Building living systematic reviews and reporting standards for comparative microscopic analysis of white diseases in hard corals

Abstract

Over the last 4 decades, coral disease research has continued to provide reports of diseases, the occurrence and severity of disease outbreaks and associated disease signs. Histology using systematic protocols is a gold standard for the microscopic assessment of diseases in veterinary and medical research, while also providing valuable information on host condition. However, uptake of histological analysis for coral disease remains limited. Increasing disease outbreaks on coral reefs as human impacts intensify highlights a need to understand the use of histology to date in coral disease research. Here, we apply a systematic approach to collating, mapping and reviewing histological methods used to study coral diseases with ‘white’ signs (i.e., white diseases) in hard coral taxa and map research effort in this field spanning study design, sample processing and analysis in the 33 publications identified between 1984 and 2022. We find that studies to date have not uniformly detailed methodologies, and terminology associated with reporting and disease description is inconsistent between studies. Combined these limitations reduce study repeatability, limiting the capacity for researchers to compare disease reports. A primary outcome of this study is the provision of transparent and repeatable protocols for systematically reviewing literature associated with white diseases of hard coral taxa, and development of recommendations for standardised reporting procedures with the aim of increasing uptake of histology in addition to allowing for ongoing comparative analysis through living systematic reviews for the coral disease field.

Abstract

Diseases and disease outbreaks are increasing on coral reefs. This study systematically reviews histological methods used to study white diseases in hard coral species from 1984 to 2022 and finds inconsistencies in reporting methodologies and terminology among studies. As a primary outcome, this study proposes standardised reporting procedures to standardise ongoing comparative analysis in the field.