessible under NCBI Sequence Read Archive (SRA), under NCBI's BioProject: PRJNA1020910).

- I don’t understand how you can link the survival of the 3 BB colonies with the change in ITS2 profile type. What is the cause what is the consequence? Do the stress have induce the change and will make the surviving BB colonies “BZ” colonies the next time, or is the change prior to the survivor to the stress event studied? For me it is quite difficult to conclude but; 1 the difference between the ITS2 profile type of the BZ and RZ at T1 and 2 the similarities between the ITS2 profile type of the BB and RZ at T1 is enough to support your conclusion. The similarities between BB and BZ at T2 is in my opinion the results of a post stress colonization enabled by free space as it was previously shown in other coral species ( for example https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12706)

REPLY: This comment agrees with a comment from Rev 3 and is very pertinent. Our data show that bleached and unbleached corals have different ITS2 profile types. While we lacked the profile type of the BB colonies before the bleaching, the BZ colonies were healthy (with a high symbiont density) with an ITS2 profile type completely different from the reference colonies RZ. As Rev 2 said, this already suggests that the ITS2 profiles of BZ are associated with a certain resistance of corals, allowing for their survival. Concerning the three colonies BB that completely recovered a total Symbiodiniaceae density (and metabolic functions), mentioning the Bleaching Adaptive Hypothesis, these three colonies can contribute to the highly debated hypothesis since they acquired/developed the same ITS2 profile type than the resistant BZ colonies.

What Rev 2 suggested (bleaching post-colonization from opportunistic species) could be a possibility. Unfortunately, this is something we cannot decipher, although it is not fundamental to the goal of this study.

- Line 562 I don’t understand how it can support adaptation (sensus heritable phenotypic trait). Do you suggest that there is a heritable basis behind the ability to change or not the symbiont community or the heterotrophic capability?

REPLY: We agree and deleted the mention of adaptation (and heterotrophic capability). We believe that the specific Symbiodiniaceae community we found can support long-term acclimatization, allowing corals to persist in such harsh conditions.

Congratulation for this very interesting work

Jeremie Vidal-Dupiol

note: I have recently decided to sign all my reviews because I believe the reviewers should be responsible for their review just as authors are responsible for their article.

Thank you

Reviewer #3:

- This manuscript focuses on the thermal resilience of corals in New Caledonia and the links to symbiont community composition. The manuscript reports some interesting observations that suggest that a shift in the symbiont community composition, combined with internal lipid reserves, may facilitate survival under increased seawater temperatures, adding to an existing wealth of literature on this topic. Ultimately, I think that the manuscript will be acceptable, but I do have several major comments:

1) The manuscript contains a very large number of grammatical errors. I appreciate that the primary authors are not native English speakers, but I do note that one of the authors is - can you please make use of this fact and correct the English. I haven't listed all of the errors here (only some are included in my list below) as to do so would take far too long.

REPLY: Many thanks. The manuscript was checked, and grammatical errors were corrected. We really appreciated the time invested by Rev 3 in revising and adding detailed corrections to our ms.

- 2) It's nice to see the authors use the old CZAR model, however they have not used it correctly. The crucial distinction between the CZAR and simply using a P:R ratio, is that the CZAR includes an estimation or measurement of photosynthate translocation from the symbionts to host. The authors don't use such a metric, so all they're really doing is presenting a daily P:R. Please adjust the manuscript accordingly.

REPLY: We applied the CZAR formula found in McLachlan et al (2022; see their supplementary information for a detailed description). The same calculation was in Grottoli et al (2006). We agree with Rev 3, removed the CZAR from the manuscript, and used the Pg:R ratio instead. Please note that this change did not affect results.

- 3) This may or may not need changing, but the authors should double-check their Symbiodiniaceae nomenclature, and in particular how to refer to the various Cladocopium types. ITS2 sequence names can still be used where species names are not currently available, but there is convention around how these are stated - they might want to refer to this style guide: https://www.thelifeaquatic.net/?page_id=292

Reply: Many thanks, all in this field is changing too fast! We think we changed all the Symbiodiniaceae nomenclature in the ms accordingly.

- 4) Of most concern is the impression given by the authors that symbiont 'switching' might be occurring in their study, yet no evidence is provided for this. It's much more likely that the shifts in symbiont community composition resulted from 'shuffling', with cryptic symbiont types in the existing symbiont communities proliferating post-bleaching, rather than de novo uptake of symbionts from the environment. That still might have happened, but there is so little evidence for this in the literature that great caution should be exercised when direct evidence cannot be provided.

Reply: We fully understand the Reviewer #3 concern. We agree that we cannot decipher if BB colonies that survived and recovered shifted in the symbiont community by either switching to others from seawater or shuffling with cryptic ones. We suggested the first mechanism because we did not observe the presence of the species Cladocopium sub-type C1 in 13 of the BB colonies during the bleaching (only 2 showed a very little percentage of them, see Fig. 5A). However, we acknowledge that the sampling was performed while the colonies were in bleaching, not allowing to be 100% sure in our conclusion. Still, we should have been able to detect a cryptic species during the bleaching since species competition was reduced. As highlighted by Rev 2, the important finding is that BZ colonies did not bleach and had a totally different algal symbiont community than those that bleached (BB). Also, the few BB colonies that survived and recovered from the stress had the same algal symbiont community as BZ. These are, in our opinion, already exciting observations. We attenuated our conclusion, and additional possible explanations for the results obtained were added to the manuscript, where the symbiont switch hypothesis was kept among the others.

Other comments

1) Line 57: The wording "by exchanging their microalgal symbiont" is too strong, as it implies symbiont switching (see my comment above). The sentence was changed in “by shuffling their microalgal symbiont”.

2) Line 64: The holobiont also includes the microbiome, so adjust the definition here. The word holobiont was removed.

3) Line 71: "Acroporidae" shouldn't be italicized. Done

4) Line 74: Better as "when a mass bleaching event impacted entire..." The sentence was changed as suggested.

5) Line 79: Better as "The aim of this study was therefore..." The sentence was changed as suggested.

6) line 86: Symbiodiniaceae should start with a capital letter. Done

7) Line 100: Species composition of what exactly? Corals? The word coral was added.

8) Line 104: What are the units for the DO values? Units were added as requested.

9) Line 120: Better as "...four main categories: healthy coral cover..." The text was changed as suggested.

10) Line 141 (and several other places): The correct word is "weighed" rather than "weighted" The text was changed throughout the ms.

11) Line 147: Why was coral mortality so high? We assumed that BB corals were already under stress and the additional stress of creating nubbing may have cause mortaliny.

12) Line 149: Should be "to weigh fragments on a..." The text was changed as suggested.

13) Line 163: The specific PAM settings need to be stated here. Done

14) Line 205: What is meant by "sub-surface area"? This whole sentence is unclear. The sentence was removed because unnecessary. Methods description was improved also by adding an additional reference that better describes all the analysis steps.

15) Line 210 and elsewhere: All centrifuge speeds should be stated in g rather than rpm. Many thanks, we did a mistake in reporting the right measure unit (see Tanvet et al. 2023 Ecol and Evolution, for instance). We corrected it.

16) Line 222: Why were only 3 replicate cell counts measured? This is far too few - it's widely recognised that 8-10 replicate counts are needed for optimal accuracy. Many thanks, we have shortened the sentence too much and lost the exact meaning. In fact, we used three hemocytometers for each coral, reading eight chambers for each, for a total of 24 values (6 replicates). We corrected it.

17) Line 225: Should be "...10 ml of pure acetone WERE added". The text was changed as suggested.

18) Line 234: Better as "normalized to surface area." The text was changed as suggested.

19) Line 243: Unit needs to be superscripted. The text was changed as suggested.

20) Line 278 (and elsewhere): Should be "When significant differences..." The text was changed and the ms checked.

21) Line 289: Should this say "PERMANOVA and pairwise testing were..."? Yes, we changed accordingly.

22) Line 291: Should be "ANOVA was performed with....whereas PERMANOVA pairwise and..." The text was changed as suggested.

23) line 305: Should be "...since the year 1981." The text was changed as suggested.

24) Line 317: Better as "...no signs of polyp extroversion but the skeleton was still white and the coral not fully repopulated by algae" The text was changed as suggested.

25) Line 318: Should this say "old dead CORALS"? The text was changed as suggested.

26) Line 356: Better as "SOME of the initial colonies..." The text was changed as suggested.

27) Line 374 (and elsewhere0: Should be "THE data plot..." The text was changed as suggested and MS checked.

28) Line 384 (and elsewhere): Should be "...more resilient TYPES". Be careful not to confuse the sequence nomenclature with the actual organism. The text was changed as suggested and MS checked.

29) Line 388: Should be ""more DIVERSE compared..." The text was changed as suggested.

30) Line 399: Acroporidae shouldn't be italicized. The text was changed as suggested.

31) Line 423: Better as "which were 93.82% different..." The text was changed as suggested.

32) Line 427: Should be "which resulted in them being identical..." The text was changed as suggested.

33) Line 437: Better as "IN the Symbiodiniaceae..." The text was changed as suggested.

34) Line 444: Should be "due TO the" The text was changed as suggested.

35) Line 448: Should be "reported IN corals" The text was changed as suggested.

36) Line 451: Should this say "Consistent with Davies et al."? The text was changed as suggested.

37) Line 453: Better as "have greater capacity to..." The text was changed as suggested.

38) Line 454: Should be "traitS" The text was changed as suggested.

39) Line 481: This sentence is a bit vague - in what way was calcification "affected"? The sentence was changed in: “decreased drastically when corals were exposed to combined effect of high pCO2 and high temperatures (31°C)”.

40) Line 487 (and elsewhere): either say "photosynthate" only or "photosynthetic carbon". The text was changed as suggested and MS checked.

41) Line 495: Re-word as "ability was insufficient to cope with..." The text was changed as suggested.

42) Line 506: Should be "recovered FROM the stress" The text was changed as suggested.

43) Line 510: Better as "retained a significantly higher..." The text was changed as suggested.

44) Line 523: Should be "lipid content" The text was changed as suggested.

45) Line 529: What does "all more performant" mean? The sentence was changed in: “the greater concentration in BZ during the bleaching could be due to the improved photo-physiological traits of the specific ITS2 community compared to the reference colonies”.

46) Line 541: Better as "high load of organic carbon released..." The text was changed as suggested.

47) Line 552: Should be "...to cope WITH and evolve..." The text was changed as suggested.

48) Line 556: Should be "...UNDER the combined effect..." The text was changed as suggested.

49) Line 560: Should be "compensate FOR the lack..." The text was changed as suggested.

50) Lines 564-565: Here is another example of overstating the potential for symbiont switching rather than symbiont shuffling. The sentence was changed as follow: “quickly uptake or shuffle Symbiodiniaceae”.

Reviewer #4:

- Alessi et al. observed a coral bleaching event taking place in Bourake lagoon in New Caledonia, an extreme reef exposed to highly variable environmental conditions. The sampled Acropora muricata colonies during and post-bleaching to monitor changes in symbiont community diversity, energetic stores, and various physiological parameters. The found that nearly all colonies that bleached shared the same heat-sensitive symbiont species, whereas nearly all colonies that did not bleach shared a different, putatively heat-tolerant symbiont species. Only three bleached colonies survived to the post-bleaching period, and all had transitioned to the alternate heat-tolerant symbiont species. Meanwhile, analyses of lipids, carbohydrates, lipids, proteins, biomass, photophysiology, symbiont density, chlorophyll, calcification, photosynthesis, and respiration all indicated distinct physiological characteristics for bleached vs. non-bleached vs. recovered vs. control colonies, as well as differences between colonies hosting different symbiont species. Based on these data, the authors conclude that variation in bleaching phenotypes is linked to symbiont community, which in turn influences recovery capacity among corals.

This experiment was competently performed. I don’t have any major concerns with the design or execution, although of course it is unfortunate that only three colonies survived in one of the treatments, which limits the scope of inference. The ecophysiological methods were all standard for coral studies and the statistics seemed appropriate. Overall, I feel the manuscript could be acceptable after a revision to address some of my concerns about the writing.

Reply: We are thankful for your support of our work and for your pertinent suggestions. Reviewer 4 is correct, but if, on the one hand, it was unfortunate that only three colonies survived, on the other hand, we were lucky that at least three colonies survived and changed in symbiotic composition. This is an experiment in the wild, and the chance to lose all was high.

- My issues all relate to the narrative. For one, there are dozens of studies like this with similar findings, where researchers observed a bleaching event and took samples to track coral physiology and symbiont dynamics during and post-bleaching, and found that different colonies responded differently, mediated in part by their symbiont communities. The authors, in my opinion, have not done a good job clarifying what makes this study unique, beyond the fact that it was a bleaching event in a particular lagoon in New Caledonia. Based on the title and introduction, I believe the important hook is that the Bourake site is considered an “extreme” reef, exposed to highly variable temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, and salinity (which was probably more variable than usual thanks to intense La Nina rains during the study period). However, because this is just one extreme reef, it’s hard to draw conclusions about extreme reefs in general, rather than Bourake in particular. The authors don’t really tie their results back to the extreme nature of the reef, possibly because they didn’t measure many of the relevant variables directly, so this angle of the story loses focus. Instead, the manuscript starts to feel generic, often times simply reviewing what has been determined in other, similar studies, and noting that the results here are consistent. If the manuscript were a bit shorter and placed greater emphasis on how the extreme reef conditions may have shaped results, I think it would make a clearer novel contribution.

Reply: We thank Rev 4, and we partially agree with this comment. We did not sufficiently put the discussion of our findings in the context of the “special” site. We changed a part of the discussion and tried to tie up our results to our study site. However, it is incorrect to say that this was done because we did not measure many relevant variables directly. The ms show a decent representation of the main environmental parameters, which variability has already been shown to be recurrent and regular (see Camp et al. 2017, or better Maggioni et al. 2021). The point is that the main drivers of what we found were temperature and likely salinity. The former was fully measured over the experiment; the latter was extrapolated from the local rain forecast, as usually done in the literature. As Rev 4 suggested, this study is different from the dozens we cited demonstrating differences in the algal symbiont community during and after bleaching because we had the opportunity to observe the event in an extreme reef, which is expected to have corals more likely able to counteract such a harsh condition. This is the unicity of our study, and we hope we made it better in the revised version.

- Moreover, because the reference site also experienced intense rainfall and the sample size for recovered colonies was only three, it’s hard to be confident that the results reported here are truly representative, even of Bourake. That would be ok if the story were framed in a narrow focus, but instead the authors seem to be drawing broad conclusions about different mechanisms of thermal tolerance, from the order in which different sources of energy are being used (even though there were only two time points), to the types of symbionts present (even though colonies were already bleaching when sampled and only three bleached colonies survived), to heterotrophy (not measured), to adaptation. Unfortunately, the authors were limited because they had to build a study around an ongoing bleaching event. Some of the questions could have been better addressed via more regular sampling or aquarium experiments. These limitations could have been better acknowledged, and some of the more speculative conclusions (e.g. about heterotrophy) could have been avoided. Of course, the flip side of the argument is that these are highly ecologically-relevant observations, and creating an extreme reef in an aquarium would be incredibly challenging.

Reply: Respectfully, we do not base our ms and the discussion on the three colonies only. As remembered by Reviewer 2, the fact that we found differences in the algal symbiont communities between BZ and RZ, provides evidence that unbleached corals in Bouraké have specific symbionts. 100% of the BB colonies that recovered (yes, n=3) acquired (somehow) the same community as the BZ colonies.

With regard to heterotrophy, we totally agree, and we removed these “speculations” on heterotrophic plasticity.

Reviewer 4 perfectly understood the dilemma of this study: being highly ecologically relevant without the possibility of demonstrating the mechanism involved because it is simply impossible. The regular sampling evoked by Rev 4 would only have been possible if we had foreseen the event in advance. Concerning the aquarium experiment, our results on the physiological response are coherent with what was reported in our previous studies performed at the same site, suggesting that our results, even if taken in only two-time points (see also Jung et al 2021 for a similar study), should be representative of Bouraké.

We would like to underline that this is the first time that the energy reserves in tissue are described in Bouraké. These measurements have an important role in the recovery processes of corals (Grottoli et al, 2004). We did our best to improve the discussion and better put our findings in the context of studies performed at our and other extreme sites.

- Another major issue with the writing relates to how the Symbiodiniaceae are described. After the 2018 revision by LaJeunesse et al., the field has largely moved past referring to different symbiont groups as “clades,” which are now considered genera with their own names. The authors strangely combine both clade and genus terminology, at one point talking about “Symbiodinium Clade D” instead of “Durusdinium” but at another talking about “Cladocopium” instead of “Symbiodinium Clade C.” The title itself is misleading: when I read “intra-clade diversity provides resistance to coral bleaching” I honestly though the authors were talking about diversity within a coral clade. Instead, they really mean “intra-generic diversity among coral symbionts provides resistance to coral bleaching.”

Reply: Many thanks. We agreed and tried to be more consistent in using the correct terminology. However, it is common to find published articles that still report the old nomenclature, even if published after 2018.

The title was changed to “Algal symbiont diversity…” and we kept only the genus nomenclature throughout the ms.

- From looking at the ITS2 profiles in Figure 5 it’s clear that there are only two main symbiont species in the BZ and BB corals (with a few rarer species in some colonies). I feel the discussion could be simplified if the authors referred to them as two species or, if they prefer, phylotypes. However, it’s wrong to speak as if each sequence variant (C1, C1b, C1c) is a separate entity (as is done in line 445, for example), given that the ITS2 array for a single species contains multiple intragenomic variants in specific proportions. A few other statements betray an older view of symbiont diversity. For example, L58 states that “some symbiont clades (i.e., Symbiodinium clade D) have been described as more resilient than others under elevated temperature.” But the whole group isn’t more heat tolerant, just some species within it. Better to say “some symbiont species (e.g. Durusdinium trenchii) are more resilient than others under elevated temperature.” Another example is L384: “suggesting an early uptake of more resilient sequences.” Corals don’t uptake sequences, they uptake symbionts. I know I’m being nitpicky, but these details are important to get right, otherwise confusion spreads. I’d highly recommend browsing the review by Davies et al. (2023) in PeerJ for a summary of the state of the art in our understanding of Symbiodiniaceae diversity.

Reply: Many thanks for this comment. We recognize that we are not fully comfortable in that field of research, and we recognize that we have been somewhat induced to the error by the already confused literature on the Symbiodiniaceae nomenclature. We did our best to adjust the discussion.

Other minor concerns:

- I’d recommend adding + or – symbols in front of percentages when they are reported in the text. Done.

- “Zooxanthellate” is a term for a species characteristic (e.g. reef-building corals are zooxanthellate while deep sea corals are usually azooxanthellate), so I find it strange to refer to non-bleached colonies as zooxanthellate (instead, perhaps call them “healthy” or “non-bleached” or “recovered” depending on the context). Right. While we maintained for convenience the labelling BB, BZ and RZ, we reported BZ and RZ as non-bleached as suggested.

- Some of the figures don’t really need color and might be clearer if depicted in grayscale. Certain elements of the methods could use more introduction, such as the coral color chart and the Diving-PAM (for those who are not familiar with these techniques). Done.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.pdf

pone.0296902.s010.pdf (188.7KB, pdf)

Decision Letter 1

Anderson B Mayfield

22 Dec 2023

Algal symbiont diversity in Acropora muricata from the extreme reef of Bouraké associated with resistance to coral bleaching

PONE-D-23-04677R1

Dear Dr. alessi,

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,

Anderson B. Mayfield, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

The fact that PLoS ONE "lost" this article for 3-4 months is, frankly, unacceptable for a major journal, and I hope someone at PLoS ONE is reading this and can provide some sort of explanation. I really hope this sort of oversight by a major publication entity is rare, and I apologize to the authors on behalf of PLoS ONE for their poor handling of the article.

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Anderson B Mayfield

1 Feb 2024

PONE-D-23-04677R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. alessi,

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

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, 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. Anderson B. Mayfield

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. Mortality (%) of tagged colonies of Acropora muricata.

    Bouraké healthy (BZ), Bouraké bleached (BB), and reference healthy (RZ) in May 2021 (T2) according to their initial category and origin.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0296902.s001.docx (13.1KB, docx)
    S2 Table. Pairwise comparison on coral physiological traits.

    T-test on one-way PERMANOVA for each coral physiological trait measured in Acropora muricata during the bleaching (T1) and post-bleaching (T2).

    (DOCX)

    pone.0296902.s002.docx (16KB, docx)
    S3 Table. Pairwise comparison on metabolic reserves.

    T-test on one-way PERMANOVA for each metabolic reserve (i.e., proteins, lipids, carbohydrates, and biomass) measured in Acropora muricata post-bleaching (T2). Only the colonies that survived at T2 were considered.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0296902.s003.docx (13KB, docx)
    S1 Fig. Study sites.

    A) Location of the two study sites: the Bouraké semi-enclosed lagoon (B2) and the reference site (R1). B) Photographs of Acropora spp. assemblage during the bleaching event in January 2021 at Bouraké (site B2). Satellite data were downloaded from www.georep.nc (©Georep contributors) and customized in QGIS (version 3.4.14).

    (TIFF)

    pone.0296902.s004.tiff (5.3MB, tiff)
    S2 Fig. Rain regime.

    Daily rainfall regime in Bouraké region measured from the 1st of December 2020 to the 31st May 2021. Data were recorded from Meteo France in proximity of our study sites.

    (TIFF)

    pone.0296902.s005.tiff (3.1MB, tiff)
    S3 Fig. ITS2 rarefaction curve.

    Rarefaction curve on number of sequences and number of Derived Intragenomic sequences Variance of ITS2.

    (TIFF)

    pone.0296902.s006.tiff (250.8KB, tiff)
    S4 Fig. Physiological profiles.

    Non-parametric multidimensional scaling plot (nMDS) of holobiont physiological traits in Acropora muricata measured at T1 (circles) and T2 (triangles), corresponding to the three categories of colonies BB (Green, Bouraké bleached colonies), BZ (Blue, Bouraké healthy colonies), and RZ (Black color, reference healthy colonies).

    (TIFF)

    pone.0296902.s007.tiff (240.8KB, tiff)
    S5 Fig. ITS2 relative abundance.

    Non-parmetric multidimensional scaling plot (NMDS) of the coral relative abundance of ITS2 sequence types during T1 (bleaching, circles) and T2 (post bleaching, triangles). Green corresponds to BB (Bouraké bleached colonies), blue to ZB (Bouraké healthy colonies), and black to RZ (reference R1 healthy colonies).

    (TIFF)

    pone.0296902.s008.tiff (222.4KB, tiff)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: review .pdf

    pone.0296902.s009.pdf (87.2KB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.pdf

    pone.0296902.s010.pdf (188.7KB, pdf)

    Data Availability Statement

    All raw sequence data as fastq read files are accessible under NCBI Sequence Read Archive (SRA), under NCBI's BioProject: PRJNA1020910), and data are available at DOI: 10.5061/dryad.05qfttf8z.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES