Coral transplantation in urban environments: Insights from colony survival and growth on artificial frames versus the seabed.

Urban and green transitions require infrastructures that can cause pressure on coastal ecosystems. In northern Taiwan, plans to convert an oil-fired power plant to gas would necessitate a port terminal construction, threatening nearby corals and marine life. To mitigate construction impacts, the relocation of affected corals was proposed. We conducted a transplantation study, prior to such a large-scale coral relocation, to assess its feasibility and to identify potential risks associated with the marginal location of northern Taiwan for tropical corals. Five coral species, representative of the different ecological strategies, were selected. We used two methods (artificial frames and seabed cementation) to transplant 246 colony fragments to two pre-selected sites. Over a year, we monitored fragment survival and growth, in parallel with environmental conditions. We found that survival and growth were significantly influenced by transplantation methods, sites, and species. The difference between methods revealed biotic (predation by corallivorous snails) and abiotic (mechanical damage by waves) factors affecting coral survival and growth. Acropora species exhibited high growth, but also high mortality, consistent with their known ecology. Other species presented slower growth but higher survival. One site provided a better environment for corals, which we attributed to topography and reduced exposure. Overall, this study provides interesting insights into relocating corals in a high-latitude and urban coral ecosystem, highlighting risks related to mechanical damages and predation. • Corals from a marginal environment were transplanted for assessing relocation feasibility. • Methods, species, and sites significantly influenced coral survival and growth. • Seabed cementation prevents mechanical damage, and metal frames deter predation. • The two Acropora species showed high growth and mortality, contrasting with the other three. • One site appeared to reduce risks for large-scale coral relocation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]