Skip to main content
Royal Society Open Science logoLink to Royal Society Open Science
. 2018 May 23;5(5):171843. doi: 10.1098/rsos.171843

Evidence of sexual dimorphism in skeletal morphology of a gonochoric reef coral

P C González-Espinosa 1,, D A Paz-García 1, H  Reyes-Bonilla 2, R A Cabral-Tena 1,, E F Balart 1,
PMCID: PMC5990760  PMID: 29892377

Abstract

In the emerald coral Porites panamensis, the rates of elongation and calcification of colonies are higher in males than in females, probably because of the higher energetic demands of the latter in order to cope with the development of the large planulae produced throughout the year. This differing energetic demand could also be reflected in the sexual dimorphism of the calyces; hence, to test this hypothesis, 11 morphological traits of the corallite were assessed from 63 colonies that were collected in the southern Gulf of California, Mexico. Three traits showed statistical differences between sexes, enabling accurate distinction of males from females. Our results confirm for the first time the existence of external sexual dimorphism in a reef-building coral, opening the possibility that sex-related morphological differences may occur generally in gonochoric scleractinians. These findings can be very useful for the correct classification and characterization of recent and fossil records, helping to improve the historical and evolutive understanding of reef-building corals facing threats under environmental changes.

Keywords: sexual dimorphism, corallite, morphology, reef-building coral, Porites panamensis

1. Introduction

Sexual dimorphism is widely known in the animal kingdom. There are examples in marine invertebrates, such as molluscs and echinoderms [13], but little is known about this condition in scleractinian corals. Recent studies in the gonochoric corals, Porites panamensis [4], Porites lobata [5], Montastraea cavernosa [6] and Siderastrea siderea [7], found that growth rates (i.e. extension, calcification and density) are significantly higher in males than females. Additionally, environmental conditions and coral growth affect skeletal isotopic signals differently in each sex [8]. This sex effect on carbonate accretion and allocation in coral skeleton allowed us to hypothesize a sexual dimorphism in skeletal morphology in a gonochoric coral P. panamensis.

The coral P. panamensis is endemic to the eastern tropical Pacific and has a wide latitudinal distribution from the upper Gulf of California to Colombia [9]. This coral copes with a wide range of environmental conditions, including low temperature, low pH and high turbidity levels that are often considered unsuitable for coral development [10]. Here, we report the first evidence of sexual dimorphism in corallite morphology in a scleractinian coral. The study was based on the measurement and comparison of morphological traits of corallites in males and females of the coral P. panamensis, collected at Bahía de La Paz in the southern Gulf of California.

2. Material and methods

2.1. Sample collection

The samples were collected in Punta Gaviotas reef, Bahía de La Paz in the southern Gulf of California, México (24°08′ N, −110°20′ W; figure 1). In total, 63 coral colonies were collected using a hammer and chisel to remove the fragments from colonies. All colonies were sampled in shallow water 3–7 m in depth during the reproductive period (March to July), and under the approval of the Mexican Secretariat of Agriculture, Livestock, Rural Development, Fisheries and Food (SAGARPA).

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Location of study site in the Gulf of California; Bahía de La Paz (BLP).

2.2. Sex identification

Two fragments for each colony were collected; one was used for morphological analysis, and the second fixed in Davison solution for sex identification with subsequent histological processing (see [4] for method details). Female sex determination was made by microscopic differentiation of oocytes (regardless of their stage of development) or if any planulae were observed, and colonies were considered male if any spermatocytes were observed on the slide.

2.3. Morphometric analysis and corallite traits

To test morphological differences and characterize sexual dimorphism in corallite morphology, 11 traits were measured in 10 corallites selected haphazardly per fragment (colony); each trait measurement was then averaged to get a single mean value per colony and per trait (figure 2). A literature review was conducted and the traits were selected according to their usefulness to identify Porites species [1113] (table 1). Pictures of each corallite at 2× and 4× objectives were taken using a Moticam 2500 digital camera (5.0 MP resolution) attached to a stereoscopic microscope OLYMPUS SZ40. Morphological traits were measured from corallite photographs using the ImageJ 1.34 software. Images were calibrated with a grid of known dimensions.

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Corallite traits of P. panamensis: calical spacing (CS), corallite diameter (D1), corallite density (D2), length of dorsal septum (LD), length of lateral septum (LL), length of ventral septum (LV), number of neighbouring corallites (NN), wall thickness (TH), width of dorsal septum (WD), width of lateral septum (WL), width of ventral septum (WV).

Table 1.

List and description of all morphologic traits measured on Porites panamensis corallites.

trait code description
1. calical spacing CS average of the longest and shortest distance between centres of neighbouring corallites
2. corallite diameter D1 linear measure of the corallite diameter
3. corallite density D2 number of corallites per square centimetre
4. length of dorsal septum LD linear measure of the distance from the calical wall to the end of the dorsal septum
5. length of lateral septum LL linear measure of the distance from the corallite wall to the end of the lateral septum
6. length of the ventral septum LV linear measure of the distance from the corallite wall to the end of the ventral septum
7. number of neighbouring corallites NC count of the number of adjacent corallites
8. wall thickness TH linear measure between thecal margins of nearest neighbouring corallites
9. width of dorsal septum WD width measured at the midpoint of the dorsal septum
10. width of lateral septum WL width measured at the midpoint of the lateral septum
11. width of the ventral septum WV width measured at the midpoint of the ventral septum

2.4. Statistical analysis

Morphometric studies in Porites and other scleractinian corals have been carried out using colony means of traits to characterize the morphological variation of the coral colony due to high plasticity and corallite variation that these organisms show [1417]. The statistical analyses were performed using colony means. To assess how accurately males could be distinguished from females, we compared male and female corallite's means of traits per colony through a discriminant analysis.

A Welch's t-test was used to assess statistical differences in individual traits between sexes. If the data for a trait were not normally distributed, a Mann–Whitney–Wilcoxon Test was applied.

3. Results

A consistent pattern of sexual dimorphism was found in the scleractinian coral Porites panamensis in three out of eleven morphological traits analysed (figure 3). Corallite diameter was significantly wider (table 2) in the females than males (t61 = 2.38, p-value = 0.020), while males had a higher corallite density per square centimetre (t61 = −2.48, p-value = 0.016) and number of neighbouring corallites (MW = 322.5, p-value = 0.005).

Figure 3.

Figure 3.

Significant skeletal traits of female (left/red) and male (right/blue) colonies of P. panamensis of Bahía de La Paz. Dark line in the box: mean, box: s.e., whisker: s.d. Significance codes: ‘**’ 0.01, ‘*’ 0.05, NS non-significant. (a) Diameter, (b) density per square centimetre, (c) number of neighbouring corallites.

Table 2.

Descriptive statistics chart for female and male traits measurements. Italics indicate significant traits.

CS D1 D2 LD LL LV NC TH WD WL WV
females
 min 959.91 943.17 54.33 180.63 286.15 319.48 5.00 56.62 75.04 84.02 102.29
 max 1345.53 1180.07 101.00 314.25 476.71 495.08 7.00 184.94 168.62 164.38 169.44
 mean 1099.58 1068.40 78.16 239.33 398.65 411.64 5.72 121.67 126.11 138.26 133.04
 s.e. 12.56 9.56 1.69 5.21 6.38 5.73 0.08 5.22 3.37 2.32 2.22
 s.d. 78.45 59.71 10.57 32.51 39.86 35.80 0.51 32.60 21.02 14.47 13.89
males
 min 950.75 792.72 67.50 159.86 319.32 311.36 6.00 82.83 82.46 109.16 108.46
 max 1231.67 1221.44 106.00 321.59 441.45 474.86 7.00 185.78 184.36 179.80 165.13
 mean 1086.84 1026.27 84.83 225.93 392.15 398.55 6.04 127.57 135.34 145.01 140.15
 s.e. 13.58 16.34 2.02 8.41 6.75 7.26 0.04 6.01 4.02 3.50 2.81
 s.d. 66.54 80.07 9.90 41.19 33.06 35.54 0.20 29.46 19.70 17.14 13.77

The discriminant analysis confirmed the sexual dimorphism in the coral P. panamensis (Wilks' lambda 0.635 approx., F11,51 = 2.665, p = 0.008), with 82% and 66% of females and males correctly classified, respectively. The most important morphological traits in the discriminant analysis to detect sexual dimorphism were the corallite diameter and neighbouring corallites (table 3).

Table 3.

Standardized coefficients for canonical variables. The highest value is indicated in italic.

Root 1
CS 0.345
D1 0.597
D2 0.238
LD −0.266
LL −0.077
LV −0.333
NC 0.450
TW 0.289
WD 0.372
WL 0.143
WV 0.389

4. Discussion

Sexual dimorphism in morphological traits was found in this study. Evidence of different growth rates and the hypothesis of different energetic demands between male and female colonies in gonochoric species of scleractinian corals [47] led us to test and confirm the sexual dimorphism in morphological traits at corallite level. Considering this, density (corallites cm−2), corallite diameter and neighbouring corallites can be used to identify sexes in P. panamensis colonies. This information can also be very useful, for example, to make comparisons using fossil material (the species has existed in the eastern Pacific since the Pliocene [13]), and to revise historical sex proportions in more recent time periods using museum specimens.

The sexual dimorphism found here for particular traits might be much influenced by reproductive characteristics. Most brooder corals develop larvae 2 mm in length [18] and P. panamensis is no exception as the planulae are between 210 and 350 µm in length; the polyps host up to three larvae growing simultaneously in their mesenteries, and reproduce almost all year long [19,20]. We suggest that the need to harbour fully developed larvae has been the selective pressure that led this coral to have a sizeable internal space, and secondarily, to diminish the density of polyps per square centimetre and the number of neighbouring corallites.

An interesting note to mention about different analysed samples from northern sites of the Gulf of California (Bahía de Los Angeles and Bahía Concepción) is that sexual dimorphism not only seems to vanish but also corallites appear to be bigger in both sexes (P.C.G.-E., D.A.P.-G., H.R.-B., R.A.C.-T. & E.F.B. 2017, personal observation). Within the Gulf of California environmental variables vary along a latitudinal gradient, displaying a higher seasonality and variability in the northern section of the gulf, and thus more stressful conditions [21,22]. Each region has distinct oceanographic characteristics; Bahía de Los Ángeles is located at high latitude (29° N) where the sea surface temperature (SST) varies from 16° to 29°C during the year [23], and the area presents permanent high nutrient concentration and productivity because of local upwelling and tidal mixing [24]. Bahía Concepción (26° N) and La Paz (24° N), which are closer to the entrance to the Gulf of California, show prevailing oligotrophic waters [25]. The possible reasons why sexual dimorphism is not evident in the northern sites of the Gulf of California (i) could be related to the presence of cryptic species as has been seen with dwellers of marginal environments at similar latitudes in the northwest Pacific [26], where the potential for population genetics studies would help to support these findings, or (ii) could be linked to the feeding mode. In the latter case, it is possible that polyps and calyces of both sexes in the north must to be larger because they receive relatively low light irradiance and switch to a greater influence of heterotrophism [27] or need a larger surface to accommodate a greater number of zooxanthellae. On the other hand, in the south, where solar radiation is higher and the turbidity is less, P. panamensis behaves autotrophically [28], and sex differences in corallites' skeletal morphology seem to become evident.

In conclusion, sexual dimorphism is detectable in three morphological traits of the reef-building coral P. panamensis (corallite diameter, the number of neighbouring corallites and the density of corallites per area unit). These morphological differences could be linked to the fact that female polyps harbour large gametes and planula larvae for many months during the year. In addition, following studies should be directed to address the environmental effect in the morphology of the corallites, as the diameters are apparently larger in northern areas of the Gulf of California, possibly as a response to a combination of low irradiance and high Chl-a concentration (P.C.G.-E., D.A.P.-G., H.R.-B., R.A.C.-T. & E.F.B. 2017, personal observation) that enable heterophagy or to accommodate a greater number of zooxanthellae. Finally, it is important to recall that according to the findings of this study, sex identification of collected material lacking tissue would enable more precise analyses of coral growth parameters and their associated palaeoclimatic reconstructions (e.g. use of stable isotopes in coral skeletons) by avoiding the implicit data variability of non-sex-separated samples as mentioned in previous studies [47].

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge Andrés Cisneros, Chris Harley, Simon Donner, Vincenzo Coia, Ravi Maharaj and an anonymous person for comments and suggestions to enhance the paper, Jo-Ann Donner for proofreading, and Noemi Bocanegra, Eulalia Meza, Maria del Carmen Rodríguez Jaramillo, Alejandra Mazariegos, Sergio Scarry González and Ariel Cruz for assistance in laboratory work.

Ethics

Permission to collect samples of P. panamensis was granted by (a) Dr. Martin A. Botello Ruvalcaba, General Director of the General-Directorate for Fisheries and Aquaculture Management, The Secretariat of Agriculture, Livestock, Rural Development, Fisheries and Food of Mexico (SAGARPA) (permit No. DGOPA.05356.140710.3457) on 14 July 2010. The permitted period extended from 15 July 2010 to 14 July 2011. The permit allowed for collection of 40 coral colonies of Porites panamensis. The permitted collection area extended along the national marine waters of the Pacific Ocean, including the Gulf of California and the west coast of the península of Baja California. (b) Lic. Aldo Gerardo Padilla Pestaño, General Director of the General-Directorate for Fisheries and Aquaculture Management, The Secretariat of Agriculture, Livestock, Rural Development, Fisheries and Food of Mexico (SAGARPA) (permit PPF/DGOPA-201/13) on 30 September 2013. The permitted period extended from 5 October 2013 to 4 October 2014. The permit allowed for collection of 30 fragments of Porites panamensis every six months. The permitted collection area extended along the national marine waters of the Pacific Ocean, specifically in the estates of Baja California Sur, Jalisco and Oaxaca. Field efforts were supported by the authors, Centro de investigaciones Biologicas del Noroeste, S.C. The study was designed and drafted with the participation and agreement of all of the authors.

Data accessibility

The datasets supporting this article have been uploaded in the Dryad data repository (https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.5d6sp).

Authors' contributions

P.C.G.-E. carried out the laboratory work and data analysis, and drafted the manuscript. D.A.P.-G. processed samples, helped in data analysis and drafted the manuscript. H.R.-B. discussed the results and helped draft the manuscript. R.A.C.-T. processed samples and collected field data and helped draft the manuscript. E.F.B. designed and coordinated the study, drafted the manuscript and discussed the results. All the authors gave their final approval for publication.

Competing interests

We declare we have no competing interests.

Funding

Research financially supported by the SEP- CONACYT 157993 project: ‘Effect of ocean acidification on reefs of the Mexican Pacific: genetic landscape, climate reconstruction and coral growth’ and the PEP CIBNOR project. P.C.G.-E. and R.A.C.-T. are recipients of a fellowship from CONACYT (278205 and 212435, respectively).

References

  • 1.Son MH, Huges RN. 2000. Sexual dimorphism of Nucella lapillus (Gastropoda: Muricidae) in north Wales, UK. J. Mollus. Stud. 66, 489–498. (doi:10.1093/mollus/66.4.489) [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Levitan DR. 2005. The distribution of male and female reproductive success in a broadcast spawning marine invertebrate. Integr. Comp. Biol. 45, 848–855. (doi:10.1093/icb/45.5.848) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Evans JP, Sherman CDH. 2013. Sexual selection and the evolution of egg-sperm interactions in broadcast-spawning invertebrates. Biol. Bull. 224, 166–183. (doi:10.1086/BBLv224n3p166) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Cabral-Tena RA, Reyes-Bonilla H, Lluch-Cota SE, Paz-García DA, Calderón-Aguilera LE, Norzagaray-López O, Balart EF. 2013. Different calcification rates in males and females of the coral Porites panamensis in the Gulf of California. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 476, 1–8. (doi:10.3354/meps10269) [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Tortolero-Langarica JDJA, Cupul-Magaña AL, Carricart-Ganivet JP, Mayfield AB, Rodríguez-Troncoso AP. 2016. Differences in growth and calcification rates in the reef-building coral Porites lobata: the implications of morphotype and gender on coral growth. Front. Mar. Sci. 3, 179 (doi:10.3389/fmars.2016.00179) [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Mozqueda-Torres MC, Cruz-Ortega I, Calderon-Aguilera LE, Reyes-Bonilla H, Carricart-Ganivet JP. 2018. Sex-related differences in the sclerochronology of the reef-building coral Montastraea cavernosa: the effect of the growth strategy. Mar. Biol. 165, 32 (doi:10.1007/s00227-018-3288-0) [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Carricart-Ganivet JP, Vásquez-Bedoya LF, Cabanillas-Terán N, Blanchon P. 2013. Gender-related differences in the apparent timing of skeletal density bands in the reef-building coral Siderastrea siderea. Coral Reefs 32, 769–777. (doi:10.1007/s00338-013-1028-y) [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Cabral-Tena RA, Sánchez A, Reyes-Bonilla H, Ruvalcaba-Díaz AH, Balart EF. 2016. Sex-associated variations in coral skeletal oxygen and carbon isotopic composition of Porites panamensis in the southern Gulf of California. Biogeosciences 13, 2675–2687. (doi:10.5194/bg-13-2675-2016) [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Saavedra-Sotelo NC, Calderon-Aguilera LE, Reyes-Bonilla H, Paz-García DA, López-Pérez RA, Cupul-Magaña A, Cruz-Barraza JA, Rocha-Olivares A. 2013. Testing the genetic predictions of a biogeographical model in a dominant endemic eastern Pacific coral (Porites panamensis) using a genetic seascape approach. Ecol. Evol. 3, 4070–4091. (doi:10.1002/ece3.734) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Halfar J, Godinez-Orta L, Rieg BJ, Valdez-Holguin E, Borges JM. 2005. Living on the edge: high-latitude Porites carbonate production under temperate eutrophic conditions. Coral Reefs 24, 582–592. (doi:10.1007/s00338-005-0029-x) [Google Scholar]
  • 11.López-Pérez RA, Reyes-Bonilla H, Budd AF, Correa-Sandoval F. 2003. The taxonomic status of Porites sverdrupi, an endemic coral of the Gulf of California. Cienc. Mar. 29, 677–691. (doi:10.7773/cm.v29i42.184) [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Foster AB. 1986. Neogene palaeontology in the northern Dominican Republic. 3. The family Poritidae (Anthozoa: Scleractinia). Bull. Am. Paleontol. 90, 47–123. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.López-Pérez RA. 2008. Fossil corals from the Gulf of California, Mexico: still a depauperate fauna but it bears more species than previously thought. Proc. Calif. Acad. Sci. 13, 515–531. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Brakel WH. 1977. Corallite variation in Porites and the species problem in corals. In Proc. 3rd Int. Coral Reef Symp, vol. 1 (ed. Taylor DL.), pp. 457–462. Miami, FL: The Rosenthiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Chen KS, Hsieh HJ, Keshavmurthy S, Leung JKL, Lien IT, Nakano Y, Plathong S, Huang H, Chen CA. 2011. Latitudinal gradient of morphological variations in zebra coral Oulastrea crispata (Scleractinia: Faviidae) in the west Pacific. Zool. Stud. 50, 43–52. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.López-Pérez RA. 2013. Species composition and morphologic variation of Porites in the Gulf of California. Coral Reefs 32, 867–878. (doi:10.1007/s00338-013-1031-3) [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Tisthammer KH, Richmond RH. 2018. Corallite skeletal morphological variation in Hawaiian Porites lobata . Coral Reefs (online first) 1–12. (doi:10.1007/s00338-018-1670-5) [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Fadlallah YH. 1983. Sexual reproduction, development and larval biology in scleractinian corals. Coral Reefs 2, 129–150. (doi:10.1007/bf00336720) [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Mora-Pérez MG. 2005. Biología reproductiva del coral Porites panamensis Verrill 1866 (Anthozoa: Scleractinia) en Bahía de La Paz, Baja California Sur, México. MSc thesis, CICIMAR-IPN, México, 81p. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Smith DB. 1991. The reproduction and recruitment of Porites panamensis Verrill at Uva Island, Pacific Panama. MSc thesis, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL, 64p. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Glynn PW. 2001. Eastern Pacific coral reef ecosystems. In Coastal marine ecosystems of Latin America: ecological studies, analysis and synthesis, vol. 144 (eds Seeliger U, Kjerfve B), pp. 281–305. Berlin, Germany: Springer. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Glynn PW, Ault JS. 2000. A biogeographic analysis and review of the far eastern Pacific coral region. Coral Reefs 19, 1–2. (doi: 10.1007/s003380050220) [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Escalante F, Valdez-Holguín JE, Álvarez-Borrego S, Lara-Lara JR. 2013. Variación temporal y espacial de temperatura superficial del mar, clorofila a y productividad primaria en el Golfo de California. Cienc. Mar. 39, 203–215. (doi:10.7773/cm.v39i2.2233) [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Álvarez-Borrego S, Rivera JA, Gaxiola-Castro G, Acosta-Ruiz MJ, Schwartloze RA. 1978. Nutrientes en el Golfo de California. Cienc. Mar. 5, 53–71. (doi:10.7773/cm.v5i2.322) [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Lavaniegos BE, Heckel G, de Guevara P Ladrón. 2012. Variabilidad estacional de copépodos y cladóceros de Bahía de los Ángeles (Golfo de California) e importancia de Acartia clausi como alimento del tiburón ballena. Cienc. Mar. 38, 11–30. (doi:10.7773/cm.v38i1A.2017) [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Suzuki G, Keshavmurthy S, Hayashibara T, Wallace CC, Shirayama Y, Chen CA, Fukami H. 2016. Genetic evidence of peripheral isolation and low diversity in marginal populations of the Acropora hyacinthus complex. Coral Reefs 35, 1419–1432. (doi:10.1007/s00338-016-1484-2) [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Muir PR, Wallace CC, Done T, Aguirre JD. 2015. Limited scope for latitudinal extension of reef corals. Science 348, 1135–1138. (doi:10.1126/science.1259911) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Rico-Esenaro SD, Signoret-Poillon M, Aldeco K, Reyes-Bonilla H. 2014. Metabolic balance of the polyp-algae mutualistic symbiosis in the hermatypic coral Porites panamensis in La Paz, Baja California Sur, México. Oceánides 29, 1–10. [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

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

Data Availability Statement

The datasets supporting this article have been uploaded in the Dryad data repository (https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.5d6sp).


Articles from Royal Society Open Science are provided here courtesy of The Royal Society

RESOURCES